renovated +ccp85 wastewater from a poultry processing plantsafety evaluation ~~~ 04 renovated...

90
~~~ Safety Evaluation 04 Renovated Wastewater from a Poultry Processing Plant

Upload: others

Post on 18-Jul-2020

9 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

~~~

Safety Evaluation 0 4 Renovated Wastewater from a

+ c C P 8 5

Poultry Processing Plant

Page 2: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

R e s 3 2 ' 3 ~ reports of the Office or Research and Developmerlt Li S E?. r2r i r rmtal Prctz:' cn Agency habe been groiJped into nine series These n i ~ e zr:ac :ate- gories .',?re estaDlishec to facilitate furtner development and a ~ p i , ; ~ : sn of en- Jiror'- z.;lral technology E1i;riraricn or traditional grouping Nas :;rscious/y plar;re.cl to foster iechncicgy transfer a r d a maximum interface i r , re :ields I ne - -e series are T

Environmental Health Effects Research Environmental Protection Technology Ecological Research Environmental Monitoring Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Scierltific and Technical Assessment ReDorts ISTAP't Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Develol)r?nt

Miscellaneous Reports Special ReDorts

This r e m r t nas been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EFZECTS RE- SEARCH series This series describes projects and studies relating to me toler- ances or man for unhealthful substances or conditions This work is ;merally assessed from a medical viewpoint including physiological or ps)cnological studies In addition to toxicology and other medical specialities study areas in- clude oiomedical instrumentation and health research techniques u : , ; r s ani- mals - but always with intended application to human health measures

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa- tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 221 61.

Page 3: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

EPA-600/1-79-030 August 1979

SAFETY EVALUATION OF RENOVATED WASTEWATER FROM A POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT

Julian B. Andelman Graduate School of Public Health

University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261

Grant Nos. R804286 & S803325

Project Off iccrs

Jack L. Witherow Industrial Pollution Control Division

Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

and

Herbert R. Pahren Field Studies Division

Health Effects Research Laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CINCINNATI , OHIO 45268

Page 4: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by the Health Effects Research Laboratory and the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

ii

Page 5: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

FOREWORD

The U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency w a s c r e a t e d because of i n c r e a s - i n g p u b l i c and government concern about t h e dangers of p o l l u t i o n t o t h e h e a l t h and w e l f a r e of t h e American people . Noxious a i r , f o u l water, and s p o i l e d l a n d a r e t r a g i c tes t imony t o t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n of o u r n a t i o n a l environment . The complexi ty of t h a t environment and t h e i n t e r p l a y between i t s components re- q u i r e a c o n c e n t r a t e d and i n t e g r a t e d a t t a c k on t h e problem.

Research and development i s t h a t n e c e s s a r y f i r s t s t e p i n problem s o l u t i o n and i t i n v o l v e s d e f i n i n g t h e problem, measuring i t s impact , and s e a r c h i n g f o r s o l u t i o n s . To t h a t end, t h e I n d u s t r i a l Environmental Research Labora tory assists i n deve loping and demonst ra t ing new and improved methodologies t h a t w i l l p r o v i d e more e f f i c i e n t and economical p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l methods. Con- s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t i s e x e r t e d i n deve loping i n d u s t r i a l w a s t e r e c y c l e sys tems which w i l l r educe p o l l u t i o n and conserve o u r n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . miss ion of t h e H e a l t h E f f e c t s Research Labora tory is t o p r o v i d e a sound h e a l t h e f f e c t s d a t a b a s e i n s u p p o r t of t h e r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s of t h e U.S. Environ- mental P r o t e c t i o n Agency. HERL conducts a r e s e a r c h program t o i d e n t i f y , c h a r a c t e r i z e , and q u a n t i t a t e harmful e f f e c t s of p o l l u t a n t s t h a t may r e s u l t from exposure t o chemica l , p h y s i c a l , o r b i o l o g i c a l a g e n t s found i n t h e environ- ment. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e v a l u a b l e h e a l t h i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a t e d by t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s , new r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e s and methods are b e i n g developed t h a t con- t r i b u t e t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of human b iochemica l and p h y s i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s , and how t h e s e f u n c t i o n s are a l t e r e d by low- leve l i n s u l t s .

The pr imary

T h i s r e p o r t d e s c r i b e s a j o i n t r e s e a r c h e f f o r t by t h e two L a b o r a t o r i e s . A system w a s e v a l u a t e d whereby a p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t could conserve water and reduce stream p o l l u t i o n w i t h o u t d e t e c t a b l e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s on t h e p o u l t r y product .

David G. Stephan D i r e c t o r I n d u s t r i a l Environmental

Research Labora tory

R. John Garner D i r e c t o r H e a l t h E f f e c t s Research Labora tory

iii

Page 6: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

PREFACE

Wastewater reuse is an important strategy in achieving the national goal of limiting discharges into navigable waters. However, in such reuse of water involving human consumption or exposure, such as in the food pro- cessing industry, it is mandatory that the health of the consumer be pro- tected. At the same time it is necessary for both the public and the appropriate professions to adjust their views and judgments on both the esthetic and technical aspects of such reuse. For example, the U.S, Depart- ment of Agriculture requires that water used i n most phases of food pro- cessing be potable. Traditional standards of potability, currently being revised, may not be sufficient to deal with the possible chemical modifica- tions and build-up of concentrations of these materials that can occur in recycle, particularly those for which health criteria may be unavailable.

The reuse of wastewater, involving potential risk from human exposure, has been practiced in agriculture, such as in irrigation, the impoundment of water for recreational purposes, groundwater recharge, and even for domestic water supplies. The most notable example of the latter is Windhoek, South Africa, at which sewage was reclaimed for direct potable use starting in 1968. No such reuse of wastewater for potable purposes is, however, currently being practiced in the United States,

The water reuse project reported here was designed to provide a safe and economical supplemental supply of water at and to a poultry processing plant, utilizing as its base an existing wastewater treatment system. Although not intended for direct human consumption, the renovated water, prior to its use in the poultry processing plant, must meet the highest standards of safety. Because of the general lack of experience in practic- ing and evaluating such water reuse, both existing standards of watei quality and, probably even more importantly, professional judgment are required to assure that this important criterion is met.

iv

Page 7: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

ABSTRACT

A three-phase evaluation of reclaimed process wastewater for reuse was undertaken at the Sterling Processing Corporation plant in Oakland, Maryland. The main objective was to evaluate the safety for human consumption of poultry exposed during processing to an average 50 percent mixture of treated well water and reclaimed wastewater. To that end, a determination was made of the ability and reliability of the water reclamation system to deliver satis- factory quality water, and whether the processed poultry would have any excess microbiological or chemical constituents, harmful to human health, as a result of exposure to such water. After the renovation system was optimized (Phase l), a two-month study (Phase 2) was instituted, which simulated recycle of renovated water through the poultry plant. Chemical, physical, and micro- biological analyses were performed on various water, wastewater and poultry samples. An experimental chiller, filled with renavated water, was utilized to compare the uptake of such constituents by the processed birds with that resulting fromexposure to the chiller in the processing plant using the normally treated well water.

With only a few exceptions, the mean and even maximum concentrations of the various measured constituents met existing U.S. standards for potable water. In the rare cases when they did not, such as a maximum value margin- ally exceeding a recommended limit for sulfate, even with direct consumption of the water there would be no danger to human health. There were increased concentrations of several chemical parameters compared to those in the normally-treated well water. However, this is to be expected in a recycle system, and the levels would not jeopardize the health and safety of the consumers of the poultry in actual reuse. The gross organic concentrations in the well water supply and the renovated water were high, but no harmful concentrations of specific organic chemicals were found to be present. For all comparable chemical constituents analyzed in the poultry exposed to the two types of water, the mean concentrations of carcass washings were statistic- ally indistinguishable. A l s o , it was determined that in most cases there was a net leaching of chemicals from the carcasses to the chiller water, rather than vice versa. An evaluation of the Phase 2 study, as well as other data, leads to the conclusion that the safety of the consumers of the poultry would not be jeopardized if the planned trial period of reuse (Phase 3 ) were insti- tuted.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant Nos. R-804286 and S-803325 by the University of Pittsburgh and the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene under sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period August 1974 to December 1977, and work was completed as of January 1979.

V

Page 8: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85
Page 9: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

CONTENTS

Foreword.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preface iv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Abstract

Figures viii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Abbreviations and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. 6 .

7.

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions Recommendations Overview

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Results and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Operation of renovation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physical and inorganic constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Statistical and other comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Organic constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Microbiology and related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Steady-state considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3

13

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References 6 0 Appendices

A. 'Miscellaneous methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 B. Calculation of steady-state in recycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

vii

Page 10: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

FIGURES

Number Page

1 Schematic diagram of wastewater treatment-renovation system at poultry processing plant with water sampling points . . 7

2 NDV survival at 7OC in light in laboratory study . . . . . . 4 9

B-1 Flow diagram for steady-state calculations. . . . . . . . . . 70

viii

Page 11: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

Number

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1 2

13

TABLES

Page

Phase 2 - Summary of Types of Samples Taken for Analyses Each Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Types of Analyses Performed Routinely . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase 2 - Water Quality Characteristics and Macro Constituent Concentrations in Z, A and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Z, A and E Water Characteristics Related Primarily to Waste Treatment Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phase 2 - Trace Chemical Concentrations in Z, A and E . . . . Phase 2 Analyses of Concentrations of Macro Constituents in Water From Plant (PC) and Experimental Chillers (EC) . . .

Phase 2 Analyses of Concentrations of Trace Constituents in Water From Plant (PC) and Experimental Chillers (EC) . . .

Phase 2 - Comparison of Carcass Analyses (Washings) From Plant and Experimental Chillers - Macro Constituents . . .

Phase 2 - Comparison of Carcass Analyses (Washings) From Plant and Experimental Chillers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of Physico-Chemical Constituents of Renovated Water (E) in the Previous Study and Phase 2 . . . . . . . .

Relationships Between Concentrations of Parameters in Phase 2 at Three Sampling Points (E, Z, and A) as Obtained From the One-Tailed Statistical Tests (at Alpha 0.05) . . . . . . .

Comparisons of Several Phase 2 Analyses of Carcasses (Washing) in Plant and Experimental Chillers with Theoreti- cal Concentrations Calculated From Their Respective Water Sources, Z and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Additional Comparisons of Phase 2 Analyses of Carcasses (Washings) in Plant and Experimental Chillers with Theoretical Concentrations Calculated From Their Respective Water Sources, Z and E, as well as Chiller Waters, PC andEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

10

18

20

22

2 3

24

26

27

2 8

30

32

33

ix

Page 12: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

Number Page

14 Phase 2 - Pesticide Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 15 Halogenated Methane Content of Selected Water Samples Taken

From November 16, 1976 to December 8, 1976, Inclusive . . . 37 16 Organic Chemicals Identified Qualitatively by GC-MS Analysis

of Methylated (with Diazomethane) Methylene Chloride Extracts of Water Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

17 TOC Analysis of Selected Sites Subsequent to Phase 2 . . . . 39 18 Carbon Chloroform Extract Concentrations (CCE) . . . . . . . 41 19 Salmonella Isolations in Phase 2 at Various Sample Sites

Using Selenite Brilliant Green Enrichment and Brilliant GreenAgar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

20 MPN Indices of Salmonella for Water and Wastewater Samples with TET Enrichment Using BGA with Sodium Sulfadiazine, all Subsequent to Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

21 Summary of NDV Laboratory Survival Experiment, Percent Surviving After 5 Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

X

Page 13: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

ABBREVIATIONS

BGA --brilliant green agar PFU --plaque forming units CCE --carbon chloroform extract SBG --selenite brilliant green MPN --most probable number TET --tetrathionate NDV --Newcastle Disease Virus TOC --total organic carbon

SYMBOLS

Sampling Points

A C

C'

D DS E EB

EC

Raw wastewater Lagoon system effluent, chlorinated

Lagoon system effluent, unchlorinated

Micro-strainer effluent River, downstream Renovated water Carcasses from exptl.

Water from exptl. chiller chiller

L-1 L-1-M L-1-E L- 2 PB

PC R us X Y Z

Lagoon 1 Lagoon 1, middle Lagoon 1, effluent Lagoon 2 Carcasses from plant chiller

Water from plant chiller River, downstream River, upstream Effluent, sediment-basin Well water, untreated Well water, treated

Miscellaneous

b Fraction remaining in c-_ Conc. at x sample point X

N Number of samples in statistical

r

lagoons C Fraction remaining in

renov. system calc. Ratio of C to CE C Conc. in 50/50 renov. S S

S.D. Standard deviation Conc. in 50/50 renov. X Mean concentration

n - mixture after n cycles

mixture in steady-state S C

xi

Page 14: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This s t u d y w a s a j o i n t e f f o r t by t h e Maryland Department of H e a l t h and Mental Hygiene (MHD), t h e S t e r l i n g P r o c e s s i n g Company, Oakland, Maryland, and t h e Graduate School of P u b l i c H e a l t h , U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h (GSPH). The U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h wishes t o acknowledge w i t h thanks t h e c o o p e r a t i o n of t h e MHD and i n p a r t i c u l a r James Cl i se , D i r e c t o r , Bureau of S a n i t a r y Engineer- i n g and Col. Edward, s. Hopkins, C o n s u l t i n g S a n i t a r y Engineer f o r t h e MHD, who i n i t i a t e d and w e r e t h e p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s f o r Phase 1 of t h e o v e r a l l s t u d y , funded by US EPA Grant S-803325, d u r i n g which t h e water r e n o v a t i o n system was modi f ied and opt imized . They a l s o p r e p a r e d t h e p o r t i o n of t h i s r e p o r t concerning t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h i s system. The Cumberland and C e n t r a l L a b o r a t o r i e s of t h e MHD performed many of t h e d a i l y chemical and b a c t e r i o - l o g i c a l a n a l y s e s f o r t h e f a c i l i t y ; major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y b e i n g under taken by Mary Lynn Hotchkiss and Mary E l i z a b e t h Malloy of t h e Cumberland Labora tory and Mur ie l W. Trusheim of t h e C e n t r a l Labora tory . Dan M c G r a i l w a s i n charge of p l a n t o p e r a t i o n from May 1975 t o August 1976, fo l lowed by Robert H o l t s c h n e i d e r from November 1976 t o June 1977, b o t h under t h e immediate super - v i s i o n of Col. Hopkins. Thomas Sereno, MHD a i d e , w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o l l e c - t i o n of samples s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Cumberland Labora tory .

It i s a l s o a p l e a s u r e t o acknowledge t h e e n t h u s i a s t i c c o o p e r a t i o n and p e r s i s t e n c e of Gilman S y l v e s t e r , t h e manager of t h e S t e r l i n g P r o c e s s i n g Corp- p o r a t i o n , as w e l l as h i s s t a f f . S e v e r a l a n a l y s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e f o r p e s t - i c i d e s and a few trace e l e m e n t s , w e r e performed by t h e A n a l y t i c a l Services Labora tory of t h e NUS C o r p o r a t i o n , Cyrus Wm. Rice D i v i s i o n , P i t t s b u r g h , P a . , under t h e a b l e d i r e c t i o n of E l l e n Gonter .

F a c u l t y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h who w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l w e r e John Armstrong and Robert Yee of t h e Microbiology Department o f GSPH who a d v i s e d on t h e v i r o l o g y and b a c t e r i o l o g y , r e s p e c t i v e l y ; a l s o I a i n Campbell of t h e B i o l o g i c a l S c i e n c e s Department of t h e Col lege of A r t s and S c i e n c e s who a d v i s e d and o t h e r w i s e coopera ted on t h e gas chromatography and m a s s s p e c t r o - metry a n a l y s e s .

Teresa Lester and J a n Wachter, members of t h e r e s e a r c h s t a f f of GSPH, made s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s on several a s p e c t s of t h i s s t u d y , i n c l u d i n g p r o j e c t p l a n n i n g , o p e r a t i o n , d a t a i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and t h e w r i t i n g of t h i s r e p o r t . C a p e l l i , Robert Lau, Kenneth Wasyczak, John Weaver, and S t e p h a n i e Wilson.

Other r e s e a r c h s t a f f o r s t u d e n t s working on t h i s p r o j e c t were D a v i d

F i n a l l y , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g h wishes t o acknowledge w i t h appre- c i a t i o n t h e generous guidance, a s s i s t a n c e , and p a t i e n c e of t h e EPA P r o j e c t O f f i c e r s , H e r b e r t Pahren and J a c k Witherow.

x i i

Page 15: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

I n e a r l y 1970 a wastewater r e c l a m a t i o n p r o j e c t w a s i n i t i a t e d a t a p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t i n Oakland, Maryland l o c a t e d i n t h e f a r w e s t e r n p a r t of t h a t s t a t e n e a r t h e j u n c t i o n of Maryland, West V i r g i n i a , and Pennsylvania . An i n c r e a s e i n p r o d u c t i o n a t t h e S t e r l i n g P r o c e s s i n g Company w a s and i s l i m i t e d by t h e l a c k of a d d i t i o n a l water of a c c e p t a b l e q u a l i t y . The p l a n t c u r r e n t l y s l a u g h t e r s and p r o c e s s e s approximate ly 50,000 b i r d s p e r day ( u s u a l l y c h i c k e n s ) i n an e ight -hour o p e r a t i o n , u t i l i z i n g approximate ly 1,300,000 l i t e r s (350,000 g a l l o n s ) p e r day of t r e a t e d w e l l water.

With s u b s t a n t i a l f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t , i n i t i a l l y from t h e U.S. Department of I n t e r i o r i n January 1971, and l a t e r t h e U . S . Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA), a j o i n t p r o j e c t w a s developed by t h e Maryland S t a t e Department of H e a l t h and Mental Hygiene and t h e S t e r l i n g P r o c e s s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n t o d e s i g n , c o n s t r u c t , and s t u d y t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of u s i n g a w a s t e w a t e r r e n o v a t i o n system, u t i l i z i n g as i t s r a w water s o u r c e t h e c h l o r i n a t e d e f f l u e n t from t h e second of two a e r a t e d lagoons . These lagoons were i n i t i a l l y des igned and c o n s t r u c t e d i n 1965-1966 t o t rea t t h e p l a n t wastewater p r i o r t o i t s d i s c h a r g e i n t o t h e a d j a c e n t L i t t l e Youghiogheny R i v e r . ' The g o a l of t h i s p r o j e c t w a s t o r e n o v a t e t h e lagoon w a s t e w a t e r t o t h e p o i n t t h a t i t could b e mixed w i t h t h e w e l l w a t e r , t h e n undergo c o n v e n t i o n a l water t r e a t m e n t and b e used i n t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t t o p r o c e s s t h e p o u l t r y , t h e r e b y p r o v i d i n g a supplementary s o u r c e o f water o t h e r w i s e n o t avai lable . S i n c e t h e r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e r e q u i r e t h a t t h e w a t e r used t o p r o c e s s p o u l t r y " s h a l l b e ample, c l e a n , and p o t a b l e , " i t w a s deemed impor tan t t h a t an ex ten- s i v e s t u d y o f t h e q u a l i t y of t h e renovated water b e i n s t i t u t e d p r i o r t o i t s r e u s e . I n a r e p o r t p u b l i s h e d by t h e EPA, Clise d e s c r i b e s t h e i n i t i a l p r o j e c t , i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of t h e r e n o v a t i o n system, and t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e q u a l i t y of t h e renovated w a t e r ( 7 ) .

The f u l l r e c l a m a t i o n sys tem, as r e p o r t e d by Cl i se , b e g i n s w i t h t h e two a e r a t e d lagoons , fol lowed by p a r t i a l d i v e r s i o n of t h e c h l o r i n a t e d e f f l u e n t from t h e second t o a m i c r o s t r a i n e r , t h e n f l o c c u l a t i o n - s e d i m e n t a t i o n , c h l o r - i n a t i o n , and f i l t r a t i o n . The i n i t i a l s t u d y showed t h a t t h e rec la imed w a t e r m e t U.S. P u b l i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e 1962 Dr inking Water S t a n d a r d s f o r chemica l , m i c r o b i o l o g i c a l and p h y s i c a l c o n s t i t u e n t s w i t h o u t a c t u a l r e c y c l e through t h e p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e w a s concern t h a t w i t h a c t u a l r e u s e t h e r e w a s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t unmeasured c o n s t i t u e n t s , such as patho- g e n i c microorganisms, heavy metals, p e s t i c i d e s and t o x i c o r g a n i c chemica ls , might b u i l d up i n r e c y c l e and b e absorbed by t h e c a r c a s s e s i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t .

1

Page 16: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

An additional project was proposed by the Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and funded by the EPA (Grant No. S803325), the pur- pose of which was to modify and optimize the reclamation system, to determine the capability and reliability of the system for delivering satisfactory water quality, and to evaluate the exposure of the processed carcasses to constit- uents that could be harmful to human health. With separate funding (Grant No. R 8 0 4 2 8 6 ) , EPA supported the Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, to design, supervise, and perform the sampling and analytical part of the study, as well as evaluate the results from the points of view of both the quality of the renovated water and the processed poultry possibly affected by it. Three phases were planned in this study, the first two of which have been completed. Phase 1 involved the operation of the reclamation plant with a new sand filter, and measurement of those characteristics perti- nent to optimizing the process. Phase 2 involved a study of a wide range of physical, chemical and microbiological constituents, both at various points in the reclamation system, as well as in process carcasses chilled with reno- vated water, but without actual recycle through the plant. Phase 3 was to involve recycle of the renovated water into the processing plant by mixing on an average 50/50 basis with well water, the mixture then to undergo additional full-scale conventional treatment. The carcasses were again to be measured, as was the renovated water, and comparisons made of the levels of contaminants with those in normal plant operation utilizing well water only in Phase 2.

Prior to proceeding to Phase 3, an evaluation was to be made of the Phase 2 results by a committee consisting of representatives of the EPA, the Maryland Health Department, the processing plant, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Graduate School of Public Health. The level of contam- inants in the renovated wastewater and processed carcasses were to be con- sidered as to their possible health significance. A similar evaluation was to be made following Phase 3 so as to determine the safety of proceeding to continuous operation with reclaimed wastewater. Finally, recommendations were to be made on constituents to be monitored and corresponding procedures needed to insure the reliability of the system and the protection of human health.

This report describes and evaluates primarily the Phase 2 study of the University of Pittsburgh. Additionally, a summary description of the modi- fication and operation of the renovation system under a companion grant by the EPA to the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is included.

Phase 3, the trial three-month period of actual recycle of the renovated water into the processing plant, has not been instituted because it has not been approved by the appropriate federal agencies, in spite of the positive recommendation by the above Committee, constituted for the purpose. Some of the likely concerns which are the apparent basis for this lack of approval will also be discussed.

2

Page 17: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

SECTION 2

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the regularly low or zero bacteriological counts in the renova- ted water during the Phase 2 study, as well as at other times, the absence of any avian virus that could cause human disease by the enteric route, and the extensive wastewater and water treatment, including four points of chlor- ination, it is highly unlikely that the contemplated reuse of water at the Sterling Processing Corporation plant would pose a risk of disease from micro- organisms to the consumers of the poultry.

The inorganic and physico-chemical characteristics of the renovated water consistently met applicable standards of quality for potable water. A few such parameters, and several non-health related ones, as expected were high, but not at levels that would constitute a threat to human health, even if the water were directly ingested. However, in actual reuse it would receive additional treatment and would not be used as a drinking water supply. A few non-health related chemical constituents were at concentrations that could interfere with the optimal operation of the renovations system, and should be adjusted. These include the low pH and high ammonia concentrations.

Some measurements of gross organic load, such as total organic carbon, were high in both the treated well water and the renovated water, but there were no statistical differences between them. None of the specific organic chemicals that were found were at hazardous or unusually high concentrations, and many are innocuous. There is a possible concern that unidentified toxic organics could be present in the renovated water, including those that might form as a result of reactions with chlorine. However, in the measurements that might have uncovered them there was no evidence for their presence.

A comparison of carcasses exposed to the normally-treated well water and to the renovated water in almost every instance showed no statistical difference in the mean concentrations of measured constituents. For a few chemicals, including calcium, ammonia, sulfate, and nitrate, there was an apparent contribution to the carcasses by the chiller water. Calculations indicate that for most of the chemicals there was much more leaching into the chiller water from the carcasses than vice versa.

Mass-balance, steady-state calculations indicate that the Phase 2 re- cycle simulation had probably reached steady-state, and the concentrations measured in the renovated water could be used as a basis for predicting the levels that would be encountered in actual reuse. For many of the constit- uents such concentrations would be equal to or as much as one-third less than those found in Phase 2.

3

Page 18: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

An a n a l y s i s and rev iew of a l l t h e measurements and o p e r a t i o n a l c h a r a c t - e r i s t i c s of t h e r e n o v a t i o n system and Phase 2 r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t o r d i s c e r n i b l e r i s k t o t h e consumers o f t h e p o u l t r y i n t h e planned r e u s e of t h e water. It is u n l i k e l y t h a t i n such r e u s e any c o n s t i t - uent l i m i t s f o r chemical o r microorganisms f o r which t h e r e are c u r r e n t p o t a b l e water q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s would b e exceeded i n t h e renovated water. Also i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e s e o r any o t h e r c o n s t i t u e n t s , a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d o r n o t , would b e t a k e n up by t h e carcasses i n hazardous q u a n t i t i e s as a r e s u l t of exposure t o t h i s water.

Low w i n t e r tempera tures and lagoon t u r n o v e r s create s e r i o u s problems f o r t h e renovated water system. I ts o p e r a t i o n should b e suspended d u r i n g t h e s e p e r i o d s .

4

Page 19: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

SECTION 3

RECOMMENDAT I O N S

The r e s u l t s of t h i s and p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , o f t h e wastewater and renova- t i o n systems a t t h e S t e r l i n g P r o c e s s i n g Corpora t ion p l a n t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e a r e n o t any a p p a r e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of chemicals o r microorganisms t h a t d i d , o r i n a c t u a l r e u s e would b e l i k e l y t o b u i l d up i n t h e renovated water supply t o t h e p o i n t of j e o p a r d i z i n g t h e h e a l t h of t h e consumers of t h e p o u l t r y pro- cessed w i t h t h a t water. There are some s t e p s t h a t could and should b e t a k e n t o minimize and f u r t h e r reduce any p o s s i b l e r i s k s o r concerns . It i s , t h e r e - f o r e , recommended:

1.

2.

3 .

4 .

5.

A t r i a l p e r i o d of r e u s e (Phase 3) should b e i n s t i t u t e d as soon as p o s s i b l e . During t h i s p e r i o d t h e r e should b e a f u l l scale moni tor ing of t h e renova- t e d w a t e r and carcasses as o r i g i n a l l y p lanned , fo l lowed by a comprehen- s i v e e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s p r i o r t o any permanent r e u s e .

P r i o r t o a n d / o r d u r i n g t h e t r i a l p e r i o d of r e u s e more e x t e n s i v e o r g a n i c a n a l y s e s of t h e renovated water and o t h e r p e r t i n e n t samples should b e performed, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r focus on c h l o r i n a t e d o r g a n i c s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e t h a t might form from t h e r e a c t i o n s of c h l o r i n e w i t h waste p r o d u c t s from t h e p o u l t r y . Assessments should t h e n b e made of t h e p o s s i b l e h e a l t h s i g n i f i c a n c e of any i d e n t i f i e d and q u a n t i f i e d o r g a n i c s , i n c l u d i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e l i k e l y impact of t h e q u a n t i t i e s t o which t h e con- sumers of t h e p o u l t r y would b e exposed.

Although n o t of pr imary concern, some e f f o r t should b e expended on opt imi- z i n g t h e r e n o v a t i o n system t o minimize t h e u n n e c e s s a r i l y h i g h concent ra - t i o n s of some chemica ls measured i n t h e renovated water . T h i s i n c l u d e s r a i s i n g t h e pH and lowering t h e s u l f a t e and ammonia levels i n t h e renova- t e d water.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r o u t i n e moni tor ing of t u r b i d i t y , pH and c h l o r i n e al- ready i n e f f e c t i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system, o t h e r parameters should b e measured f r e q u e n t l y on s i t e t o o b t a i n an e a r l y i n d i c a t i o n of u n u s u a l l y h i g h levels of contaminants , a t l eas t d u r i n g t h e t r i a l p e r i o d of r e u s e . Examples are conducLivi ty and t o t a l o r g a n i c carbon.

Some c o n s i d e r a t i o n and i n v e s t i g a t i o n should f o c u s on t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of reducing t h e o r g a n i c c o n t e n t of t h e renovated water, e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r mixing w i t h t h e wel .1 water. However, t h i s must b e e v a l u a t e d , n o t on ly i n terms of t h e q u a l i t y of t h e water i t s e l f , b u t a l s o t h e impact on t h e processed c a r c a s s e s and t h e c o s t s as w e l l .

5

Page 20: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

SECTION 4

OVERVIEW

F i g u r e 1 i s a schemat ic of t h e p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t i n r e l a t i o n t o i t s normal s o u r c e of w e l l water, t h e a e r a t e d lagoons d i s c h a r g i n g a f t e r c h l o r - i n a t i o n t o t h e L i t t l e Youghiogheny River, and t h e d i v e r s i o n of a p o r t i o n of t h i s d i s c h a r g e t o t h e r e n o v a t i o n system. Also shown are v a r i o u s sampling p o i n t s employed d u r i n g t h e s t u d y , w i t h t h e i r l e t t e r r e f e r e n c e d e s i g n a t i o n s . On o c c a s i o n o t h e r sampling p o i n t s w e r e u t i l i z e d , and t h e s e are i d e n t i f i e d on page x i which c o n t a i n s a l i s t of symbols, i n c l u d i n g t h o s e f o r t h e c h i l l e r waters and t h e "dressed1' p o u l t r y , r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s r e p o r t as carcasses.

P o u l t r y , u s u a l l y c h i c k e n s , are shipped by t r u c k from t h e h a t c h e r y i n D e l a w a r e t o t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t and are processed on t h e day of a r r iva l . With- i n t h e p l a n t t h e b i r d s are s l a u g h t e r e d , s c a l d e d , p icked , e v i s c e r a t e d , c h i l l e d , cut-up and packaged. The p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g wastes r e s u l t i n g from t h e evis- c e r a t i o n s t e p are t r e a t e d by r o t a r y s c r e e n i n g f o r t h e removal of f e a t h e r s and viscera. The r a w wastewater (sample p o i n t A , F i g u r e 1) from t h e o t h e r p o u l t r y - p r o c e s s i n g s t e p s , t h e r e f r i g e r a t i o n d r a i n s and t h e p l a n t clean-up p a s s e s t o a mechanica l ly a e r a t e d pr imary lagoon which i s equipped w i t h a g r e a s e skimmer. The e f f l u e n t (sample p o i n t L-1-E) from t h e pr imary lagoon d i s c h a r g e s through a w e i r t rough i n t o a mechanica l ly a e r a t e d secondary lagoon (sample p o i n t C ' ) , which a l s o c o n t a i n s a g r e a s e skimmer. Each lagoon i s about 1 .8 m dee . The f i r s t h a s a c a p a c i t y of about 14,000 m3, and t h e second about 6,000 m . combined r e t e n t i o n t i m e normally i s two t o t h r e e weeks. The e f f l u e n t from t h e secondary lagoon i s c h l o r i n a t e d as i t p a s s e s i n t o a combinat ion s e t t l i n g u n i t and c h l o r i n e c o n t a c t chamber. is d i s c h a r g e d through a n over f low w e i r t rough t o t h e L i t t l e Youghiogheny R i v e r .

3 T h e i r

The c h l o r i n a t e d e f f l u e n t (sample p o i n t C)

A s shown i n F i g u r e 1, a p o r t i o n of t h e c h l o r i n a t e d lagoon e f f l u e n t i s d i v e r t e d t o t h e r e n o v a t i o n system, which i n sequence c o n s i s t s of a micro- s t r a i n e r , f l o c c u l a t i o n w i t h alum and l i m e i n a b a s i n , fol lowed by f i l t r a t i o n through a sand f i l t e r and c h l o r i n a t i o n . During t h i s s t u d y t h e e f f l u e n t from t h e r e n o v a t i o n system, E , w a s r e t u r n e d t o lagoon 1, as were t h e s o l i d s from t h e m i c r o - s t r a i n e r . I n a c t u a l r e u s e t h e renovated water would b e mixed w i t h t h e w e l l water Y , t h e m i x t u r e t h e n t o receive t h e normal t r e a t m e n t c u r r e n t l y u t i l i z e d f o r t h e w e l l water a l o n e . T h i s c o n s i s t s of p r e - c h l o r i n a t i o n i n t h e mixing b a s i n , alum-lime f l o c c u l a t i o n w i t h f i n a l pH adjus tment t o p r e c i p i t a t e i r o n , s e t t l i n g , and f i l t r a t i o n through two sand f i l t e r s . A d d i t i o n a l c h l o r i n e f o r r e s i d u a l c o n t r o l i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e main service l i n e l e a d i n g t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t .

I n a c t u a l r e u s e t h e r a w wastewater A , p r i o r t o i t s r e t u r n t o t h e p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t , would receive f o u r s t a g e s of c h l o r i n a t i o n : a t t h e e f f l u e n t

6

Page 21: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

LITTLE Y O U G H I O G H E N Y R I V E R

(7 COLLECTION B A S I N I I

C 7 C H L O R I N E CONTACT 6 CHAMBER

L A G O O N 2 U I

MICRO-

SOLIDS

F LOCC U L AT ION -

L A G O O N 1 1-1-M I ROTARY sc- - - - - -

S A N D FILTER 6=x 6 C H L O R I N A T O R

:REENS

Y I E

N O R M A L 4 MIXING i WELL T R E ATMENT BASIN W A T E R

PROCESSING PLANT / < 1 \ /

Y

Sample point identification A, untreated wastewater; L-1-M, lagoon 1; L-1-E, lagoon 1 effluent; C', lagoon 2 effluent, unchlorinated; C, lagoon 2 effluent, chlorinated; US, river, upstream; DS, river, downstream; D, micro-strainer effluent; X, floccu- lated, settled effluent; E, fully renovated water; Z, normally treated well water.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of wastewater treatment-renovation system at poultry processing plant with water sampling points.

7

Page 22: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

from lagoon 2; subsequent t o sand f i l t r a t i o n i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system; and p r e - c h l o r i n a t i o n and p o s t - c h l o r i n a t i o n i n t h e normal w e l l water t r e a t m e n t system. The r e n o v a t i o n system w a s des igned t o t r ea t about 50 p e r c e n t of t h e f low from t h e second lagoon e f f l u e n t . I n r e u s e t h e renovated w a t e r would t h e n b e mixed 50/50 (on an e q u a l b a s i s ) w i t h t h e w e l l water, t h e m i x t u r e then r e c e i v i n g i t s normal t r e a t m e n t p r i o r t o use i n t h e p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t . An impor tan t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e Phase 2 s t u d y and t h e f low regime i n a c t u a l r e u s e i s t h a t i n Phase 2 t h e f low through t h e r e n o v a t i o n system w a s about o n e - t h i r d of t h a t through t h e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t , r a t h e r t h a n t h e one- h a l f planned i n a c t u a l r e u s e . Thus i n Phase 2 , s i n c e t h e renovated water w a s d i s c h a r g e d i n t o t h e f i r s t l agoon, i t s combined f low w i t h t h a t of t h e waste- w a t e r , A , i s one- th i rd h i g h e r t h a n t h e normal waste f low o r t h a t expec ted i n a c t u a l r e u s e . T h i s r e s u l t s i n a h i g h e r d i l u t i o n of any waste c o n s t i t u e n t from A e m i t t e d t o t h e lagoon system, b u t a t t h e s a m e t i m e reduces t h e r e s i d - ence t i m e w i t h i n i t .

The ear l ie r s t u d y of Cl ise (7) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t w a s s u c c e s s f u l i n reducing i t s water usage t o about 26 1 p e r b i r d . For a t y p i c a l 8-hour s h i f t p r o c e s s i n g 50,000 b i r d s , t h i s amounts t o 1 . 3 x 106 1 of water. Of t h i s t o t a l amount about h a l f i s used d u r i n g p r o c e s s i n g and t h e remainder f o r clean-up ( 7 ) . Probably t h e most impor tan t w a t e r exposure of t h e carcasses i s t h a t i n t h e c h i l l e r p r i o r t o packaging. A t t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t t h e r e are two c h i l l e r s o p e r a t e d i n series, w i t h f r e s h water f lowing c o u n t e r - c u r r e n t t o t h e movement of t h e carcasses. The t y p i c a l water tempera ture i n t h e f i r s t i s about 13OC, and about 2OC i n t h e second, t h e t o t a l exposure o r r e s i d e n c e t i m e of a c a r c a s s i n t h e combinat ion of t h e two c h i l l e r s b e i n g about 25 min- u t e s . R e g u l a t i o n s of t h e U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e l i m i t t h e w a t e r up- t a k e t o a maximum of 12 p e r c e n t of t h e c a r c a s s weight . A t t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t t h e t y p i c a l up take i s 6 t o 8 p e r c e n t . Because t h e c h i l l e r c o n s t i t u t e s such a c r i t i c a l exposure t o water i n t h e p l a n t , a l a r g e p a r t of t h e s t u d y focused on t h e c h i l l e r water q u a l i t y , t h e p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e on i t of t h e c o n s t i t - u e n t s i n i t s f i n i s h e d water s o u r c e , and t h e measurement of p o s s i b l e contamin- a n t s i n t h e c a r c a s s e s subsequent t o t h e i r exposures t o t h e c h i l l e r system.

The sand f i l t e r i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system w a s c o n s t r u c t e d t o replace t h e d i a t o m i t e f i l t e r used i n p r e v i o u s s t u d y ( 7 ) , and t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n of t h e r e n o v a t i o n system, Phase 1, began i n t h e F a l l of 1975 and cont inued i n t e r - m i t t e n t l y through t h e w i n t e r as weather c o n d i t i o n s p e r m i t t e d . P r e l i m i n a r y sampling f o r t h e Phase 2 s t u d y began i n l a t e February 1976 t o o p t i m i z e t h e sampling and a n a l y t i c a l methodology. T h i s w a s fo l lowed by t h e f u l l Phase 2 sampling program, approximate ly once a week f o r seven weeks from March 1 5 through May 3, 1976. On each of t h e s e days v a r i o u s w a t e r and wastewater s a m p l e s were c o l l e c t e d . I n a d d i t i o n , twenty-f ive carcasses w e r e c o l l e c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s from t h e p l a n t c h i l l e r system. F i n a l l y , a s m a l l "experimental" c h i l l e r w a s se t up t o s i m u l a t e t h e p l a n t c h i l l e r . Twenty-five carcasses were taken from t h e p l a n t , p r i o r t o exposure t o t h e p l a n t c h i l l e r , and p l a c e d i n t h e exper imenta l c h i l l e r i n such a way and f o r such a p e r i o d as t o s i m u l a t e t h e p l a n t c h i l l e r . However, t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r w a s f i l l e d w i t h renova- t e d water. The purpose w a s t o a n a l y z e and compare t h e p o s s i b l e bui ld-up of contaminants i n carcasses exposed t o t h e p l a n t c h i l l e r u s i n g normal , t r ea t ed w e l l - w a t e r , v e r s u s t h o s e exposed t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r u s i n g renovated water. A t no t i m e d u r i n g Phase 2 w a s renovated water used i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t .

Page 23: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

The typical Phase 2 sampling points and the number of samples taken on a typical sampling day are shown in Table 1. Not all of the sampling points were subject to all the analyses. The types of analyses that were performed are shown in Table 2. A s shown there, Categories Ia, b, and c were routine- ly performed only on water samples, while Id was to be done on carcass samples a s well. In fact, some Ia and Ib analyses were also performed on carcasses. Category I1 and I11 analyses were done on both water and carcass samples. Other sampling points were utilized and analyses not listed in Tables 1 and 2 occasionally performed.

Although analyses of viruses were not contemplated originally in this study, the decision was made to attempt to measure an avian virus and use it as an indicator or sentinel of the behavior of other viruses in the water renovation system. Since it was reported that the chicken flocks were routine- ly inoculated with live, attenuated Newcastle Disease virus (NDV), it was decided to develop the methodology and sample the water and carcasses for NDV. In addition, some laboratory die-off studies were performed using lagoon water inoculated with NDV.

Finally, and subsequent to Phase 2, total organic carbon measurements (TOC) were performed on the renovated water, the normally treated well water, and that taken at other selected sampling points. In addition, a few samples of the treated well and renovated water were analyzed by gas-chromatograph- mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for some specific organics, other than the pesti- cides of Category 111. Also during one month subsequent to Phase 2, samples were analyzed for trihalomethanes at several points in the water supply system, lagoons, renovation system, and the receiving stream.

TABLE 1. PHASE 2 - SUMPWRY OF TYPES OF SAMPLES TAKEN FOR ANALYSES EACH WEEK

Water samDles

Location

A - Raw waste E - Renovated water Z - Treated well water PC- Plant chiller EC- Experimental chiller

Birds (carcass samples)

PB- Plant chiller birds EB- Experimental chiller birds

Maximum number per day

5* 5*

"50 carcasses were taken for analysis each sampling day, 25 PB and 25 EB. In each case washings from 5 carcasses were composited or otherwise combined to become a single carcass sample. Hence, 25 carcasses reduced to 5 samples.

9

Page 24: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 2. TYPES OF ANALYSES PERFORMED ROUTINELY

Categorv I analyses

Ia - These analyses relate primarily to waste treatment efficiency and none were performed on carcasses routinely

BOD5

Grease Organic nitrogen Ammonia nitrogen

Suspended solids Total solids Alkalinity

Ib and c - These analyses relate to waste treatment efficiency andrenovated water quality; none were performed on carcasses routinely

Turbidity CCE (Carbon chloroform extract) Color Total dissolved solids Residual chlorine (total) Residual chlorine (free)

Id - These analyses relate to waste treatment efficiency and water quality. They were measured for water and carcass samples.

Total plant count Fecal coliform Total coliform PH

Categorv I1 analvses

These analyses were performed on water and carcass samples

Salmonella Drug residual

Category I11 analyses

These chemical analyses were performed on water and carcass samples

Arsenic Barium Cadmium C a 1 c i um Chloride Chromium

Copper Magnesium Selenium Cyanide Mang ane s e Silver Fluoride Mercury Sodium Hardness MBAS Sulfate Iron Nitrate Zinc Lead Potassium Pesticides

1 0

Page 25: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

SECTION 5

METHODOLOGY

Except where noted below all analytical methodology for chemicals and microorganisms is consistent with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2 3 , 2 4 ) or other standardized techniques (1). All necessary precautions for transporting and preserving the integrity of the samples were taken. This included adding chemical preservatives, storage in the cold, and the use of various types of sample bottles and vials, depending on the nature of the analysis. All water and wastewater samples were individual "grab" type (no compositing was done).

The experimental chiller using renovated (E) water was operated on a batch basis. That is, it was filled with renovated water and plant-made ice was added to bring the temperature initially to about 13OC. The 25 carcasses were then lowered into the bath within the drum and rotation begun. Addi- tional ice to maintain 13OC was added. ice was added to reduce the bath temperature to about l0C, and chilling con- tinued for another 10 minutes.

Approximately 15 minutes later more

The carcasses were removed by handling with clean plastic gloves, and both plant and experimental chiller carcasses were treated in the same fashion. They were placed, after draining, in either clean or pre-sterilized (by auto- claving) plastic bags and carried to the laboratory trailer. 1500 nl of either distilled or distilled and sterile water was added to each such bag, which was then shaken for one minute and the water contents poured for analy- sis. This rinse sampling method has been used primarily for the detection of bacteria in processed poultry ( 4 , 6), but was employed in this study for both microbiological and chemical analyses of the carcasses.

Trace metals were analyzed by atomic absorption spectrophotometry using solvent extraction to increase the sensitivity. Reference samples to test and improve, where necessary, the accuracy of the analyses were obtained from the EPA and utilized for trace metals, several other inorganic constituents, and pesticides.

A variety of non-standard microbiological methods were utilized and/or modified for Salmonella and Newcastle Disease Virus, as well as the simulated lagoon die-off rate studies for the latter, and these are described in Appendix A, along with the methodology for the residual drug analysis. Simi- larly, the details of the volatile and non-volatile organic chemical analyses are presented, and the statistical methodology as well.

11

Page 26: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

SECTION 6

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

The results presented in this section will focus primarily on Phase 2, at least for the analyses of the inorganic constituents and physical para- meters measured in the water, wastewater and carcasses. Additionally a description will be presented of the operation of the renovation system, along with some comparisons with the earlier study of Clise (7) and, where appropriate, use of data from Phase 1 and post Phase 2. Data were also obtained and are presented for many parameters in the chillers during Phase 2. Because of the large amount of data, for the most part the results will be summarized, showing the number of analyses, the means, standard deviations, and in some cases the maximum values. Most of the analyses in Phase 2 were performed on samples taken on each of the seven sampling dates. In some cases, however, and as originally planned, where the resu1.t~ were consis- tently negative (below the level of sensitivity), the analyses were discon- tinued.

Statistical analysis of the data is confined mostly to those inorganic constituents and physical parameters for which there were sufficient. numbers to be meaningful and useful. In addition to comparing the Phase 2 results with the earlier study of Clise ( 7 ) , such comparisons have been made as are helpful in determining any differences between the renovated (E), wastewater (A) and treated well water (Z), thereby focusing on possible build-ups in the renovation system or inefficiencies in treatment, as well as possible health concerns. Of special interest also are the statistical analyses and comparisons of carcasses exposed to the waters of the processing plant chiller (PC) and experimental chiller (EC). Their possible differences were deter- mined, and an analysis performed to assess the contributions of constituents in the chiller water to those measured in the carcasses (washings).

Some organic parameters were measured routinely in Phase 2, but these generally were the gross ones (rather than specific organic chemicals) which are reported in tables showing several waste parameters. These include BOD5 and organic nitrogen. Pesticides were analyzed for a few weeks in Phase 2, but discontinued when the treated well and renovated water samples were all negative. Several CCE results are reported for Phase 2 and other periods. Subsequent to Phase 2 several samples were taken and analyzed at a number of sampling points for TOC and specific organic chemicals, both volatiles (trihalomethanes) as measured quantitatively by GC, and non-volatiles, quali- tatively only by GC-MS. In general there were not sufficient organic analyses

12

Page 27: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

for statistical comparisons between Z and E water, although this could be done in one or two cases. However, the organic measurements were of suffic- ient scope to allow a reasonable assessment of their possible health impact as a result of processing the chickens in the renovated water.

Although coliform, fecal coliform and standard plate count analyses were performed on a variety of water, wastewater and carcass samples, it was decided for the purpose of this report to focus primarily on a comparison of the treated well and renovated waters as a means of evaluating and comparing possible risks. Such bacterial levels in the chillers and carcasses would most likely be unrelated to their respective water sources which are routine- ly disinfected. In contrast, Salmonella was evaluated in a variety of samples including carcasses, both in Phase 2 qualitatively, and subsequently for its quantitative presence, after the appropriate methodology was developed. Al- though for all practical purposes there is no basis for concern about avian viruses with respect to human health in this project, Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) was selected for analysis as a possible sentinel or indicator organism of viral behavior. NDV can cause mild conjunctivitis in humans, but is not known to cause human disease via the gastro-intestinal route. The results of attempts to isolate it in the carcasses and other samples during Phase 2 are described. Additionally, the NDV die-off studies in the labora- tory using lagoon water from the Sterling wastewater treatment system are presented and evaluated. Although results were negative, the attempts to assess the presence of antibiotic drugs in various samples using a bacterial drug residual test are described.

Finally there will be presented briefly an analysis of the use of the Phase 2 treatment and renovation scheme as a predictor of the behavior and steady-state build-up of contamination in actual recycle. The detailed cal- culations and basis for the analysis are described more fully in Appendix B.

OPERATION OF RENOVATION SYSTEM

Phase 1, the optimization of the renovation system, began in the Fall of 1975 and continued intermittently, depending in part on the winter weather conditions, until February 1976 when preliminary sampling for Phase 2 was instituted. Subsequent to Phase 2, starting in May 1976 and continuing to the end of the project in June 1977, additional efforts were directed at improving the operation and performance of the renovation system, such as by pH adjustment and the use of powdered activation carbon.

More detailed information on the lagoon and renovation systems, as well as characterizations of the wastewater, can be found in the report by Clise (7). However, for orientation some of this information is included here. The following material is a summary report of the pertinent aspects of the operation of the renovation system.

DescriDtion of Lagoon and Renovation Svstems

The wastewater treatment system consists of two lagoons totalling 2.75 acres (1.11 hectares) in area. Each lagoon is 140' (42.7 m) wide. The

13

Page 28: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

primary unit is 590' (177 m) long and the secondary lagoon is 230' (69 m) long. Each pond is six feet (1.8 m) deep. Primary lagoon capacity is approx- imately 3.75 million gallons (14.195 m3) and secondary capacity is 1.5 million gallons (5,678 m3) providing holding capacity for 12 working days' flow.

The primary lagoon is equipped with 64 Link Belt circulators, a grease skimmer, and an effluent wier trough discharging into the second lagoon. Entering at the bottom of the circulators, wastewater is discharged at the surface in one direction, creating a counter-clockwise surface flow. Air is supplied to the circulators by three positive displacement. blowers, each powered by a 20 hp (14.9 kw) motor. of air at 2.8 psig (19.3 kN/m2). through a header pipe encircling the two lagoons. The secondary lagoon is equipped with 40 Link Belt circulators, a grease skimmer, and a combination settling unit and chlorine contact chamber with an overflow wier trough and discharge line to the river.

The system provides 3,360 cfm (15.8 m3/s) Air is distributed to the circulators

Incoming raw wastewater has a BOD5 averaging 450 mg/l, amounting to a loading approximating 400 lbs/acre/day (448 kg/ha/day) with a 93% reduction in the lagoon system. equaling a loading of 750 lbs/acre/day (841 kg/ha/day) with an 88% reduction in the system.

Raw wastewater suspended solids average 858 mg/l,

The advanced water treatment plant was designed to collect the chlorina- ted effluent from the second lagoon at the point of discharge to the river. Basic design of the advanced water treatment facility consists of a control building; 70 micron microstrainer; a flash mix, flocculation and sedimenta- tion basin; a gravity flow rapid sand filter; gas chlorinator; and 20,000 gallon (76 m3) pressure storage tank. Supplemental equipment consists of a 3,000 gallon (11,360 liter) concrete pit used as a collection sump for the lagoon effluent; sewage pump for delivery of effluent to the microstrainer; a low head pump used for the application of alum and coagulant aid for de- livery of microstrainer effluent to the flash mix unit; high head pump for delivery to the sand filter; chlorine recorder; and electrical. control panel. All equipment is automatically controlled by the water height in each unit and is rated at or above 300 gpm (19 literslsec).

As originally operated, chlorination preceded storage and filtration as a method of assuring breakpoint chlorination. In the later phases of the project, piping changes were made to allow all physical treatment to occur prior to chlorination. These changes were for the purpose of reducing as far as possible the organic content of reclaimed water available for com- bining with chlorine. Concurrent with this change, powdered activated carbon was introduced in the flash mix for the removal of combined chlorine in the sedimentation process.

Operating Procedures

During this study there were two pumping regimes, continuous and inter- mittent. The initial pumping operation was to determine capability to meet the demand under the adjusted pumping rate necessitated by balancing four pumps in continous operation. Previous operations required only two units

14

Page 29: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

based on the original design. With the new adjustment the low head pump established a rate for normal operation at 210 gpm (800 liters per minj, com- pared to the designed rate of 300 gpm (1140 liters per min). The system re- mained under automatic control from pressure in the storage tank with con- tinuous discharge into the No. 1 lagoon.

During Phase 2 the expected demand of 180 gpm (680 liter per min) by the Sterling plant in actual reuse was simulated by discharging this volume of filtered water from the storage tank to waste into the No. 1 lagoon. Normal water requirement in the Sterling plant for a 16 hour day is 288,000 gallons (1,130,000 liters). The new pumping rate in the water re-use plant will give 202,000 gallons (765,000 liters). Under this program the high lift pump was in intermittent service as pressure varied in the storage tank between 55 and 70 psi. The pump cycle was 15 minutes in service and 12 minutes off with con- tinuous flow through the sand filter. A l l raw water pumps in the Sterling system are also on automatic control. The No. 3 pump at 175 gallons per minute (656 liters per min) will be utilized with the re-use pump at 180 gpm (675 liters per min). The re-use line is metered and proper adjustment can be maintained. The other two Sterling pumps totaling 190 gpm (713 liters per min) will remain in standby service. The re-use line will discharge into the Sterling raw water sedimentation basin through a float valve thereby maintaining a more or less controlled equal volume from the two systems. The re-use water plant would be in continuous automatic service.

The sedimentation basin was drained and washed on a cycle of 2 million gallons (7.6 million liters). This was usually done every other weekend when the poultry processing plant was not operating. During the initial part of the study the filter averaged 5.1 hours of service between backwashings at 8.4 feet (2.6 meters) of head loss. When simulating the reuse operation it averaged 7.0 hours of service at 9.1 feet (3.4 meters) of head loss.

Chemical Treatment and Monitoring

In June 1976 (subsequent to Phase 2) an automatic turbidimeter was placed in service to monitor the renovated water (E). During a period of 93 days the hourly mean value was 1.08 Jackson turbidity units, and the maximum was 2.7.

Chlorine was added typically at a rate of 6.5 pounds (2950 grams) of chlorine per hour, approximately 0.35 pounds (160 grams) per 1000 gallons or 44 mg/l from January 6 to June 3 , 1976, which included the Phase 2 period. "Break point" chlorination was accomplished; the free residual chlorine in the microstrainer effluent (243 tests) averaged 0.36 mg/l, with a total residual of 0.84 mg/l, indicating that 0.48 mg/l was present as combined chlorine, probably chloramines. With subsequent use of carbon, the residual chlorine was 0.2 mg/l (243 tests). mg/l, with a free chlorine residual of 0.22 mg/l in the renovated water.

The post-chlorination dose averaged 1.7

The automatic chlorine recorder was placed in service in June 1976. Operating on post-chlorination, with 305 tests reported, the average free residual in the filter effluent was 1.9 mg/l, with a minimum of 0.5. Die- thyl-p-phenylene diamine (D.P.D.) replaced orthotolidine arsenite (O.T.A.) as the procedure for residual chlorine on March 29, 1976. The automatic

15

Page 30: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

chlorine recorder gave results in agreement with the D.P.D. test.

To eliminate chlorine and chloramine fumes in the control house, acti- vated carbon at 10 mg/l was applied to the flash mixing tank beginning June 21, 1976. This was highly effective, as shown by the chlorine residual measurements, which indicated that one-third of the measured values were between 0.1 and 0.2 mg/l, and the remainder were below the sensitivity limit.

Under normal conditions the suspended solids in the lagoon system efflu- ent varied from 12 to 88 mg/l with a mean of 40 mg/l. Coagulant dosage was determined by daily or more frequent "jar tests." With normal raw lagoon water it averaged 15.4 mg/l alum, 5.3 mg/l lime, 1 mg/l polymer and 10 mg/l carbon. Due to seasonal turnover of the lagoons from October 19 to December 13, 1976, the suspended solids of their effluent averaged 304 mg/l with a minimum of 114 mg/l.

A solid ice cap on the lagoons between December 13, 1976 and March 8, 1977 prevented operation of the plant. From April 25 to June 8, 1977 a second seasonal turnover occurred. In 1976 the dissolved oxygen was depleted but the lagoons did not become anaerobic. However, in 1977 the lagoon be- came anaerobic with resultant development of putrescible sludge and hydrogen sulfide killing the organisms necessary to stabilize the deposited sludge.

During the period while the plant was out of service a series of jar tests (147) was made to develop a coagulation procedure that would produce compact, settleable floc. They indicated that a dosage of 22.2 mg/l alum per percent of settleable solids at a pH value of 6.3 would be practical. However, during this operation screens would have to be removed from the microstrainer and excessive backwashing of the sand filter on a 4 hour cycle would be required. of alum, 1382 mg/l lime, 1 mg/l of polymer and 10 mg/l of carbon. These dosages greatly exceeded the capacity of the 308 mg/l feeding equipment, which was designed for 7.8 mg/l hexane soluble material, 58 mg/l suspended solids and 30 JTU turbidity. It was not possible to operate the plant during this period. Supplementary chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide and excess chlo- rine were also employed without appreciable effect. Based on this effort and analysis, it was judged that operation of the reuse system should be suspended during a period of lagoon turnover.

At normal pumpage this dosage is equivalent to 821 mg/l

Hexane soluble material was found in the renovated water effluent at concentrations varying from 0.2 to 6.0 mg/l. The average of 28 tests was 3.6 mg/l. Recent concentrations of hexane soluble material found in the three Sterling wells ranged from 4.0 to 4.8 mg/l. These wells are in the Pocono formation of the Deer Park anticline, which is generally sandstone. They vary from 168 feet (53 meters) to 362 feet (112 meters) in depth. The hexane soluble content of three other wells, ranging in distance from 15 meters to 5.5 kilometers from the Sterling plant, varied from 0.4 to 2.6 mg/l. which by lateral diffusion could readily influence the organic content of the Sterling and other nearby wells.

There are abundant gas wells and coal seams in the vicinity at depths

16

Page 31: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

PHYSICAL AND I N O R G A N I C CONSTITUENTS

F i n i s h e d Water and Wastewater

The summary of t h e Phase 2 r e s u l t s f o r several p h y s i c a l and macro i n o r - g a n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s of 2 , A and E waters i s p r e s e n t e d i n Table 3 , a l o n g w i t h t h e EPA I n t e r i m Primary and proposed Secondary Dr inking Water R e g u l a t i o n c o n s t i t u e n t l i m i t s (25 , 26) . I n t h a t t a b l e t h e former i n c l u d e o n l y t u r b i d i t y and n i t r a t e , t h e o t h e r s b e i n g Secondary r e g u l a t i o n l i m i t s . The n i t r a t e max- imum c o n s t i t u e n t l i m i t was n o t exceeded i n t h e E water i n Phase 2 , and t h e mean of 3.5 mg/l w a s c o n s i d e r a b l y below t h a t l i m i t of 4 4 mg/l ( a s NO3-). Subsequent t o Phase 2 an a d d i t i o n a l 24 samples of E w a t e r had a mean concen- t r a t i o n of 2 .16 mg/ l , lower t h a n t h a t i n Phase 2.

The c u r r e n t EPA t u r b i d i t y l i m i t i s one, r a t h e r t h a n t h e f i v e shown i n Table 3 . However, f i v e i s p e r m i t t e d i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s , such as when i t does n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h d i s i n f e c t i o n o r m i c r o b i o l o g i c a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t u r b i d i t y r e s u l t s f o r E i n Phase 2 w i t h a mean v a l u e of 1 . 6 , 140 such a n a l y s e s i n Phase 1 had a mean of 2 .9 u n i t s , and 175 a n a l y s e s p o s t Phase 2 , 2.2 u n i t s . It i s a p p a r e n t t h a t , a l t h o u g h g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e l i m i t of one, t h e y are less t h a n f i v e ; a l s o , as w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d subsequent- l y , t h e d i s i n f e c t i o n p r o c e s s e s w e r e q u i t e e f f e c t i v e .

The pH and a l k a l i n i t y i n E , t h e renovated water , d u r i n g Phase 2 were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower t h a n t h a t of Z , t h e t r e a t e d w e l l water , which f o r t h e s e parameters was q u i t e s imi l a r t o A , t h e r a w wastewater. These low v a l u e s i n E can b e a t t r i b u t e d r e a s o n a b l y , a t l e a s t i n l a r g e p a r t , t o t h e e x t e n s i v e c h l o r i n a t i o n , b o t h of t h e secondary lagoon e f f l u e n t and t h e r e n o v a t i o n system, as w e l l a s t h e a d d i t i o n of alum as a c o a g u l a n t . The c h l o r i n e a p p l i e d t y p i - c a l l y t o t h e former w a s 25 mg/l ( 7 ) , and 4 4 mg/l t o t h e l a t t e r d u r i n g Phase 2. The a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s t o t a l amount of c h l o r i n e g e n e r a t e s enough a c i d t o n e u t r a l i z e about 50 mg/l a l k a l i n i t y (ca lc ium c a r b o n a t e ) and. a t t h e s a m e t i m e lowers t h e pH. I n t h e p r e v i o u s s t u d y ( 7 ) , as shown i n Table 10 , t h e average pH w a s h i g h e r , namely 6 . 6 , compared t o 5 . 8 i n Phase 2. A l s o , i n about a one y e a r p e r i o d subsequent t o Phase 2 t h e average of 167 pH measurements w a s 6 . 0 6 , w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1 .02 . Although t h e r e i s no d i r e c t h e a l t h r i s k from such r e l a t i v e l y l o w v a l u e s of pH, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s could a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t r e a t m e n t 3r cause c o r r o s i o n , i t should and could b e rec t i - f i e d r e l a t i v e l y e a s i l y by t h e a d d i t i o n of soda a s h . I n a c t u a l r e u s e t h e r e w i l l b e m i t i g a t i o n of t h i s p o t e n t i a l problem, i n any e v e n t , due t o t h e 50/50 mixing w i t h w e l l w a t e r .

A s shown i n Table 3 , t h e average f r e e c h l o r i n e r e s i d u a l d u r i n g Phase 2 w a s 1 . 7 mg/l i n t h e renovated water. Subsequent t o t h i s p e r i o d o v e r 300 r e a d i n g s showed an average of 1 . 9 mg/ l , and a minimum of 0 .5 . Such c h l o r i n e l e v e l s , main ta ined c o n s i s t e n t l y i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h i t s a p p l i c a t i o n else- where i n t h e system, would b e expec ted t o p r o v i d e a h i g h degree of a s s u r a n c e a g a i n s t r i s k s from pa thogenic microorganisms i n a c t u a l r e u s e .

Of t h e remaining parameters t h e o n l y one o c c a s i o n a l l y approaching a recommended ( e s t h e t i c o r secondary) c o n s t i t u e n t l i m i t i n t h e renovated w a t e r i s s u l f a t e . The mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 150 mg/l is c o n s i d e r a b l y below

17

Page 32: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

f TABLE 3 . PHASE 2 - WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND MACRO CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN 2 , A AND E

(in mg/l, except where noted)

Turbidity (JTU) Color (units)

*PH *Alkalinity Chlorine res.

Surfactants (MBAs)

*Na+ *I(+

*Ca++ *Mg++

*c1- NO-

*so4 HCO; (est) Ion total

3--

"Dissolved solids

Treated well water ( 2 )

N S.D. Max - --- 6 0.9 0.5 6 3.0 1.6 12 7.0 0.2 12 107 15

14 <0.01 -

14 7.4 3,4 16 2.9 3.6 16 40.1 4.8 16 2.4 0.3

12 11.6 1.0 8 4.0 0.6 8 9.6 3.6 - 130 ..

208 12 143 33.8

1.7 5 7- 2

130 - -

12.5

8.7 49.4 2.9 13.4 4.9 13.5

-

194

Screened raw wastewater (A) -

N X S. D. M a x - - - -

- - - - 10 7.1 0.2 7.3 10 113 50 174 - - - -

15 0.27 0.18 0.71

16 62.4 56.4 203 15 32.2 10.0 47.4 16 42.0 7.4 50.8 12 4.0 0.0 5.2 14 62.2 24.2 91.1 8 0.15 0.041 0.18

8 15.7 4.7 33.0

10 748 410 1850

N

35

36 30 15 52 13

14 15

-

16 15 12 8 8 -

16

- X S.D. M a x

1 . 2 0.65 2.8

---

3.7 3.3 10

5.8 1.4 6.9 35.3 37 140 1.7 1.3 6.0 0.04 0.02 0.08

Renovated water (E)

- 393 339 66 492

30.2 12.5 47.7

53- 7 5.8 64.9 3.0 0.3 3.4

3.5 1.5 6.2

14.7 2.3 17.4

88.5 16.8 121

150 05.6 252

EPA interim criterion

5 1 5

-

- 0.5

500

fOccasionally extreme values (beyond 2 S.D. ) were discarded. *The mean values for these parameters were statistically afferent in 2 and E at alpha 0.05,

Page 33: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

I

the recommended limit of 250 mg/l, although one value at 252 mg/l exceeded it marginally. Although not a health concern, the build-up could be reduced by modification of the use of alum as a coagulant, a major contributor to the sulfate in the renovation process.

The 389 mg/l average for the total dissolved solids in the renovated water during Phase 2, shown in Table 3, was considerably higher than that of the treated well water, although less than the non-mandatory criterion value of 500 mg/l. Also, as shown in Table 3, the sum of the mean values of the concentrations of the cation and anion constituents is essentially identical with that for the dissolved solids. One can thus conclude that it is unlike- ly that any unknown or unidentified constituents are making substantial con- tributions to the dissolved solids content of the renovated water. Neverthe- less, it is apparent that there are large concentration increases for several of these inorganic ion constituents in the renovated water compared to the treated well water, even though at the levels encountered they do not pose a health hazard. The listing in Table 3 of the various parameter statistics for the wastewater, A, provides a perspective as to the possible sources of constituents that are measured in E. Thus, for example, since the average nitrate concentration of 3.5 mg/l is substantially higher than the 0.15 mg/l level in the raw wastewater, one can reasonably conclude that this is due to biological nitrification in the lagoons of the various other nitrogen sources in the waste effluent shown in Table 4 .

The Phase 2 summary statistics in Z, A, and E for the parameters related primarily to waste treatment are shown in Table 4 . With the exception of ammonia nitrogen, there is a considerable reduction in concentration in each case in the E water compared to the raw wastewater, A. The relatively high ammonia nitrogen concentration of 19 mg/l (average) in E is of some interest and possible concern. It probably results from biological decomposition of organic nitrogen constituents in the lagoons, although some concentrations measured in the raw waste are also high. The principal concern is that the ammonia reacts with the chlorine disinfectant to form chloramines, which are less effective disinfecting agents. However, because of this very reaction, unless the samples are analyzed immediately, it is unlikely that with the practice of breakpoint chlorination the ammonia should have been detected. Subsequent to Phase 2 the ammonia in E decreased considerably, the average concentration for 10 samples being 5.1 mg/l. This could have been a result of an increase in nitrification in the lagoons during periods of warmer temperature. It should be emphasized that the low bacterial counts in the E water indicates that disinfection has not been affected. Also the pre- sence of these concentrations of ammonia is not known to be a health hazard. Finally, it is noteworthy that ammonia is sometimes added in municipal water treatment plants in order to react with chlorine and form longer-lived chlor- amines.

The organic nitrogen concentrations in the renovated water are sub- stantially higher than in Z in Phase 2, although the average 3.4 mg/l BOD in E does not reflect this difference. For such measurements taken over an 18 month period, including and subsequent to Phase 2, the overall mean BOD for E was 4.2 mg/l, still less than the 5.3 mean value for Z shom in Table 4 .

19

Page 34: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

10 0

TABLE 4 . z, A AND E WATER CHARACTERISTICS RELATED PRIMARILY TO WASTE TREATMENT EFFICIENCY (in mg/1)

Treated well water (2) Screened raw wastewater (A) Renovated water (E) - - -

N X S. D. M a x N X S. D. Max N X S. D. M a x - - - -- - *Total solids 1 2 165 33 234 10 1380 324 2074 13 418 72 501 Suspended solids 12 10.4 8.1 26 10 543 131 690 1 4 16.8 19.7 70

Grease 12 5.2 6 .1 23 10' 164 44 260 13 5.1 4.8 18.2

*Ammonia -N 8 0.017 0.013 0.040 5 6.2 1.2 7.9 io 19.0 4.4 23.0

BOD5 12 5.3 4.3 18 10 377 184 649 14 3.4 2.2 7.0

*Organic-N 8 0.013 0.008 0.030 5 46.3 26.5 81.3 10 1.7 1.5 5.0

0.6 9.4 i o 8.0 0.54 8.8 14 9.3 1.4 11.7 *Dissolved oxveen l2 8'1

*The mean values for these parameters were statistically different in Z and E at alpha 0.05.

Page 35: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

A summary of t h e r e s u l t s f o r t h e trace c o n s t i t u e n t s i n Z and E waters d u r i n g Phase 2 i s shown i n Table 5. I t should b e emphasized t h a t t h e concen- t r a t i o n u n i t s h e r e are micrograms p e r l i t e r . A l l of t h e maximum concent ra - t i o n s were w e l l below t h e c r i t e r i o n v a l u e s , e x c e p t f o r l e a d i n b o t h E and Z samples. They w e r e n o t g t e a t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r t h e two waters, and t h e h i g h c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n each case w e r e j u s t about a t t h e c r i t e r i o n l i m i t . Only i n t h e case of i r o n and f l u o r i d e were t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r f o r E compared t o Z . However, i t i s judged t h a t f o r none of t h e s e s i x t r a c e e lements were t h e r e any h a z a r d s i n t h e renovated w a t e r , s i n c e , e x c e p t f o r t h e one h i g h v a l u e f o r l e a d , t h e y were w e l l below t h e c r i t e r i o n l i m i t s .

A s i n d i c a t e d i n Table 5 , a l l t h e measurements f o r s i l v e r , a r s e n i c , cadmium, chromium, and se len ium were n e g a t i v e (below t h e s e n s i t i v i t y l i m i t s ) . About h a l f of t h e E samples were p o s i t i v e f o r cyanide a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s up t o 1 2 p g l l , b u t w e l l below t h e h e a l t h c r i t e r i o n v a l u e of 200 1.1811. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o imagine any o x i d i z a b l e cyanide b e i n g p r e s e n t i n E because of t h e l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of added c h l o r i n e . However, t h e a n a l y s i s w a s f o r t o t a l cyanide , so t h a t t h e measurement may have d e t e c t e d such harmless combined complexes a s t h o s e i n v o l v i n g i r o n , o f t e n used as a n a n t i - c a k i n g a g e n t , such as i n road s a l t . S e v e r a l water samples w e r e p o s i t i v e f o r mercury. These occurred i n t h r e e of t h e e i g h t weeks, two of which were ana lyzed on t h e same day. It i s l i k e l y t h a t i n t h e l a t t e r cases t h e r e w a s contaminat ion o r ana ly- t i c a l e r r o r , perhaps as a r e s u l t of t h e mercury p r e s e r v a t i v e added t o t h e n i t r a t e sampling b o t t l e . On two subsequent weeks when t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y was removed, on ly one o u t of s i x E samples were p o s i t i v e (0.6 p g / l ) , and no Z samples. I n c o n t r a s t , d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s two weeks E , Z and a l l o t h e r samples were p o s i t i v e and much h i g h e r . For t h e samples of t h e f i r s t f o u r weeks none of t h e E o r Z samples w e r e a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s h i g h e r t h a n 0 . 2 p g / l , t h e l e v e l of s e n s i t i v i t y of t h e method. I n v i e w of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e h i g h e s t E sample w a s 1 . 7 p g l l , even though i t w a s p robably an e r r o n e o u s r e a d i n g due t o contaminat ion , and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c r i t e r i o n v a l u e i s 2 p g / l , i t may b e concluded t h a t t h e r e i s n o t observed h e a l t h h a z a r d from mercury i n t h e re- novated water.

C h i l l e r Water

Although a p r i n c i p a l f o c u s of t h i s s t u d y i s t h e p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e water q u a l i t y of t h e renovated and t r e a t e d w e l l waters, i t was recognized t h a t i t would b e u s e f u l a l s o t o a n a l y z e t h e p l a n t and e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r w a t e r s d u r i n g Phase 2. The r e s u l t s of t h e s e a n a l y s e s f o r s e v e r a l macro and trace c o n s t i t u e n t s are p r e s e n t e d i n Tables 6 and 7 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Although t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r w a s o p e r a t e d , a s d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 5 , i n such a f a s h i o n as t o s i m u l a t e t h e c a r c a s s exposure t o such w a t e r i n t h e a c t u a l p l a n t o p e r a t i o n , t h e r e w a s one impor tan t d i f f e r e n c e . I n t h e p o u l t r y p l a n t t h e c h i l l e r w a s o p e r a t e d c o n t i n u o u s l y and c o u n t e r - c u r r e n t l y , w h i l e t h e exper imenta l c h i l l e r w a s on a b a t c h b a s i s . Thus i n t h e p l a n t c a r c a s s e s c o n t i n u o u s l y moved through t h e c h i l l e r a t t h e same t i m e t h a t f r e s h water w a s c o n t i n u o u s l y added. I n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r a s i n g l e group of 25 c a r c a s s e s w a s added t o a g iven volume of water. Thus t h e exposure of t h e c a r c a s s e s i n t h e s e two s i t u a t i o n s and t h e i r up take of chemicals o r o t h e r c o n s t i t u e n t s would l i k e l y b e somewhat d i f f e r e n t ; s i m i l a r l y , t h e r e l a t ive q u a n t i t i e s of such materials l e a c h i n g from t h e c a r c a s s e s i n t o t h e c h i l l e r water would a l s o b e expec ted t o d i f f e r .

21

Page 36: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 5. PHASE 2 - TRACE CHEMICAL CON,CENTRATIONS* (ug / i ) IN z , A AND E

Treated Screened raw EPA interin well water (Z) wastewater (A) Renovated water (E) criterion limits

I S.D. Max ! N X S.D. Max I N X S.D. Max I

- - I - - - - - - -- - X ~ I N - - - -

I

cu 16 41.4 11.2 57 I 14 49.0 31.1 147 14 38.8 12.9 56 1000 , *F 14 58 33 12 5 , 12 128 42 207 14 1 5 1 54 270 1400 - 2400 *Fe 16 19.2 7.0 31 16 44.3 15.1 91 14 57.1 24.3 98 ; 300 W n 16 1.8 1.0 3 12 5.8 3.4 16 14 2.6 1.0 4 : 50

Pb I 16 21.2 16.7 50 i 16 48.7 31.9 141 15 23.8 13.9 50 50 Zn 12 25.2 3.8 33 16 41.9 29.3 108 12 27.2 6.9 38 ; 5000

,

I

+ -Occasionally extreme values (beyond 2 S . D . ) were discarded.

*The mean values f o r these parameters were statistically different in Z and E at alpha 0.05, N

+ -Occasionally extreme values (beyond 2 S . D . ) were discarded.

*The mean values f o r these parameters were statistically different in Z and E at alpha 0.05, N

Note

The following elements were in all cases below the indicated sensitivity limits:

Ag - 10-20 ug/l Cr - 30 ug/l

As - 10 ug/ l Se - 10-350 ug/l

Cd - 10 ug/ l

The following elements were unusual in certain respects:

Ba - analyses were performed at the sensiti-Tity iirnit; results urir?liabl? CN-- z s a n p l e y were negative; 9 of 16 E samples were positive at concentrations ranging from

1 to 12 ug/l; 2 of 15 A samples were positive, each at a concentration of 2 ug/l. Hg - several samples were positive for mercury at concentrations up to 3 ug/l, but the

positive results may be due to contamination.

Page 37: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 6 . PHASE 2 ANALYSES OF CONCENTRATIONS (mg/l) OF MACRO CONSTITUENTS I N WATER FROM PLANT (PC) AND EXPERIMENTAL CHILLERS (EC)

P l a n t c h i l l e r (PC) E x p t l . c h i l l e r (EC) - -

P a:-ame t er N X s . D N X S .D

S u r f a c t a n t s 12 0.22 0.14 7 0.047 0.023

C a1 c i um 12 39 9 . 3 9 58 7 . 8

Magnesium 12 3 .4 4.9 9 3 .0 0.22

Po t as s i um 12 37 11 9 25 6.9

C h l o r i d e 11 120 32 9 19 7 89

Sodium 12 80 26 9 95 43

Nitrate 6 0.89 0.96 5 2.7 1 .0

S u l f a t e 6 14 6 .8 5 16 7 53

----- I_

Note --

With t h e e x c e p t i o n of sodium, t h e means f o r each parameter i i i PC and EC a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t a t a l p h a 0.05.

There are two impor tan t comparisons t o make i n e v a l u a t i n g and i n t e r - p r e t i n g t h e c h i l l e r a n a l y s e s . The f i r s t is t h a t between t h e p l a n t (PC) and e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r s (EC), and t h e second between t h e c h i l l e r s and t h e i r cor responding water s o u r c e s , Z and E . I n t h e f i r s t c a s e f o r t h e macro con- s t i t u e n t s r e p o r t e d i n Table 6 t h e r e are some obvious l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , w i t h , f o r example, ca lc ium, c h l o r i d e , po tass ium and s u l f a t e b e i n g much l a r g e r i n EC t h a n PC. A t t h e same t i m e a comparison of t h e s e same parameters i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e water s o u r c e s , E and Z , shown i n Table 3, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e ca lc ium and s u l f a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s are n o t v e r y d i f f e r e n t (EC vs. E , and PC vs. Z ) ; i n c o n t r a s t , f o r c h l o r i d e and potassium t h e c h i l l e r waters are much h i g h e r . It i s n o t unreasonable t o conclude t h a t f o r t h e s e l a t t e r i o n s t h e carcasses themselves a r e probably c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e c h i l l e r waters by a l e a c h i n g o r s imilar mechanism. T h i s i s confirmed by t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s f o r t h e s e i o n s i n t h e was tewater A , shown i n Table 3 , where

23

Page 38: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 7 . PHASE 2 ANALYSES OF CONCENTRATIONS (pg/i) OF TRACE CONSTITUENTS~ IN WATER FROM PLANT (PC) AND EXPERIMENTAL CHILLERS (EC)

Plant chiller (PC) -

Parameter N X S .D

Exptl. chiller (EC) -

N X S . D

Copper 11 47 20 8 30 11

Iron 12 4 8 14 9 40 24

Lead 1 2 55 4 1 8 2 1 7

Fluoride 8 88 37 9 130 59

Zinc 11 29 10 9 32 24

Cyanide See note b 7 4 . 3 2 .7

56 See note c S eleni um 5 200

Statistical comparisons of the means of all parameters in PC and EC show no differences at alpha 0.05

?n each case the analyses for the following trace elements were below their respective sensitivity limits shown in parantheses in mg/l. Arsenic (0.01); cadmium (0.01); chromium (0.03); silver ( 0 . 0 2 ) . Mercury: for PC, 2 of 10 samples were positive with con- centrations of 0 . 4 and 1.5 p g / l ; for EC, 2 of 16 were positive with concentrations of 0 . 2 and 0.5 1.1811.

For cyanide in PC, 2 of 10 samples were positive with concentra- tions of 1 and 2 p g / l .

For selenium in W, 1 of 3 samples was positive with a concentra- tion of 170 pg /1 .

b

C

24

Page 39: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

they a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r t h a n t h o s e of t h e w e l l water Z . These t y p e s of i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l b e examined i n more d e t a i l l a t e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n .

The t r a c e c o n s t i t u e n t s i n t h e two c h i l l e r s showed v a r i a b l e b e h a v i o r , as can b e s e e n i n Table 7 . When comparing PC and E C , t h e mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s w e r e n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f o r i r o n and z i n c . Copper and l e a d w e r e h i g h e r i n PC, and f l u o r i d e h i g h e r i n EC. I r o n , f l u o r i d e and l e a d are much h i g h e r i n PC v e r s u s Z . e lements t h a n i s Z , i t i s c lear t h a t t h e carcasses are c o n t r i b u t i n g sub- s t a n t i a l l y t o t h e c h i l l e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s . However, of t h e t h r e e , t h i s o n l y seems t o apply t o l e a d when making s i m i l a r comparisons between EC and E.

S i n c e t h e wastewater A i s a l s o much h i g h e r f o r t h e s e

Carcasses

Probably t h e most impor tan t r e s u l t s are t h o s e t h a t assess any p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e q u a n t i t i e s of c o n s t i t u e n t s measurable i n t h e washings from chickens exposed t o t h e normally used w e l l water i n t h e p l a n t v e r s u s t h o s e s i m i l a r l y exposed t o t h e renovated water i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r . These r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d i n Tables 8 and 9 f o r t h e former (PB) and t h e l a t t e r (EB) f o r t h e macro c o n s t i t u e n t s , w a s t e t y p e parameters and trace e lements . Most of t h e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and i n o r g a n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s measured f o r t h e Z and E w a t e r and shown i n T a b l e s 3 , 4 and 5 were a l s o ana lyzed i n t h e carcasses. The macro c o n s t i t u e n t s shown i n Table 8 were v e r y s imilar f o r PB and EB i n every i n s t a n c e . The same a p p l i e s t o t h e w a s t e t y p e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Table 9 , w i t h t h e p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n of ammonia n i t r o g e n , which w a s somewhat h i g h e r i n EB t h a n PB. T h i s could v e r y w e l l have been i n f l u e n c e d by t h e h i g h ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e renovated w a t e r , and w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d i n more d e t a i l l a t e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n . Although f i v e t r a c e c o n s t i t u e n t a n a l y s e s a r e r e p o r t e d i n Table 9 , a n a l y s e s w e r e a l s o per- formed f o r s i l v e r , a r s e n i c , cadmium, chromium, and selenium. However, f o r each of t h e l a t t e r t h e r e s u l t s w e r e below t h e l i m i t of s e n s i t i v i t y . For t h e f i v e shown i n Table 9 t h e mean v a l u e s f o r PB and EB w e r e q u i t e s i m i l a r , w i t h t h e p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n of z i n c , which w a s lower i n EB. p o i n t make t h e p r e l i m i n a r y judgment t h a t , f o r a lmost a l l t h e measured p h y s i c a l and waste t y p e parameters , as w e l l as macro and trace i n o r g a n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s , t h e r e are no impor tan t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e carcasses processed i n t h e p l a n t and e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r s . T h i s i s , however, c o n s i d e r e d more f u l l y s u b s e q u e n t l y , where t h e s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons are d i s c u s s e d , as w e l l as t h e more d e t a i l e d p o s s i b l e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of f i n i s h e d w a t e r , c h i l l e r water and c a r c a s s c o n s t i t u e n t s .

One can a t t h i s

STATISTICAL AND OTHER COMPARISONS

Using t h e t w o - t a i l t-test d e s c r i b e d i n Appendix A , comparisons were made of t h e s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f z r e n c e s of t h e means of many of t h e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t - e r i s t ics , w a s t e parameters and trace and macro i n o r g a n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s i n Z v e r s u s E , PC v e r s u s EC, and PB v e r s u s EB. A d d i t i o n a l l y t h e s e w e r e a l s o com- p a r e d , where a p p r o p r i a t e , f o r t h i s same se t of parameters i n t h e renovated w a t e r d u r i n g Phase 2 v e r s u s t h a t i n t h e ear l ie r s t u d y of C l i s e ( 7 ) , and t h e s e are shown i n Table 10. Of t h e parameters l i s t e d t h e r e , t h e o n l y means t h a t were s t a t i s t i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l w e r e t h o s e f o r t o t a l d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s , potassium, sodium and f l u o r i d e . Of t h e t e n parameters whose means were

25

Page 40: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 8. PHASE 2 - C O W A R I S O N OF CARCASS ANALYSES (WASHINGS) FROM PLANT ANE EXPERIMENTAL C H I L L E R S - MACRO CONSTITUENTS ( W / l )

P l a n t b i r d s (PB) Experimental b i r d s (EB) - - N x S. D. M a x N X S. D. M a x - Sur fac t an t s (MBAS) 21 0.081 0.075 0.27 16 0.052 0.032 0.12

Dissolved s o l i d s 6 220.3 51.1 320 6 222.5 68.7 320 C a + +

K+ 34 5.3 2.3 12.0 34 5.1 2.1 9- 9 34 17.9 8.4 40.6 34 15.6 3.9 28.0

Na+ 34 27.4 20.1 78.6 34 24.1 16.9 61.5 e++ 29 0.57 0.37 1.5 26 0.52 0.44 2.3 c1- 34 26. j 9.1 46.4 34 24.7 4.1 32.5

N03 - - -

6 0.20 0.13 0.44 6 0.17 0.075 0.31

s04 8 9.53 4.63 15.0 12 8.34 5.43 18.6

Note

S t a t i s t i c a l comparisons of t h e means of a l l t h e above parameters i n PB and EB show no d i f f e r e n c e s a t a l p h a 0.05.

d i f f e r e n t , f o u r w e r e h i g h e r i n Phase 2 , namely calcium, s u l f a t e , i r o n and l e a d . There were a few d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e n a t u r e and o p e r a t i o n of t h e re- n o v a t i o n system i n t h e two s t u d i e s . However, i n n e i t h e r s t u d y could any of t h e s e parameters a t t h e l e v e l s encountered b e regarded as r i s k s t o h e a l t h .

The r e s u l t s of t h e t w o - t a i l t-test comparions f o r Z v e r s u s E o n l y i n Phase 2 are n o t e d i n Tables 3 , 4 and 5. I n Table 3 , . fo r t h o s e parameters which could b e compared, on ly t h e means f o r t u r b i d i t y , c o l o r and n i t r a t e w e r e n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . For t h o s e which were d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , o n l y pH and a l k a l i n i t y w e r e lower i n E compared t o Z . The l i k e l y r e a s o n s f o r t h e s e lower v a l u e s i n t e r m s of c h l o r i n e a d d i t i o n were d i s c u s s e d ea r l i e r , as were t h e s o u r c e s of t h e o t h e r increments t h a t would y i e l d h i g h e r levels of c o n s t i t u e n t s i n E . O f t h e seven waste c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t y p e of parameters i n Table 4 , suspended s o l i d s , BOD and g r e a s e were s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n d i s t i n g u i s h - a b l e f o r Z and E. The d i s s o l v e d oxygen d i f f e r e n c e s are n o t of g r e a t i n t e r e s t , and t h e p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r t h e o t h e r s have been d i s c u s s e d . Of t h e s i x t r a c e e lements shown i n Table 5 , f l u o r i d e , i r o n and manganese could b e d i s - t i n g u i s h e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y , and i n each case w a s h i g h e r i n E t h a n i n Z . For t h e s e t h r e e t h e h i g h e r mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n A compared t o Z i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r a w w a s t e i t s e l f is c o n t r i b u t i n g g r e a t l y t o t h e i n c r e a s e d levels i n E.

26 c

Page 41: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

N

TABLE 9. PHASE 2 - COMPARISON OF CARCASS ANALYSES (WASHINGS) FROM PLANT AND EXPERIMENTAL CHILLERS

Plant birds (PB) Experimental birds (EB) - -

S. D. Max N X S. D. Max - -- - - X -- N

Waste characteristics (mg/l)

Total solids 6

Suspended solids 6 BOD5 6 Gre 8 s e 6

269 57 82 41

53 25

17 21

3 72 80

101

60

245

35 67 25

68 18

33 12

338 56 109

40

Organic-N 3 5.7 1 . 4 6.7 2 8.1 2.7 10

Ammonia -N 3 0.43 0.093 0.49 2 1.1 0 .1 1.2

Alkalinity 6 27 9.0 44 6 2 1 6.7 32 Trace elements (ua/l>

Copper

Iron

Manganese

Lead

Zinc

32 33 30 34 27

1 5 10 53 22 1 4 50

2.7 1.3 6 28 26 90 27 26 10 5

32 34 30 35 29

18

30 4.3 30 16

14 69 27 112

1.6 8

27 96 4.8 31

Note

Statistical comparisons performed only €or the trace elements show no differences for the means in PB and EB with the exception of zinc at alpha 0.05.

Page 42: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 10. A COMPARISON OF PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF RENOVATED WATER (E) IN THE PREVIOUS STUDY AND PHASE 2 (mg/l)

Previous study (7 ) Phase 2 - -

Constituent N X S .D N X S .D

Turbidity* 54 3.5 1 Color* 15 90 5 pH$< 20 7 6.6 1.4 Dissolved solids 158 335 129 Alkalinity" 10 1 104 57

Po t as s ium 20 11 9.5 Sodium 19 21 15 C a1 c i um+< 26 46 12 Chloridey: 16 2 117 53 Nit ra t eyk 89 31 8 Sulfate* 23 13 5

35 1.6 1.7 36 3.7 3.3 30 5.8 1.4 16 389 66 15 35 37

15 15 2.3 14 30 13 16 54 5.8 12 89 17 8 3.5 1.5 8 150 86

F1 uo r ide 23 0.21 0.13 14 0.15 0.054 Cop p e ryk 26 0.06 0.01 14 0.038 0.01 Iron$; 27 0.27 0.19 14 0.057 0.024 Lead * 8 0.01 0.01 15 0.024 0.014 Manganese* 10 0.02 0.02 14 0.0026 0.001

*The mean concentrations for these constituents were statistically differ- ent at alpha 0.05; all others were indistinguishable.

Note

In both studies in almost all cases the concentrations for the following constituents were below the sensitivity limit: selenium, silver, and pesticides. tive concentrations of cyanide up to 12 1.1811.

cadmium, chromium, mercury, In Phase 2 only there were a f e w posi-

28

Page 43: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

The r e s u l t s of t h e o n e - t a i l t - test comparing Z , A and E f o r a l l t h e r e l e v a n t parameters l i s t e d i n Tables 3 , 4 , and 5 are shown i n Table 11. It must b e emphasized t h a t t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t i s a measure of which para- meters are l a r g e r , n o t merely which are d i f f e r e n t . The f i r s t €our r e l a t i o n - s h i p c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d i n Table 11 correspond t o w a t e r s w i t h E parameters l a r g e r t h a n t h o s e f o r Z . However, among t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s t h e A concent ra - t i o n s b e a r a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Z and E , r e f l e c t i n g , t h e r e f o r e , d i f f e r e n t l i k e l y causes f o r t h e h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n E . Thus, f o r t h e f i rs t two ( A > E > Z and A = E > Z) where A i s g r e a t e r t h a n o r equal t o Z , t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s from t h e r a w w a s t e a r e t h e probable s o u r c e . For t h e t h i r d ( E > Z = A) o t h e r f a c t o r s , i n v o l v i n g i n c r e m e n t a l s o u r c e s subsequent t o t h e r a w waste emiss ion , are r e s p o n s i b l e . For ca lc ium, t h i s can b e a t t r i b u t e d t o l i m e a d d i t i o n i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system. Z) i t is a l s o apparent t h a t t h e r e a r e i n c r e m e n t a l s o u r c e s between A and Z . These l i k e l y s o u r c e s have been d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y f o r ammonia, c h l o r i d e and s u l f a t e . Corros ion could account f o r t h e i n c r e a s e i n i r o n .

For t h e f o u r t h c a t e g o r y (E > A >

The n e x t f o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w i t h t h e means f o r E e q u a l t o t h o s e f o r Z , a l s o each i n v o l v e a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o A . For t h e f i r s t (A > E = Z ) t h e r e i s an i n c r e m e n t a l l o a d i n t h e waste which i s reduced s u b s e q u e n t l y , e i t h e r i n t h e lagoons o r r e n o v a t i o n system. does apply t o t h e n e x t r e l a t i o n s h i p (E = Z) f o r c o l o r and t u r b i d i t y , b u t d a t a f o r A were n o t a v a i l a b l e . a b l e i n a l l t h r e e w a t e r s (A = E = Z), w h i l e n i t r a t e w a s lower i n A , b u t e q u a l i n E and Z (A < E = Z). A s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , n i t r i f i c a t i o n - d e n i t r i - f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s e s were probably i n e f f e c t i n t h e lagoon sys tems, and could account f o r t h e s e n i t r a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a long w i t h decomposi t ion of t h e p r o t e i n a c e o u s m a t t e r i n t h e was tewater . The l i k e l y i n f l u e n c e s on pH (E < Z = A) have been d i s c u s s e d .

T h i s could a l s o and probably

Copper was t h e o n l y parameter i n d i s t i n g u i s h -

A s no ted i n Tables 6 and 7 f o r t h e c h i l l e r w a t e r s , PC and E C , t h e two- t a i l t-test i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r t h e macro c o n s t i t u e n t s t h e means were a l l d i f f e r e n t , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of sodium; i n c o n t r a s t , t h e f i v e trace element means were i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . F i n a l l y , and a l s o as noted i n Tables 8 and 9 , s imilar comparisons of t h e processed c a r c a s s e s show no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r - ences between t h e mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of any of t h e macro o r t r a c e c o n s t i t - u e n t s , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of z i n c , which w a s h i g h e r i n t h e c a r c a s s e s (PB) processed i n t h e p l a n t c h i l l e r s . S t a t i s t i c a l comparisons were n o t s i m i l a r l y made f o r t h e waste t y p e parameters l i s t e d i n Table 9 , a l t h o u g h ammonia i s h i g h e r i n E C , and t h i s h a s been d i s c u s s e d .

For t h e most p a r t t h e r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , w i t h t h e except- i o n s n o t e d , between t h e means of t h e v a r i o u s p h y s i c a l and i n o r g a n i c chemical parameters f o r t h e carcasses, PB and E B , p r o c e s s e d * i n t h e p l a n t and e x p e r i - mental c h i l l e r s , i n s p i t e of such d i f f e r e n c e s f o r t h e comparable c o n s t i t u e n t s i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e w a t e r s o u r c e s , Z and E , and c h i l l e r s , PC and EC. The q u e s t i o n arises t h e n a s t o why t h e l a t t e r e x e r t v e r y l i t t l e , i f any i n f l u e n c e on t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s measured i n t h e c a r c a s s e s . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t f o r some such parameters any uptake by t h e c a r c a s s e s i s i r r e v e r s i b l e i n t h a t t h e r e i s s o r p t i o n onto o r i n t o t h e f l e s h , w i t h o u t subsequent l e a c h i n g i n t h e r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t p e r i o d i n which t h e c a r c a s s e s are ana lyzed by e q u i l i b r a t i o n (washing) w i t h d i s t i l l e d water. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s may o c c u r , t h i s

29

Page 44: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 11. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN PHASE 2 AT THREE SAMPLING POINTS (E, Z, AND A) AS OBTAINED FROM THE ONE-TAILED STATISTICAL TESTS (AT ALPHA 0.05)

Relationship

A >E >Z

Parameter

Dissolved solids, Magnesium, Manganese, Organic-N, Potassium, Sodium, Total solids

A = E > Z Fluoride

E > Z = A Calcium, Dissolved oxygen

E >A > Z Ammonia-N, Chloride, Iron,Sulfate

A > E = Z BOD5, Grease, Lead, Suspended solids Zinc

E = Z *Color, "Turbidity

A = E = Z Copper

A < E = Z Nitrate

-__

*No data for raw wastewater, A, collected for this parameter Note

A = Raw waste E = Renovated water Z = Treated well water

30

Page 45: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

could n o t be d e t e c t e d d i r e c t l y by t h e measurements performed i n t h i s s t u d y . However, a s shown i n Table 11, only r a r e l y , such a s f o r n i t r a t e , w a s t h e conc.entrat ion of a parameter i n t h e raw w a s t e w a t e r , A , lower t h a n t h a t i n Z , t h e t r e a t e d w a t e r s o u r c e f o r t h e p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t . Thus, i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o i n f e r i n most i n s t a n c e s t h a t i n s t e a d of a n e t s o r p t i o n t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o b e a n e t l e a c h i n g from t h e c a r c a s s e s t o t h e c h i l l e r s , and then t o t h e was tewater .

A more d i r e c t way t o assess t h i s q u e s t i o n i s through c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p o s s i b l e mass-balance r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r t h e parameters ana lyzed i n t h e c a r c a s s washings r e l a t i v e t o t h e c h i l l e r and r e l a t e d f i n i s h e d water s o u r c e s . By r e g u l a t i o n of t h e Department of A g r i c u l t u r e t h e maximum a l l o w a b l e uptake of w a t e r by t h e c a r c a s s e s i n t h e c h i l l e r i s 1 2 p e r c e n t . A t t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t a more t y p i c a l up take i s 6 t o 8 p e r c e n t . The sampling procedure involved shaking each c a r c a s s , a f t e r i t s exposure t o t h e c h i l l e r , w i t h 1500 m l of d i s t i l l e d water which presumably mixed o r e q u i l i b r a t e d w i t h w a t e r t aken up by t h e c a r c a s s from t h e c h i l l e r . A f t e r t h e mixing, t h e washings w e r e c o l l e c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s . During Phase 2 t h e average c a r c a s s ("dressed") weight w a s approximate ly 1 . 3 kg (about 2.9 l b s ) . Assuming a maximum uptake of 1 2 p e r c e n t water i n c h i l l e r , t h i s cor responds t o 156 m l (0.12 x 1300) . I t can then b e assumed t h a t t h i s 156 m l mixes comple te ly w i t h t h e 1500 m l of t h e added d i s t i l l e d w a t e r , s o t h a t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t any c o n s t i t u e n t s a r e p r e s e n t i n t h e water t a k e n up by t h e c a r c a s s e s from t h e c h i l l e r s , they become d i l u t e d i n t h e washings by a f a c t o r of 156/(1500 + 156) which e q u a l s 0.0942. I f t h e r e i s s imply a d i l u t i o n of t h e c h i l l e r water t a k e n up d i r e c t - l y by t h e c a r c a s s e s , and no o t h e r f a c t o r s a r e o p e r a t i n g , t h e n t h e c a r c a s s washings PB and E B , should e q u a l , f o r any parameter , t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c h i l l e r , PC and E C , m u l t i p l i e d by 0.0942. L e s s l i k e l y , b u t a t l e a s t worthy of examinat ion , i s a s imi l a r p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e f i n i s h e d waters and t h e r e s p e c t i v e c a r c a s s washings. .

The r e s u l t s of such c a l c u l a t i o n s based on t h i s assumption of s imple d i l u t i o n are shown i n Tables 1 2 and 13. I n t h e former , f o r s e v e r a l p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , w a s t e t y p e p a r a m e t e r s , and one m e t a l , manganese, t h i s w a s done only f o r Z and E , n o t PC and EC, s i n c e t h e l a t t e r measurements w e r e n o t a v a i l a b l e . These c a l c u l a t e d ( t h e o r e t i c a l ) c o n c e n t r a t i o n s are shown i n Table 1 2 f o r t h e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t and e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r . With t h e ex- c e p t i o n of ammonia i n t h e exper imenta l c h i l l e r , i t i s clear t h a t i n each c a s e t h e q u a n t i t i e s measured i n t h e c a r c a s s e s (washings) were c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e c a l c u l a t e d from exposures t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e w a t e r s u p p l i e s f o r t h e cor responding c h i l l e r s . The ammonia i n t h e c a r c a s s e s i n t h e e x p e r i - mental c h i l l e r could indeed have been i n f l u e n c e d by t h a t i n E water. Also , i f i n s t e a d of t h e maximum a l l o w a b l e 12 p e r c e n t w a t e r up take , t h e more real- i s t i c 6 t o 8 p e r c e n t were used i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n , t h i s would correspond t o an even l a r g e r d i l u t i o l i f a c t o r and lowering of t h e c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e of 1.8 mg/l f o r ammonia t o 0 .9 t o 1 . 2 mg/l , v e r y c l o s e t o t h a t a c t u a l l y measured on t h e average i n EB d u r i n g Phase 2 . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e f a c t t h a t f o r none of t h e parameters l i s t e d i n Table 1 2 , i n c l u d i n g ammonia, w e r e t h e mean con- c e n t r a t i o n s f o r t h e c a r c a s s e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , i n s p i t e of such d i F f e r e n c e s f o r f i v e of t h e e i g h t parameters i n t h e Z and E waters, l e n d s f u r t h e r s u p p o r t t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e l a t t e r waters w e r e n o t making s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e levels i n t h e c a r c a s s e s .

31

Page 46: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

'TABLE 1 2 . COMPARISONS OF SEVERAL PHASE 2 ANALYSES OF CARCASSES (WASHING) I N PLANT AND EXPERIMENTAL CHILLERS WITH THEORETICAL CONCENTRA- TIONS (mg/l) CALCULATED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE WATER SOURCES, Z AND E

P r o c e s s i n g p l a n t

C a l c u l a t e d " Measured Parameter from Z i n PB

Experimental c h i l l e r

C a l c u l a t e d * Measured from E i n EB

T o t a l s o l i d s 16 2 70 39 250

Suspended s o l i d s 1 . 0 57 1 . 6 33

Dissolved s o l i d s 1 L 220 37 220

BOD5 0 . 5 0 82 0 . 4 0 67

Grease 0.49 4 1 0 . 4 8 25

0 r g an i c-N 0 . 0 0 1 3 5.7 0.16 8.1

Ammo n i a-N 0.0016 0 . 4 3 1 . 8 1.1

Manganese 0.17 2 . 7 (ug/1)

0 . 2 4 4 . 3

"Assuming 12% water uptake by c a r c a s s i n t h e c h i l l e r , fo l lowed by i t s d i l u t i o n w i t h 1500 ml of d i s t i l l e d w a t e r i n t h e measurement p r o c e s s . The v a l u e s t h u s c a l c u l a t e d from Z and E are o b t a i n e d by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n Tables 3, 4 , and 5 by 0 . 0 9 4 2 .

32

Page 47: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 13. ADDITIONAL COMPARISONS OF PHASE 2 ANALYSES OF CARCASSES (WASHINGS) IN PLANT AND EXPERIMENTAL CHILLERS WITH THEORETICAL CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE WATER SOURCES, Z AND E, AS WELL AS CHILLER WATERS, PC AND EC

Processing plant

*Calculated from Found

Par ame t e r Z PC in PB

Experimental chiller

"Calculated from Found

E EC in EB

Concentrations in mg/l

S ur f ac tan t s 0 .009 0.021 0.081 0.004 0.04 0.05

C a1 c i um 3.8 3.7 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.1

Po t as s ium 0.27 3.5 18 1.4 2.4 16

Sodium 0.70 7.5 27 2.8 8.9 24

Magnesium 0.23 0.31 0.57 0.29 0.28 0.52

Chloride 1.1 11 27 8.3 19 25

Nitrate 0.38 0.083 0.20 0.33 0.25 0.17

Sulfate 0.91 1.4 9.5 14 16 8.3

Concentrations in pg/l

Copper 3.9 4.4 15 3.7 2.8 18

Iron 1.8 4.5 22 5.4 3.8 30

Lead 2.0 5.2 28 2.2 2.1 30

Zinc 2.4 2.7 27 2.6 3.0 16

-~ I_ --- - -

*Assuming 12% water uptake by carcass in the chiller, followed by its dilution with 1500 ml of distilled water in the measurement process. The values thus calculated from Z, E, PC, and EC are obtained by multiplying their respective concentrations in Tables 3, 5, 6 and 7 by 0.0942.

33

Page 48: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

T h i s a n a l y t i c a l approach can b e made w i t h g r e a t e r a s s u r a n c e f o r t h e parameters shown i n Table 1 3 s i n c e f o r t h e s e , t h e c h i l l e r w a t e r a n a l y s e s are a l s o a v a i l a b l e . Among a l l t h e s e macro and t r a c e p a r a m e t e r s , on ly t h e means f o r z i n c w e r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i n t h e carcasses (PB and EB); y e t a t l e a s t 7 of t h e 1 2 w e r e d i f f e r e n t between Z and E , as w e l l as between PC and EC. A l l of t h e t h e o r e t i c a l v a l u e s c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h e f o u r trace c o n s t i t u e n t s were c o n s i d e r a b l y below t h o s e a c t u a l l y measured i n t h e c a r c a s s e s , b o t h f o r PB and EB. Among t h e n i n e macro c o n s t i t u e n t s , when comparing t h e concentra- t i o n s c a l c u l a t e d from Z , o n l y calcium and n i t r a t e were a t l e v e l s c l o s e t o t h o s e found i n PB; and o n l y ca lc ium, magnesium, n i t r a t e , and s u l f a t e were comparable f o r E compared t o EB. These same r e l a t i o n s h i p s apply when com- p a r i n g t h e v a l u e s c a l c u l a t e d f o r PC t o PB, and f o r EC t o EB. A d d i t i o n a l l y f o r t h e l a t t e r , s u r f a c t a n t s are a l s o comparable.

A s w a s t h e c a s e f o r ammonia i n Table 1 2 , t h e " c a l c u l a t e d " s u l f a t e s of Table 1 3 are about t w i c e t h o s e a c t u a l l y found i n EB, and t h i s a l s o could b e e x p l a i n e d i f t h e a c t u a l uptake of w a t e r from t h e c h i l l e r w a s t h e more real- i s t i c 6 p e r c e n t t h a n t h e maximum 12 p e r c e n t p e r m i t t e d . The f a c t t h a t t h e v a l u e s t a b u l a t e d f o r calcium, magnesium, and p o s s i b l y n i t r a t e are r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t i n a l l columns would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s probably no major t r a n s - f e r i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n from c a r c a s s t o c h i l l e r , e i t h e r a t t h e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t o r i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r . For many of t h e o t h e r c o n s t i t u e n t s t h e g r a d u a l i n c r e a s e from c a l c u l a t e d Z t o PC, and t h e n t o t h a t found i n PB, and t h e comparable i n c r e a s e i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r system would l e a d t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e i s a n e t f l u x o r l e a c h i n g from t h e c a r c a s s e s t o t h e c h i l l e r , r a t h e r t h a n t h e r e v e r s e . That i s , t h e s e c o n s t i t - u e n t s measured i n t h e c a r c a s s washings are coming p r i m a r i l y from t h e car - casses themselves , r a t h e r t h a n t h e c h i l l e r s ; a t t h e same t i m e t h e y are con- t r i b u t i n g t o t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n levels i n t h e c h i l l e r s , and t h e r e b y i n c r e a s - i n g them compared t o t h o s e i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e water s u p p l i e s , Z and E . Among a l l t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s shown i n Tables 1 2 and 13, perhaps o n l y f o r ammonia and s u l f a t e i n Phase 2 i s t h e r e some evidence t o conclude t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r might have been from t h e water t o t h e carcasses, a t least f o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r system. And y e t , even f o r t h e s e parameters t h e PB and EB mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s w e r e n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s e u p t a k e s , i f t h e y were indeed o c c u r r i n g i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r , were n o t s u b s t a n t i a l .

ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS

A v a r i e t y of measurements of g r o s s o r g a n i c parameters and s p e c i f i c o r g a n i c chemicals have been performed d u r i n g and subsequent t o Phase 2. These i n c l u d e BOD5, o r g a n i c n i t r o g e n , CCE (carbon ch loroform e x t r a c t ) , ha lo- gena ted methanes, MBAS ( s u r f a c t a n t s ) , p e s t i c i d e s , t o t a l o r g a n i c carbon (TOC) , and s p e c i f i c o r g a n i c s e x t r a c t e d w i t h methylene c h l o r i d e and i d e n t i f i e d by g a s chromatography-mass spec t romet ry (GC-MS).

Analyses were performed f o r n i n e p e s t i c i d e s , s i x of which are s p e c i - f i e d i n t h e E.P.A. I n t e r i m Primary Dr inking Water R e g u l a t i o n s ( e n d r i n , l i n d a n e , methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T) and t h r e e o t h e r s (ch lordane , h e p t a c h l o r , and h e p t a c h l o r epoxide) . Samples f o r p e s t i c i d e a n a l y s i s were c o l l e c t e d on t h r e e s e p a r a t e days i n a three-week p e r i o d and

34

Page 49: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

the results are reported in Table 14. These analyses were discontinued when all samples from the second and third days were negative. No positive values were obtained for the E or Z samples, only for A, the raw waste, and PB and PC, the carcasses and chiller water in the plant. Although some pesticides obviously are present in the carcasses, probably as a result of their known presence in the poultry feed, and do thereby contaminate the chiller water, they were not detected in the renovated water and cannot be considered a health risk were this water to be recycled into the poultry processing plant.

On four successive weeks in November and December 1976 volatile halo- genated methanes were measured, the results being shown in Table 15. The only organic found by this technique at quantifiable levels in the renovated water, E, was chloroform, the maximum concentration being 3 micrograms per liter. In some of the treated well water samples, Z, chloroform was measured at concentrations of less than one microgram per liter, and one showed traces of carbon tetrachloride and dibromochloromethane. For reference, the mean chloroform concentration in finished U.S. public water supplies was reported to be 21 micrograms per liter in the National Organics Reconnaissance Survey (22). Although these renovated water samples are higher in chloroform com- pared to the treated well water, they are still very low compared to the concentrations found typically in public water supplies, and well below the 100 ppb (pg/l) limit proposed for total trihalomethanes by the EPA (26).

On two separate days subsequent to Phase 2 samples of E and 2 water were collected, extracted by methylene chloride, concentrated by distillation and evaporation of the latter, and analyzed qualitatively by GC-MS. Although not confirmed by comparison with knowns, the organics presumptively identified are listed in Table 16. Another set of compounds was also found in both types of water, namely halogenated and hydrohalogenated derivatives of cyclo- hexene. However, research here and elsewhere has confirmed that this is an artifact resulting from contamination of the highly purified methylene chloride with cyclohexene. As is apparent, none of the compounds identified and listed in Table 16 are chlorinated. The most likely source of the fatty acids, at least in the renovated water, is the waste from the poultry, and, therefore, is of no direct concern. In the renovated water dioctyl and dibutyl phthalate were identified, but only the former in the treated well water. Both of these compounds are used as plasticizers and have been widely found in a variety of waters, including potable municipal supplies (20).

A summary of the total organic carbon (TOC) analyses of samples taken on five successive weeks in November and December 1976 is shown in Table 17. Each individual TOC value is a result of at least two measurements on the same sample, the TOC being the difference between the total carbon and the inorganic carbon analyses. Although the mean of the TOC values for the renovated water samples at 20.0 mg/l was higher than that of the treated well water, 14.5 mg/l, they could not be considered different statistically by the t-test at alpha 0.05. Nevertheless, it is apparent that there is an increased TOC load in the system, as judged by the mean concentrations in the first lagoon ( L l ) , 50.5 mg/l; the second lagoon (C' and C), 35-39 mg/l; and the microstrainer effluent (D), 39.8 mg/l. It appears that there is some substantial reduction in the f loccu la t ion - sed imen ta t ion basin, since its effluent (X) has a lower mean concentration of 22.4 mg/l, about equal

35

Page 50: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABL;E 14. PHASE 2 - PESTICIDE ANALYSIS

Number of samples ana lyzed

Date

2/26 2* 2 - 1* 1%- - 3/9 1 1 1 2 1 - 3/15 2 2 2 3 3 - *

Samples which con ta ined p o s i t i v e v a l u e s f o r t h e p e s t i c i d e s ana lyzed

P e s t i c i d e s Analyzed and Found ( u g / l ) **

S e n s i t i v i t y C r i t e r i o n P o s i t i v e v a l u e s PB PC - A P e s t i c i d e L i m i t Value - -

- - - Chlordane 0.2-1 3+** Endr in 0.1

Heptachlor 0.06

Hept. Epoxide 0.1-0.2

0 . 1 0 . 1 - 3.2

0 .1 0.15 0.42 0.09

0.1

*** *** - - -

Lindane 0.06 4 0.06 0.14 0.08 - - - Methoxychlor 0.5-1 100

Toxaphene 3 -6 5 2,k-D 0.05-1 100

2,495-T 0.5-1 10

- - -

- - -

- - -

**E.P.A. N a t i o n a l I n t e r i m Primary Drinking Water Regs. , e x c e p t f o r : ***Proposed as above, hi:t n o t adopted

t o t h a t of E. a l s o r e l a t i v e l y h i g h i n TOC, as i s t h e r iver water (R) downstream from t h e e f f l u e n t from t h e lagoon. Although t h e renovated water i s r e l a t i v e l y h i g h i n TOC, i t can b e concluded t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of t h e o r g a n i c matter r e s p o n s i b l e i s a l r e a d y p r e s e n t i n t h e w e l l waters used as t h e w a t e r supply . I n a d d i t i o n , any i n c r e m e n t a l o r g a n i c l o a d is p r i m a r i l y due t o t h e o r g a n i c matter from t h e ch ickens themselves , such as t h e f a t t y a c i d s i d e n t i f i e d i n Table 16 . Also as d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o Table 1 2 , t h e o r g a n i c materials r e l a t e d t o BOD and g r e a s e , as measured i n t h e carcasses PB and EB, are much h i g h e r t h a n t h e v a l u e s t h a t are c a l c u l a t e d t o b e c o n t r i b u t e d

The samples from t h e t h r e e u n t r e a t e d w e l l s , Y 1 , Y2 and Y 3 , are

36

Page 51: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 15. HALOGENATED METHANE CONTENT OF SELECTED WATER SAMPLES TAKEN FROM NOVEMBER 16, 1976 TO DECEMBER 8, 1976, INCLUSIVE

~ ~~~

Sample Approximate chloroform concentration (ppb) 11/16/76 11/23/76 11/30/76 12/8/76

c -1 c -2

C ' -1

c ' -2

D -1

D -2

E -1 3* E -2 1"

x -1 x -2 z -1 z -2 <1

Lagoon 1-1 U

Lagoon 1 - 2

R ive r -1

River -2

<1* **

* *

0 Trace

0 0

0 0

0

0

2-3 2 -3 Trace

0 Trace 0

0 Trace

0 0

Trace 0 0

0 0 0

0

-

0

0

Trace

1-2

0

0

0

0

*Denotes a n a l y s i s performed by Calgon which a c t s as a means of comparing t h e t echn ique o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h wi th t h a t of an o u t s i d e l a b o r a t o r y .

**This Z sample which w a s ana lyzed by Calgon showed t r a c e s of C C l q and HCBr2C1; none of t h e o t h e r samples ana lyzed by t h e l a b o r a t o r y showed t h e p re sence of any ha logena ted methanes o t h e r t h a n chloroform.

37

Page 52: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 16. ORGANIC CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED QUALITATIVELY BY GC-MS ANALYSIS CF METHYLATED (WITH DIAZOMETHANE) METHYLENE CHLORIDE EXTRACTS OF WATER SAMPLES

Chemicals found* Treated

well water (Z) Renovated water (E)

Dibutyl phthalate

Dioctyl phthalate

Methylated no mal fatty acids r

c-10

c-11

c-12

C-14

C-15

C-16

C-18

NF

+

NF

NF

+ + NF

+ +

+ +

. - . ~~

"Present (+); not found (NF)

*C-n refers to an lrnr' carbon fatty acid

38

Page 53: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

W W

TABLE 17 . TOC ANALYSIS OF SELECTED SITES SUBSEQUENT TO PHASE 2 (ppm)

Total carbon Inorganic carbon TOC - - -

Sample Number Range X S.D. Range X S.D. Range X S.D.

C '

C

D E

L1 R

X

y1

y2

y3 Z

~

2

4 2

8 2

2

6 2

2

2

10

34-36 35-45 35-61 15-45 50-55

16-18 20-29

35-42

20-25

37-41 6-42

35.0 1 . 4

39- 0 7.3

118.0 18.4

22.0 5.4

52.5 3.5

17. o 1 . 4

22.7 1.8

38. 5 4.9

22.5 3.5

39.0 2.8

20.5 13.8

0

0-0.5

0.5-16

0-14

1-3 0.5-1

0 -1

14.5-16 1 4

15.5 0 -16

0

0.25

8.25

2.00

2.00

0.50

0.25

15-25

14.00

15- 50

6. i o

0

- 0.4

10.9

4.9

0

0

0.4

1.1

0

0

7 .2

34-36 35.0 1 . 4

34- 5-45 38.8 4.9

34.5-45 39.8 7.4

15-31 20.0 5.1

h9-52 50.5 2.2

17.5-19 16.5 1 . 2

19-28.5 22.4 3.2

19-27.5 23.3 6 . 2

6-11 8.5 3.6

21.5-25.5 23.5 2.8

6-26 14.5 7.0

Page 54: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

from their respective water sources, Z and E. It is thus clear that the substantial exposures of the carcasses to organic matter in the chillers are mostly due to washings from carcasses previously moving through the counter- current flow of water.

Several carbon chloroform extract (CCE) measurements were made, both during Phase 2 and at other times. These measurements were done by the newer miniaturized two-day sampling technique ( 5 ) , for which a standard had been proposed of 0.7 mg/l compared to the 0.2 value for the older technique in the 1962 PHS standards (28). In fact, it was shown in a comparison of the two techniques that the newer method measures about 6.7 times as much CCE as the older one (5). Over a period of approximately fifteen months, including the Phase 2 period, the CCE analyses on the renovated water (16 samples) shown in Table 18 averaged 0.6 mg/l, with a standard deviation of 0.4 mg/l. For comparison, a single measurement of the normally treated well water also had a CCE value of 0.6 mg/l. These results are consistent with the observa- tion made above that, although apparently somewhat higher for E, there is no statistical difference between the TOC averages for Z and E samples.

MICROBIOLOGY AND RELATED

Residual Drug Assay

The purpose of the residual drug assay was to measure antibiotic acti- vity in the poultry, wastewater, and renovated water that could result from the addition of such drugs in the feed of the poultry. It was ascertained for example, that bacitracin is added at concentrations of about 5 g per metric ton of feed.

Initially, samples were tested using Bacillus .subtilis as the test organism and seed agar (antibiotic medium no. 1) as the test substrate. This procedure was, however, modified to enable the detection of bacitracin and sulfa drugs (incorporated in the feed of the chickens) by employing Bacillus cereus as the test organism and Mueller-Hinton agar as the test substrate, respectively. Only the samples collected on the last two sampling days in Phase 2 were tested by the modified procedure. Samples were tested on six sampling days in Phase 2 for wastewater, renovated water, treated well water, experimental and plant chiller water, and carcasses. All samples were nega- tive. That is, zones of inhibition, indicating the presence of drugs, were not observed on the assay agar plates for any of the samples. The control antibiotic discs showed zones of inhibition. Diameters of the zones of inhibition ranged from 18 mm to 22 mm for 1 unit of penicillin-G per ml using Bacillus subtilis as the test organisms, and from 29 mm to 30 mm for 1 mg of streptomycin-sulfate per ml using Bacillus cereus as the test organism.

Subsequent to Phase 2 a variety of similar samples were tested using Sarcina lutea, which is more sensitive to bacitracin (19) than is Bacillus cereus. All such samples were similarly found to be negative. It may then be concluded that either the bacitracin is metabolized and, hence, not pre- sent in the carcass washings and wastewater, and/or this residual drug assay is not sufficiently sensitive.

40

Page 55: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 18. CARBON CHLOROFORM EXTRACT CONCENTRATIONS (CCE)

1 9 76 week CCE 1977 week CCE s amp 1 ed mg/l sampled mg/ 1

U n t r e a t e d w e l l

- - 318 0 . 5 8

Renovated water

3/15a 0 .96 4/14 0.71

3/29 1 . 2 6/16 0.42

4/19 1 . 5 6 /28 0.24

5 / 1 8 0.18 6/30 0.35

619 0.59

6/15 0.36

6 / 2 3 0.44

712 0.22

7/16 0.61

7/28 0.58 0 . 6 1

11/15 0.52

Renovatedwater - Ari thmet icmean 0.59 mg/l

S tandard d e v i a t i o n 0.36 mg/l

a s t o r e d water

4 1

Page 56: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

Coliform. F e c a l Col i form and T o t a l P l a t e Count

The t o t a l c o l i f o r m and f e c a l c o l i f o r m r e s u l t s f o r t h e t r e a t e d w e l l water ( Z ) w e r e n e g a t i v e on f i v e of t h e s i x sampling days t e s t e d (10 samples) d u r i n g Phase 2. The MPN r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e organisms as performed by t h e MHD Cumber- land l a b o r a t o r y a c t u a l l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e w e r e less t h a n 2 organisms p e r 100 m l , and t h i s w i l l b e c i t e d h e r e as n e g a t i v e . On one sampling day two of t h e Z samples w e r e r e p o r t e d a s each having 2 .2 organisms p e r 100 m l f o r b o t h t o t a l and f e c a l c o l i f o r m s . T h i s can occur o c c a s i o n a l l y and s i n c e i t w a s a s i n g l e o c c u r r e n c e , i t i s n o t of p a r t i c u l a r concern.

The renovated water ( E ) w a s ana lyzed f o r b a c t e r i a on e i g h t days d u r i n g and j u s t p r i o r t o t h e Phase 2 p e r i o d , 19 samples b e i n g t a k e n . On s i x of t h e e i g h t days t h e t o t a l and f e c a l c o l i f o r m r e s u l t s were less t h a n 2 organisms p e r 100 m l . On A p r i l 5 and 1 2 f o u r E samples were ana lyzed . The r e p o r t e d t o t a l c o l i f o r m ranged from 1 5 t o >240 organisms p e r 100 m l , and t h e f e c a l c o l i f o r m from 9 t o >240. However, t h e r e i s a s t r o n g l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e s e E sample r e s u l t s w e r e confused w i t h t h o s e of EC, t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r water. The r e s u l t s f o r t h e l a t t e r f o r t h o s e two weeks w e r e r e p o r t e d as neg- a t i v e f o r c o l i f o r m and f e c a l c o l i f o r m , a h i g h l y u n l i k e l y r e s u l t compared t o all o t h e r EC and PC c o l i f o r m a n a l y s e s which were >240.

The t o t a l b a c t e r i a l p l a t e count a n a l y s e s on t h e samples d e s c r i b e d above i n d i c a t e d a maximum v a l u e of 25 organisms p e r m l f o r t h e Z samples and 1 5 f o r E , except f o r t h e f o u r samples which are b e l i e v e d t o b e i n c o r r e c t . For t h e s e l a t t e r f o u r , t h e v a l u e s ranged from 1 t o 2,000. A q u i t e r e a s o n a b l e t o t a l p l a t e count f o r munic ipa l water i s 500 p e r m l .

For s e v e r a l months subsequent t o Phase 2 samples of t h e renovated w a t e r were taken and ana lyzed f o r c o l i f o r m s and s t a n d a r d p l a t e counts . Of t h e 59 such c o l i f o r m a n a l y s e s , 55 w e r e n e g a t i v e (MI" < 2 p e r 100 ml) . The f o u r p o s i t i v e samples had MI" v a l u e s of 3 , 2 .2 , 3, and 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Of t h e 54 samples ana lyzed f o r s t a n d a r d p l a t e c o u n t , 28 were less t h a n one p e r m l . The remaining 26 had a mean s t a n d a r d p l a t e count of 3.46 p e r m l , w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 3.75.

I n t h e ear l ie r s t u d y of Clise ( 7 ) , i t w a s r e p o r t e d t h a t f o r 352 samples ana lyzed f o r b a c t e r i a , c o u n t s were o b t a i n e d c o n s i s t e n t l y as f o l l o w s : <3 c o l i f o r m p e r 100 m l ; and <1 f e c a l s t r e p p e r 100 m l . From t h i s e a r l i e r s t u d y , as w e l l as t h a t of Phase 2 and s u b s e q u e n t l y , i t is clear t h a t t h e renovated w a t e r h a s low b a c t e r i a l counts . The many samples c o n s i s t e n t l y low i n b a c t e r - i a a l s o conf i rm t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e f o u r h i g h count samples i n Phase 2 were a r e s u l t of m i s l a b e l i n g of t h e samples , as d i s c u s s e d above. A l so , as w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d below, no renovated w a t e r samples have y i e l d e d any e n t e r i c pathogens.

I n a d d i t i o n , as emphasized throughout t h i s r e p o r t , i n a c t u a l r e u s e t h e renovated water would receive a d d i t i o n a l f u l l - s c a l e water t r e a t m e n t , i n c l u d - i n g d i s i n f e c t i o n w i t h c h l o r i n e . It i s t h u s a p p a r e n t t h a t i n such r e u s e t h e 50/50 mixture of t r e a t e d w e l l and renovated water should b e v e r y low i n b a c t e r i a l contaminat ion and u n l i k e l y i n t h a t r e s p e c t t o c o n s t i t u t e a r i s k t o human h e a l t h .

42

Page 57: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

Salmonella Isolations

One of the microbiological constituents studied was Salmonella because of its well-established occurrence in poultry and in wastewater from poultry processing plants. Initially, using SBG enrichment and BGA media, Salmonella organisms were isolated only from the untreated wastewater (A), the poultry carcasses (PB), and the plant chiller water (PC) during Phase 2. Table 19 summarizes the data on the samples taken and those that were positive. A total of 37 such isolates were identified as Salmonella and speciated as S. enteritidis. well water), the lagoons, C or C' (the unchlorinated and chlorinated efflu- ents from lagoon 2 respectively), EC or EB (the experimental chiller water and carcasses exposed therein, respectively), nor from any other point in the water renovation system itself.

None were isolated from E (the renovated water), Z (the treated

Quantitation of Salmonella by the ME" method was attempted for the samples collected during Phase 2 using SBG as enrichment. However, even though each morphologically different type of oxidase-negative, pink-colored colony was picked from each BGA plate and identified, the majority of these colonies were non-glucose-fermenters (i.e., false positive organisms), rather than Salmonella. The large numbers of these false positive organisms made the attempts to quantitate Salmonella by the MPN index using SBG unreliable and irreproducible.

Another broth recommended by others (1, 9, 11) to support the growth of Salmonella is TET enrichment. For inoculated water samples in our labor- atory MPN indices for s. typhimurium were significantly higher at the 95% confidence level in the TET broth than in the SBG enrichment. Subsequent to Phase 2 TET was, therefore, used to attempt to quantitate Salmonella. For such water samples collected from the poultry plant the incidence of false positive organisms was less than 50 percent. MF" indices of Salmonella ranged from 0.04 to 7.30 . For 14 of 17 Salmonella positive samples ( 8 2 % ) , ME" indices were <1 Salmonella per 100 ml, indicating relatively low recovery. Although the still relatively high percentage of false positives precluded accepting these MI" results with confidence, the sensitivity of the TET enrichment was greater than that of SBG, as judged both by the laboratory inoculation comparison and the fact that more samples were positive. Thus, in contrast to the Phase 2 results with SBG shown in Table 19, using TET all 6 of the wastewater (A) samples were positive, as were 11 of 15 lagoon samples (in comparison to 0 of 16 in Phase 2 with SBG). As would be expected, all the finished well water (Z) or renovated water (E) samples were negative.

Salmonellae were isolated from the untreated wastewater and the first lagoon, using BGA both with and without sodium sulfadiazine. However, they were isolated from the second lagoon only on the medium supplemented with sodium sulfadiazine. False positive organisms were never isolated from the BGA medium containing sodium sulfadiazine. In contrast, 46 to 7 7 % of the organisms isolated from BGA not supplemented with sodium sulfadiazine were identified as false positive organisms. These data indicate that sodium sulfadiazine was effectively inhibiting the false positive organisms from growing on the BGA plates.

43

Page 58: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 19. SALMONELLA ISOLATIONS IN PHASE 2 AT VARIOUS SAMPLE SITES USING SELENITE BRILLIANT GREEN ENRICHMENT AND BRILLIANT GREEN AGAR

No. of Total Number Type of weeks no. of positive for sample sampled samples Salmonella*

Carcass Plant (PB) Experimental (EB)

Chiller Plant (PC) Experimental (EC)

4 4

3 3

Wastewater Raw (A) 6 Lagoon (various sites) 3

Finished Water Well (Z) 3

13 5 14 0

3 1 3 0

12 7 16 0

12 0 Renovated (E) 7 26 0

>'cIn each case identified either group B or C

by serotyping as Salmonella enteritidis,

2 '

MT" indices in 6 out of the 10 Salmonella positive samples were not significantly different at the 95% confidence level using the BGA with and without sodium sulfadiazine. The other four samples positive for Salmonella had significantly higher'" indices on the BGA medium with sodium sulfa- diazine. It is likely that these higher MPN indices can be attributed to the inhibition of the false positive organisms by sodium sulfadiazine, and thus the unmasking of the Salmonella colonies of the BGA plates. These results indicate that BGA medium containing sodium sulfadiazine is an effect- ive plating medium both for supporting the growth of Salmonella organisms and inhibiting the growth of false positives. Although more such data are

44

Page 59: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

required to prove this conclusively, it appears that this medium is effective when used in the MF technique to determine MPN indices of Salmonella in water and wastewater samples collected at poultry processing plants.

A summary of the results of the MPN indices for water and wastewater samples using TET enrichment and BGA with sodium sulfadiazine is shown in Table 20. Samples were taken on four dates subsequent to Phase 2, and none were positive in the renovated (E), treated well (Z), or chlorinated lagoon water (C). All of these latter samples had relatively large filtered volumes ranging from 500 to 3000 ml. Although the MPN indices in Lagoon 1 were not higher in each instance than those in the wastewater, there was a general reduction from the wastewater to the unchlorinated effluent from Lagoon 2. These results, along with those for the chlorinated lagoon effluent and renovated water samples, both in Tables 19 and 20, indicate that protection against Salmonella is highly effective in the overall renovation system.

Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV)

Although it is unlikely that viruses would survive the entensive chlor- ination in the wastewater, renovation, and water treatment systems, it was nevertheless considered important to have some evaluation of their possible presence and survivability. In the earlier study of the renovated water at the Sterling plant, Clise reported (7) that nine five-gallon composite samples of the renovated water were examined for human enteric viruses and found to be negative.

Because human wastes at the Sterling plant are segregated and not emitted to the lagoons receiving wastewater from the poultry processing operations, it is more likely that an avian virus could enter the renovation cycle. No such viral diseases are known to be transmitted to humans by the gastro- intestinal route. Nevertheless, it was decided initially to analyze carcass, wastewater and renovated water samples for such an avian virus likely to be present, in an attempt to assess the efficiency of the renovation process in removing viruses.

Newcastle disease virus (NDV) was chosen. It produces an infectious, highly contagious respiratory infection, mainly in chickens and turkeys, although other poultry and man can contract the disease from infected birds ( 3 , 12, 16). Newcastle disease (or avian pneumoencephalitis) is character- ized in birds by pneumonic and neurologic symptoms. However, in humans it is manifested as conjunctivitis without corneal involvement, and usually occurs only in poultry handlers and laboratory workers. Transmission (both bird-to-bird and bird-to-man) of the virus is accomplished either through the respiratory secretions or through the exudates, excreta and offal of infected birds. The incidence of Newcastle disease in chickens is higher in the fall and winter months, and the disease tends to disappear with warmer weather. Birds recovering from infection can harbor and eliminate NDV via the respiratory and gastro-intestinal tracts from 2 to 4 months. Reinfection of chickens can occur with this virus. In order to prevent transmission of this disease within a flock, the chickens are inoculated intranasally with an attenuated, live NDV vaccine. Thus it could be detect- able in the slaughtered carcasses or the wastewater treatment system.

45

Page 60: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 20.MPN INDICES OF SALMONELLA FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER SAMPLES WITH TET ENRICHMENT USING BGA WITH SODIUM SULFADIAZINE, ALL SUBSEQUENT TO PHASE 2

MI" index per 100 ml Lagoon 2

Sample Lagoon 1, effluent , I

date Wastewater (A) center(L-l-M) unchlorinated(C )

11/11 4.25 3.71

1 1 / 2 4 0.28 0.07 -

1211

1 2 / 8

21.6 40.9

1.10 0.18

0.29 0.04

--__ ~-

Note In addition, the following water samples on the indicated dates (and the number of samples in parentheses) were negative for Salmonella:

Renovated (E): 11/17 ( 4 ) ; 1211 (2); 1 2 / 8 (1). Treated w l l ( Z ) : 11/11 (1); 1 2 / 1 (2). Chlorinated hgoon (C): 12/8 (1)

NDV is a paramyxovirus that ranges in size from 70 to 120 mm. It is somewhat resistant to adverse environmental conditions, e.g., pH (stable at pH 2 to 12), temperature (stable at - < 5OoC) , light and moisture. Conse- quently, water can serve as a vehicle for transmission of the virus. capable of hemagglutinating chicken, guinea pig or human type 0 red blood cells. In the laboratory it is grown primarily in eggs by inoculation of the allantoic cavity; however, it has been grown also in primary chick embryo (CE) cells. cultures, e.g., HeLa and monkey kidney, a lower titer of virus is produced in the primate cells than in CE cells. The cytopathic effect (CPE) produced by NDV in cell cultures is characterized by syncytium or giant cell forma- tion. Infected cultures can also show hemadsorption when guinea pig o r chicken red blood cells are added.

NDV is

Although NDV has also been grown in continuous primate cell

NDV in Water and Carcass Samples-- Initially during Phase 2 attempts were made to detect NDV in the water

46

Page 61: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

and carcass samples by inoculating chick embryo cells and using a plaque assay. However, other avian viruses that are capable of growing on primary chick embryo cells and forming plaques could have been detected in the samples. Several such samples collected on one day were inoculated on com- plete monolayers of primary chick embryo cells. After 4 days of incubation, cells were stained for plaques. Plaques were not observed on any of the cells inoculat d with the water and carcass samples. The positive control, NDV at the lo-' dilution, produced too many plaques to count on the chick embryo cells and thus had a titer of - > l o 6 PFU/ml.

Since avian viruses were not detected in any of the water and carcass samples by inoculating chick embryo cells, tissue specimens were subsequently taken for analysis for the presence of avian viruses by a hemagglutination test. The isolation and identification of NDV was attempted, since the chickens were inoculated intranasally with an attenuated, live NDV vaccine. If, however, it could not be isolated in the slaughtered chickens, it is unlikely that it would be detected in the wastewater or renovation system.

Tissue extracts were prepared from 5 spleens, 5 livers and 5 lungs from chickens obtained from the Sterling plant, and inoculated into the allantoic cavity of eggs to permit avian viruses (if present in these tissues) to replicate to a high titer. Serial 2-fold dilutions (to the 1:2048 dilution) of the allantoic fluids were prepared and employed in hemagglutination tests. No agglutination of the chicken red blood cells was observed with any of the 15 tissue extracts. The NDV positive control produced hemagglutination titers of 4 . The influenza-A virus controls produced hemagglutination titers of 6 4 and 16. The decrease in the hemagglutination titer of influenza-A virus was attributed to the virus undergoing one freeze-thaw between the two tests which lowered the virus titer.

Although extensive testing was not performed, neither NDV nor other avian viruses that would have been capable of growing on primary chick embryo cells were thus found in the water, wastewater, or carcass samples, and NDV was not detected in the tissue extracts. Since NDV is the most likely avian virus of possible concern, however remote, in the renovation system, attempts to isolate and identify viruses at the Sterling plant were discontinued.

NDV Survival in Lagoon Water-- Since NDV could not be detected in the carcasses, wastewater, nor at

any point in the wastewater treatment or renovation system, it was decided to study its survival in lagoon water in the laboratory. The purpose was to obtain an indication of the effectiveness of one important stage in the overall treatment process not specifically designed to remove viruses, but which would be expected to have an effect, The disinfection processes them- selves would certainly further reduce the concentrations of any viruses. Although the stability of NDV in the wastewater treatment lagoons would not necessarily be indicative of the behavior of other viruses, if it were re- latively unaffected by the lagoon, then this would indicate that disinfection with chlorine and other stages of treatment in the renovation system might have to be relied on to be confident of virus removal.

47

Page 62: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

The laboratory NDV survival experiments measured the possible effects of light and temperature in lagoon, filtered lagoon, and distilled waters. The flasks, inoculated with NDV, were exposed either to white fluorescent light or kept in the dark, in each instance either at 25OC or 7OC. The flasks were gently agitated and samples taken daily for several days and assayed for NDV.

The initial results showed some differences, but not consistent, in

More extensive experiments survivability in the light and dark, and a considerably higher rate of die- off in lagoon water at 25OC compared to 7OC. confirmed that there is a temperature effect, although not quite as large, and typical results are shown in Figure 2 and Table 21. In the former the survival as a function of time is shown in the three types of water in light and at 7OC only. The one-day titer for the lagoon water (LW) in Figure 2 is off scale because it is a few percent higher than the initial 100 percent. This is likely due to analytical variability. Table 21 summarizes only the 5-day survival data.

Although the survival curves shown in Figure 2 are not smooth, and the differences due to the experimental variables not consistent, some conclus- ions, although not necessarily firm, can be made. There is no consistent difference between the results in the light and dark, or in the filtered and unfiltered lagoon waters. The survival, at least over the full five days, is generally greater in distilled water than in either of the lagoon waters. And finally, the survival is consistently greater, although of varying relative magnitudes, at 7OC than at 25OC.

The time for 50 percent die-off in the lagoon waters varied from about 1 to 3 days at 25OC, and from 2% to 5 days at 7OC. The survival curves, plotted semi-logarithmically in Figure 2, are not generally linear and may not follow f irst-order kinetics. Nevertheless, with the assumption that they do, one can estimate NDV survival in the lagoon system. For the approximately 15-day residence time in the two lagoons, the 5-day half-time would correspond to a survival of 0.125, and the l-day half-time to 0.00003. To the extent that these laboratory experiments simulate accurately the NDV behavior in the lagoons, it is apparent that there is significant die-off, and that the disinfection and other stages in the water renovation process may not have to be relied upon as the only protection against possible virus contamination in the reuse of wastewater at the Sterling plant.

STEADY-STATE CONSIDERATIONS

An important question for any wastewater recycling process is the extent to which the concentrations of waste constituents can build up. The steady- state mass balance equations for such possible build-ups have been developed for the Sterling Plant system in Appendix B, which also considers in some detail the extent to which the Phase 2 flow regime, without actual recycle, can be used to predict the steady-state concentrations that would occur with recycle and reuse of the renovated water. As long as the process does not involve a closed loop (no blow-down or partial diversion to receiving waters), or there is some removal in treatment, mass balance considerations indicate that a steady-state, rather than an infinite build-up will occur. In the

48

Page 63: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF NDV LABORATORY SURVIVAL EXPERIMENT, PERCENT SURVIVING AFTER 5 DAYS

P e r c e n t s u r v i v a l 7 O C 25OC

Water t y p e L i g h t Dark L i g h t Dark

Lagoon 26 15 7 8

Lagoon, f i l t e r e d 1 3 18 0 1 7

D i s t i l l e d 49 32 17 22

I I I I I 0 1 2 3 4 5

DAY

F i g u r e 2 . NDV s u r v i v a l a t 7 O C i n l i g h t i n l a b o r a t o r y s t u d y , water; LW: lagoon w G t e r : LW-F: lagoon water, f i l t e r e d )

(DW: d i s t i l l e d

49

Page 64: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

Sterling Plant partial removal in two modes can occur. The planned 50/50 mixing will result in at least half of the waste constituents generated in any one cycle being emitted to receiving waters. The lagoon treatment and the renovation system can also reduce the build-up. For this combination of removals, and using mass balance, one can estimate the steady-state concen- tration in the 50/50 renovated water, Cs, of the daily waste load, A, of a parameter emitted from the plant. Such a relationship was developed in Appendix B (Equation 5) and can be written as:

C = (A/V) (bc) / (2-bc) (1) S

with V the daily volume of water used, and the fractional removals of the constituent in question being (1-b) in the lagoons and (1-c) in the renova- tion system. The ratio A/V is also simply the concentration of a constituent in the waste, CA. water (prior to mixing with the well water) compared to the average concen- tratfon in all waters discharging into the first lagoon is bc. It should be noted that Equation 1 assumes that the concentration of the constituent emitted as a waste from the poultry processing plant is zero in the well water supply, and is not added or removed in the normal water treatment received by the 50/50 mixture of renovated and well water.

The fractional concentration remaining in the renovated

Aside from being able to calculate the steady-state concentration in the water supply in actual recycle using Equation 1, the question arises also as to whether the steady-state recycle of Phase 2 is a reasonable sim- ulation of actual recycle into the poultry plant. As shown in Figure 1, in Phase 2 the renovated water effluent was recycled into the first aerated lagoon, whereas with reuse it would be mixed 50/50 with the untreated well water, the mixture then to receive normal treatment. Also in Phase 2 the flow through the lagoons was about one-third higher than it would be in actual recycle, with the flow through the renovation system being about one- third of that through the plant (compared to one-half in actual recycle). This results in a higher dilution of waste constituents emitted to the lagoon and cycled through the renovation system in Phase 2. However, in actual re- cycle the 50/50 mixing with well water will tend to reduce its steady-state concentration compared to that in Phase 2. Combining these factors in a mass balance calculation permits a comparison of the steady-state concentrations likely to be achieved in actual recycle (after 50/50 mixing with well water) to that of the renovated water in Phase 2, the ratio of these two being rs. In Appendix B Equation 20 expresses such a relationship for this ratio rs as follows:

(2) r = (1/3) (4-bc) /(2-bc) S

Thus, this ratio is highly dependent on the fractional removals in the lagoon and renovation systems. With high degrees of removal (bc approaching zero) rs will approach 2/3. However, with very low fractional removal (bc not much less than unity), the ratio will approach 1.0. Thus, one can pre- dict that, as a first approximation, the steady-state concentrations of the 50/50 renovated water mixture in actual recycle will, depending on the waste constituent, be 0.67 to 1.0 times those observed in the renovated effluent

50

Page 65: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

in Phase 2. Other factors will modify the actual result, such as the fact that the 50/50 mixture in actual recycle will undergo further treatment, or the well water itself can contain a significant concentration of the con- stituent in question. Nevertheless, the Phase 2 study may be taken as a reasonable predictor for full recycle and reuse.

One could estimate bc for a given parameter from a knowledge of its con- centration in A and E during Phase 2, and this would be simply CE/CA. ever, because the flow regime in the lagoons in Phase 2 is different than it would be in full recycle, this estimate could be incorrect and, therefore, misleading. In Phase 2 the actual volume of flow into and through the lagoons consists of three parts of waste A from the poultry plant and one part of renovated water E, so that the effective concentration of a consti- tuent discharged into the first lagoon is (3cA + cE)/4. Thus, during Phase 2 the actual fractional concentration of a constituent remaining in the renova- ted water after moving first through the lagoons, and then the renovation system, is simply CE divided by this expression for the effective concentra- tion, namely:

How-

A useful constituent to demonstrate these relationships is potassium, since, as shown in the Phase 2 results of Table 3, it is quite low in the treated well water, Z, it is found in much higher concentrations in A , and is then significantly reduced in concentration as it appears in the renovated water, E. For the purposes of this calculation we will neglect its concen- tration in Z, and take CA and CE as 32 and 15 mg/l, respectively. Equation 3, the calculated value of bc is 0.54. In contrast, the approximate estimate of bc, simply using CE/CA is 0.47, about 13 percent lower than the correct value. Having calculated bc for potassium, one could then use Equation 1 to calculate its expected steady-state concentration, after 50/50 mixture, in actual reuse, and this value, Cs, is 11.8 mg/l. Alternatively one can use Equation 2 to calculate rs, the ratio of potassium expected in the 50/50 mixture in actual reuse compared to that in E in Phase 2. Again using the 0.54 value for bc, rs is calculated to be 0.79. As a check on the self-consistency of these equations, Cs, calculated from Equation 1, divided by CE is 11.8/15 which equals 0.79.

Using

These calculations can be modified readily, as discussed in Appendix B, to meet a variety of circumstances, even for such a constituent as sulfate, which, as shown in Table 3, seems to be generated in large concentrations within the renovation system itself probably from alum. To the extent that this is so, one can still estimate Cs for sulfate. Neglecting the contribu- tions of sulfate from the treated well water and the poultry processing plant, and assuming that there is no reduction of its concentration in the lagoons, this is equivalent to the statement that bc equals unity. Also, if 150 mg/l sulfate were to be generated in the renovation system in actual reuse, as we are assuming it is in Phase 2, this would result in Cs also being 150 mg/l, since this concentration would ultimately return to the renovation system, the total leaving it then becoming 300 mg/l. would reduce to 150 mg/l (C,) after 50/50 mixing with well water. Thus,

This then

51

Page 66: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

even where c o n s t i t u e n t s are g e n e r a t e d w i t h i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system because of chemical a d d i t i o n , and w i t h no f r a c t i o n a l removal e l s e w h e r e , t h e r e would be o n l y a f i n i t e bu i ld-up , and a p r e d i c t a b l e one.

Another impor tan t q u e s t i o n concern ing t h e Phase 2 s t u d y and a c t u a l re- c y c l e i s t h e r a p i d i t y w i t h which s t e a d y - s t a t e i s achieved . A s d i s c u s s e d i n Appendix B , t h i s i s dependent p r i n c i p a l l y upon t h e f r a c t i o n a l removal i n t h e lagoon and r e n o v a t i o n system, and, hence , b c . Using Equat ion 15 of Appendix B , one can c a l c u l a t e t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n r a t i o i n t h e 50/50 m i x t u r e achieved a f t e r lrnr' c y c l e s , C n , compared t o t h a t i n t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e , Cs, u s i n g t h e f low regime contemplated i n a c t u a l r e u s e . Doing t h i s f o r 3 c y c l e s ( n = 3 ) , one o b t a i n s v a l u e s of C3/Cs e q u a l t o 0 . 9 1 and 0.998 f o r b c e q u a l t o 0 . 9 and 0.25, r e s p e c t i v e l y . It i s , t h e r e f o r e , a p p a r e n t t h a t , even o v e r a wide range of f r a c t i o n a l removals , s t e a d y - s t a t e i s approached r a t h e r r a p i d l y . Although t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n does n o t a p p l y e x a c t l y t o Phase 2 , ,which i s a d i f f e r e n t f low regime, i t can b e used as a f i r s t approximation f o r i t . I n t h e S t e r l i n g system t h e r e s i d e n c e t i m e i n t h e lagoons de te rmines t h e t i m e f o r a c y c l e . T h i s i s normally approximate ly two t o t h r e e weeks. Because of t h e i n c r e a s e d f low through t h e lagoons i n Phase 2 , t h i s is probably reduced by about 25 p e r c e n t , perhaps t o two weeks. Phase 2 i t s e l f covered a p e r i o d of seven weeks, w i t h a two-week p r e l i m i n a r y sampling p e r i o d . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e pre- ceding Phase 1 p e r i o d involved several a d d i t i o n a l weeks w i t h t h e same f low regime. I t can , t h e r e f o r e , b e concluded t h a t t h e Phase 2 s t u d y w a s i n s teady- s t a t e , and i t s r e s u l t s can b e used t o estimate c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e renovated water i n a c t u a l r e u s e .

52

Page 67: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

SECTION 7

DISCUSSION

The focus of this discussion will be whether the quality of the renova- ted water, E, is sufficient to justify its reuse in processing poultry at the Sterling plant, without risking the health of the consumers. It should be emphasized that, prior to actual use in the plant, the renovated water will be mixed 50/50 with the untreated well water, then receive the normal water treatment that is currently utilized for it, including two stages of chlorina- tion in addition to that received by the lagoon and renovation system efflu- ents. Since the chiller is probably the single most important water exposure of the birds in the processing plant, it is necessary to consider not only whether there is a possible build-up of contaminants in the renovation system, but also whether such concentrations cause a substantial transfer of such materials to the rrdressedll birds or carcasses; and, if so, does this con- stitute a health hazard to the consumers of the chickens. Thus, not only the quality of the renovated water, but also its intended use must be con- sidered in making the judgment whether to proceed to a trial period of reuse and, ultimately, to such reuse on a permanent basis.

Before reviewing the findings that would help answer these questions, it is important to note that the analysis of the mass-balance steady-state relationships indicates that the flow regime in Phase 2 is such that the concentrations of constituents measured in the renovated water, E, can be regarded as reasonable predictors of those that can be expected in the 50/50 treated mixture in the steady-state during actual recycle. For a given para- meter the exact ratio, rs, between these concentrations in such reuse com- pared to E in Phase 2 is dependent on several factors, not all of which have been determined for every constituent. The likely maximum values of rs can be estimated, and it is unlikely that any of the constituents studied could build up to hazardous and unpredictable levels. Certainly the careful moni- toring program of the proposed trial period of reuse would quickly discover this unlikely event. Even if there were no removal in the lagoons or renova- tion system, the maximum steady-state concentration, C,, in the planned 50/50 reuse flow regime (with the waste from the processing plant itself being the only source of a given constituent) would simply be equal to its concen- tration in the plant wastewater without any recycling. Similarly, where either the well water or renovation system were to be unique sources, CS would equal its respective concentration in the absence of any recycling. This apparent lack of build-up is in fact due to the 50/50 dilution flow regime. It indicates, for example, that if a contaminant were to get into the well water source and not be removed subsequently at any stage of treat- ment, it would never reach a concentration in the renovated 50/50 mixture,

53

Page 68: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

Cs, h i g h e r t h a n t h a t i n t h e u n t r e a t e d w e l l w a t e r i t s e l f . T h i s would s imi la r - l y apply t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s g e n e r a t e d i n t h e water r e n o v a t i o n system, such as due t o t h e a d d i t i o n of chemicals l i k e alum. T h i s p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n , w i t h s u l f a t e as t h e example, w a s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6 .

I t w a s a l s o shown t h a t a l t h o u g h dependent on t h e removal f a c t o r s . s teady- s t a t e i s approached v e r y r a p i d l y . For t h e p r a c t i c a l purpose of u s i n g Phase 2 as a p r e d i c t o r f o r r e u s e , and u s i n g t h e Phase 2 two-week r e s i d e n c e t i m e i n t h e lagoon system as t h e de te rminant of t h e t i m e f o r a s i n g l e c y c l e , i t w a s judged t h a t s t e a d y - s t a t e w a s ach ieved .

The q u a l i t y of t h e renovated water i t s e l f , and i t s comparison w i t h t h e t r e a t e d w e l l water and any a p p r o p r i a t e w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s are of immed- i a t e i n t e r e s t . Although t h e renovated water i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o b e u t i l i z e d a s a d r i n k i n g water s u p p l y , i t i s r e q u i r e d by t h e U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e t o b e p o t a b l e and t o b e so c e r t i f i e d by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e governmental agency. P r i o r t o June 1977 t h e s t a n d a r d s most commonly used f o r t h i s purpose i n t h e United S ta tes were t h e 1962 U.S. P u b l i c Heal th Service (PHS) Dr inking Water Standards (28) , which i n c l u d e b o t h pr imary s t a n d a r d s w i t h mandatory, h e a l t h r e l a t e d c o n s t i t u e n t l i m i t s , and secondary ones w i t h recommended l i m i t s , p r i n c i p a l l y r e l a t e d t o e s t h e t i c concerns . The newer U.S. Environmental Pro- t e c t i o n Agency (EPA) I n t e r i m Primary Dr inking Water R e g u l a t i o n s , e f f e c t i v e i n June 1977 ( 2 5 ) , and t h e proposed EPA I n t e r i m Secondary Dr inking Water R e g u l a t i o n s ( 2 6 ) are v e r y s imi l a r t o , b u t n o t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e PHS s t a n d a r d s . These v a r i o u s s t a n d a r d s a d d r e s s many c o n s t i t u e n t s measured i n t h i s s t u d y and b o t h t h e t r e a t e d w e l l water and t h e renovated water q u a l i t y were compared t o them.

With r e g a r d t o such parameters t h e Phase 2 r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t i n a lmost e v e r y i n s t a n c e b o t h t h e renovated (E) and t r e a t e d w e l l (Z) waters, as shown i n T a b l e s 3 and 5 , w e r e w e l l below t h e EPA and PHS c r i t e r i o n l i m i t s . The newer EPA t u r b i d i t y l i m i t of one u n i t w a s f r e q u e n t l y exceeded i n b o t h of t h e s e waters d u r i n g Phase 2 , b u t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e maximum v a l u e s w e r e w e l l below 5 u n i t s ( t h e PHS l i m i t ) , which i s p e r m i t t e d by t h e EPA i f t h e r e i s no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h d i s i n f e c t i o n o r m i c r o b i o l o g i c a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . The f a c t t h a t t h e r e w e r e a c c e p t a b l y low b a c t e r i a l levels i n d i c a t e s t h e n t h a t t h e t u r b i d i t y levels are a l s o a c c e p t a b l e . It should a l s o b e n o t e d t h a t t h e r e w a s no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e mean v a l u e s f o r t u r b i d i t y i n Z and E water. S u l f a t e v a l u e s i n t h e renovated water w e r e h i g h , b u t o n l y one measurement m a r g i n a l l y exceeded t h e recommended ( n o t mandatory) secondary c r i t e r i o n of 250 mg/l. The o n l y o t h e r m a r g i n a l l y h i g h c o n s t i t u e n t w a s l e a d which, however, had a lmost i d e n t i c a l mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e Z and E waters , and b o t h had maximum c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a t t h e EPA c r i t e r i o n l i m i t of 50 p g / l . of t h i s l i m i t , one can conclude t h a t t h e l e a d levels cannot b e regarded as hazardous . I n any e v e n t t h e much h i g h e r l e a d levels i n t h e c h i l l e r w a t e r i n t h e p l a n t , and i n i t s e f f l u e n t , a long w i t h t h e washings from t h e carcasses, i n d i c a t e t h a t n e i t h e r t h e Z n o r t h e E waters i n Phase 2 c o n s t i t u t e d a sub- s t a n t i a l s o u r c e of l e a d t o t h e processed b i r d s . The renovated w a t e r q u a l i t y i n t h e p r e v i o u s s t u d y ( 7 ) , shown i n Table 10 , a l s o m e t t h e s e v a r i o u s s t a n d a r d s w i t h one o r two e x c e p t i o n s . The t u r b i d i t y w a s h i g h e r t h a n i n Phase 2 , b u t s t i l l a c c e p t a b l e on t h e b a s i s d i s c u s s e d above. The c o l o r of t h e water w a s

Because t h e mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of b o t h waters w e r e about one-half

5 4

Page 69: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

very much h i g h e r t h a n i n Phase 2, and w e l l above t h e proposed EPA secondary l i m i t s . Thus t h e Phase 2 r e s u l t s c o n s t i t u t e an impor tan t improvement. The i r o n levels i n t h e renovated water were a l s o much h i g h e r i n t h e ea r l i e r s t u d y , t h e mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 0.27 mg/l approaching t h e EPA secondary l i m i t of 0 . 3 mg/l. However, t h e Phase 2 mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 0.057 mg/ l , a l though h i g h e r t h a n 0.019 mg/l i n Z , a l s o r e p r e s e n t s a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement. Also , as w i t h l e a d , t h e e v a l u a t i o n of i r o n l e v e l s i n t h e carcasses showed t h a t t h e r e w e r e no s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s from t h e Z and E waters. One can conclude, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t f o r t h o s e macro and trace i n o r g a n i c chemica ls , as w e l l a s o t h e r water c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r which d r i n k i n g w a t e r s t a n d a r d s a r e a v a i l a b l e , t h e renovated w a t e r i n t h e Phase 2 s t u d y , as w e l l as t h e t r e a t e d w e l l water , w a s of a c c e p t a b l e q u a l i t y .

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e c o n s t i t u e n t s i n t h e renovated and t r e a t e d w e l l waters addressed by t h e s t a n d a r d s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , o t h e r measured i n o r - g a n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s and w a s t e parameters i n many c a s e s , as would b e expec ted , were s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r i n t h e renovated water as compared t o t h e t reated w e l l water i n Phase 2. Thus, t h e macro i n o r g a n i c i o n s , o t h e r t h a n n i t r a t e , a l l i n c r e a s e d t o t h e p o i n t of r a i s i n g t h e t o t a l d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s l e v e l i n E t o an average c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 389 mg/l (below t h e 500 mg/lEPA secondary g u i d e l i n e ) compared t o 143 i n Z . However, t h i s i n c r e a s e , as shown i n Table 3 , can b e a t t r i b u t e d e s s e n t i a l l y t o t h e macro i n o r g a n i c c a t i o n s and a n i o n s , and t h e s e are of no human h e a l t h s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e levels encountered . It i s , t h e r e f o r e , u n l i k e l y t h a t any u n i d e n t i f i e d c o n s t i t u e n t s are making sub- s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h i s i n c r e a s e d q u a n t i t y of t o t a l d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s i n E. A s n o t e d i n S e c t i o n 6 , t h e h i g h average ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , 19 mg/l i n E d u r i n g Phase 2 , w e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower a t 5 . 1 mg/l s u b s e q u e n t l y . Although t h e ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e c a r c a s s e s were somewhat h i g h e r f o r t h o s e exposed t o E v e r s u s Z , and t h e d a t a s u g g e s t t h a t indeed t h e ammonia i n E w a s probably r e s p o n s i b l e , t h e mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n PB v e r s u s EB were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . It is h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e s e levels con- s t i t u t e a h e a l t h hazard .

The o r g a n i c chemical q u a l i t y of t h e renovated w a t e r a t t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t remains perhaps t h e g r e a t e s t area of p o s s i b l e concern , as i t does f o r t h e munic ipa l water supply systems of t h e U.S . , p r i n c i p a l l y because of t h e r e c e n t advances i n t h e technology t o i d e n t i f y and q u a n t i f y trace o r g a n i c chemicals a t v e r y low c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , as w e l l as t h e i r p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e on c h r o n i c d i s e a s e i n humans. The measured g r o s s o r g a n i c p a r a m e t e r s , namely BOD, CCE, TOC, and o r g a n i c n i t r o g e n , are of i n t e r e s t as i n d i c a t o r s of s p e c i - f i c o r g a n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s . The much h i g h e r o r g a n i c n i t r o g e n i n t h e renovated water most probably r e f l e c t s t h e p r o t e i n a c e o u s material and i t s breakdown products from t h e p o u l t r y , b u t o n l y t h o s e c o n s t i t u e n t s t h a t are n o t r e a d i l y b i o d e g r a d a b l e , s i n c e t h e BOD v a l u e s f o r t h e renovated and t r e a t e d w e l l waters were q u i t e comparable. water i s n o t u n t y p i c a l of many r a w s u r f a c e waters t h a t are used f o r munic ipa l water s u p p l i e s , such as Minneapol is and S t . Cloud, Minnesota ( 1 7 ) .

The mean BOD v a l u e of 3 .4 mg/l f o r t h e renovated

The mean TOC v a l u e s f o r t h e renovated and t r e a t e d w e l l water , 20 and 14 mg/l , r e s p e c t i v e l y , are h i g h , b u t n o t un ique ly so . The s t a t e w i d e average f o r t h e major Minnesota r ivers i s 20 mg/l , w i t h several l a r g e munic ipa l s u p p l i e s u t i l i z i n g them as r a w water s u p p l i e s ( 1 7 ) . S i m i l a r l y , most of t h e

55

Page 70: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

l a r g e r r i v e r s t h e r e have c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of 1 5 t o 30 mg/l . I n a s t u d y of 80 munic ipa l w a t e r supply systems of t h e U.S . , n o n - v o l a t i l e TOC c o n c e n t r a t i o n s as h i g h as 19 mg/l w e r e measured i n t h e r a w water and 12 mg/l i n t h e f i n i s h e d water ( 2 2 ) . About 98 p e r c e n t of t h e l a t t e r w e r e less t h a n 5 mg/l . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n t e r m s of a f i n i s h e d w a t e r s u p p l y , t h e renovated water TOC v a l u e s are undoubtedly h i g h . However, a f t e r mixing 50/50 w i t h t h e r a w w e l l w a t e r and t h e n f u l l - s c a l e t r e a t m e n t , t h e f i n a l m i x t u r e should n o t b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n TOC t h a n t h e c u r r e n t l y used t r e a t e d w e l l w a t e r .

The CCE measurements of t h e f i n i s h e d water show c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a b i l i t y . The mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n E over a 15 month p e r i o d , 0.59 mg/l , is about e q u a l t o t h e s i n g l e v a l u e of 0 .58 mg/l measured i n Z . However, t i m e v a r i a t i o n s , s e a s o n a l o r o t h e r w i s e , are a l s o common i n f i n i s h e d munic ipa l w a t e r s u p p l i e s ( 5 ) . S i m i l a r l y , c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of 1 . 0 mg/l of CCE are n o t uncommon i n f i n i s h e d water s u p p l i e s , and c o n c e n t r a t i o n s c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r t h a n t h i s have been found i n r ivers . For r e f e r e n c e , 0 . 7 mg/l h a s been proposed re- c e n t l y (5) as a c r i t e r i o n v a l u e f o r p u b l i c water s u p p l i e s . F i n a l l y , i t should b e n o t e d t h a t t h e g r o s s o r g a n i c parameters BOD and o r g a n i c n i t r o g e n had very s imi l a r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e carcasses exposed, r e s p e c t i v e l y , t o t h e normally t r e a t e d w e l l water and t h e renovated w a t e r . Also i n b o t h c a s e s t h e c a l c u l a t e d c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h e s e c o n s t i t u e n t s t o t h e levels a c t u a l l y found i n t h e c a r c a s s e s w e r e v e r y s m a l l indeed , namely 2 p e r c e n t o r less. Thus, t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e c t a b l e i n c r e a s e i n g r o s s o r g a n i c contamina- t i o n of t h e c a r c a s s e s o r t h e renovated water i t s e l f i n Phase 2 , compared t o t h e t r e a t e d w e l l water and t h e c a r c a s s e s exposed t o i t .

S e v e r a l s p e c i f i c o r g a n i c chemicals have been i d e n t i f i e d , and some q u a n t i - f i e d i n t h i s s t u d y . P e s t i c i d e s were n o t found i n e i t h e r t h e renovated o r t r e a t e d w e l l water. S u r f a c t a n t s i n t h e former w e r e w e l l below c r i t e r i o n l e v e l s . Several f a t t y a c i d s were found i n t h e renovated water, b u t a l s o i n t h e t r e a t e d w e l l w a t e r . I n any e v e n t , t h e s e c o n s t i t u t e no human h a z a r d . The maximum c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t h e o n l y ha logenated methane found r e g u l a r l y i n t h e r e n c v a t e d w a t e r , chloroform, w a s t h r e e micrograms p e r l i t e r , w e l l below t h e approximate median v a l u e of 20 found i n t h e EPA N a t i o n a l Organic Reconnaissance Survey of U.S. p u b l i c water s u p p l i e s ( 2 2 ) . Two p h t h a l a t e s w e r e found i n t h e renovated water , and one of t h e s e i n t h e t r e a t e d w e l l w a t e r . A s n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , b o t h of t h e s e , wide ly used as p l a s t i c i z e r s , have been found i n p o t a b l e U.S . munic ipa l water s u p p l i e s , as w e l l as many n a t u r a l waters.

I t should b e emphasized, however, t h a t t h e r e have n o t been e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s e s of s p e c i f i c trace o r g a n i c s u t i l i z i n g a v a r i e t y of c o n c e n t r a t i o n , s e p a r a t i o n and d e t e c t i o n methodologies . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e measurements t h a t w e r e performed on t h e water d i d n o t uncover any c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of p o t e n t i a l l y t o x i c chemica ls , a t l eas t a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s l i k e l y o r known t o cause human d i s e a s e . The s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d o r g a n i c chemica ls a r i s i n g from t h i s w a s t e r e n o v a t i o n p r o c e s s do n o t c o n s t i t u t e a human h a z a r d were t h i s w a t e r t o b e used as contemplated i n f u l l r e c y c l e . One might never the- less r a i s e t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e p o s s i b l e h e a l t h h a z a r d from o r g a n i c s n o t y e t i d e n t i f i e d . It i s u n l i k e l y t h a t , i n t e r m s o f t h e r e u s e of t h i s water f o r p r o c e s s i n g p o u l t r y , such o r g a n i c s would b e hazardous , s i n c e t h e y a r i se p r i - m a r i l y and o r i g i n a l l y from t h e p o u l t r y wastes and are l i k e l y t o b e o n l y

56

Page 71: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l s and t h e i r d e g r a d a t i o n p r o d u c t s . A p o s s i b l e q u e s t i o n con- c e r n s t h e r e a c t i o n of c h l o r i n e w i t h t h e s e materials t o form hazardous by- p r o d u c t s . T h i s concern i s d i f f i c u l t t o a d d r e s s . It should b e p o i n t e d o u t , however, t h a t c h l o r i n a t i o n i s p r a c t i c e d i n c e r t a i n food p r o c e s s i n g , and h a s n o t been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h any ill e f f e c t s i n humans.

Before l e a v i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e p o s s i b l e impact of v a r i o u s chemica ls on t h e c a r c a s s e s , t h e f i n d i n g s on t h e p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e i r a n a l y s e s i n Phase 2 re la t ive t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e water s u p p l i e s and c h i l l e r waters should b e reviewed. Among a l l t h e i n o r g a n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s and p h y s i c a l parameters measured, t h e r e were i n a lmost e v e r y c a s e no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r - ences between c a r c a s s e s processed i n t h e p l a n t and e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r s . Zinc w a s h i g h e r i n t h e p l a n t , and ammonia i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c h i l l e r s . Furthermore, on ly f o r a few i n o r g a n i c s , and none of t h o s e w i t h h e a l t h r e l a t e d c r i t e r i o n l i m i t s , d i d t h e r e seem t o b e any p o s s i b l e impact on t h e c a r c a s s a n a l y s e s . Such comparisons i n d i c a t e , f o r t h e most p a r t , t h a t t h e movement of such c o n s t i t u e n t s i n t h e c h i l l e r system i s from t h e carcasses t o t h e c h i l l e r , r a t h e r t h a n v i c e v e r s a . This i s c e r t a i n l y t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e i r p r e s e n c e i n t h e was te e f f l u e n t from t h e p l a n t a t s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s than i n t h e t r e a t e d w e l l water. T h i s a d d i t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e chemical water q u a l i t y must b e emphasized because , i n t h e l a s t a n a l y s i s , t h e c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n is indeed , n o t whether t h e water m e e t s p a r t i c u l a r s t a n d a r d s , even though i t may and i n t h i s i n s t a n c e d o e s , b u t whether i t h a s any impact on t h e q u a l i t y of t h e processed ch ickens and t h e h e a l t h of t h e consumer. A c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of t h e Phase 2 d a t a and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r concern about t h e q u a n t i t i e s of s p e c i f i c chemicals i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e carcasses. The o n l y remaining u n c e r t a i n t y , however s m a l l , i s t h e trace l e v e l s of c h l o r i n a t e d o r g a n i c s , s o f a r u n d e t e c t e d , t h a t might b e formed i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system. However, t h i s could b e a s c e r t a i n e d w i t h a d d i t i o n a l s t u d y , e i t h e r p r i o r t o o r d u r i n g a Phase 3 t r i a l p e r i o d of r e u s e .

The low b a c t e r i a l c o u n t s i n t h e renovated water, as w e l l as t h e measure- ments showing t h e absence of s p e c i f i c pathogens such as Sa lmonel la , demon- s t r a t e t h a t b a c t e r i a from t h e water supply do n o t c o n s t i t u t e a r i s k . The presence of a v a r i e t y of such b a c t e r i a i n t h e p l a n t c h i l l e r w a t e r o r car- c a s s e s i s c e r t a i n l y n o t unusua l , and t h e y have been shown t o bui ld-up r a p i d - l y i n t h e water as t h e p o u l t r y c o n t a c t i t (10) . Newcastle Disease V i r u s t h a t might b e expec ted i n t h e p o u l t r y o r wastewater could n o t b e found i n e i t h e r . The l a b o r a t o r y d ie -of f exper iments w i t h t h i s v i r u s u s i n g lagoon water from t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t one can e x p e c t s u b s t a n t i a l v i r a l removals i n t h e a e r a t e d lagoon system. I n view of t h e approximate ly two- week’s d e t e n t i o n t i m e i n t h e a e r a t e d lagoons and t h e n a t u r e of t h e d i s i n - f e c t i o n p r o c e s s e s subsequent t o them, which i n v o l v e two s t a g e s of c h l o r i n a - t i o n , t h i s e x c e l l e n t m i c r o b i o l o g i c a l q u a l i t y i s t o b e expec ted . With a c t u a l r e c y c l e i n t o t h e p l a n t , t h i s h i g h q u a l i t y and t h e a d d i t i o n a l t r e a t m e n t , i n c l u d i n g d i s i n f e c t i o n , would i n s u r e , w i t h a h i g h degree of c e r t a i n t y , t h a t t h e r e would b e no danger from pa thogenic organisms i n t h e r e u s e of t h i s renovated w a t e r .

An e v a l u a t i o n of many of t h e s e r e s u l t s w a s performed immediately fol low- i n g complet ion of Phase 2 by a committee c o n s t i t u t e d t o do s o and make a recommendation about proceeding t o Phase 3 , a three-month t r i a l p e r i o d of

5 7

Page 72: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

f u l l r e c y c l i n g through t h e p l a n t and water r e u s e . That committee d i d n o t a t t h e t i m e have access t o some measurements of o r g a n i c water q u a l i t y which were done subsequent t o Phase 2 , i n c l u d i n g most of t h e CCE a n a l y s e s , and a l l of t h e TOC and s p e c i f i c o r g a n i c s , o t h e r t h a n p e s t i c i d e s . The committee recommended t h a t t h e r e w a s no s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k i n proceeding t o Phase 3 . The a d d i t i o n a l d a t a on o r g a n i c chemical q u a l i t y should n o t modify t h a t judgment.

N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n t o proceed t o Phase 3 w a s n o t and h a s n o t been made as of t h i s w r i t i n g . The d e l a y a r o s e because of t h e r e q u i r e - ment of t h e Department of A g r i c u l t u r e t h a t t h e water t o b e reused i n t h e p l a n t b e d e s i g n a t e d as p o t a b l e . There are d i f f e r i n g o p i n i o n s as t o whether i t could b e s o regarded . The concerns c e n t e r around two a r e a s . F i r s t , is t h e chemical and m i c r o b i o l o g i c a l q u a l i t y of t h e renovated water s u f f i c i e n t t o meet c r i t e r i a of p o t a b i l i t y ? I n t e r m s o f meet ing c o n s t i t u e n t l i m i t s s p e c i f i e d i n d r i n k i n g w a t e r s t a n d a r d s o r r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e answer i s y e s . The g r o s s o r g a n i c l o a d i s h i g h , b u t n o t much more so t h a n t h e normally t r e a t e d w e l l water. N e v e r t h e l e s s , a c e r t i f i c a t i o n of p o t a b i l i t y h a s been made by t h e l e g a l l y a u t h o r i z e d agency, t h e S t a t e of Maryland.

The second area of concern r e l a t e d t o p o t a b i l i t y is t h e n a t u r e of t h e r a w water s o u r c e . A long-s tanding concept , as s t a t e d i n t h e 1962 P u b l i c H e a l t h Service Dr inking Water S t a n d a r d s ( 2 8 ) , i s t h e fo l lowing:

"The water supply should b e o b t a i n e d from t h e most d e s i r a b l e s o u r c e which i s f e a s i b l e , and e f f o r t should b e made t o pre- v e n t o r c o n t r o l p o l l u t i o n of t h e s o u r c e . I f t h e s o u r c e i s n o t a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d by n a t u r a l means, t h e supply s h a l l b e a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d by t r e a t m e n t . "

I n terms of t h e i n t e n d e d g o a l of t h i s water r e n o v a t i o n system, namely t h e augmentat ion of t h e l i m i t e d non-community w e l l water s o u r c e f o r t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t , o t h e r p o s s i b l e a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e s should b e c o n s i d e r e d , u s i n g t h e above concept . The l o c a l community, Oakland, w i l l n o t and cannot p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l w a t e r t o t h e S t e r l i n g p l a n t . A d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s on t h e s p e c i f i c c u r r e n t water usages a t Oakland, p r o j e c t e d p o p u l a t i o n growth, and water t r e a t m e n t p l a n t c a p a c i t i e s , i n d i c a t e t h a t any s u b s t a n t i a l commitment of water t o t h e p o u l t r y p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t could n o t b e m e t ( 1 4 ) . The o n l y o t h e r p o s s i b l e s o u r c e i s t h e L i t t l e Youghiogheny River, o f t e n n o t more t h a n a s m a l l c r e e k , p o l l u t e d immediately upstream by r a w , munic ipa l sewage from Oakland. The renovated water, s t u d i e d i n Phase 2 meets t h e c r i t e r i o n of b e i n g t h e most d e s i r a b l e , f e a s i b l e r a w water s o u r c e , and w i l l r e c e i v e t h e a d d i t i o n a l f u l l - scale , normal water t r e a t m e n t d u r i n g t h e Phase 3 t r i a l p e r i o d of r e u s e .

Another r e l e v a n t and s imilar s t a t e m e n t on t h e n a t u r e of t h e water s o u r c e may b e found i n Appendix A of t h e E.P.A. I n t e r i m Primary Dr inking Water Re- g u l a t i o n s , which d i s c u s s e s t h e concepts and r a t i o n a l e used i n t h e i r develop- ment (25) :

P r o d u c t i o n of water t h a t poses no t h r e a t t o t h e consumer's I I

h e a l t h depends on cont inuous p r o t e c t i o n . Because of human f r a i l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r o t e c t i o n , p r i o r i t y should b e g iven t o s e l e c t i o n of t h e p u r e s t s o u r c e . P o l l u t e d s o u r c e s

58

Page 73: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

should n o t b e used u n l e s s o t h e r s o u r c e s are economical ly u n a v a i l a b l e , and t h e n o n l y when p e r s o n n e l , equipment, and o p e r a t i n g procedures can b e depended on t o p u r i f y and o t h e r - w i s e c o n t i n u o u s l y p r o t e c t t h e d r i n k i n g w a t e r supply .”

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c r i t e r i o n of b e s t a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e a l r e a d y a d d r e s s e d , t h i s s t a t e m e n t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o c u s e s on economics and d e p e n d a b i l i t y . That t h i s r e n o v a t i o n system i s indeed economical h a s been shown i n a p r e v i o u s r e p o r t ( 7 ) . S u f f i c i e n t d a t a have been accumulated t o demonst ra te i t s d e p e n d a b i l i t y , and e x p e r i e n c e w i t h such s e a s o n a l problems a s f r e e z i n g and o v e r t u r n s of t h e lagoons have i n d i c a t e d c o n d i t i o n s when i t should n o t b e used t o supplement t h e w e l l w a t e r supply .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , one can and perhaps should p u t a s i d e t h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n of p o t a b i l i t y and c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g . I f t h i s renovated w a t e r w e r e t o b e r e c y c l e d i n t o t h e p l a n t as d e s c r i b e d and used a s i n t e n d e d , would t h e r e b e any s i g n i f i c a n t , d i s c e r n i b l e r i s k t o t h e consumers of t h e c h i c k e n s pro- c e s s e d t h e r e ? It may b e concluded, r e a s o n a b l y , a f t e r weighing a l l t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y and t h a t which preceded i t , t h a t t h e Phase 3 t r i a l p e r i o d of f u l l r e c y c l e and r e u s e , i f i n s t i t u t e d , would n o t j e o p a r d i z e t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h . The b a s i s f o r t h i s judgement may b e summarized as f o l l o w s :

There are no a p p a r e n t q u a n t i t i e s of chemica ls o r micro-organisms i n t h e renovated w a t e r harmful t o human h e a l t h , even i f t h e w a t e r w e r e d i r e c t l y consumed, which is n o t t h e i n t e n t i o n .

The wastes g e n e r a t e d w i t h i n t h e c h i l l e r from t h e c a r c a s s e s them- s e l v e s , and t o which subsequent ones are exposed, c o n s t i t u t e a much g r e a t e r s o u r c e of contaminant exposure t h a n does t h e renovated water.

The o n l y p o s s i b l e l i k e l y s o u r c e of exposure n o t i d e n t i f i e d t h a t might c a u s e concern i s t h e c a t e g o r y of c h l o r i n a t e d o r g a n i c s genera- t e d by d i s i n f e c t i o n of t h e p o u l t r y wastes. Y e t c h l o r i n a t i o n of c h i l l e r water i s commonly p r a c t i c e d and is n o t known t o b e hazard- ous t o humans.

The q u e s t i o n of u s i n g judgement r a t h e r t h a n r e g u l a t i o n s t o make a dec- i s i o n i n t h i s i n s t a n c e is probably t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e . The f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s involved i n t h e d e c i s i o n were r i g h t l y concerned about t h e p o s s i b l e precedent i n approving t h i s system f o r r e u s e . Aside from q u e s t i o n s about s p e c i f i c chemicals t h a t might b e harmful , t h e probable u n d e r l y i n g concern w a s t h a t a p p r o v a l would b e a p r e c e d e n t f o r t h e d i r e c t u s e of wastewaters f o r r e u s e b e f o r e b e i n g a b l e t o f u l l y develop c r i t e r i a more s t r i n g e n t and e l a b o r a t e than w e now have f o r our n a t u r a l waters used a s t h e r a w water s o u r c e . Never- t h e l e s s , i n t h e absence of such c r i t e r i a c a r e f u l judgement can and should a l l o w Phase 3 t o proceed. I n v i e w of t h e u r g e n t need t o conserve our w a t e r r e s o u r c e s , l i m i t waste d i s c h a r g e s , and improve w a t e r q u a l i t y , t h e n a t i o n w i l l have t o proceed t o select ive r e u s e of wastewater. Such a p r o j e c t as t h i s i s a u s e f u l s t e p i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n .

59

Page 74: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

REFERENCES

1.

2 .

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10

American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examina- tion of Water and Wastewater, 14 th ed., Washington, D. C., 1976. 1193 PP.

Bellar, T., and J. J. Lichtenberg. Determining Volatile Organics at Microgram-per-litre Levels by Gas Chromatography. J. Amer. Water Works ASSOC., 66: 739-744, 1974.

Biester, H. E., and L. H. Schwarte. Newcastle Disease. In, Diseases of Poultry. The Iowa State University Press, Iowa. 1959. pp. 464-503.

Blankenship, L. C., and N. A. Cox. Modified Water Rinse Sampling for Sensitive, Non-adulterating Salmonellae Detection on Eviscerated Broiler Carcasses. J. Milk and Food Technology, 39:680-681, 1976.

Buelow, R. W., Carswell, J. K., and J. M. Symons. An Improved Method for Determining Organics by Activated Carbon Absorption and Solvent Extraction - Part 1. J. Amer. Water Works ASSOC., 65:57-72, 1973.

Carawan, R. E., W. M. Crosswhite, J. A. Macon, and B. K. Hawkins. Water and Waste Management in Poultry Processing. EPA-660/2-74-031, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1974.

Clise, J. D. Poultry Processing Wastewater Treatment and Reuse. Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-660/2-74-060. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1974. 52 pp.

Edwards, P. R., and W. H. Ewing. Identification of Enterobacteriaceae, 3rd ed. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, Minn., 1972. 362 pp.

Ewing, W. H., and W. 3. Martin. Enterobacteriaceae. In E. H. Lennette, E. H. Spaulding and J. P. Truant (ed.). Manual of Clinical Micro- biology. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D. C. 1974. 970 pp.

Hamza, A., S. Saad, and J. Witherow. Water Reuse in Poultry Processing. In: Wastes. EPA-600/2-77-184, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1977. 411-426 pp.

Proceedings of th? Eighth National Symposium on Food Processing

11. Harvey, R. W. S., and T. H. Price. Isolation of Salmonellas. Public Health Lab Service Monograph Series No. 8. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, Eng., 1974. pp. 1-52.

60

Page 75: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Henle, W., and M. R. Hilleman. Newcastle Disease Virus. In E. H. Lennette and N. J. Schmidt (ed.). Diagnostic Procedures for Viral and Rickettsial Infections. American Public Health ASSOC., Inc., New York, 1969. pp. 483-490.

Hofstad, M. S. A quantitative Study of Newcastle Disease Virus in Tissues of Infected Chickens. Amer. J. Vet. Research, 12:334-339, 1951.

Hopkins, E. S. Availability of Water from the Oakland System for Usage in the Sterling Processing Corporation Plant. Report to the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, Maryland, August 1, 1977. 5 pp.

Huber, W. G., Carlson, M. B., and M. H. Lepper. Penicillin and Anti- microbial Residues in Domestic Animals at Slaughter. J. Amer. Vet. Med. ASSOC., 154:1590-1595, 1969.

Hull, T. G. Newcastle Disease. In, Diseases Transmitted from Animals to Man. Charles C. Thomas, Illinois, 1963. pp. 411-427.

Maier, W. J., and H. L. McConnell. Carbon Measurements in Water Quality Monitoring. J. Water Pollution Control Feder., 46:623-633, 1974.

McCollum, W. H., and C. A. Brandly. Hemolytic Activity of Newcastle Disease Virus. Amer. J. Vet. Research, 16:584-592,,1955.

Read, R. B., Bradshaw, J. G., Swartzentruber, A. A., and A. R. Brazis. Detection of Sulfa Drugs and Antibiotics in Milk. Applied Micro., 21: 806-808, 1971.

Shackelford, W. M., and L. H. Keith. Frequency of Organic Compounds Identified in Water. Environmental Monitoring Series. EPA-600/4-76- 062. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1976. 617 pp.

Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. Principles and Procedures of Biostatistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1960. 481 pp.

Symons, J. M., Bellar, T. A., Carswell, J. K., DeMarco, J., Kropp, K. L., Robeck, G. G., Seeger, D. R., Slocum, C. J., Smith, B. L., and A . A. Stevens. National Organics Reconnaissance Survey for Halogenated Organics. J. Amer. Water Works ASSOC., 67:634-647, 1975.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Organic Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. Cincinnati. Ohio. 1971. '38 D D .

National Environuental Research Center,

61

Page 76: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

24. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Waters and Wastes. EPA-625/6-74-003. Washington, D. C., 1974. 298 pp.

25. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA-570/9-76-003. Washington, D. C., 1976. 159 pp.

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Federal Register, 40(62): 17143-17146, March 31, 1977.

27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Organic Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water. Federal Register, 43(28):5756-5779, Feb. 9, 1978.

25. U.S. Public Health Service. Drinking Water Standards. Publication No. 956. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., 1962. 61 pp.

29. Webb, R.G., A.W. Garrison, L.H. Keith, and J.M. McGuire. Current Practice in GC-MS Analysis of Organics in Water. EPA-R2-73-277, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, 1973. 91 pp.

62

Page 77: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

APPENDIX A

MISCELLANEOUS METHODOLOGY

STATISTICAL

Statistical analyses were performed to compare sets of measurements for various parameters found in the water, wastewater, renovation system and carcass washings. The t-test parameter was used to determine if two sets of data came from the same population at given levels of confidence (21). Add- itionally, in some cases similar analyses were performed to assess which mean was greater after they were first determined to be different.

In using the t statistic the assumption is made that the tested para- meters in the two groups are independent, normally distributed and have equal variances. However, for relatively small samples (less than 30, which usually was the case in this study) moderate departures from normality do not inter- fere with the validity of the analysis.

In most instances the parameters being compared had no temporal relation- ship to one another, even though the samples were taken on the same date. For example, the time of travel for the wastewater (A) to pass through the lagoons and appear as a renovated water sample (E) was about two weeks, the residence time in the lagoons. Thus, it is not useful to compare only those samples taken on a single day. For this reason principally, all comparisons were made on grouped rather than paired data.

In each comparison the hypothesis tested initially was whether the pop- ulation means were identical. The level of confidence selected for this determination was 95 percent (a 5 percent level of significance, or alpha equal to 0.05). In testing this hypothesis a two-tail test was performed. In those cases where the hypothesis was also tested as to which population mean was larger, a one-tail test was used, also at alpha equal to 0.05.

The conclusions drawn from the analyses discussed above are described in the main body of this report in the following terms: when the t-test parameter indicates that the population means are identical at alpha equal to 0.05, it is concluded that the two sets of data for a given parameter, such as in the renovated or treated well water, are statistically identical. Similar language is used to refer to which of the groups have a larger pop- ulation mean. For example, in Phase 2 for fluoride the two-tail t-test indic- ates that the raw wastewater (A) and renovated water (E), with respective means of 128 and 151 ug fluoride per liter, come from statistical indisting- uishable populations at alpha 0.05. They are, however, different from the treated well water (Z) with a mean of 58 pg per liter. In addition, the

6 3

Page 78: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

one-tail test confirms the fact that the means of A and E are larger than that of Z. It is reported then that for fluoride A = E > Z, and it is stated that the fluoride levels in A and E are statistically identical or equal, and greater than that of Z.

ORGAXIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Volatile Halogenated Organics

The methodology for the volatile halogenated organics in water samples was essentially an adaptation of that of Bellar and Lichtenberg, the purge and trap technique coupled with gas chromatography (2). A commercial purge and trap instrument was used, the Liquid Sample Concentrator, Model LSC-1 (Tekmar Company), along with a Packard 7400 Series gas chromatograph with a tritium electron capture detector.

Usually 5 ml samples were concentrated and analyzed, following their collection and sealing in serum vials. gramming was utilized, the GC column being packed with Chromosorb 101 and the Liquid Sample Concentrator directly coupled to the gas chromatograph. The system was calibrated with known concentrations of volatile halogenated organics, such as chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and methylene chloride, using both peak heights and areas of the chromatograms. for chloroform, the only such compound detected by the GSPH laboratory, was approximately 1 pgll.

Both isothermal and temperature pro-

The detection limit

Non-volatile Organics

The general procedure utilized in this study for the identification of non-volatile trace organics in water involved the extraction of these com- pounds from samples into a suitable solvent, followed by concentration of the extract into a volume acceptable for identification by GC-MS analysis. For the most part the techniques were similar to or adaptations of those described by Webb, Garrison, Keith, and McGuire (28).

All glassware was cleaned to remove trace organics, and samples were collected and handled so as to contact only glass or Teflon. Samples were typically 3000 ml and the pH was adjusted to 6 to 8 prior to extraction with high purity methylene chloride. Samples were extracted with three volumes of solvent, which were then subsequently combined. Sodium sulfate was used to absorb water from any emulsions that were formed, and to dry the extracts. Using a 3-ball Snyder column and Kuderna-Danish flask, the solvent was dis- tilled from the extract at 72OC until about 1 ml of the latter remained. The volume was then further reduced to any desired level by directing a stream of clean, dry, inert gas over the surface of the tubes. The concentrated extracts were then injected into the GC or GC-MS for analysis. In some cases the concentrated extracts were first methylated using diazomethane (29). In all instances double-distilled water was analyzed also in the extraction and subsequent analysis as a control for possible contaminants introduced at any stage of the concentration or analytical procedure.

6 4

Page 79: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

GC analyses were performed on a Packard Model 824 with flame ionization detector. Glass columns were utilized, usually with 3% OV-17 packing on Supelcoport 80-100 mesh and temperature programming. Similar or identical conditions were then used on the LKB 9000 GC-MS instrument, which was inter- faced to a Digital Equipment Corporation PDP 11 computer to normalize the data and subtract background. Qualitative identifications (MS assignments) were made with the aid of the Registry of Mass Spectral Data by Stenhagen, Abrahanisson and McLafferty, but no concentration levels were established. The identifications must be regarded as presumptive, since they were not con- firmed by direct comparison using known compounds.

MICROBIOLOGICAL AND RELATED METHODS

Residual Drug Assay

A disc assay method modified from the procedure of Huber et al. employed to detect residual drugs in the water and carcass samples. The first method used in this laboratory emplo ed Bacillus subtilis (Difco spore sus- pension containing approximately 10" spores/ml) as the test organism and seed agar (antibiotic medium no. 1) as the test substrate. On each day of testing, assay agar plates (15 x 100") containing 21 ml of base agar (anti- biotic medium no. 2) were prepared. After solidification of the base agar, 4 ml of seed agar containing lo8 Bacillus subtilis spores per ml were evenly poured on top of the base agar and allowed to solidify. Blank 0.5-inch filter paper discs (three discs per sample) were impregnated with the water and car- cass samples and immediately placed on the assay plates. Each plate contained additionally one antibiotic control disc impregnated with 0.5 units of peni- cillin-G per ml prepared by diluting a vial of penicillin-G powder with double distilled water. After drying at room temperature, assay plates with the impregnated discs were inverted and incubated at 37OC for 12 to 16h. The sizes of the zones of inhibition on each plate were then measured.

(15) was

This procedure was further modified according to the method of R e a d s

Bacillus al. (19) in order to detect bacitracin and enhance the sensitivity of detect- ing sulfa drugs and antibiotics in the water and carcass samples. cereus and Mueller-Hinton agar were thus employed as the test organism and the test substrate, respectively. The control antibiotic discs were impreg- nated with 1 mg of streptomycin-sulfate per ml instead of penicillin-G. The assay agar plates were prepared as described previously with the above modi- fications.

To further increase the sensitivity Sarcina lutea was also employed as the test organism, since Read et al. (19) showed that this organism is more sensitive t o bacitracin, which is used in the feed of the chickens.

Salmonella Methodolom

Isolation and Identification-- Salmonellae were isolated from the water and carcass samples using

standard Millipore membrane filtration (MF) techniques (1). Quantitation of Salmonella was attempted using three 10-fold dilutions, five tubes per dilution,

65

Page 80: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

to determine the MF" index of organisms per 100 ml. The technique consisted of filtering five-aliquot volumes per sample through 47 mm diameter, 0.451-1 pore-sized Millipore membrane filters (Millipore Corp., cat. no. HAWG047SO). Each filter was placed into 10 ml of enrichment broth to produce five tubes in the first row of the MI" test. Tubes were agitated for 2 to 3 min to remove organisms from the filters. Two 10-fold dilutions were made into enrichment broth to complete the 15 tubes for the ME" test.

In an attempt to improve the recovery of Salmonella during this study, either selenite brilliant green (SBG, Difco Laboratories) or tetrathionate (TET, Baltimore Biological Laboratories) broths were employed as enrichment media. After incubating the SBG tubes for 12 to 16h, or the TET tubes for 24h, both at 37OC, one loopful of enrichment broth from each tube was streaked on brilliant green agar (BGA, BBL) plates, with or without the addition of 0.08 g of sodium sulfadiazine (Lederle Lab. Div., Am. Cyanamid Co., Pearl River, N . Y . ) per liter of agar. 24h. The BGA plates were examined for pink-colored colonies, which were then subjected to the oxidase test (8). Oxidase-negative, pink-colored colonies were identified on the basis of their biochemical reactions in triple sugar iron (TSI) agar (BBL), lysine iron agar (LIA, BBL), motility indole-ornithine (MIO, Difco Laboratories) medium and an Enterotube (Roche Diagnostics). In all of the latter tests incubation was at 37OC for 18 to 24h. Organisms that produced typical Salmonella-like reactions (8) in TSI agar, LIA and M10 med- ium, and were identified as Salmonella by the Encise system (Roche Diagnos- tics), were inoculated into sugar fermentation tubes containing purple broth base medium (Difco Laboratories) and 1% of either raffinose, rhamnose or trehalose. After incubation at 37OC for 12 to 18h, the Salmonella isolates were speciated based on the sugars that were fermented (9).

All plates were incubated at 37OC for 18 to

Recovery Efficiency of MF Technique--

determined as follows : inoculated distilled water sample were filtered. The filters were placed on trypticase soy agar (TSA, BBL) plates that were then incubated at 37OC for 18 to 24h. Colonies were counted for each filter and the mean number determined. The mean concentration of 5. typhimurium per ml in dilutions of the TSB cultures (used to inoculate the distilled water) was calculated from the colony counts on 10 replicate TSA plates inoculated per dilution. The mean efficiency of recovery of the MF technique was 85%, calculated by comparing the number of colonies counted on the filters with those deter- mined from the dilutions of the TSB cultures.

The recovery efficiency of the MF technique for S. typhimurium was five replicate 100-ml volumes-f rom the Salmonella-

The MPN Test with Different Enrichment Broths--

the SBG and TET enrichment broths, combined with BGA plates, for quantitating - S. typhimurium by the MPN test. Also, single and mixed (with S. typhimurium) cultures of E. cloacae were similarly studied in the enrichment broths to determine the relative enrichment and inhibition of another organism commonly isolated from the water samples, and its possible influence on Salmonella quantitation. were significantly higher in the TET broth than in the SBG enrichment. indices in TET were also higher (in single cultures) for - S. typhimurium than

Experiments were performed to determine the relative efficiencies of

For the inoculated water samples MPN indices for S. typhimurium MPN

66

Page 81: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

for E. cloacae, indicating that TET broth could both support the growth of Salmonella and repress that of Enterobacter. The results from these experi- ments suggest that Salmonella organisms may grow to higher concentrations in TET broth than in SBG enrichment, thereby facilitating quantitation by the MPN method.

Viral Methodology

Virus Analysis Using Chick Embryo Cells--

detect the presence of avian viruses (e.g., NDV) in the water and carcass samples. CE cells were prepared from trypsinized embryos. The volume of cells was determined after centrifugation, and a 50% cell suspension was prepared in minimum essential medium supplemented with calf serum, sodium bicarbonate, antibiotics and mycostatin. CE cells were dispensed into tissue culture plates which were then incubated at 37 C in a 5% C02 atmosphere until complete cell monolayers developed.

Primary chick embryo (CE) cell cultures were used with a plaque assay to

0

Water and carcass washing samples were filtered through 0.45~ pore-size Millipore Swinnex filters to remove any bacteria which might have been pre- sent. Cell monolayers were inoculated with the undiluted and the lo-' dilu- tion of the samples. Negative and positive controls included uninoculated and NDV inoculated cell monolayers, respectively. After inoculation, plates were incubated for 1 hr. at 37OC. To each plate, agar overlay medium was added. using a solution of neutral red. Plaques were counted and plaque forming units per ml (PFU/ml) were determined.

Plates were reincubated at 37OC for 96 hr,then stained for plaques

Presence of Avian Viruses in Tissue Extracts by Hemagglutination--

laboratory on ice from the processing plant. Using a modification of the procedure of Hofstad (13), 10% suspensions of the tissues were prepared in nutrient broth and centrifuged. The supernatant fluids, filtered through Millipore Swinnex filters to remove bacteria, were used to inoculate the allantoic cavity of embyronated eggs. Inoculated eggs were incubated at 37OC in a moist environment and candled daily. after 24 hr were chilled overnight at 4OC, after which allantoic fluids were harvested and pooled.

Spleens, livers and lungs were removed from chickens transported to the

Eggs which showed dead embryos

Hemagglutination tests were performed on the allantoic fluids by a modi- fied procedure of McCollum and Brandly (18). Serial 2-fold dilutions of the fluids were prepared in saline, and each dilution was mixed equally with a suspension of chicken red blood cells. NDV and influenza-A viruses were in- cluded in the test as positive controls. The test was then read after 45 min of incubation at room temperature. The end point was the highest dilu- tion of allantoic fluid that showed 1+ agglutination. The reciprocal of the highest dilution was the hemagglutination titer.

NDV Survival--

on the survival of NDV. Flasks of lagoon, filtered lagoon and distilled (included as controls) water were inoculated with NDV and placed either in

Experiments were designed to study the effect of temperature and light

6 7

Page 82: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

the light or the dark at 7 or 25OC. Flasks were gently agitated continuously during the experiments to simulate the aeration of the lagoon water at the poultry processing plant. Samples from each flask were removed at 0, 24, 4 8 , 72, 96 and 120 hr post inoculation, then were inoculated onto primary CE cells and assayed for plaques as described previously. Plaques were enumer- ated and PFU/ml were determined.

68

Page 83: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

APPENDIX B

CALCULATION OF STEADY-STATE IN RECYCLE

There is often concern about the possible build-up of waste constituents in water reuse and recycling. At first it might seem that such materials would continue to accumulate during each recycle until, perhaps, they would reach solubility limits. However, it can be shown readily that a steady- state concentration, rather than an infinite build-up, will eventually be attained, as long as some fraction of the parameter in question is lost in recycle, whether through removal in treatment or the discarding of a portion of the wastewater flow. In the latter case, the flow that is not utilized would be replaced by a "fresh" source of water.

In the proposed recycle system at the Sterling Plant, 50 percent of the lagoon effluent would be discarded to the river, and the remainder would undergo renovation, be mixed 50/50 with the untreated well water, and then the mixture would receive "normal'' water treatment. For this system one can readily determine the maximum possible steady-state concentration, even when there is no reduction at any stage of treatment. For example, if a constit- uent were added to the wastewater (as a result of processing the poultry) at a rate of A grams per day, none of it was present in the well water, and none added or removed at any stage of treatment, one half of the A grams would still be lost to the receiving stream. In this case, it is obvious that the maximum (steady-state) quantity of the constituent that would ''leave'' the plant in the wastewater would be 2A grams per day. Half of this, or A grams, would be emitted to the river. The other half would be returned with the renovated water and added to the A grams generated at the plant, the max- imum net of 2A grams per day thus appearing in the raw wastewater.

Where there is also partial removal at various stages of treatment, addi- tion as a result of the use of chemicals in the treatment and renovation systems, or the constituent is also present in the well water, the steady- state calculation will be different from that resulting in the simple maxi- mum factor of two shown above. It is useful to consider the effects of these factors and, at the same time, evaluate the rate at which steady-state will be achieved, i.e. the number of cycles required.

The following derivation for the steady-state equations in actual re- cycle is based upon the specific design of the Sterling plant, although the general principles can be applied to any reuse system. The derivation will refer to the flow diagram for the treatment plant and renovation system shown schematically in Figure B-1. In actual recycle the flows Zfs Cf, and Ef, shown in Figure B-1, would each be 50% of that from the processing

69

Page 84: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

p l a n t . ( I n Phase 2 t h e y w e r e 100, 100 and 33%, r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f t h e f low from t h e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t , once s t e a d y - s t a t e w a s a c h i e v e d . ) It i s assumed f o r s i m p l i c i t y t h a t t h e r e i s z e r o c o n c e n t r a t i o n of parameter A i n t h e un- t r e a t e d w e l l water, and t h a t A grams p e r day of t h i s parameter are added t o t h e system from t h e p r o c e s s i n g of t h e p o u l t r y a t t h e p l a n t and e m i t t e d w i t h i t s l i q u i d waste e f f l u e n t . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e 50 p e r c e n t l o s s of parameter A t h a t o c c u r s a t t h e p o i n t where h a l f o f t h e c h l o r i n a t e d e f f l u e n t from t h e second lagoon is d i s c a r d e d t o t h e r i ve r , t h e r e can b e p r i o r f r a c t i o n a l removal (1-b) i n t h e two lagoons , as w e l l as subsequent f r a c t i o n a l removal i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system (1-c) , i n c l u d i n g t h a t due t o normal t r e a t m e n t of t h e mix- t u r e . I t w i l l b e assumed t h a t t h e f r a c t i o n a l removal of parameter A i n each case w i l l b e independent of i t s c o n c e n t r a t i o n . The t i m e f o r a complete c y c l e ( t h e p e r i o d t y p i c a l l y r e q u i r e d f o r a waste c o n s t i t u e n t t o b e r e t u r n e d t o t h e p o u l t r y p l a n t i n t h e renovated w a t e r ) i s de termined e s s e n t i a l l y by t h e re- t e n t i o n t i m e i n t h e lagoon system, approximate ly two weeks. Although one can expec t cont inuous changes i n c o n c e n t r a t i o n of a waste c o n s t i t u e n t as i t pro- ceeds through a c y c l e , i t is convenient f o r t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e a f t e r each such p e r i o d .

A t t h e s tar t of t h e f i r s t c y c l e , t h e amount of waste parameter A t h a t i s e m i t t e d i n t h e p l a n t e f f l u e n t i s A grams p e r day , s i n c e no a d d i t i o n a l q u a n t i t y h a s y e t been added from t h e r e n o v a t i o n system. A t t h e end of t h e f i r s t c y c l e , t h i s material now r e t u r n s t o t h e p l a n t , b u t i s reduced i n q u a n t i - t y by t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s d i s c u s s e d above: i t s l o s s t o t h e r e c e i v i n g stream, r e d u c t i o n i n t h e lagoons , and r e d u c t i o n i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system. The n e t e f f e c t i s t h a t t h e q u a n t i t y r e t u r n e d ( p e r day) t o t h e p l a n t a t t h e end of t h e f i r s t c y c l e i s (A)(b) (c) /Z . Thus, a t t h e f i r s t day of t h e second c y c l e , t h e amount l e a v i n g t h e p l a n t w i l l b e i n c r e a s e d by t h i s q u a n t i t y , and w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , b e A + A(bc/2) , o r A ( l + b c / 2 ) .

i- - -,lOw-o7 3 P L O W OF PLANT WELL WATER I EFFLUENT TO (Z') I RIVER (C,)

I

I I

I I 8 'Path in I 0 Phase2 study

I Porta in I actual recycle I - - L - - - - - RENOVATION - - - - I - - - -

SYSTEM F L O W T H R O U G H RENOVATION SYSTEM (E,)

F i g u r e B-1. Flow diagram f o r s t e a d y - s t a t e c a l c u l a t i o n s .

70

Page 85: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

Similarly, at the end of the second cycle, the amount of A that is returned to the plant will be A(l + bc/2)(bc/2). Again, on the first day of the second cycle this will be added to the A grams per day "generated" at the plant, so that A + A(1 + bc/2)(bc/2) will leave the plant, this quantity being A{1 + (bc/2) + (b~/2)~}. After 'In" cycles this becomes:

n L = A{ C (b~/2)~) n n=O

where Ln is the amount (or load) of parameter A in grams leaving the plant per day just after cycle "nl'. After an infinite number of cycles, and since bc/2 is less than unity, this series converges and the quantity becomes:

L = A/{1 - (bc/2)} (2) S

This then represents the amount of material, Ls, leaving the plant each day in the steady-state.

One can similarly determine the concentration of A reaching the plant (in effect is concentration in the renovated water in the steady-state,

after mixing 50/50 with the well water, the total flow being V liters per day through the plant) :

Cs

C = (Ls - A)/V S

( 3 )

since the daily load coming into the plant is less than that going out in the waste by A. With substitution of Equation 2 into 3:

C = [A/{1 - (bc/2)) - A]/V ( 4 ) S

which can be rewritten as:

= (A/V) (bc)/(2 - bc) (5) cS

Equations 1 through 5 are useful in assessing the possible build-up of con- centration of a waste-parameter in a renovation system, and relating this to the pertinent parameter in the equation, namely the daily amount of waste generated, A, and its fractional removal in the lagoons and renovation pro- cess, (1-b) and (1-c), respectively. The equations can be used to estimate steady-state concentrations without actually going to full recycle. That is, if one can determine b and c removal parameters, as well as A, one can use Equation 5 to estimate the concentration of A in steady-state in actual recycle.

Let us now consider an example which approximates conditions in the Sterling plant study for total dissolved solids (TDS):

-Assume 820 mg/l TDS in processing plant waste effluent in first cycle. -Assume 370 mg/l TDS in lagoon effluent in first cycle. -Assume 335 mg/l TDS in renovation system effluent in first cycle.

71

Page 86: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

-Thus, b = 370/820 = 0.45 (55% removal ) ; c = 335/370 = 0 . 9 1 (9% removal; and b c = 0 . 4 1

Now one can c a l c u l a t e , u s i n g Equat ion 5 , t h e expec ted s t e a d y - s t a t e concent ra - t i o n of TDS i n t h e 50/50 m i x t u r e :

C = 820(0 .41) / (2 - 0.41) ( 6 ) S

(7) C = 211 mg/l TDS S

Before 50/50 mixing w i t h t h e w e l l w a t e r , t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n would b e t w i c e t h i s v a l u e , 422 mg/ l , about 25 p e r c e n t h i g h e r t h a n t h a t i n t h e re- novated water b e f o r e 50/50 mixing a t t h e end of t h e f i r s t c y c l e . A s one can see from t h i s example, t h e amount of bui ld-up is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y h i g h and may b e a c c e p t a b l e i n many cases.

One can a l s o estimate t h e number of c y c l e s r e q u i r e d t o approach s teady- s t a t e . T h i s can b e impor tan t i n doing a s t u d y where t h e t i m e a v a i l a b l e and , hence, t h e number of c y c l e s i s l i m i t e d . One u s e f u l approach i s t o compare Ln and Ls. d a i l y waste e m i t t e d a f t e r n c y c l e s and i n t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e . On t h e f i r s t day a f t e r t h e f i r s t c y c l e t h i s r a t i o becomes:

The r a t i o of t h e two is a measure of t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e

Using t h e d a t a f o r TSD from t h e example above,

Ll/Ls = (1 .205)(0.795) = 0.96 (9)

Thus, a f t e r o n l y one c y c l e t h e d a i l y l o a d of waste e m i t t e d from t h e process- i n g p l a n t i s 96 p e r c e n t of t h a t i n t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e .

By t h e same token , one can a l s o c a l c u l a t e t h e renovated water concent ra - t i o n i n t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e compared t o t h a t a t t h e end of t h e f i r s t c y c l e . One would o b t a i n t h e same r a t i o f o r t h e renovated water e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r mixing 50/50 w i t h t h e w e l l water and subsequent f u l l scale water t r e a t m e n t , assuming t h e l a t t e r w i l l have no e f f e c t on t h e parameter i n q u e s t i o n . ( I n f a c t , t h i s assumption may b e i n c o r r e c t f o r many parameters . However, except f o r chemica ls added i n t r e a t m e n t , any a d d i t i o n a l e f f e c t would g e n e r a l l y lower r a t h e r t h a n ra ise t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ) . I n t h e g e n e r a l case, and us ing Equat ion 3 :

cn/cs = (L n - A ) / ( L ~ -

A t t h e end of t h e f i r s t c y c l e (n = l ) , and u s i n g Equat ions 1 and 2 , t h i s becomes :

72

Page 87: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

For our TDS example, t h i s r a t i o i s 0.795, which i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t t h e end of t h e f i r s t c y c l e t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of waste parameter A i n t h e renovated w a t e r , e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r mixing w i t h t h e w e l l water, w i l l b e 79.5 p e r c e n t of t h a t i n t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e .

A f t e r two c y c l e s , f o r t h e wastes l e a v i n g t h e p l a n t :

L 2 / L s = (1 + b c / 2 + ( b ~ / 2 ) ~ } ( 1 - b c / 2 ) ( 1 2 )

For t h e example a t hand, t h i s r a t i o i s 0.991. The comparable r a t i o f o r t h e water i s :

which i s e q u a l t o 0.958. Thus, i n t h i s case, a f t e r o n l y two c y c l e s t h e TDS c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e wastewater e f f l u e n t and t h e renovated water have reached 99 and 96 p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y , of t h e i r s t e a d y - s t a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s . I t can a l s o b e shown r e a d i l y t h a t , t h e h i g h e r t h e f r a c t i o n a l removal ( t h e smaller t h e f a c t o r b c ) , t h e f a s t e r w i l l b e t h e a t t a i n m e n t of s t e a d y - s t a t e . c y c l e s t h e s e r a t i o s can b e expressed as:

A f t e r t rnr r

L ~ / L ~ = ( 1

Another q u e s t i o n of i n t e r e s t i s whether t h e Phase 2 s t u d y can b e expec ted reasonably t o s i m u l a t e t h e build-up of w a s t e c o n s t i t u e n t s i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n system t h a t o c c u r s i n a c t u a l r e c y c l e . I n Phase 2 t h e renovated water w a s d i v e r t e d i n t o t h e lagoon system, r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g mixed 50/50 w i t h t h e w e l l water. Perhaps t h e most i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t i n Phase 2 t h e f low through t h e lagoons w a s about 1 / 3 h i g h e r t h a n i t would b e i n a c t u a l r e c y c l e ( t h e f low through t h e r e n o v a t i o n system w a s about 1 /3 of t h a t through t h e p l a n t , and b o t h e f f l u e n t s were e m i t t e d t o t h e f i r s t l agoon) . T h i s r e s u l t s i n a h i g h e r d i l u t i o n of any waste c o n s t i t u e n t e m i t t e d t o t h e lagoon and c y c l e d through t h e r e n o v a t i o n system. Equat ions f o r t h e f low regime i n a c t u a l r e c y c l e t h u s have t o b e modi f ied t o a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t Phase 2. I t can b e shown r e a d i l y t h a t Equat ion 1 would then t a k e t h e form:

These two p a t h s are shown i n F i g u r e 1.

n L = A{ C ( b ~ / 4 ) ~ 3 n n=O

which becomes, i n t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e ,

The f a c t o r 4 a p p e a r s because one f o u r t h of t h e e f f l u e n t from t h e lagoons i s r e t u r n e d t o t h e r e n o v a t i o n system, t h e o t h e r t h r e e f o u r t h s b e i n g e m i t t e d t o t h e r iver . S i m i l a r l y , one can show t h a t :

7 3

Page 88: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

This is a direct analogy to Equation 3, but in this case the factor 3 appears because the daily flow through the renovation system is one third of that emitted from the poultry processing plant. With the insertion of Equation 1 7 into 18, the latter becomes:

C = (A) (3/V) (bc)/(4 - bc) S

If one wishes now to compare the steady-state concentrations likely to be attained for the Phase 2 and full recycle systems, one would simply take the ratios of Equations 2 and 17 for the wastes, and 5 and 19 for the renova- ted waters. For the latter case, and designating rs as the ratio of the steady- state concentrations in the renovated water in actual recycle to that in Phase 2, one obtains:

r = (1/3)(4 - bc)/(2 - bc) S

Thus, this ratio is highly dependent on the fractional removals in the lagoon and renovation systems. With high degrees of removal (bc approaching zero) the ratio will approach 2/3. less than unity), the ratio will approach unity. Thus, one can estimate that the steady-state concentrations in actual recycle should be 0.67 to 1.0 times those observed in Phase 2.

However, with very low removal (bc not much

There are, however, additional factors that should be considered. First, in actual recycle there can be additional removal of a waste parameter after the renovated water is mixed 5 0 / 5 0 with the well water and receives additional "normal" water treatment. Thus, the "c" term might be lower in actual recycle. Second, there was a higher flow through the lagoon system in Phase 2 compared to that which would occur in actual recycle. Thus, in the latter case with the lower flow, there would probably be greater degradation or loss for some waste constituents, and, again, "b" would be lower. For those parameters affected, the steady-state concentrations in actual recycle would be less than those predicted by Equation 20.

Another factor of possible importance is the role of the well water as a contributor of material to the renovation system. In the above derivations it was assumed that any waste constituent generated at the poultry plant was at zero concentration in the treated well water. One can modify this and divide the daily generated waste in Phase 2, A, into A' generated at the plant and A" contributed from the treated well water. Such a division has no bearing on the Phase 2 calculations, since they do not distinguish between these two possible sources of the waste parameter appearing in the plant effluent. However, in actual recycle, A would often be smaller than it would in Phase 2, since one source of it, A", would be reduced by half as a result of the 50 percent usage of well water compared to Phase 2 during which the well water flow was 100% of that of the effluent from the plant. For example, if in the Phase 2 study a constituent, such as magnesium, had a concentration in the treated well water 60 percent of that in the wastewater from the plant,

74

Page 89: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

then the Phase 2 value of A is made up of A ' , that generated at the plant, and A" = 0 . 6 A ' , that generated in the well water. That is, the total amount of this parameter emitted from the plant is 60 per- cent higher than that generated at the plant, A ' . However, with actual 50/50 recycle the well water would contribute only 0 . 3 A ' , so that the sum of the magnesium from the latter and that generated at the plant is A' + 0 . 3 A ' = 1 . 3 A ' , less than the 1 . 6 A ' emitted in the Phase 2 study.

Thus, in Phase 2, A = 1 . 6 A ' .

The effect of this factor can be seen in the example given earlier for TDS (total dissolved solids). the TDS concentration in the treated well water, typically 155 mg/l. Thus, using the concepts above, the load in actual 50/50 recycle generated at the plant plus that due to the TDS in the renovated water would be 820 - (155/2) = 742 mg/l. This would directly reduce the steady-state concentration of TDS in the renovated 50/50 mixture from 211 mg/l (from Equation 6 and 7) to 211(742/820), or 191 mg/l, about 10 percent less. The greater the relative concentration of a given parameter in the well water compared to the amount generated in the plant, the greater is the need to make this modification. In any event, it always operates in a direction to reduce the calculated steady-state concentration of a waste parameter in the renovated water delivered in actual recycle compared to that measured in Phase 2.

The additional piece of information needed is

In considering all the factors, one can conclude that the Phase 2 study can be used to predict reasonably well the steady-state concentrations that can be expected in the 50/50 renovated water mixture in the actual recycle. It is also apparent that there are additional factors that could play a role and somewhat alter the conclusions. However, even in those circumstances additional measurements can facilitate the use of modified steady-state equa- tions, and thereby compensate for them.

75

Page 90: Renovated +cCP85 Wastewater from a Poultry Processing PlantSafety Evaluation ~~~ 04 Renovated Wastewater from a +cCP85

I

1. REPORT NO. 2.

EPA-600/1-79-030 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

4. T I T L E A N D S U B T i T L E 15. REPORT D A T E

Safety Evaluation of Renovated Wastewater from a Poultry Processing P l a n t

J . 8. Andelman 7 . A U T H O R ( S )

3 . PERFORMING O R G A N I Z A T I O N N A M E A N D ADDRESS

Auqust 1979 i s s u i n q d a t e 6. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N CODE

8. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N REPORT N C

10. P R O G R A M E L E M E N T NO.

University of Pi t tsburgh Graduate School of Public Health P i t t sburgh , Pennsylvania 15261

I. DESCRI PTORS

Pub1 i c hea l th , microbiology, water t r e a t - vent , potable water , water q u a l i t y , water reclamation, i ndus t r i a l wastes, i ndus t r i a l da t e r , i ndus t r i a l waste t rea tment , poul t ry , ground water , organic wastes

1BA607

R804286 & S803325 11. C O N T R A C T / G R A N T NO.

b. I D E N T I F I E RS/OPEN E N DE D TERMS

Advanced waste treatment i ndus t r i a l reuse , reno- vated water, dr inking water standards

12. SPONSORING A G E N C Y N A M E A N D ADDRESS 113. TYPE O F REPORT A N D PERIOD C O V E R E D

Unclassified

Off ice of Research a n d Development U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency Cincinnati , O h i o 45268

88

Final Au 1974-0ec. 1977 i"- EPA/600/10 & EPA/600/12 14. SPONSORING A G E N C Y CODE

16. ABSTRACT A three-phase evaluat ion of reclaimed process wastewater f o r reuse was under-

taken a t the S t e r l i n g Processing C o r p o r a t i o n plant i n Oakland, Maryland. ob jec t ive was t o evaluate the s a f e t y f o r human consumption of poul t ry exposed d u r i n g processing t o an average 50 percent mixture of t r ea t ed well water a n d reclaimed waste- da t e r . dater reclamation system t o de l ive r s a t i s f a c t o r y qua l i t y water , a n d whether the pro- cessed poul t ry would have any excess microbiological o r chemical cons t i t uen t s , harmful t o h u m a n hea l th , a s a r e s u l t of exposure t o such water. After the renovation system das optimized (Phase l ) , a two-month study (Phase 2 ) was i n s t i t u t e d , which simulated recycle o f renovated water t h r o u g h the poul t ry p l an t . Chemical, physical , a n d micro- biological analyses were performed on various water , wastewater and poul t ry samples. 9n experimental c h i l l e r , f i l l e d w i t h renovated water, was u t i l i z e d t o compare the Aptake of such cons t i t uen t s by the processed birds with t h a t r e s u l t i n g from exposure t o the c h i l l e r i n t he processing plant using the normally t r ea t ed well water. An evaluation of the Phase 2 s tudy, a s well a s other d a t a , leads t o t he conclusion t h a t the s a f e t y of the consumers of the poul t ry would n o t be jeopardized i f the planned t r - ia l period o f reuse (Phase 3) were i n s t i t u t e d .

The main

To t h a t end, a determination was made of the a b i l i t y a n d r e l i a b i l i t y o f the

c. COSATI Field/Group

57 u

I I 119. S E C U R I T Y CLASS (This Report) IS. D I S T R I B U T I O N S T A T E M E N T 121. NO. O F PAGES

Release t o the public

1 Unclassified EPA Form 2220-1 ( R e v . 4-77)

U S G O V t R N M t N T ~ r l l N l I N G O ~ F I C i 1919 -657-060/5417 76