A Review of Wastewater Management and Best Practices for Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector Final Report

Home , Animal product

A Review of Wastewater Management and Best Practices for Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Final Report

Submitted by: Altech Environmental Consulting Ltd. 12 Banigan Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M4H 1E9

And

Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement 2070 Hadwen Road, Suite 201A Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2C9

Date: April 2005

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

DISCLAIMER

Neither the Ministry of Environment nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of, or the results of such use of, any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe on privately owned rights. References to proprietary technologies are not intended to be an endorsement by the Ministry of Environment.

. Questions or comments regarding this report should be addressed to:

Henry Jun, P.Eng. Senior Policy Analyst Ministry of the Environment Water Policy Branch 135 St. Clair Ave. W. 6th Floor Toronto, Ont. M4V 1P5 (416) 314-7975 [email protected]

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1.0 INDUSTRY AND SECTOR OVERVIEW 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE CANADIAN FOOD AND MANUFACTURING SECTOR...... 1-1 1.2 THE ONTARIO FOOD INDUSTRY...... 1-1 1.2.1 Relative Size ...... 1-1 1.2.2 Industry Employment ...... 1-3 1.2.3 Food Industry Sales and Exports ...... 1-3 1.2.4 Regional Clusters...... 1-5 1.3 FOOD SECTOR OVERVIEWS...... 1-5 1.3.1 Meat Product Manufacturing ...... 1-5 1.3.2 Dairy Product Manufacturing ...... 1-6 1.3.3 Beverage Manufacturing...... 1-7 1.3.4 Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing...... 1-7 1.3.5 Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing...... 1-8 1.3.6 Fats and Oils Refining and Blending ...... 1-8 1.3.7 Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing ...... 1-8 1.3.8 Snack Food Manufacturing...... 1-9 1.4 DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS AFFECTING THE ONTARIO FOOD INDUSTRY...... 1-9 1.5 FOOD PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS...... 1-11 1.5.1 Wastewater Management Issues ...... 1-11 1.5.2 Conventional Pollutants...... 1-12 1.5.3 Non-Conventional Pollutants...... 1-13 1.6 SECTOR WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS...... 1-18 1.6.1 Meat Product Manufacturing ...... 1-18 1.6.2 Dairy Product Manufacturing ...... 1-18 1.6.3 Beverage Manufacturing...... 1-18 1.6.4 Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing...... 1-18 1.6.5 Grain and Oilseed Milling...... 1-18 1.6.6 Vegetable Fats and Oils Manufacturing...... 1-19 1.6.7 Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing ...... 1-19 1.6.8 Snack Food Manufacturing...... 1-19 1.6.9 Other Food Manufacturing...... 1-19 1.7 CURRENT PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES ...... 1-20 1.7.1 Source Control...... 1-20 1.7.2 Treatment Technologies...... 1-20 1.8 REGULATORY APPROACHES FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ...... 1-27 1.8.1 Canada ...... 1-31 1.8.2 Ontario ...... 1-31 1.8.3 Alberta ...... 1-34 1.8.4 British Columbia...... 1-35 1.8.5 Quebec ...... 1-36 1.8.6 United States (Federal)...... 1-37 1.8.7 Washington State ...... 1-41 1.8.8 California ...... 1-42 1.8.9 Michigan ...... 1-42 1.8.10 Wisconsin...... 1-43

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

1.8.11 Netherlands...... 1-43 1.9 VOLUNTARY APPROACHES FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ...... 1-47 1.9.1 Ontario ...... 1-47 1.9.2 British Columbia...... 1-49 1.9.3 Quebec ...... 1-49 1.9.4 Alberta ...... 1-49 1.9.5 United States ...... 1-50 1.9.6 California ...... 1-51 1.9.7 Illinois ...... 1-51 1.9.8 Michigan ...... 1-52 1.9.9 Wisconsin...... 1-52 1.10 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1.0...... 1-54

SECTION 2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONTARIO FOOD-PROCESSING DIRECT DISCHARGERS DATABASE 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2-1 2.2 CREATING THE FOOD DISCHARGER DATABASE...... 2-1 2.2.1 Facility Table ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Monitoring Table ...... 2-2 2.2.3 Treatment Table...... 2-2 2.2.4 Product Table...... 2-3 2.2.5 Wastewater Table...... 2-3 2.2.6 Supporting Tables ...... 2-3 2.3 POPULATING THE DATABASE...... 2-4 2.3.1 Step 1: Develop Preliminary List of Direct Discharge Facilities ...... 2-4 2.3.2 Step 2: Review Preliminary List with MOE Water Policy Branch ...... 2-6 2.3.3 Step 3: Survey of MOE District Offices ...... 2-7 2.3.4 Step 4: Finalize List of Direct Dischargers and Populate the Database ...... 2-7 2.3.5 Final Listing of Direct Discharge Facilities ...... 2-8 2.4 APPENDIX 2A: ONTARIO MOE REGIONS AND DISTRICT OFFICES ...... 2-10 2.5 APPENDIX 2B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS...... 2-11

SECTION 3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER 3.1 FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS ...... 3-1 3.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 3-2 3.3 SELECTION OF WASTEWATER PARAMETERS ...... 3-4 3.3.1 Conventional and Biological Pollutants...... 3-7 3.3.2 Non-Conventional Pollutants...... 3-10 3.3.3 Proposed Wastewater Characterization Parameters for Ontario Food Processors ...... 3-16 3.4 SELECTION OF SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PARAMETERS...... 3-17 3.4.1 General Indicators...... 3-18 3.4.2 Other Emerging Pollutants...... 3-20 3.5 GUIDELINES FOR SAMPLING, PRESERVATION AND STORAGE...... 3-21 3.5.1 Wastewater...... 3-21 3.5.2 Solid Waste ...... 3-23 3.5.3 Documentation and Record Keeping ...... 3-23 3.5.4 Analytical Performance Criteria (LMDL vs. RMDL)...... 3-23 3.6 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYTICAL METHODS...... 3-24 3.7 LIST OF ACCREDITED LABORATORIES ...... 3-24

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

3.8 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL COSTS...... 3-25 3.8.1 Wastewater Analytical Costs ...... 3-25 3.8.2 Sludge/Solid Waste Analytical Costs...... 3-25 3.9 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.0...... 3-26 3.10 APPENDIX 3A - TABLES ...... 3-28 3.11 APPENDIX 3B – REFERENCE METHODS LIST...... 3-29

SECTION 4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF FOOD PROCESSOR WASTEWATER 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4-1 4.2 DATA USED TO DEFINE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS ...... 4-2 4.2.1 Conventional and Non-Conventional Pollutants...... 4-2 4.2.2 Comparability of Data Sources ...... 4-3 4.2.3 Data from Ontario Municipalities ...... 4-4 4.2.4 Ministry of Environment Direct Discharger Monitoring Data...... 4-6 4.2.5 Data from Projects and Case Studies ...... 4-6 4.2.6 Data from National and International Reports ...... 4-6 4.3 MEAT PRODUCT PROCESSING ...... 4-6 4.3.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-6 4.3.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-7 4.3.3 Ministry of Environment Direct Discharge Monitoring Data ...... 4-15 4.3.4 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-18 4.3.5 Water Use and Wastewater Quantity Characteristics...... 4-22 4.4 DAIRY PRODUCT MANUFACTURING ...... 4-24 4.4.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-24 4.4.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-24 4.4.3 Ministry of Environment Direct Discharger Monitoring Data...... 4-29 4.4.4 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-33 4.4.5 Wastewater Quantity Characteristics ...... 4-34 4.5 BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING ...... 4-36 4.5.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-36 4.5.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-36 4.5.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-41 4.5.4 Wastewater Quantity Characteristics ...... 4-42 4.6 FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRESERVING AND SPECIALTY FOOD MANUFACTURING.. 4-43 4.6.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-43 4.6.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-43 4.6.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-47 4.6.4 Wastewater Quantity Characteristics ...... 4-48 4.7 GRAIN AND OILSEED MILLING...... 4-49 4.7.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-49 4.7.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-49 4.7.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-52 4.8 BAKERIES AND TORTILLA MANUFACTURING...... 4-52 4.8.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-52 4.8.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-53 4.8.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-55 4.9 OTHER FOOD MANUFACTURING ...... 4-55 4.9.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-55 4.9.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-56 4.9.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-59 4.10 SUGAR AND CONFECTIONARY PRODUCT MANUFACTURING ...... 4-59

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

4.10.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-59 4.10.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-59 4.10.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-62 4.11 SEAFOOD PRODUCT PREPARATION AND PACKAGING...... 4-62 4.11.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-62 4.11.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-62 4.11.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics...... 4-64 4.12 ANIMAL FOOD MANUFACTURING...... 4-65 4.12.1 Contaminants in Wastewater...... 4-65 4.12.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data...... 4-65 4.13 SECTION SUMMARY...... 4-65 4.14 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.0...... 4-71

SECTION 5.0 REVIEW OF WASTEWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR FOOD PROCESSORS 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Ontario Context...... 5-1 5.1.2 The BMP Approach ...... 5-2 5.1.3 Conventional and Non-Conventional Pollutants...... 5-3 5.2 POLLUTION PREVENTION (PP) BMPS ...... 5-4 5.2.1 Benefits ...... 5-4 5.2.2 Types of Pollution Prevention BMPs...... 5-4 5.2.3 Implementing Pollution Prevention BMPs ...... 5-10 5.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT BMPS...... 5-14 5.3.1 Classification of Treatment Technologies...... 5-14 5.3.2 Level of Treatment Required ...... 5-14 5.3.3 Selection of Treatment Technologies...... 5-14 5.3.4 Types of Treatment Technologies...... 5-19 5.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.0...... 5-30

SECTION 6.0 MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE ADOPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6-1 6.2 BARRIERS TO ADOPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...... 6-1 6.2.1 Lack of Awareness and Vision ...... 6-2 6.2.2 Lack of Time and Human Resources ...... 6-2 6.2.3 Lack of Technical Knowledge and Expertise...... 6-2 6.2.4 Lack of Financial Resources ...... 6-3 6.2.5 Lack of Relevant Information and Support Network...... 6-3 6.2.6 Summary...... 6-3 6.3 MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE ADOPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ...... 6-4 6.3.1 Site-Specific Facility Assessment Programs...... 6-4 6.3.2 Best Practice Training Workshops...... 6-9 6.3.3 Education and Outreach...... 6-10 6.3.4 Research and Technology Demonstrations...... 6-11 6.3.5 Environmental Management Systems...... 6-13 6.3.6 Sector or Geographic Specific Initiatives...... 6-15

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

6.3.7 Human Resource Assistance...... 6-16 6.3.8 Other Mechanisms ...... 6-18 6.4 SUMMARY...... 6-20 6.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.0...... 6-21

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADOP2T Accelerated Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Technologies AAC Agricultural Adaptation Council AESI Agricultural Environmental Stewardship Initiative AESA Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture AC Anaerobic contact AF Anaerobic filter AWR Annual Wastewater Reporting BAT Best Available Technology Economically Achievable BCT Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology BMP Best Management Practices BTM Best Technical Means BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BPT Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available CARD Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development CAEAL Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories COA Canada Ontario Agreement CC Capital Cost CME Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters C of A Certificate of Approval CIP Cleaning-in-place CWA Clean Water Act COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CFU Colony Forming Units DOE Department of Energy DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans D&B Dunn & Bradstreet DAF Dissolved air flotation ELG Effluent Limitation Guidelines EI Employment Insurance Benefits EBPI Environmental Business Practice Indicators EMS Environmental Management System EPEA Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act EQA Environment Quality Act ERP Environmental Results Program FOG Fats, Oils and Grease FIER Food Industry Energy Research GDP Gross Domestic Product IACs Industrial Assessment Centres IDS Integrated Divisional System

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

LIST OF ACRONYMS

IETP Integrated Environmental Target Plan ITAs Industrial Technology Advisors LMDL Laboratory Method Detection Limit LSB Laboratory Services Branch LWK Live weight killed MRL Maximum Residue Limits MPP Meat and Poultry Products MDL Method Detection Limits MNR Ministry of Natural Resources MISA Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement NEPP National Environmental Policy Plan NPRI National Pollutant Release Inventory NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCan Natural Resources Canada NSWCP National Soil and Water Conservation Program NSPS New Source Performance Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System OPEI Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation OMAF Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food OSTAR Ontario Small Town and Rural OWRA Ontario Water Resources Act OMC Operating and maintenance cost PTTW Permit to Take Water POC Pollutants of Concern P2 Pollution Prevention PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCDF Polychlorinated-dibenzofurans PCDD Polychlorinated-dibenzo-p-dioxins PIER Public Interest Energy Research Program RWQCBs Regional Water Quality Control Boards RMDL Regulation Method Detection Limits RBCs Rotating Biological Contactors SBRs Sequencing Batch Reactors SME Small and Medium Sized SCC Standards Council of Canada SIC Standard Industrial Classification SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS Total Dissolved Solids TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

LIST OF ACRONYMS

TLCP Toxicity Leaching Characteristic Procedure TRI Toxic Release Inventory TSM Total Suspended Matter TSS Total Suspended Solids THMs Trihalomethanes UASB Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket US United States USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey VS Volatile Solids WQMAs Water Quality Management Areas WUE Water Use Efficiency WWT Wastewater Treatment WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 1 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Food processing is a water intensive industry that uses significant amounts of water in many of the steps involved in the food production. Water uses include cleaning, peeling, cooking, cooling, sanitizing equipment, and use as a food ingredient. Wastewater generated by these operations is typically characterized as having high concentrations of organic pollutants including biochemical oxygen demand, fats, oils, grease, suspended solids, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Other pollutants may be present depending on the specific nature of the raw materials and processing operations such as disinfection agents, pesticides, veterinary drugs, or components of commercial chemical products used by a facility.

This report provides a review of the types of Best Management Practices (BMP) (e.g., operational changes, equipment modifications, water use efficiency strategies, and wastewater treatment technologies) that may be applied to individual wastewater streams or to final effluent to reduce pollutant discharges to surface waters in Ontario.

Scope and Objectives

The scope for the study was established by the following objectives, which were to:

• Present an overview of the food processing industry in terms of its operations, technologies, environmental impacts, economics, demographics and trends as well as the types of regulatory and voluntary programs used to control wastewater pollutant discharges.

• Compile information available on Ontario food processors that discharge wastewater directly to the environment, and create a database that provides a snapshot of the sector.

• Develop a list of wastewater parameters that may be used to characterize food processor effluent, and provide information about how wastewater samples should be collected and analyzed.

• Summarize the characteristics of wastewater discharges from the various sub-sectors of the food processing industry based on a review of existing information.

• Identify Best Management Practices that may be used by food processors in Ontario to improve the quality of their wastewater discharges.

• Identify mechanisms that may be used to encourage Ontario food processors to adopt Best Management Practices and foster an environment of continuous improvement.

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 2 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

The scope of the study covered both conventional pollutants associated with food processing (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand, fats, oils, grease, total suspended solids, ammonia and organic nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, disinfectants) as well as non- conventional pollutants (e.g., acute lethality testing, metals, pesticides, veterinary drugs, disinfection byproducts) and other emerging pollutants (e.g., COA Tier I and Tier II substances) not typically used to characterize food processing wastewater.

Methodology

A variety of information sources were used to complete the review, including: comprehensive literature and Internet search; information published by regulatory agencies in Canada, United States and Europe; interviews with representatives of regulatory agencies; Ministry of Environment databases; the Dunn & Bradstreet manufacturing database; National Pollutant Release Inventory database; municipal sewer monitoring data; and Ministry of Environment direct discharger data. Site-specific surveys of individual food processors were not undertaken as part of the study.

Study Findings

The study was undertaken as six individual tasks as described in the main sections of this report, and summarized below.

Section 1: Industry and Sector Overview

This section provides information on the Canadian and Ontario food-processing sector including: industry characteristics and sub-sectors; economics, demographics and trends affecting the industry; sub-sector wastewater characteristics; current practices and technologies; and regulatory and non-regulatory programs used in Canada and internationally to control wastewater discharges from food processing facilities. Selected highlights from this section are summarized below.

The food-processing sector in Ontario includes facilities that process dairy products, meat, poultry, grain, oilseed, fruits, vegetables, sugar, confectionary products, snack foods and beverages. The sector processes more than 40% of Canada’s food and beverage shipments and is the third largest manufacturing sector in the province next to the automotive and metal manufacturing sectors. More than 3,000 food-processing facilities operate in Ontario. The majority of these facilities discharge untreated or partially treated wastewater into municipal sewage treatment systems for final treatment before being discharged to the environment. The balance, less than 3%, discharge treated wastewater directly to the environment.

Wastewater flow and contaminant load reduction practices have been adopted as standard operating procedures by many food processors in order to reduce costs and increase

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 3 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

profits. However, the extent of these practices and their effectiveness varies widely among individual facilities. The practices can be broadly categorized as: 1) source control practices and technologies, and 2) treatment technologies.

Source control practices are aimed at reducing the amount of waste that enters the wastewater stream, reducing potable water use, or both. Daily cleanup and sanitation of facilities and equipment contribute substantially to water use and the wastewater pollutant load and often present the greatest opportunity for reductions. Practices reported by food processors include: 1) use of dry cleanup before floor washing; 2) manually cleaning vessels to remove solids before cleaning with water; 3) installing solids collection trays at specific points in production process; and 4) replacing water-based conveyor systems with mechanical systems such as conveyors or augers.

Practices for reducing water use include: 1) high-pressure, low volume washing systems; 2) auto shut-off valves; 3) multiple use and reuse of water; and 4) educating employees on good water management practices. In developing water use reduction strategies it is important to ensure that multiple water uses comply with restrictions set out in food safety regulations.

Wastewater treatment technologies can be broadly categorized as: 1) primary treatment aimed at removal of floating and settleable solids); 2) secondary treatment for removal of organic material; and 3) tertiary treatment for removal of nitrogen, phosphorus or suspended solids. Primary treatment includes technologies such as screening, flow equalization, gravity separation, and dissolved air flotation. Secondary treatment typically includes various configurations of aerobic or anaerobic biological systems. Tertiary treatment includes both biological and physiochemical treatment technologies. Other physical treatment technologies that are used by food processors to treat specific in-plant wastewater streams include membrane filtration, centrifugation, and evaporation.

Food processors that discharge to municipal sewer systems typically employ primary treatment as a minimum level of treatment, whereas facilities that discharge directly to surface waters or land use primary and secondary treatment. Meat, poultry and seafood processors are often required to use disinfection as a tertiary treatment step to remove pathogens.

A common approach used in Canada, the United States and Europe is to regulate direct dischargers in the food industry as point sources using legislation and regulations. This typically requires the discharger to obtain approval in the form of a permit to discharge wastewater into the environment. Criteria used in establishing permit limits and conditions are based on receiving water impacts. The exceptions are the Clean Water Act administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and designated states, which set permit conditions based on technology-based standards. Permit conditions typically establish mandatory requirements for pollutant limits and the

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 4 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

submission of regular compliance and monitoring reports to the approval agency. Variations to this common approach used in some jurisdictions are highlighted below.

• Prior to October 2003, Alberta Environment used Codes of Practice to regulate the operation of meat processing plants, vegetable processing plants, fish farms and fish processing plants. The Codes outlined minimum operating requirements to ensure compliance with provincial legislation and regulations. Effective October 1, 2003, the Codes of Practice for food processors were no longer used. Reportedly, this decision was made as part its overall effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of how activities with low potential for environmental impacts are regulated. Alberta Environment reported that the current focus of its approval efforts is on activities with higher potential for environmental impact.

• The new Environmental Management Act (EMA) enacted in British Columbia in 2004 changes the way the Province authorizes the discharge of pollutants into the environment. Under the new EMA, only pollutant discharges from prescribed industries, identified in the Waste Discharge Regulation (WDR), require an approval or permit. The Province has issued a WDR Implementation Guide to assist in interpreting the WDR. The guide, which is currently in draft form, divides prescribed industries into two schedules. Industries listed on Schedule 1 must continue to obtain site-specific approvals and permits issued under the EMA for any pollutant discharge. Food industry sectors listed on Schedule 1 include the dairy products industry; flour, prepared cereal food or feed industry; rendering industry; and sugar processing and refining industry. Schedule 2 classifies industries that are not required to obtain an approval or permit to discharge a pollutant provided they comply with a code of practice, if an applicable code of practice has been issued for that pollutant. Food industry sectors listed on Schedule 2 include the beverage industry; fish products industry; fruit and vegetables; poultry processing industry; and the slaughter industry. Codes of Practice were under development and not available at the time of the study.

• In the Netherlands, the main Act governing point source wastewater discharges is the Pollution of Surface Water Act. This law provides a framework and instruments to regulate the discharge of harmful substances into surface waters. Every single facility discharging wastewater into surface water is subject to a discharge license and must pay a levy according to the "polluter pay" principle. Discharge permits are generally approved on a case-by-case basis and depending on the characterization of the wastewater and receiving water body, treatment methods used must involve the use of Best Technical Means (BTM) available or Best Practicable Means (BPM) available.

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 5 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• Since 1990, the Government of the Netherlands has signed a number of voluntary agreements or covenants with different sectors of industry. The development of covenants involves consultations with industry representatives to establish an Integrated Environmental Target Plan (IETP) for the sector. The approach used differs according to the homogeneity of a given sector. For homogeneous sectors, a standardized approach to environmental management is used. The covenant would identify measures to be taken to implement the IETP and possibly lead to standard licensing regulations and checklists for enforcement. For less homogenous sectors, individual companies within a sector sign a declaration which commits them to establishing four year environmental plans that identify targets, timetables and measures the company will adopt. The company environmental plans are prepared in close cooperation with the licensing authority, and once approved, serve as the basis for issuing permits to the company. Covenant agreements have been signed with four targeted food industry sectors: dairy, slaughtering, sugar and brewery. The sectors were selected since they were identified as having the most significant environmental impacts in terms of wastewater and solid waste discharges.

A number of voluntary approaches being used by government and the food industry to implement best practices for wastewater management and environmental improvements were identified. Many of these involved government financial incentives to encourage adoption of best practices. Selected approaches are highlighted as follows.

• The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) operates the Rural Economic Development Program as a component of its Ontario Small Town and Rural (OSTAR) Development Initiative. Under this program, funding is provided to projects that support the economic growth and viability of rural communities. OSTAR has provided funding for projects to minimize the environmental impact of food processing operations. One project involved a collaborative effort of four meat-processing companies to identify best practices for water reduction and wastewater management that could be used as a sector standard and benchmark.

• The industry-led Agricultural Adaptation Council (AAC) is a non-profit coalition of 58 Ontario agricultural, agri-food and rural organizations. The AAC administers the Agricultural Environmental Stewardship Initiative (AESI), which supports projects involving education and awareness, technology transfer and stewardship tools to address the impacts of food processing operations on water, soil and air quality.

• AESI funding support was used to deliver a highly successful 15-month project to improve the sustainable performance of Ontario food processing companies. The project led to the completion of site-specific plant assessments in 37 food operations from 10 sectors. The assessments identified a total of 180 opportunities

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 6 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

to reduce energy and water usage, and improve wastewater management practices. One food direct discharger participated and used the program to identify opportunities to eliminate the current lagoon-based system through water reuse, wastewater segregation and alternative wastewater treatment technologies. A compendium of best practices and case studies were also created and disseminated to the food industry by OMAF.

• The British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has established trust funds to provide the incentive and opportunity for industry sectors to lead, manage, and finance their own development by providing partial funding for development activities to assist industry in establishing partnerships with other parties who share their development priorities. There are 10 Trust Funds (totaling over $16 million) that have been established for specific sectors to provide partial funding as a catalyst for their industry development initiatives. The Trust Funds are managed by an independent trustee, not the government, and provide earnings, and capital in some cases, for industry projects. Industry invests in all projects undertaken, i.e., industry must match the funds flowing from the Trust on a dollar for dollar basis.

• The Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) Processing Based Program is intended to assist food processors to develop and adopt more sustainable processing practices and polices. The AESA Program may provide grants on cost-shared basis for eligible projects to a maximum of $20,000 per project. The Program specifically aims to reduce environmental impacts of food processing on the environment and to build industry environmental stewardship and consumer confidence through awareness, extension and education programs.

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food Processor Direct Discharger Database

This section describes the data sources and methodology used to develop a current profile of Ontario food processing facilities that discharge wastewater directly to the environment. Existing information from a variety of sources was obtained, reviewed, and cross-referenced to obtain a current list of direct dischargers. The methodology and data sources used in developing the database are highlighted below.

To provide ease-of-use and flexibility, the database was constructed in MS Access, which allows for searching and sorting capability between tables of mutually exclusive data. It also facilitates easy updating of records and transferability of data using other commercial software programs such as Microsoft Excel. The database consists of five data tables, which were created according to the following category headings: Facility, Monitoring, Treatment, Product, and Wastewater.

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 7 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Obtaining data to populate the database involved a four-step process, which was iterative in nature and required a significant effort to search, cross-reference, correlate and validate information from multiple information sources. The methodology and information sources used are summarized as follows.

Step 1: Develop Preliminary List of Direct Discharge Facilities

The starting point was a review of four preliminary lists of direct discharge food processing facilities provided by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF). These preliminary lists were cross-referenced and compared to databases maintained by the MOE Environmental Approvals and Assessment (EAA) Branch related to approvals granted to direct wastewater dischargers under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA).

Step 2: Review Preliminary List with MOE Water Policy Branch and OMAF

In developing the preliminary list of direct dischargers, the project team identified two major issues relating to the definition of a direct discharger and the lack of facility- specific information.

During the review of the EAA databases the need for a clear definition for “direct discharger” and “food processing” was required. For example, some food-processing facilities use lagoon and spray irrigation systems to manage their wastewater. In other cases, some facilities had been issued Cs of A under Section 53 of the OWRA, but were discharging their wastewater directly to municipal sanitary sewers. In addition, the databases also included records for agri-food operations such as mushroom, vegetable and fish farms as direct dischargers of wastewater. Based on subsequent discussions with the MOE Policy Branch, the following criteria were used to identify direct discharge food-processing facilities:

• Facilities that have obtained Cs of A for process wastewater treatment under Section 53 of the OWRA; • Facilities that have been identified as direct dischargers of wastewater to the environment based on the personal knowledge of the project team and MOE or OMAF personnel; and • Facilities that have been issued Cs of A for direct wastewater discharges and also have been identified as being connected to a municipal sanitary sewer (i.e., they have the option to discharge wastewater directly to the environment).

Facilities not considered as direct dischargers for the purposes of this report were defined as follows:

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 8 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• Facilities that manage wastewater discharge by lagoon and spray irrigation systems (these facilities were not counted as direct dischargers but are included in the direct discharger database with a notation indicating this type of treatment method); • Facilities identified as having a connection to a municipal sanitary sewer system, and do not have Cs of A under Section 53 of the OWRA, and have not been otherwise identified as a direct discharger; • Facilities identified as being out of business, closed or not defined as a food- processing facility; and • Agri-food operations such as mushroom farms and vegetable processors except for two facilities, which were identified as direct dischargers by OMAF.

Copies of some facility-specific Cs of A and annual monitoring reports were requested from the EAA Branch and MOE District Offices, and relevant information from these documents was entered in the direct discharger database. However, it was determined there was a lack of specific information on key data fields needed to populate the database. These related to specifics on wastewater treatment methods, characterization and discharge information, and monitoring programs.

Step 3: Survey of MOE District Offices

The preliminary list of food-processing direct discharge facilities was distributed to MOE District Offices for review as a means of further refining the list and addressing some of the facility-specific data gaps. The District Offices were requested to:

• Identify any facilities missing from the list that should be included as direct dischargers based on the criteria described above; • Identify any facilities that should be removed from the list and the reasons for removal (e.g., the facility is no longer in business, process wastewater is managed by a lagoon and spray irrigation system or is discharged to a municipal sanitary sewer); • Provide basic information about the facilities wastewater management practices (e.g. treatment method and monitoring effluent requirements); and • Provide copies of Cs of A and monitoring reports, particularly for significant direct discharge facilities.

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 9 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Step 4: Finalize List of Direct Dischargers and Populate the Database

Several facilities were removed from the preliminary list since they were identified by the District Offices as being connected to municipal sanitary sewers or using lagoon and spray irrigation system for wastewater disposal.

Other secondary sources of information used to populate fields in the database were:

• The Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database, which was used to enter information related to water supply, where available, and to identify the location of MOE Region and District Offices for each direct discharge facility, where available.

• The Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B) manufacturing directory and the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), which were used to identify contact information of the owner and/or operator, the mailing address and the site location of food-processing facilities identified as direct dischargers.

A total of 65 food-processing facilities were identified as being direct dischargers of wastewater to the environment. A summary on the number of direct discharge facilities broken down by MOE Region and food industry sector is provided in the report.

Further work is required to address remaining data gaps and to populate the data fields related to facility-specific information. For example, only a limited number of Cs of A and annual Monitoring reports were available from MOE sources during the timeframe of the project from which to develop this type of detailed information. Cs of A and monitoring reports for all the remaining identified discharge facilities would need to be obtained and reviewed to extract and enter relevant information into the database. Alternatively, a survey of direct discharge facilities developed in collaboration with the food processing companies could be used to obtain this information.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processor Wastewater

This section provides information that can be used to develop a characterization plan for Ontario food processor wastewater discharges. This includes: the nature and impact of contaminants that may be present in food processing wastewater; the selection of wastewater and solid waste parameters for characterization; guidelines for collection, preservation and storage of samples; analytical methods; a list of accredited analytical laboratories; and typical analytical costs. Selected highlights from this section are summarized as follows.

Food-processing wastewater effluent can be characterized as having high levels of “conventional” pollutants (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand, fats, oils, grease, suspended solids, dissolved solids, acidity, alkalinity, temperature, and nutrients such as nitrogen

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 10 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

and phosphorus). Residual chlorine and disinfection byproducts may be present in effluent discharged from facilities that disinfect wastewater or equipment to control pathogens using chlorination.

There is also a potential for a number of “non-conventional” pollutants to be present, likely at low levels, in the wastewater generated by some food processors. This group of emerging contaminants has not been typically used to characterize wastewater or been subject to regulatory or monitoring requirements. These pollutants include metals, pesticides, veterinary drugs, disinfection byproducts and other organic contaminants, including those listed under the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA).

A set of general parameters proposed for use as guidelines in characterizing wastewater discharged directly to the environment by Ontario food processors is presented in Table ES-1. The selected parameters were considered to be relevant to the food-processing sector as whole except as noted (i.e., four parameters are applicable only to specific types of processes or treatment systems). The selected parameters were intended to achieve a consistent baseline characterization for the sector to identify those pollutants that may be present. The baseline may be used to define facility- or sub-sector-specific routine (e.g., monthly) monitoring requirements. In addition, when developing a characterization plan for a given facility, consideration should be given to the site-specific use of chemicals as processing aids, sanitizing agents, etc.

Acute lethality was included as a general indicator of effluent quality and its selection is consistent with approaches used by the Ministry in characterizing other industrial sectors (e.g., MISA Regulation Monitoring). It is intended as a means of identifying conditions of poor effluent quality that may be due to site-specific conditions (e.g., site-specific contaminants, cumulative effects of more than one parameter) that need to be addressed using a toxicity reduction evaluation approach. Other non-conventional parameters proposed are metals and disinfection byproducts (i.e., trihalomethanes) for some types of facilities.

The study scope included a review of the parameters that should be used to characterize solid wastes generated during the handling and treatment of food-processing wastewater. Characterization of solid wastes may be undertaken to determine the fate of wastewater contaminants, to assess the suitability for land disposal, or both. The parameters were selected based on these objectives and other considerations such as recommendations for testing and disposal of industrial wastes on farmland in Ontario (OMAF, 1996), and the requirements of the Nutrient Management Act. The proposed characterization parameters are presented in Table ES-2 and are grouped into the following types of indicators: a) general indicators; b) pathogens; and c) metals.

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 11 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table ES-1: Proposed Wastewater Characterization Parameters for Direct Discharge Ontario Food Processors Remarks Conventional or Biological BOD5 5-day (Carbonaceous) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) E.coli Meat and poultry processing. Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) Fecal Coliform Meat and poultry processing. pH Temperature Total Ammonia (TNH3) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Phosphorus (TP) Total Residual Chlorine Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat, poultry and dairy processors). Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Un-ionized Ammonia Non-Conventional Acute Lethality Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Titanium Trihalomethanes Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat, poultry & dairy processors). Zinc

“Other emerging pollutants” such as pesticides, veterinary drugs, and substances listed under COA were not specifically presented in Tables ES-1 or ES-2. These contaminants are persistent in the environment, and may originate from a wide variety of sources other than food processing facilities. These materials, if present in food processing wastewater, may partition and accumulate in the solid wastes generated by wastewater treatment systems.

An extensive search of the Internet and general scientific literature indicated there is a general lack of information about the presence of other emerging pollutants in food processor wastewater. Thus, it was not possible to justify selecting these parameters based on their known presence or absence in the sector’s wastewater. Selective characterization of wastewater discharges and solid wastes for the emerging pollutants at

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 12 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

specific food processing facilities may be justified based on the potential for them to be present, the general absence of information, and a review of site-specific conditions (e.g., chemical inventories, material safety data sheets, unit processing operations, combustion processes).

Table ES-2: Proposed Solid Waste Characterization Parameters for Direct Discharge Ontario Food Processors

Pollutant Remarks General Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) Nitrate and Nitrite pH Total Ammonia (TNH3) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Phosphorus (TP) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Volatile Solids (VS) Pathogens E.coli Meat and poultry products processing. Fecal Coliform Meat and poultry products processing. Metals Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Zinc

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater

This section reviews available information on the characteristics of food processor wastewater discharges. Information was obtained from a variety of sources including: sanitary sewer monitoring databases maintained by Ontario municipalities; monitoring data obtained from the Ministry of Environment; and national and international reports. Wastewater characteristics are summarized by food industry sub-sector.

The wastewater profile for each of the following industry sub-sectors was prepared using existing information sources, as described below:

• Animal food manufacturing

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 13 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• Grain and oilseed milling • Sugar and confectionary product manufacturing • Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty food manufacturing • Dairy product manufacturing • Meat product manufacturing • Seafood product preparation and packaging • Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing • Other food manufacturing • Beverage manufacturing

To characterize wastewater discharges from Ontario food processors, data were obtained from the following sources:

• Sanitary sewer monitoring databases maintained by Ontario municipalities; • Monitoring data for selected direct dischargers obtained from the Ministry of Environment for the period 1992-1997; • Actual wastewater data from projects and case studies; and • National and international reports that are publicly available.

The following are important points to keep in mind when attempting to make comparisons between data from the above sources or between industry sub-sectors.

• Information on treatment systems was not available from the municipalities and would have to be obtained directly from the facilities. Based on the project team’s experience, the data obtained from the municipalities largely represents wastewater that is either untreated or has undergone primary treatment (e.g., screening gravity separation, dissolved air flotation). In the case of indirect dischargers, the municipal treatment plant provides the secondary level of treatment prior to discharge to the environment.

• The method of sampling (i.e., frequency and type of sample) and reporting format varies from municipality to municipality and, in some cases, from facility to facility within the same jurisdiction. For example, municipalities compile results for both individual grab and composite samples, while others report annual averages. In order to compare the data it was necessary to use annual averages. The use of averages is not indicative of maximum instantaneous pollutant concentrations.

• Monitoring data for direct dischargers obtained from the Ministry of Environment represents a higher level of treatment (e.g., secondary biological treatment) than typically used by facilities discharging to municipal sewer.

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 14 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• Data reported in the literature or obtained from Internet searches were reported in a variety of formats (e.g., different sample types, single values, average values, concentrations, mass discharge rates without corresponding flow rates, etc.). The data were often presented without supporting information on the level and type of treatment used. Based on the pollutant concentrations presented, these data appear to be untreated wastewater or wastewater that has received limited treatment.

• Reports obtained from the literature or Internet searches did not specify the production capacity of the facility from which the data were obtained, nor do they provide information on the number of product changes or types of wash down or sanitation practices used. For example, the scale of production likely has a significant impact on the water and wastewater management efficiencies achieved, with larger plants achieving higher water management efficiencies than smaller plants. In larger facilities, water use in proportion to production may be lower and the treatment of effluent may become more economical. The use of higher capacity production lines and economy of scale considerations may be contributing factors. These considerations are important in comparing data from different countries. For example, meat processors in the United States use similar processes to those used in Ontario, however, U.S. facilities tend to be larger. : Sections 4.3 – 4.12 of the report provide detailed tabular and graphical summaries of the data for each contaminant and subsector. The annual average concentrations compiled from the municipal data for the four most frequently monitored contaminants (BOD, TSS, pH and phosphorus) are summarized in Tables 4.37 – 4.40. The tables also include a summary of the direct discharger monitoring data obtained from the Ministry of Environment for the meat processing, poultry processing and dairy sub-sectors as well as typical values reported in literature.

The data available from the information sources described above were limited to conventional pollutants associated with the food industry. As previously mentioned, quantitative information on non-conventional or “emerging” pollutants (e.g., pesticides, veterinary drugs, disinfection byproducts and other organic contaminants including those listed under the COA) was not found.

To address the data gaps with respect to non-conventional pollutants, it would be necessary to obtain information directly from individual facilities or from facilities determined to be representative of a given industry sub-sector. Sampling and analysis of facility wastewater would be required to develop a quantitative baseline in terms of the presence, absence or concentration of specific parameters. In order to understand the results of the baseline characterization, additional detailed information about each facility should also be collected from a survey. The final design of a baseline characterization program would be influenced by the specific objectives of the program and the resources available. Considerations with respect to the program design include the following:

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 15 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• In the absence of existing data, priority should be given to those subsectors with the highest potential for non-conventional pollutants to be present within their raw materials, processes or wastewater treatment systems. As previously discussed, there is a potential for pesticides to be present in meat, poultry, fruit and vegetable processing facilities. The potential also exists for veterinary drugs and disinfection byproducts to be present in wastewater generated by meat and poultry processing operations. Disinfection byproducts may be present at facilities that use chlorine-based solutions for sanitizing equipment.

• Determining the potential for the presence of other non-conventional parameters (e.g., acute lethality, metals, COA) on a subsector level is not possible without undertaking a detailed review of all raw materials and chemical products used, or an analysis of wastewater generated at individual facilities.

• A decision with respect to the sample size to be used for the baseline characterization would be required i.e., whether or not to include all 65 facilities identified in this study in the baseline, or to select representative facilities from each of the nine subsectors. In order to identify representative facilities it would be necessary to obtain basic site-specific information (e.g., types of processing operations, production capacity, operating hours, age, number of employees, wastewater treatment practices, effluent flow rates, regulated effluent parameters). This information could be collected as the first phase of a two-stage survey. To encourage a high response rate, the initial survey should be simple for companies to complete.

• For facilities selected for baseline characterization, additional detailed information (e.g., list of chemical products used, material safety data sheets, wastewater treatment operating and maintenance costs, wastewater sources, existing flow rate and monitoring data) could be collected from a second and more detailed survey.

• A collaborative approach with other agencies (e.g., OMAF) and trade associations (e.g., Alliance of Ontario Food Processors) may facilitate the development of and response to the survey. Section 6 provides a list of organizations that may facilitate this type of initiative.

Section 5: Review of Wastewater Best Management Practices for Food Processors

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 16 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

operational changes, process and equipment modifications, and water use efficiency strategies) and wastewater treatment technologies (e.g., target pollutants, typical contaminant reductions, ease of implementation, and relative costs) that may be applied to specific wastewater streams or final effluent. Highlights from this section of the report are presented below.

Presently there are no economic incentives available to direct dischargers similar to those available to food processors that discharge to municipal sewers (e.g., avoidance of over strength surcharges, capital rebate programs for investment in pre-treatment). This presents a significant limitation to estimating the simple payback period (i.e., implementation cost divided by annual cost saving) associated with investments in new equipment, facilities or processes to improve wastewater quality beyond compliance with statutory requirements. In Ontario, projects with payback periods greater than two years are typically not implemented.

In Ontario, the level of treatment required of industrial wastewater treatment systems that discharge directly to surface waters are described in the Ministry of Environment Guideline F-5 and its related procedures. The F-5 guideline calls for secondary treatment or equivalent as the “normal level of treatment”, and sets out concentration-based Design Objectives and Effluent Guidelines for various treatment system configurations. More stringent limits may be required based on receiving water impacts.

BMPs may be used to reduce the discharge of pollutants entering the environment in wastewater effluent. This is accomplished through the use of: a) pollution prevention practices aimed at preventing pollutants from entering water streams; b) treatment technologies to remove pollutants from individual wastewater streams or final effluent; c) improving water use efficiency; or d) a combination of these options.

The benefits of implementing BMPs include a reduction in:

• Discharge of pollutants in final effluent (kg/day) • Demand on existing downstream treatment systems and a corresponding increase in existing capacity without additional capital investment • Operating and maintenance costs • Water consumption and costs • Energy and raw material consumption and operating costs • Quantity of waste (e.g., sludge) generated and corresponding disposal costs.

The main types of pollution prevention BMPs are:

• Operational and Housekeeping Changes: Theses practices include procedural changes, training, simple equipment or process modifications, water recycling and reuse, and improved inspection and maintenance practices. A review of process

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 17 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

changes should address the use of various chemical products that may contain non-conventional pollutants such as COA Tier I and Tier II substances. They are characterized as being relatively easy to implement and requiring a low capital investment.

• Process and Equipment Modifications: These are generally associated with technology advancements and usually require a higher capital investment than operational and housekeeping changes. It is prudent to assess the technical and economic feasibility of the technology prior to implementing it on a full-scale.

• Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Strategies: These practices involve optimizing water use through the recycling and reuse of water. The net effect of implementing WUE strategies is a reduction in the volume together with an increase in contaminant concentration of the final effluent to be treated or discharged. The benefits of reducing effluent volume prior to final treatment include providing additional treatment capacity from existing treatment systems, and reducing the capital and operating costs associated with the installation of new or modified treatment systems. WUE measures applied to wastewater containing pathogenic microorganisms must be implemented in accordance with food safety requirements. This constraint may, in many cases, restrict the recycling and reuse of wastewater.

Various subsector specific and crosscutting BMPs are presented in Tables 5.1 – 5.4 of the report together with guidance on implementation. The implementation methodology is summarized and depicted in Figure ES-1. A key aspect of this approach is to implement lower cost measures to reduce the demands on and optimize the capacity of existing capital equipment. This is accomplished using an iterative continuous improvement cycle.

Section 5.3 of the report describes the various types of wastewater treatment technologies, considerations in selecting the right type of technology, and typical steps involved in the design and construction of new treatment systems. The types of treatment systems are summarized in Figure ES-2. The reader is directed to that section of the report for details on specific technologies.

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 18 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Figure ES-1: Continuous Improvement Cycle for Implementing BMPs

Develop Water Balance

Identify Sources of Water Contamination

Identify and Implement Operational and Housekeeping Changes to Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Update Water Balance

Identify and Implement Recycling/Reuse Opportunities to Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Update Water Balance

Identify and Implement Equipment and Process Redesign Actions to Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Update Water Balance

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 19 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Figure ES-2: Classification of Wastewater Treatment Processes

Source Control Including course screens for removal of large solid particulates at sources

Diversion and Retention Tanks

•Contingency for accidental release •Keeping “clean” water separate

PRELIMINARY TECHNIQUES from water to be treated

Removal of Solids Technologies included are: ¾Screening ¾Flow equalization

PRIMARY ¾Gravity separation

TREATMENT ¾Dissolved air flotation ¾Chemical precipitation

Removal of Organic Material Technologies included are: ¾Biological treatment ¾Lagoons SECONDARY TREATMENT

Removal of Specific Contaminants Technologies included are: ¾Nutrient removal ¾Filtration

TERTIARY ¾Disinfection TREATMENT

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 20 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage the Adoption of Best Management Practices

This section reviews and identifies mechanisms to encourage Ontario's food processing facilities to adopt best management practices. The feasibility and impacts of the implementation associated with each mechanism are described. Barriers and challenges that typically limit or prevent adoption of best practice environmental improvements by companies are reviewed together with how they can be removed or minimized. Selected highlights are summarized below.

Several studies have analyzed the barriers that limit or prevent companies from adopting best practices to improve their environmental performance. Barriers can be faced by any company regardless of size, but tend to be more common in small and medium sized (SME) companies. The level and extent of barriers facing food companies varies and depends on their size, location, sector, and organizational and management structure. For the purposes of this study, the goal was to identify a broad set of common challenges faced by Ontario food processors, and to make recommendations on mechanisms that can address them.

In simplest terms, lack of awareness, time, expertise, money, and access to an information and training support network, are common barriers faced by food companies.

Mechanisms currently being used in Ontario and other jurisdictions to encourage industry adoption of BMPs include the following:

• Site Specific Facility Assessment Programs: There are several government program initiatives in Canada and the United States (US) designed to improve the environmental performance of food processing facilities through site-specific facility assessments and reviews. For government-sponsored programs in Ontario and other parts of Canada, financial incentives are provided to companies to share in the cost of conducting the assessment. In general, these programs provide companies with technical assistance and expertise to identify best practice measures to improve environmental performance at the facility or plant level.

• Best Practice Training Workshops: Workshop training and information sessions can be an effective mechanism to raise awareness of environmental performance issues and to sensitize management on the benefits of best management practices provided they are appropriately designed and delivered.

• Education and Outreach: This mechanism involves education and outreach to Ontario food processing facilities through dissemination of best practice information such as the water and wastewater management guidelines described in Section 5 of the report. These include pollution prevention practices and wastewater treatment technologies.

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page ES- 21 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• Research and Technology Demonstrations: These would include such programs as the National Research Council (NRC) Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP). This program provides non-repayable contributions to Ontario companies on a cost-shared basis for research and pre-competitive technology development projects. Other examples include the Michigan State Technology Demonstration Program and Illinois Accelerated Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Technologies (ADOP2T) programs.

• Environmental Management Systems: This type of mechanism involves assisting industry to develop a better understanding and new ideas in environmental management on an industry sector basis. The program focuses on three priority areas: promoting environmental management systems (EMS); overcoming regulatory or other barriers to environmental performance improvement; and performance measurement. An example is the US EPA Sector Strategies Program.

The report provides several examples of mechanisms and approaches that may be used to encourage the implementation of BMPs by Ontario food processors.

Based on the study team’s practical experience in delivering these types of programs, one critical success factor is matching the mechanism with an appropriate driver to motivate companies to change their behavior and create a continuous improvement culture. The more customized and specific the mechanism, the more likely a food company will buy- into the process and adopt best practices. Efforts to encourage adoption of best practice environmental improvements by Ontario food processing facilities should be coordinated with the following organizations to optimize delivery, reach and impact:

• Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food • Alliance of Ontario Food Processors • Ontario Food Processors Association • Ontario Independent Meat Processors • Ontario Dairy Council • Association of Ontario Chicken Processors • National Research Council, Industrial Research Assistance Program • Guelph Food Technology Centre • Natural Resources Canada

Executive Summary Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page I - 1 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

INTRODUCTION

Food processing is a water-intensive industry with water being used in many of the steps in the food production process, including food cleaning, peeling, cooking, and cooling. It is also used as an ingredient and to clean production equipment. Wastewater generated by these operations is typically characterized as having high concentrations of organic pollutants including biochemical oxygen demand, fats, oils, grease, suspended solids, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Other pollutants may be present depending on the specific nature of the raw materials and processing operations such as disinfection agents.

In this report, the term Best Management Practices (BMPs) refers to operational changes, equipment modifications, water use efficiency strategies, and wastewater treatment technologies that may be applied to individual wastewater streams or to final effluent to reduce pollutant discharges to surface waters in Ontario.

Study Objectives

The primary objectives of this study were as follows:

• Compile information available on Ontario food processors that discharge wastewater directly to the environment, and create a database that provides a snapshot of the sector.

• Develop a list of wastewater parameters that may be used to characterize food processor effluent, and provide information about how wastewater samples should be collected and analyzed.

Introduction Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page I - 2 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• Summarize the characteristics of wastewater discharges from the various sub- sectors of the food processing industry based on a review of existing information.

• Identify Best Management Practices that may be used by food processors in Ontario to improve the quality of their wastewater discharges.

• Identify mechanisms that may be used to encourage Ontario food processors to adopt Best Management Practices and foster an environment of continuous improvement.

Structure of the Report

The study was undertaken as six individual tasks as described in the main sections of this report. Each of the main sections of the report is summarized as follows.

Section 1: Industry and Sector Overview

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food Processor Direct Discharger Database

This section describes the data sources and methodology used to develop a current snapshot or profile of Ontario food processing facilities that discharge wastewater directly to the environment. Existing information from a variety of sources was obtained, reviewed, and cross-referenced to obtain a current list of direct dischargers.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processor Wastewater

This section provides information that may be used to develop a characterization plan for Ontario food processor wastewater discharges. This includes: the nature and impact of contaminants that may be present in food processing wastewater; the selection of wastewater and solid waste parameters for characterization; guidelines for collection, preservation and storage of samples; analytical methods; a list of accredited analytical laboratories; and typical analytical costs.

Introduction Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page I - 3 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater

Section 5: Review of Wastewater Best Management Practices for Food Processors

This section reviews Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be applied to food processing facilities to reduce the discharge of pollutants in wastewater. The two broad categories of BMPs discussed are: a) pollution prevention practices and b) treatment technologies. Information is presented about pollution prevention techniques (e.g., operational changes, process and equipment modifications, and water use efficiency strategies) and wastewater treatment technologies (e.g., target pollutants, typical contaminant reductions, ease of implementation, and relative costs) that may be applied to specific wastewater streams or final effluent.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage the Adoption of Best Management Practices

Introduction Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-1 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

SECTION 1.0 INDUSTRY AND SECTOR OVERVIEW

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE CANADIAN FOOD AND MANUFACTURING SECTOR

The food and beverage manufacturing industry is a key driver of the Canadian economy, providing one in seven jobs across the country. The sector accounted for 8.3 per cent of the total Canadian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2000.

From 1992 to 2001, the number of establishments in the food and beverage sector has grown substantially in Canada (Table 1.1). Highest growth was in the bakeries and tortilla sector, and wineries in the beverage sector.

Food and beverage exports have doubled over the past decade. This includes exports of raw goods such as potatoes as well as finished food products such as canned fruits and vegetables. Today, about 50 percent of food exports are consumer-oriented. In 1999, Canada was the world's third largest exporter of fresh food and food products, after the United States and European Union, accounting for 3.5 per cent of world exports.

From a provincial context, food processing is the largest manufacturing sector in seven provinces, and is the third largest manufacturing sector in the three remaining provinces, including Ontario. The food and beverage sector accounts for 10 per cent of total manufacturing shipments in Canada.

1.2 THE ONTARIO FOOD INDUSTRY

1.2.1 Relative Size

Ontario’s food and beverage products sector is the third largest manufacturing sector in the province in terms of sales, behind the automotive and metal manufacturing sectors. Ontario processes over 40 per cent of Canada’s food and beverage shipments.

Ontario’s food processing sector is comprised of some 3,050 establishments (see Table 1.2) with annual sales of $30,000 or more. This industry group can be characterized as follows:

• Large manufacturers (over $200 million in sales): 36 establishments • Medium-sized manufacturers ($10 to $200 million): 324 establishments • Small manufacturers ($100,000 to $10 million): 840 establishments • Other: 1,850 establishments

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-2 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.1: Number of Establishments ** in Canada by Industry Groups in the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Sector - (NAICS 311 and 3121)

NAICS Industry Group Number of Food CAGR* % Code Establishments 1992- Change 1992 2001 2001 2000- 2001 3111 Animal Food Manufacturing 480 562 1.8% 1.4% 3112 Grain and Oilseed Milling 94 177 7.3% 5.4% 3113 Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing 106 189 6.6% 3.3% 3114 Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food 217 372 6.2% -1.3% Manufacturing 3115 Dairy Product Manufacturing 310 434 3.8% -1.4% 3116 Meat Product Manufacturing 588 769 3.0% -1.0% 3117 Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging 422 700 5.8% -1.1% 3118 Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing 580 1,779 13.3% 0.0% 3119 Other Food Manufacturing 262 563 8.9% 2.9% 31211 Soft Drink and Ice Manufacturing 127 174 3.6% 5.5% 31212 Breweries 46 130 12.2% -3.7% 31213 Wineries 39 168 17.6% 10.5% 31214 Distilleries 20 18 -1.2% -10.0%

311 Food Manufacturing 3,059 5,545 6.8% 0.2% 3121 Beverage Manufacturing 232 490 8.7% 3.8% Total 3,291 6,035

31-33 All Manufacturing 33,129 54,031 5.6% 1.2%

Notes: * Compound annual growth rate ** Incorporated establishments with employees, primarily engaged in manufacturing and with sales of manufactured goods equal or greater than $30,000 NAICS = North American Industrial Classification System

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-3 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.2: Number of Facility Establishments in Ontario - (Active and Closed – 2002) By Employment Size, Category and Province - Food and Beverage Manufacturing (NAICS 311 and 3121) Size Category (Number of employees) 0** 1 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 199 200 - 499 500+ Ontario (Food) 1,115 718 372 293 303 184 114 65 24 Ontario 182 169 24 17 16 17 9 6 5 (Beverage) Total 1297 887 396310 319 201 123 71 29 Grand Total 3633 ** No employees or an unknown number of employees

1.2.2 Industry Employment

Ontario’s food processing industry employs about 105,000 people. Food processing is considered recession-proof. Demographic spending trends indicate that food is the last discretionary spending item to be curtailed and can actually increase during an economic downturn.

Ontario’s food processing industry is the labour entry point for many new Canadians. This is, in part, due to the strong presence of ethnic food manufacturers in the province. Immigrant communities bring their food and food manufacturing establishments to Ontario as they integrate their lives and cultures into the Canadian milieu. In fact, Toronto and the GTA are a notable entry point for cultural cuisine to the North American market.

1.2.3 Food Industry Sales and Exports

In 2002, Ontario’s food industry generated total annual sales of about $40 billion; $32 billion in domestic sales and $8 billion in export sales (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Since 1970, Ontario’s food exports have doubled every five years.

Ontario’s food products compete for North American and global market share. A breakdown of export sales by food product is shown in Figure1.2.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-4 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 1.1: Ontario Food Industry Domestic Sales by Sector

$7.0 $6.4 Total Value of 2002 Domestic Sales: $ 31.6 Billion

$6.0 $5.3

$5.0

$4.0 $3.2 $3.2 $3.1 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $2.5

$1.9 $2.0 Total Value of Food Shipments ($Billion) Shipments Food of Value Total

$1.0

$0.0 Beverage & Sugar & Dairy Products Other* Fruit & Meat Products Grain & Bakeries & Animal Food Tobacco Confectionery Vegetable Oilseed Milling Tortilla

*Other manufacturing includes: coffee and tea, snack food, roasted nut, peanut butter, seasonings and dressing, flavoring syrups and concentrates, and all “other” food. Source: Statistics Canada, OMAF

Figure 1.2: Ontario Food Industry Export Sales by Sector

$2.0 $1.8 $1.8 Total Value of 2002 Export Sales: $ 8.35 Billion $1.6 $1.4 $1.4

$1.2 $1.1 Exports ($Billion) ($Billion) Exports $1.0 $1.0 $0.8 $0.8 $0.7 $0.6 $0.6 $0.5 Total Value of Food Value Total $0.4 $0.3 $0.2 $0.2

$0.0 Grain & Oilseed Other* Beverage & Tobacco Meat Products Vegetables Food Ingredients Sugar & Animal Feeds & By- Coffee & Tea Dairy Products & Products Confectionary Products Eggs

*Other includes: fish and products, floriculture, and live animals. Source: Statistics Canada, OMAF

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-5 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.2.4 Regional Clusters

The Ontario food industry can be categorized into five regional clusters. These are comprised of: the Greater Toronto Area cluster; the Grand River Region cluster (including Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Guelph and Brantford); the Southwest Ontario Region cluster (including London, Chatham and Windsor); the Hamilton/Niagara Region cluster (including Hamilton, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Port Colborne and Welland); and the Eastern Ontario Region cluster (including Kingston, Belleville, Trenton and Peterborough).

Within each regional cluster, food processing companies, suppliers, research institutions and other businesses are carrying out various activities to convert raw materials into finished food products. These activities are referred to as a "value-chain". Examples of these value-chains include:

• a biscuit/cookie value-chain (grain breeders, researchers, seed companies, specialty wheat growers, millers, ingredients manufacturers, bakers); • a frozen fruit and vegetable value chain (seed companies, researchers, growers, processors); • a tomato value-chain (plant breeders, researchers, growers, processors, ethnic food processors and transnational branded processors); • a winery value-chain (researchers, propagators, growers, vintners, region hospitality); and • an ingredient value chain such as corn starch/sweeteners (researchers, breeders, seed companies, growers, and companies providing further processing in the beverage, confectionery baking, and paper industries).

1.3 FOOD SECTOR OVERVIEWS

A general economic overview of the major food processing sectors in Canada and Ontario is provided below. While information and data is readily available from Statistics Canada on the Canadian food industry, there is limited published and comparable data available on the Ontario food industry. For the purposes of this overview, the project team used a mix of data provided by Statistics Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF). A discussion on the wastewater characteristics generated by these major food sectors is provided in Section 1.5.

1.3.1 Meat Product Manufacturing

The red meat and meat products category is the largest sector of the Canadian food manufacturing industry. Annual sales were about $11.3 billion in 2000. Meat products are made from beef, veal, pork, lamb, venison and bison. Meat processing companies make a

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-6 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______wide variety of products including fresh, frozen, processed, smoked, canned, cooked meats and sausages and deli products.

For deli products, the main categories are luncheon meats, hot dogs, bacon and sausages. Ham is the largest selling deli item by volume followed by turkey, bologna and sliced beef such as pastrami. In Ontario, deli meat products are manufactured in about 25 federally licensed plants. These plants are either integrated with primary processing plants (slaughterhouses) to ensure a supply of raw material, or are stand-alone operations that purchase raw materials in the marketplace. Companies range in size from large multinational corporations to small family-owned specialty operations.

In 2000, retail sales of deli meats were estimated to be $1.1 billion across Canada. In Ontario, retail sales were just under $500 million, or $600 million if foodservice and ingredient sales are included (these include sales to commercial and institutional establishments such as cafeterias in universities and hospitals, and sales to fast food establishments). In comparison, the U.S. deli market had sales of $7.6 billion (U.S.), which after currency exchange and population is similar to Canada on a per capita basis. The deli meat sector is growing 4 per cent to 6 per cent per year in retail sales. Sales of many lighter and leaner products are growing over 10 per cent per year.

1.3.2 Dairy Product Manufacturing

The dairy industry is the fourth largest sector of the Canadian food industry. It is the second largest employer in the Canadian food industry, with approximately 20,500 workers in 275 Canadian dairy plants. In 2001, sales from Canadian dairy processors were $9.8 billion, representing 14 percent of total food and beverage industry sales.

Canadian milk and dairy products are recognized internationally for their superior quality. In 2001, Canadian dairy product export sales were about $440 million.

The dairy industry is composed of two sub sectors. One processes “farm gate milk” into packaged fluid milk and cream products, and yogurt. The other, which used almost two- thirds of all milk produced in Canada during 2001, manufactures “other dairy products” such as cheese, butter, ice cream, and milk powders.

The dairy sector is relatively concentrated and has seen significant consolidation over the past few years. Today, the three largest processors, Saputo, Parmalat and Agropur, own 36 per cent of the plants that process 71 per cent of all milk produced in Canada. Ontario and Quebec account for more than 60 per cent of all Canadian plants and about 75 per cent of all industry output. Dairy cooperatives continue to form an important part of the dairy- processing sector, handling more than a third of the milk processed.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-7 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

The dairy industry in Ontario consists of about 90 companies. Through their collective 115 manufacturing plants and 7,000 employees, they process approximately 2.5 billion litres of raw milk annually and had total sales of about $3.2 billion in 2002.

1.3.3 Beverage Manufacturing

The beverage industry consists of four different sectors; soft drink manufacturers, distillers, brewers and wineries. Apart from the weather and other seasonal impacts on sales, which all four industries share, the four sub-groups can be considered as operating in two markets; non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages.

In terms of brewers, the Canadian brewing industry is responsible for the manufacture and sale of over two billion hectolitres of beer annually. The two major breweries control 90 percent of the market with a large number of smaller brewers competing for the remainder. The Canadian brewing industry generates about $12 billion a year in sales and employs 14,400 people in manufacturing, distribution and sales.

In 2001, the Ontario industry was comprised of two national brewers, one regional and 29 small brewers. These 33 brewers produced over nine million hectolitres of beer on an annual basis. Ontario-made beer represents $2.5 billion in sales and employs 6,700 people.

While Ontario domestic beer sales declined during the nineties, export sales boomed. Ontario brewers have been successful in offsetting the loss of domestic market share by capitalizing on exports to other markets, especially in the US. Since 1990, production of beer for export has more than doubled and now represents over 30 percent of total Ontario production.

1.3.4 Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing

The confectionery industry in Canada is comprised of two major sub-sectors. These include manufacturers of all types of sugar confectionery, chocolates and other cocoa- based products, as well as producers of chewing gum. Sugar and chocolate confectionery account for about 80 percent of industry shipments, while chewing gum accounts for the remainder. Chocolate bars are the major products in the sugar and chocolate confectionery sub-sector, followed by boxed and bulk chocolates, and hard, medium and soft candies.

In 2000, total export sales of Canadian confectionery products was about $943 million. The leading eight confectionery companies produce about 87 per cent of the value of shipments. Canada is the only country in the world where the four major multi-national confectionary manufacturers co-exist, making the market highly competitive.

It is estimated that between 85 and 90 percent of Canada’s confectionary industry resides in Ontario, where the major multinational manufacturers have plants and headquarters.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-8 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Total Ontario sales of sugar and confectionary products in 2002 were estimated at $5.3 billion.

1.3.5 Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing

This sector includes potatoes, mushrooms and vegetables. In 1999, total Canadian sales of vegetables and vegetable products were about $1.9 billion. Domestic production and exports of both fresh and processed product continues to increase. In 1999, Canada exported $581 million in sales of fresh vegetables, including potatoes, and another $854 million of processed vegetables (mainly frozen, canned and dried), including frozen French-fried potatoes. Processed vegetable exports have increased approximately 47 per cent since 1997. The growth of this sector is linked to a provincial priority to help tobacco farmers diversify from tobacco production.

1.3.6 Fats and Oils Refining and Blending

The fat and oil refining and blending industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing fats and oils by processing crude or partially refined oils, for example to deodorize them; or blending purchased fats and oils. Both edible and inedible products may be produced. Both animal and vegetable fats and oils may be used. Effluent and waste byproducts have the potential application as a bio-diesel fuel stock.

The main activities of manufacturers are blending purchased fats and oils, hydrogenating purchased oils either fully or partially, and rerefining purchased fats and oils. Edible products are mainly cooking oils, margarine (including imitation) and shortening, made from purchased fats and oils.

According to Industry Canada (1999), there are 18 manufacturing establishments in Canada with eight of these are located in Ontario. Total Canadian value of shipments from manufacturing establishments grew from $392 Million in 1990 to $741 million in 2001.

1.3.7 Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing

The baking industry in Ontario is composed of companies that make value added products including bread, buns, rolls, doughs, desserts, crusts, pastas, cookies, biscuits, crackers, wafers and cones that are either baked or frozen. According to Statistics Canada, Ontario has 495 companies with 20,000 employees that transform 1.6 million tonnes of grain and other raw materials into $3.3 billion dollars worth of value added products, making Ontario the largest baking cluster in Canada.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-9 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.3.8 Snack Food Manufacturing

The snack food industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in salting, roasting, drying, cooking, or canning nuts; processing grains or seeds into snacks; manufacturing peanut butter; or manufacturing potato chips, corn chips, popped corn, hard pretzels, pork rinds and similar snacks.

According to Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian snack food industry is highly concentrated, with the four largest companies (Frito Lay, Humpty Dumpty Snack Foods, Olde York Potato Chips and Super-Pufft) producing close to 90 per cent of the value of shipments. The annual value of industry shipments in 2001 according to Statistics Canada was estimated at $1.5 billion.

1.4 DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS AFFECTING THE ONTARIO FOOD INDUSTRY

Demographics will continue to drive the health and wellness trend, with older Canadians and increasing numbers of young consumers ranking nutrition as an important factor when choosing food. Consumers are also increasingly concerned about food safety.

The increasing incidence of obesity and related diseases, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, has the public, government, health professionals and the food industry considering the steps necessary to help consumers make healthy food choices. Transfat, the role of macronutrients in satiety and weight control, sugar sweetened drinks and sodium are topics being discussed.

Food recalls cost the food industry millions of dollars each year. Microbial food safety continues to be important, and further research is needed on food borne viruses and antibiotic resistant strains of Salmonella. Chemical contamination, including allergens, residues of pesticides, veterinary drugs, and chemicals formed during processing are also important. Traceability programs are being developed to deal with tracking and tracing, product recalls, crises management and identity preservation.

The Ontario food industry is also facing significant federal, provincial and municipal regulatory change including: nutrition labelling, natural health products, labelling of genetically modified organisms (voluntary), food fortification, revisions to the Food and Drug Act, environmental protection, waste diversion, and nutrient management.

Some key trends affecting the food and beverage industry are summarized below.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-10 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Baby Boom Generation This growing group of consumers will increasingly place demands for smaller serving sizes, easy-to-use packaging, easy-to-read labels, and more nutritious product formulations. With greater interest in health and convenience, consumption patterns are starting to skew towards quick, low-fat, low calorie, and low cholesterol options.

Ethnic Foods Sales of ethnic foods continue to grow as they become more mainstream. Ethnic foods will drive volume in the frozen foods category over the next decade.

Gourmet Products Specialty food stores will thrive, as unique, upscale and expensive products will be small indulgences for consumers who seek gourmet products.

Organics The demand for organics is growing. An Alberta Ministry of Agriculture survey reported 64 per cent of consumers believe organics are better, and 68 per cent said they would pay a 10 per cent premium for them. Natural food sales are growing at 14 per cent per year, while organic food sales are growing at 24 per cent per year.

Single Serve Meals Growth in quick meal kits and comfort food in stores is expected. The side dish is vanishing, as consumers incorporate vegetables into one-dish meals such as stir-fries, stews and casseroles.

Food Safety Concerns Increasing concern for food safety is leading consumers to feel more reassured by familiar brand names, best-before dates, and pre-packaged products.

Dual Incomes The increase of dual income households is leading to increased purchasing power and demand for food that is convenient to prepare, serve and store.

Refrigeration Supermarket sales of prepared refrigerated foods reached $7.1 billion in 2000 and are expected to top $9 billion by 2005 in the United States.

Bio-products Bio-products and bio-fuels are a new and emerging trend related to the food industry. The use of grains for ethanol production; oilseeds and waste fats for bio-diesel and other food wastes (solid and liquid) for addition to methane digestion processes pose significant economic opportunities in the renewable energy field. The reuse of waste effluents has the potential to improve the final wastewater quality.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-11 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.5 FOOD PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Despite the diverse nature of the food industry’s raw materials, operations and products (e.g., fruit, vegetable, oils, dairy, meat, fish, etc.), its sub-sectors share a number of common environmental aspects, including: water consumption; chemical use in processing and cleaning; generation and disposal of wastewater; discharge of storm water runoff; generation of liquid and solid wastes; energy use; greenhouse gas emissions, packaging material use, and food safety issues. The scope of this study focuses on the use of water and generation of wastewater.

1.5.1 Wastewater Management Issues

Food processing is a water-intensive industry with water being used in many of the steps in the food production process, including food cleaning, sanitizing, peeling, cooking, and cooling. It is also used as an ingredient and to clean production equipment. Wastewater generated by these operations is discharged to the environmental with or without treatment either directly to receiving water or land, or indirectly via municipal sanitary sewer systems. It is estimated that 3% of food processing facilities in Ontario discharge wastewater directly to surface water or land.

Food-processing wastewaters can be characterized generally as having high concentrations of “conventional” pollutants i.e., biological oxygen demand; fats, oils and grease; suspended solids; dissolved solids; and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Pathogenic organisms are a concern in facilities where animals or dairy products are processed. Residual chlorine may be present in effluent discharged from facilities that disinfect wastewater or equipment to control pathogens.

The characteristics and generation rates of wastewater are highly variable, depending on the specific types of food processing operations. One important attribute is the general scale of the operations, since food processing extends from small, local operations to large- scale national or international producers. In addition to scale differences, the types of food production processes (e.g., fruit, vegetable, oils, dairy, meat, fish, etc.) vary widely, with associated differences in the specific wastewater contaminants. Even within a given food processing plant, the wastewater discharged from different unit operations--or from different seasons--may vary with respect to flow rates and compositions.

Trace quantities of other “emerging” pollutants may be present in food processing wastewater from the use of chemical products (e.g., disinfectants, catalysts, refrigerants, reactants, pesticides) or the handling of by-products (e.g., pathogens in manure or blood).

The Ontario-Canada Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/coa/intro_e.html) lists two groups of pollutants, referred to as Tier I and Tier II substances, that considered harmful by the Environment Canada and the

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-12 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Ministry of Environment. COA substances currently used or released in Canada are summarized in Table 3-1 of this report. Under the agreement, the use of these substances is to be eliminated or reduced. As part of COA, Ontario has agreed to review industrial wastewater dischargers that are currently not covered under existing regulations.

With respect to the food processing industry there is an absence of reliable information available in the literature about the emerging pollutants category, including the COA listed substances. Furthermore based on an extensive review of the literature there have been no wastewater characterization programs undertaken in the food processing industry for these substances.

A summary of conventional and potential emerging pollutants in the food processing industry is provided below. The selection of parameters for characterizing food-processing wastewater in Ontario together with recommended methods for sampling and analysis are provided in Section 3 of this report.

1.5.2 Conventional Pollutants

The characteristics of food processing wastewater are often highly variable depending on the specific type and scale of the operations. Conventional pollutants typically found in food processing wastewater are listed in Table 1.3. These parameters are typically subject to limits set out in regulations, municipal sewer-use bylaws or operating permits.

Table 1.3: Conventional Pollutants in Food Processing Wastewater

Contaminant Potential Environmental Impact

Biochemical Oxygen Demand • Reduces dissolved oxygen levels in receiving waters (BOD5) contributing to increased mortality of fish and aquatic organisms.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) • Alters fish habitat by settling and depleting oxygen on the bottom of receiving waters. • Clogs fish gills. • Reduces light penetration in receiving waters thereby limiting growth of aquatic vegetation that serves as critical habitat for fish and aquatic organisms

Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) • Contributes to BOD and impact dissolved oxygen content of receiving waters.

High or Low pH • Contributes to increased mortality of aquatic organisms.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-13 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.3: Conventional Pollutants in Food Processing Wastewater

Contaminant Potential Environmental Impact

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) • Organic fraction of TKN may be converted to ammonia nitrogen.

Ammonia Nitrogen (NH4-N) • Toxic to fish and aquatic organisms. • Reduces dissolved oxygen levels in receiving waters contributing to increased mortality of fish and aquatic organisms.

Phosphorus • Contributes to eutrophication of freshwater ecosystems leading to increase fish mortality, disruption of the ecosystem, and impairment of recreation use.

Fecal coliform bacteria1 • Used as indicator of fecal contamination and possible presence of pathogens and inadequate disinfection. • Human health impacts via use of receiving water as source of drinking water or contact recreation.

1 Potential contaminant for meat-, poultry- and seafood- processing facilities.

1.5.3 Non-Conventional Pollutants

Contaminants in this category include metal, organic and other parameters that may be a concern for food processing facilities.

A number of metals have the potential to be present in food industry wastewater. Possible sources of metals include water supply and distribution systems, sanitizing and cleaning chemicals, and processing equipment. Metals, including arsenic, copper and zinc, are commonly added to livestock and poultry feeds and may be present in wastewater from meat and poultry processing facilities.

Pesticides have the potential to be present in wastewater from meat- and poultry- processing, and fruit- and vegetable processing facilities. Pesticides are applied topically to livestock and poultry in some feeding operations to control parasites. Although there are regulated minimum withdrawal periods before slaughter there is the possibility that pesticide residues remain on feathers, hair and skin. Pesticide residues that remain on fruits and vegetables may enter wastewater streams during processing. This is controlled through the use of minimum pre-harvest intervals that establish the minimum amount of time that

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-14 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______must pass between the last pesticide application and the harvesting of the crop, or the grazing or cutting of the crop for livestock feed. These intervals have been established to ensure that pesticide residues on crops remain below the Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) set by Health Canada. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) conducts annual monitoring for chemical residues (i.e., antibiotics, pesticides) in meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables. In 2002, 3.5% of 579 samples of fruits and vegetables samples contained pesticide residues in excess of the MRL (OMAF, 2003).

A recent study by the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that a broad range of chemicals found in residential, industrial, and agricultural wastewaters commonly occurs at low concentrations downstream from areas of intense urbanization and animal production (Bloxall, A.B.A, et al, 2003). The study suggests that mixtures of pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other wastewater contaminants can occur at low concentrations in streams that are susceptible to various wastewater sources. The 95 chemicals addressed in the study included human and veterinary drugs (e.g., antibiotics), natural and synthetic hormones, and insecticides. Drinking water standards or other human or ecological health criteria have reportedly been established for 14 of these chemicals, and concentrations measured during this study rarely exceeded any of the standards or criteria. Knowledge of the potential health effects to humans or aquatic organisms exposed to the low levels of most of these chemicals is very limited. Specific contributions from food processing wastewater were not determined. Further analysis including relationships to specific source types is reportedly ongoing.

Chemicals reported to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) by food processors are listed Table 1.4

In 1999, the USEPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics published a list of chemicals commonly reported to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) by food processing facilities in the United States. The list is presented in Table 1.5, which has two columns. The first column lists the type of industrial process in which the chemical is associated, and the second column lists examples of the chemicals reported by the food processing industry to the TRI.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-15 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.4: Chemicals Discharged to Surface Waters by Canadian Food Processors Chemicals NAICS Sub-Sector Ammonia 311119 Other Animal Food Mfg. 311221 Wet Corn Milling 311310 Sugar Mfg. 311410 Frozen Food Mfg. 311511 Fluid Milk Mfg. 311515 Dairy Product 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 311614 Rendering & Meat Processing 311615 Poultry Processing 311814 Commercial Bakeries & Frozen Products Cookie & 311821 Cracker Mfg. 311940 Seasoning & Dressing Mfg. 311990 All Other Food Mfg. 312120 Breweries 312140 Distilleries Chlorine 311119 Other Animal Food Mfg. 311211 Flour Milling 311410 Frozen Food Mfg. 311614 Rendering & Meat Processing Chlorine Dioxide 311119 Other Animal Food Mfg Copper 311119 Other Animal Food Mfg. Formaldehyde 311310 Sugar Mfg. Hexachlorobenzene 311119 Other Animal Food Mfg. n-Hexane 311224 Oilseed Processing Hydrochloric Acid 311990 All Other Food Mfg. 311221 Wet Corn Milling 311310 Sugar Mfg. 311515 Dairy Product (except Frozen & Fluid) Mfg. 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 311615 Poultry Processing 311990 All Other Food Mfg. 312110 Soft Drink & Ice Mfg. Hydrogen Sulphide 311224 Oilseed Processing 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering Isopropyl Alcohol 311310 Sugar Mfg. 311410 Frozen Food Mfg. Manganese 311119 Other Animal Food Mfg. Nickel 311224 Oilseed Processing 311990 All Other Food Mfg.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-16 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.4: Chemicals Discharged to Surface Waters by Canadian Food Processors Chemicals NAICS Sub-Sector Nitrate 311310 Sugar Mfg. 311410 Frozen Food Mfg. 311511 Fluid Milk Mfg. 311515 Dairy Product (except Frozen & Fluid) Mfg. 311919 Other Snack Food Mfg. 311940 Seasoning & Dressing Mfg. 311990 All Other Food Mfg. Nitric Acid 311511 Fluid Milk Mfg. 311515 Dairy Product (except Frozen & Fluid) Mfg. 311520 Ice Cream & Frozen Dessert Mfg. 311919 Other Snack Food Mfg. 311940 Seasoning & Dressing Mfg. 312120 Breweries Peracetic Acid 311515 Dairy Product (except Frozen & Fluid) Mfg. Sulphuric Acid 311119 Other Animal Food Mfg. 311221 Wet Corn Milling 311224 Oilseed Processing 311310 Sugar Mfg. 311410 Frozen Food Mfg. 311511 Fluid Milk Mfg. 311515 Dairy Product (except Frozen & Fluid) Mfg. 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 311614 Rendering & Meat Processing 311919 Other Snack Food Mfg. 311940 Seasoning & Dressing Mfg. 311990 All Other Food Mfg. 312120 Breweries 312140 Distilleries Zinc 311119 Other Animal Food Mfg.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-17 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.5: TRI Chemicals Commonly Encountered in Food Processing Facilities

Process Chemicals

Water disinfection Chlorine and chlorine dioxide

Refrigerants Ammonia, ethylene glycol, Freon 113, dichlorodifluoromethane, CFC- 114, chlorodifluoromethane

Food ingredients Phosphoric acid, various food dyes, various metals (e.g., zinc, copper, manganese, selenium), and peracetic acid

Reactants Ammonia, benzoyl peroxide, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ethylene oxide, phosphoric acid, propylene oxide

Catalysts Nickel and nickel compounds

Extraction or carrier n-Butyl alcohol, dichloromethane, n-hexane, phosphoric acid, solvents cyclohexane, tert-butyl alcohol

Cleaners or Chlorine, chlorine dioxide, formaldehyde, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, disinfectants 1,1,1-trichloroethane

Wastewater treatment Ammonia, hydrochloric acid aerosols, sulfuric acid aerosols

Fumigants Bromomethane, ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, bromine

Byproducts Ammonia, chloroform, methanol, hydrogen fluoride, and nitrate compounds

Can Making/Coating Various ink and coating solvents (e.g., glycol ethers, MEK, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, xylene), various listed metals (e.g., manganese, nickel, chromium), and various metal pigment compounds (e.g., many pigments contain copper, barium, chromium, zinc or lead)

Pesticides or Various pesticides (e.g., aldrin, captan, 2,4-D, hydrazine, lindane, maneb, Herbicides parathion, zineb, malathion, atrazine, diazinon bromine, naphthalene)

Source: USEPA 1998.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-18 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.6 SECTOR WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

Examples of wastewater characteristics generated by the major food sub-sector processing operations are described below. Additional information about conventional pollutants such as biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids is presented in Section 4.0.

1.6.1 Meat Product Manufacturing

This industry has the potential to generate large quantities of wastewater with high biochemical oxygen demand (“BOD”), suspended solids and very high fats and oils.

1.6.2 Dairy Product Manufacturing

The wastewater from this industry is typically high in BOD, suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorous. These contaminants come from wash water and process waste from egg and milk processing, drying, bottling and packaging. The wastewater may also contain pathogens. The potential for generating strong odours is very high.

1.6.3 Beverage Manufacturing

The beverage industry has different wastewater issues for each different product. Wastewater volumes of "soft drink processes" are lower than in other food-processing sectors, but fermentation processes are higher in BOD and overall wastewater volume compared to other food-processing sectors.

1.6.4 Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing

This sector typically generates large volumes of wastewater with high organic loads from wash water, skins, rinds, pulp, and other organic waste from fruit and vegetable cleaning, processing, cooking and canning. The wastewater may contain cleansing agents, salt, and suspended solids such as fibres and soil particles. The wastewater may also contain pesticide residues washed from the raw materials. Operation of some facilities may be seasonal.

1.6.5 Grain and Oilseed Milling

This sector has high BOD concentrations in their wastewaters from wastes such as chaff, hulls, pods, stems, weeds and oilseed meal. These organic materials also contribute to high TSS levels and FOG in the oilseed manufacturing process.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-19 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.6.6 Vegetable Fats and Oils Manufacturing

The starch and sugar/sweetener industries include wet corn milling (for high-fructose corn syrup and corn starch) and sugar refining. These industries typically have a BOD profile that ranges from 800 to 3000 mg/l, depending upon their processing equipment and product line. A significant volume of water is used in these plants for cooling.

1.6.7 Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing

Bakery wastewater is directly related to the types of food products in the wastewater and is therefore high in BOD due to the fat, protein, and carbohydrates present. Some bakeries discharge as much as 12 pounds of BOD per thousand pounds of bakery products produced. More than 90 percent of a plant's total waste load comes from ingredients that are lost and flow into floor drains during processing and cleaning. Flour, sugar, yeast, and shortening are the major components. The wastewater may also contain cleaning agents, lubricants, and solids removed from equipment and floors.

1.6.8 Snack Food Manufacturing

Wastewater is generally comprised of suspended solids (dirt and peels from potato washing) and BOD created by starches in the peeling and slicing processes. The untreated BOD from these industries has been known to reach 10,000 to 50,000 mg/l BOD. Starch recovery in potato chip plants has been recently shown in Ontario to reduce BOD loads down to municipal by-law limits.

1.6.9 Other Food Manufacturing

All food processing wastewater/effluent may have elevated temperatures due to the thermal requirements of food safety. The presence of pathogens in any water source is largely a function of temperature and time. Food safety protocols for the food processing industry also require routine sanitation schedules that may mix the wastewater profile and reduces recovery potential.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-20 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.7 CURRENT PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES

Wastewater flow and contaminant load reduction practices have been adopted as standard business practices by many food processors in order to reduce operating costs and increase profits. However, the extent of these practices and their effectiveness varies widely among individual facilities. The practices can be broadly categorized as: 1) source control practices and technologies, and 2) treatment technologies. The following provides an overview of the practices used by food processors. These practices together with specific recommendations for Ontario food processors will be discussed in more detail in Section 5 of this report.

1.7.1 Source Control

The first stage of minimizing the generation of wastewater generally involves implementing low-investment solutions directed at minimizing the amount of waste that enters the wastewater stream, reducing potable water use, or both. Daily cleanup and sanitation of facilities and equipment contribute substantially to water use and the wastewater pollutant load and often present the greatest opportunity for reductions.

The overall objective of reducing the amount of food and other wastes from becoming waterborne is to prevent the mixing of wet and dry wastes. Some of the practices reported by food processors include: 1) use of dry cleanup before floor washing; 2) manually cleaning vessels to remove solids before cleaning with water; 3) installing solids collection trays at specific points in production process; and 4) replacing water-based conveyor systems with mechanical systems such as conveyors or augers.

Practices for reducing potable water use include: 1) high-pressure, low volume washing systems; 2) auto shut-off valves; 3) multiple use and reuse of water; and 4) educating employees on good water management practices. In developing water use reduction strategies it is important to ensure that multiple water uses comply with restrictions set out in food safety regulations.

1.7.2 Treatment Technologies

Wastewater treatment technologies can be broadly categorized as: 1) primary treatment aimed at removal of floating and settleable solids); 2) secondary treatment for removal of most organic material; and 3) tertiary treatment for removal of nitrogen or phosphorus or suspended solids. Alternative treatment technologies and practices are also used for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Food processors that discharge to municipal sewer systems typically employ primary treatment whereas facilities that discharge directly to surface waters or land use primary and secondary treatment. Meat, poultry and seafood processors are often required to use disinfection as a tertiary treatment step to remove

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-21 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______pathogens. The following provides an overview of the types of treatment technologies used by food processors.

Primary Treatment

Screening

Screening is the most economical method of primary treatment and is often used as the first primary treatment step. It removes large solid particles from the waste stream that may damage or interfere with downstream equipment and treatment processes, including pumps, pump inlets, and pipelines. Screens are available in a variety of configurations including: static or stationary, rotary drum, and vibrating types.

Flow Equalization

Flow equalization is used to reduce the fluctuations in the volume and quality of wastewater. Facilities typically consist of a holding tank and pumping equipment designed to receive a variable flow into the tank and provide a constant flow out. The primary advantages of equalization basins are that they allow downstream treatment systems to be smaller and they prevent process upsets in downstream treatment systems due to variations in treatment wastewater feed quality. Aeration and mixing is typically used in situations where there is a potential for odours or settling of solids.

Gravity Separation

Gravity separation is used to separate waste materials such as oil and grease or suspended solids from wastewater based on their difference in density. This is typically achieved using settling ponds, concrete basin, or specific types of tanks designed for minimum turbulence, flow-through operation with typical hydraulic retention times of 20 to 45 minutes. Materials less dense than water (e.g., oil and grease, fine solids) float to the surface and are removed by skimming, and heavier solids settle to the bottom of the pond or vessel and are periodically removed and disposed.

Dissolved Air Flotation

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-22 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Chemical Addition (Flocculants, Coagulants, and Polymers)

Chemicals (e.g., polymers, coagulants, and flocculants such as aluminum or iron salts or synthetic organic polymers) are often added to wastewaters upstream of DAF to aggregate colloidal particles to improve separation performance. The chemicals added are essentially all removed with the separated solids, which are subsequently disposed of by rendering or other means.

Secondary Treatment

Biological Treatment

Secondary treatment of wastewater can be performed using a combination of physical and chemical treatment processes, however, biological treatment systems are the most commonly used approach where high BOD removal efficiencies (e.g., 90%) are required. Both aerobic and anaerobic biological systems are used to treat food processor wastewater. Anaerobic biological processes followed by aerobic biological processes are often used to treat high strength wastewater such as those generated by meat and poultry processing facilities.

Aerobic wastewater treatment processes can be broadly categorized into two main groups: suspended and attached growth processes. Suspended growth processes include aerobic lagoons and various forms of activated sludge process like conventional, extended aeration, oxidation ditches, and sequencing batch reactors. The most common types of attached growth processes are trickling filters and rotating biological contactors.

Anaerobic wastewater treatment involves using anaerobic microbes to reduce complex organic compounds to methane and carbon dioxide to achieve removal of BOD. Methane and carbon dioxide are effectively insoluble in water and are easily desorbed. This “biogas” mixture of predominantly methane is collected and flared, used as fuel, or released directly to the atmosphere. Uncontrolled biogas emissions from anaerobic systems typically create very offensive odour. Anaerobic treatment is often carried out in an anaerobic lagoon due to its relatively low capital costs. Alternative high rate anaerobic processes are reportedly used. These include: anaerobic contactors similar in concept to activated sludge treatment; anaerobic sequenced batch reactors, and anaerobic filters.

The BOD removal efficiency by anaerobic treatment can be very high (e.g., 97% for BOD and 95% for suspended solids) however, anaerobic wastewater treatment processes are more sensitive to temperature and loading rate changes than those of aerobic wastewater treatment processes. Effluent from anaerobic systems typically contains levels of ammonium, ammonia and sulphides that require further treatment before being suitable for discharge directly to surface water. Anaerobic contact systems are not common due to the relatively high capital costs.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-23 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

The operating costs of aerobic systems are higher than the costs of anaerobic systems due to the relatively high space, energy, maintenance, operator attention required for aeration and provision of the dissolved oxygen levels required by the biomass.

Tertiary Treatment

Tertiary treatment generally involves any treatment beyond conventional secondary treatment to remove suspended or dissolved substances. Tertiary may involve one or more treatment objectives and processing steps. For example, tertiary treatment may be used to: 1) remove nitrogen and phosphorus; 2) further reduce suspended solids concentration after secondary clarification; or 3) remove soluble toxic or dissolved inorganic substances (e.g., disinfection for pathogen removal).

Removal of Residual Suspended Solids

The concentration of suspended solids in secondary treatment effluent may exceed the level necessary to comply with regulatory limits. In these situations, granular-medium filtration involves passing the wastewater though a porous material to remove fine suspended material. In addition to removing suspended solids the process also provides further reductions in BOD. There are a variety of filter configurations used that differ in the type of media, number of media layers and operating mode (e.g., continuous or semi- continuous). With all types of filters there is a requirement to backwash or regenerate the filter to remove accumulated solids and prevent solids breakthrough. In semi-continuous filters, filtration and backwashing occur sequentially, whereas in continuous filters, filtration and backwashing occur simultaneously.

An alternative to granular-medium filters is the use of micro-screens, which involve passing the wastewater through a filter fabric to remove fine material. A typical configuration uses gravity-driven, low speed, continually backwashed, rotating drum filters. Wastewater enters the open end of the drum and flows outward through the rotating screening cloth.

Disinfection

Disinfection is used to destroy pathogenic microorganisms remaining after the processing of animals and is typically required prior to the discharge of wastewater from meat and poultry processing facilities. Chlorination is the most commonly used method for wastewater disinfection; however, the use of ultraviolet light, and combinations of ozone injection and UV disinfection are alternatives to disinfection.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-24 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Nutrient Removal

Some reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus occurs in primary and secondary wastewater treatment processes due to the separation of solids settling or use as a nutrient by the biomass. Additional reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations before discharge may be required to achieve regulatory effluent limits for these parameters based on the limited assimilative capacity of receiving waters. Both biological and physicochemical treatment systems may be used, however, biological technologies are commonly used, as the cost of treatment is typically lower.

Alternative Treatment Technologies

A number of alternative treatment technologies exist that have been applied in the food processing industry.

Land Application

Application of wastewater by sprinkler or flood irrigation to land can be a feasible alternative to discharging effluent directly to surface water provided sufficient land is available and other necessary conditions can be satisfied. These conditions include the use of the land for the production of crops to provide a means of removing nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients from the soils receiving the wastewater. In addition, the soil should have moderately sufficient permeability such that it will retain surface runoff and prevent migration to adjacent properties.

A minimum level of secondary treatment should be provided to wastewaters that are to be disposed of by sprinkler or flood irrigation. Secondary treatment reduces BOD and suspended solids loading and the potential for these parameters to act as design and operating constraints, and reduces potential problems associated with vermin and odours. A holding pond is also typically used to provide for wastewater storage when climatic or soil conditions do not allow irrigation. Proper holding pond design provides sufficient capacity to limit wastewater application to the active plant growth period of the year (e.g., retention time of six months in cold climates).

Land application of wastewater can adversely impact surface and ground water quality in the absence of proper design and operation practices. For example, nitrate leaching to ground water can result from excessive application of nitrogen; reduced soil permeability and the generation of noxious odors can result from excessive BOD loading rates, and over application of phosphorus can lead to surface or ground water contamination. Where spray irrigation systems are used, the potential for pathogen exposure via transport in aerosols is a concern. Practices used to reduce the transmission of pathogens in aerosols include: 1) avoiding wastewater spraying windy conditions; 2) creating buffer zones with or without hedgerows; and 3) using low pressure nozzles aimed downward.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-25 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Membrane Systems

These processes use a semi-permeable membrane and a pressure differential to separate water from products, contaminants, or byproducts. Membrane technologies have been used by food processors for more than a decade in applications such as recovering sugars from fruit processing operations, concentrating whey in the dairy industry, and clarifying juices and beverages. Membrane systems are also used in combination with other technologies for the treatment of wastewater. For example, membranes are used as an alternative to conventional clarifiers in smaller, packaged biological treatment systems.

Membrane systems are classified based on the range of particle sizes they are capable of treating. The three major categories are: 1) microfiltration (0.05-2 :m); ultrafiltration (0.005-0.1 :m); and reverse osmosis (above molecular weight 200). For example, microfiltration is often used to separate microbes; ultrafiltration is used to separate microbes and suspended solids; and reverse osmosis is used to separate suspended and dissolved solids. Nanofilters have also been developed that are capable of separating particles with a size distribution between ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. Membrane materials are typically organic polymers, however, a variety of other materials are being investigated and developed including ceramics, inorganic polymers, and metallic materials.

Membrane fouling and plugging can be problem with these systems. The rate of fouling is affected by a number of factors such as temperature, interactions between wastewater contaminants, and interactions between the wastewater and the membrane material. The effectiveness of membrane systems is application specific. They offer several advantages over conventional separation treatments such as a high degree of separation and control, smaller space requirements, and lower energy costs.

Centrifugation

Centrifuges operate on the principle of separating materials with different densities by subjecting them to a centrifugal force. Centrifuges are effective for the separation of large particles (1 to 5000 :m) and the separation of oil and water. Particles greater than 5000 microns (5 mm) may require pretreatment (grit removal or grinder) before centrifugation. Several different types of centrifuges are available, including basket, solid-bowl, counter current-flow and concurrent-flow systems. For example, a snack food manufacturer in Ontario used centrifugation to recover starch from rinse waters and significantly reduced the BOD and suspended solids concentrations in the final effluent.

Evaporation

Evaporation is well suited for wastewaters containing primarily inorganic salts. Two types of evaporators commonly in use are: mechanical evaporators and evaporation ponds. Thermo-mechanical evaporators require energy and allow for water recovery. Lower cost

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-26 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______evaporative ponds do not allow for the recovery of water and are ineffective during winter months. Foaming, scaling, and fouling are typical operational difficulties, which may require additional treatment systems.

Solids Management

Solids are generated during the primary and secondary treatment of food processing wastewater. Two major waste streams are: 1) solids separated by primary separation and dissolved air flotation (DAF); and 2) excess biosolids from biological wastewater treatment systems.

Rendering is a common practice for the disposal of solids recovered by primary and dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment of meat and poultry processing wastewaters. Typically, metal salts are not used as chemical treatment aids upstream of the DAF where rendering is used for the disposal of recovered solids to avoid introducing high concentrations of aluminum or iron in rendering products. Sending these wastes to a rendering facility can reduce disposal costs. Alternatives to rendering for the disposal of DAF solids are land application and landfilling.

Solid and liquid wastes containing starch and sugar (e.g., confectionary, snack food wastewaters) are disposed of as livestock feed.

Biosolids created by secondary wastewater treatment operations are often aerobically digested, and in some cases, de-watered prior to land application.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-27 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.8 REGULATORY APPROACHES FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

This section provides a general overview of regulatory approaches being used by a select number of relevant jurisdictions to manage the direct discharge of wastewater from the food industry sector.

Information on legislation, regulations, standards and guidelines used by some jurisdictions deemed to be relevant to Ontario was obtained, primarily through Internet based research, and reviewed. Other sources included personal communications with government regulatory agencies and an environmental lawyer.

A detailed comparative analysis of approval application and review procedures used by jurisdictions was not included in the scope of the review, or was a detailed assessment of the effectiveness of enforcement by regulatory agencies.

In general, food processing facilities that directly discharge wastewater to the environment are regulated by legislation and Acts for controlling point source pollution. This is referred to as facility or point source compliance, and is a common approach used by jurisdictions in Canada, the United States and Europe.

Under this approach, a food facility requires a legal instrument normally an approval or permit, to discharge wastewater into the environment. Criteria used in establishing permit limits and conditions are based on receiving water impacts. The exceptions are the Clean Water Act administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and designated states, and the Ontario Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement program, which use technology-based standards to set permit conditions. These are described in further detail in later sections.

Once a permit is granted, the food facility is required to submit regular compliance and monitoring reports to the approval agency and is subject to periodic inspections. The facility operator may be prosecuted if it exceeds the allowable contaminant releases or if it fails to implement certain treatment measures.

The following sections provide relevant examples of regulatory approaches being used in Canada, the United States and the Netherlands to manage direct discharges of wastewater to the environment from food processing facilities. A listing of the Acts and Legislation governing environmental protection and wastewater discharge in these jurisdictions is summarized in Table 1.6.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-28 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.6: Summary of Acts and Legislation Governing Environmental Protection and Wastewater Management in Select Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Legislation /Act Comment Website Canada Canada Water Act Prohibits the deposit of waste http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C- into any waters, which are part 11/index.html of a water quality management area.

Canada Fisheries Act Prohibits the deposit into fish- http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F- bearing waters any substance 14/ that may be deleterious to fish.

Canada Meat and Poultry Outlines “deleterious http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F- Products Plant substances” prescribed in the 14/C.R.C.-c.818/index.html Liquid Effluent Fisheries Act specific to the Regulations Meat and Poultry Products sector and provides limits on discharges.

Canada Potato Processing Outlines “deleterious http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F- Plant Liquid substances” prescribed in the 14/C.R.C.-c.829/index.html Effluent Fisheries Act specific to the Regulations Potato Processing sector and provides limits on discharges.

Alberta Environmental Activities Designation http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/pro Protection Regulation (276/2003) where tenf/approvals/factsheets/enhan Enhancement Act the Act defines which act.html industrial activities and food processing facilities require approval to discharge wastewater.

British Environmental Prohibits the introduction of http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epdi Columbia Management Act waste into the environment v/env_mgt_act/ (EMA) without a valid permit or approval.

British Waste Discharge Applies to certain industries http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epdi Columbia Regulation including Food Processing v/env_mgt_act/waste_dis_reg.h Sector. Details how the EMA tml approves discharges into the environment.

Manitoba The Environment Prohibits development that http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/reg Act results in the discharge of s/index.php pollutants unless a permit is

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-29 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Manitoba Disposal of Whey Regulates the approval and http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/reg Regulation discharge of whey into the s/index.php environment.

New Brunswick Clean Water Act Prohibits the introduction of http://www.gnb.ca/acts/acts/c- contaminants to the 06-1.htm environment unless permission is given under an Act of the Legislature.

Newfoundland Environmental Forbids the release of any http://www.gov.nf.ca/hoa/statut Protection Act substance into the es/e14-2.htm#7_ environment that may cause an adverse effect unless authorized by the Act or an approval issued under the Act. Nova Scotia Environment Act Prohibits the release of any http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/legc/ substance to the environment statutes/environ3.htm that may cause a significant adverse effect without a permit. Ontario Ontario Water Prohibits the discharge of any http://www.e- Resources Act materials that may impair the laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statut quality of the water unless a es/English/90o40_e.htm certificate of approval is granted. Environmental Protects against adverse http://www.e- Protection Act impacts on the environment laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statut es/English/90e19_e.htm P.E.I. Environmental Forbids the discharge of any http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statu Protection Act contaminant to the tes/pdf/e-09.pdf environment without written permission of the Minister. Quebec Environment Division V is devoted http://www.publicationsduqueb Quality Act exclusively for water quality ec.gouv.qc.ca/accueil.en.html and wastewater management. Discharges from food processing operations are handled on a case-by-case basis. Saskatchewan The Environmental Prohibits the introduction of http://www.se.gov.sk.ca/enviro and Management waste into the environment nment/protection/general/gener Protection Act without a valid permit or al.asp approval.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-30 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.6: Summary of Acts and Legislation Governing Environmental Protection and Wastewater Management in Select Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Legislation /Act Comment Website

United States Clean Water Act Renders the discharge of any http://www.epa.gov/region5/wa (CWA) pollutant illegal unless a ter/cwa.htm permit or license has been granted.

United States National Pollutant Authorized by the CWA to http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ Discharge regulate point sources that Elimination System discharge directly into waters. (NPDES) Uses Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards to set acceptable levels for different industries. California California Water Requires anyone who http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water Code discharges waste that could _laws/ affect the quality of the waters to file a report of discharge with the appropriate regional board. Michigan Natural Resources Prohibits the discharge of http://www.michiganlegislature and Environmental waste or waste effluent unless .org/ Protection Act permission is granted by a valid permit.

Illinois Environmental Prohibits the discharge of any http://www.ilga.gov/legislation Protection Act contaminants into the /ilcs/ilcs.asp environment so as to cause water pollution in Illinois without a valid NPDES permit.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-31 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.8.1 Canada

The Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is responsible for regulations under the Fisheries Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-14 (as amended) that apply to food processing operations in Ontario. The main pollution prevention provision is found in section 36(3) of the Act and is commonly referred to as the "general prohibition". This subsection prohibits the deposit, into fish-bearing waters, of substances that are deleterious or harmful to fish.

The DFO works in collaboration with Environment Canada to administer and enforce those aspects of the Act dealing with the discharge and control of pollutants under section 34 and sections 36 to 42. Under this context, Environment Canada assumes a lead role to advance pollution prevention technologies, to promote the development of preventative solutions, and to collaborate with other federal departments, the provinces and territories, industry and the public on issues related to the pollution prevention provisions of the Act.

Two regulations promulgated under the Fisheries Act apply to the food processing sector: Meat and Poultry Products Plant Liquid Effluent Regulations and the Potato Processing Plant Liquid Effluent Regulations. The former limits the discharge of biochemical oxygen demanding matter, total suspended matter (TSM), grease and ammonia nitrogen. The latter sets numerical limits for biochemical oxygen demanding material, total suspended solids (TSS) and pH.

In Ontario, Environment Canada administers an enforcement program in cooperation with the Ontario MOE to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act. This includes conducting inspections to verify compliance during planned inspections; investigating suspected violations; publicizing enforcement actions and results to encourage compliance; and compliance promotion activities. When Environment Canada fishery inspectors or fishery officers discover or suspect violations, they have tools to bring offenders or suspected offenders into compliance. These include warnings, directions, Ministerial orders, injunctions, prosecutions, and for those found guilty of violating section 36(3) and/or regulations under the Fisheries Act, fines and/or court orders.

1.8.2 Ontario

Ontario Water Resources Act

The Ontario MOE administers the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O-40, as amended (“OWRA”) that provides for the protection of Ontario’s water resources. The OWRA requires facilities that take more than 50,000 litres of water per day to obtain a Permit to Take Water. The OWRA also regulates discharges of wastewater, including a requirement for a site specific Certificate of Approval (“C of A”) for a system that collects, transmits, treats and discharges wastewater directly to receiving water or land. The C of A may include requirements governing effluent quality, monitoring, reporting and solids

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-32 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______disposal. Effluent quality requirements under the C of A may take into account the specific requirements of receiving water and cumulative effects within a watershed.

The direct dischargers in the food processing sector are subject to the site specific C of A requirements of the OWRA. There are no province-wide regulatory standards for food processing direct dischargers in Ontario. The Ministry’s Guideline F-5 defines the normal level of treatment for wastewater discharges to surface water as secondary, or equivalent. The Ministry’s treatment specifications for BOD, suspended solids and phosphorous are presented in Section 5 (see Table 5-5). More stringent requirements than those specified in the guideline and additional parameters may be applied where a site-specific assessment of the facility’s operation and the receiving water indicates that there is a water quality concern. The assessment and requirements are based on the ministry’s Water Management Policies, Guidelines and Provincial Water Quality Objectives with respect to the capacity of receiving body of water to accept effluent without adverse impacts. The guidance is normally incorporated as conditions of Certificates of Approval issued under the authority of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Ontario Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement Industrial Regulations

The Ontario MOE administers the Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) program to control the discharge of toxic substances from nine designated industrial sectors in Ontario. The regulations cover the petroleum refining, pulp and paper, metal mining, metal casting, industrial minerals, organic chemical manufacturing, inorganic chemical manufacturing, iron and steel, and electric power generation sectors.

Ontario Municipal Sewer Use By-Laws

Under Ontario's Municipal Act, municipalities have the authority to pass local sewer use by-laws to regulate what is discharged into their storm and sanitary sewers. Industrial wastewater discharge to the municipal sanitary sewer system is a municipal responsibility and is governed by local sewer use by-laws. The Ontario MOE does not approve wastewater discharges to municipal sanitary sewers.

While the focus of this study is food companies that directly discharge their wastewater to the environment, it is useful to understand and compare how municipalities are managing food wastewater discharges into their sanitary sewers.

Many of the larger urban municipalities in Ontario have passed and implemented sewer use by-laws. The main objective is to place specific limits on the amount of pollutants that a regulated company may legally discharge into the sewer. The Ontario MOE developed a Model Sewer Use By-Law (in draft form) in 1998 to help Ontario municipalities develop local sewer use-by laws. This model provided suggested limits for a select group of

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-33 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______common contaminants. Some of these are typically pollutants discharged by the food industry such as BOD, oil and grease, and suspended solids.

Monitoring and enforcement is primarily the responsibility of municipal field staff who visit facilities periodically to test and monitor pollutants being released into the sewer system. If the company is failing to meet set limits for specified pollutants, the municipality as a first step advises the company of voluntary measures to bring the facility into compliance. This includes in-depth analysis of the facility's operations and assistance in finding alternative processes and technology to reduce or eliminate the problem pollutant. Most municipalities rely on these "compliance agreements" whereby facilities are ordered to come into compliance within a given timeline.

If a company continues to violate the by-law, the municipality can levy fines based on the severity of the violation. In Ontario, municipal fines can range from $5,000 to $100,000 per offense, but these are rarely issued since most municipalities rely on compliance agreements.

For large polluting facilities, the municipality may enter into an over-strength agreement with the company. In this case, if a facility releases large amounts of pollutants that can be efficiently and effectively removed at the municipal treatment plant, the company enters into an over-strength agreement and pays the municipality a set rate based on the amount of excess pollutants they release in a given year

Two examples of sewer use by-laws implemented by the City of Toronto and Regional Municipality of Peel are briefly described below.

City of Toronto

The City of Toronto adopted its new sewer use by-law in 2000, and is generally regarded as having one of the most comprehensive by-laws in Canada. Other municipalities are using the Toronto by-law as the model for developing and updating their own sewer use by-laws. Toronto's by-law includes stricter limits than the MOE draft model for metal contaminants. The Toronto by-law also includes limits for 27 groups of organic pollutants not found in the MOE draft model.

The most interesting aspect of Toronto's sewer use-by law is a pollution prevention (P2) planning component. Under the by-law designated dischargers are required to submit to the City a complete list of the pollutants it releases and to provide detailed plans for reducing these pollutants through prevention measures at source. Failure by a company to submit a P2 plan is a punishable offense under the Toronto by-law, but failure to comply with the P2 plan is not an offense.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-34 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Region of Peel

The Regional Municipality of Peel has implemented a Sewer Use-By Law and Surcharge Levy approach to manage discharges of wastewater from industrial operations. The surcharge levied is based on the concentrations of BOD, suspended solids and solvent extractable matter of mineral, animal or vegetable origin (referred to as oil and grease mineral and oil and grease animal or vegetable) of the discharged wastewater.

Peel Region has also developed a Compliance Program with Monetary Incentive under which the owner or operator of an industrial premise undertakes to carry out works or improvements to prevent or reduce and control the loadings to the sanitary sewer.

To be eligible for the incentive, the company must be on a surcharge agreement with Peel Region and reduce the loadings by at least 50 percent. The rebate is up to 50 per cent of the surcharge amount paid over the period of the compliance program or the cost of the equipment.

An example of a food company that has benefited from the rebate program is Humpty Dumpty Snack Foods Inc located in Brampton, Ontario. The company had a surcharge agreement with Peel Region and was paying about $600,000 annually for water and sewer surcharges to the Region. After conducting detailed technical and economic feasibility studies, the company installed a sophisticated system that: recycles the wash and rinse waters on the potato chip line; recovers starch from the wastewater for sale as an industrial grade feedstock; and treats the wastewater.

Humpty Dumpty was able to use its wastewater surcharge rebate to finance about $630,000 of the total investment cost of $880,000.

1.8.3 Alberta

Alberta Environment regulates the release of industrial wastewater discharges to the environment primarily through the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA).

The Activities Designation Regulation (276/2003) defines the industrial activities that require approval under the EPEA. In the food processing sector, Regulation 276/2003 designates three types of food facilities requiring approval to discharge wastewater directly into the environment. These are meat, milk products and vegetable processing.

Regulation 276/2003 further defines the types of facilities required to obtain approval under the EPEA based on their size. In the meat sector, this includes facilities that produce on an annual basis more than 1,500 tonnes live weight of red meat, 130 tonnes live weight of poultry, or 130 tonnes of fish. In the dairy sector, this includes facilities that process on

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-35 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______an annual basis more than 5,000 cubic metres of raw milk. In the vegetable sector, this includes facilities that process on an annual basis more than 7,500 tonnes of vegetables. Alberta Environment has established wastewater effluent parameters and limits, and monitoring requirements to control wastewater discharges from these facilities.

Prior to October 2003, Alberta Environment regulated the operation of small meat processing plants, small vegetable processing plants, and small fish farms and fish processing plants by Codes of Practice. The Codes outlined the minimum operating requirements to ensure compliance with the EPEA, its associated regulations and all other applicable laws. In terms of wastewater management, all wastewater had to be discharged to a wastewater treatment plant or used to irrigate cultivated land following at least 12 months accumulation in a wastewater retention facility. The Code provided specifications on the size and construction of the retention facility and best practice procedures for irrigation.

Effective October 1, 2003, the Codes of Practice for the small meat, vegetable and fish farm and fish processing plants are no longer in effect. However, it should be noted that removal of the Code of Practice does not affect the full range of prevention and enforcement response tools available to Alberta Environment under the EPEA to address non-compliance.

An Alberta Environment official advised that this decision was made as part its overall effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of how activities with low potential for environmental impacts are regulated. The goal of Alberta Environment is to focus their approval efforts on activities with higher potential for environmental impact.

Alberta Environment has also consulted with stakeholders on removing regulations for activities that are also monitored by other areas of government. As a result of these consultations, all fish farms, and food processing facilities that do not release wastewater directly into the environment or release wastewater to an approved wastewater facility, will no longer require an approval or registration from Alberta Environment.

1.8.4 British Columbia

The new Environmental Management Act (EMA) in British Columbia was brought into force on July 8, 2004. This legislation replaced the old Waste Management Act and Environmental Management Act to create a single statute governing environmental protection and management in British Columbia.

One major change of the EMA is the way the Province authorizes the discharges of pollutants into the environment. Under the old Waste Management Act, all pollutant discharges required authorization in the form of an approval or permit. Under the new

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-36 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

EMA, only pollutant discharges from prescribed industries, businesses and activities as identified in the Waste Discharge Regulation (WDR) require an approval or permit.

The Province has issued a WDR Implementation Guide to assist in interpreting the WDR. The guide, which is currently in draft form, divides prescribed industries into two schedules. Industries listed on Schedule 1 must continue to obtain site-specific approvals and permits issued under the EMA for any pollutant discharge such as wastewater effluent into the environment. In terms of the food processing sector, prescribed industries listed on Schedule 1 include the dairy products industry; flour, prepared cereal food or feed industry; rendering industry; and sugar processing and refining industry.

Schedule 2 of the WDR classifies those industries that are not required to obtain an approval or permit to discharge a pollutant provided they are in compliance with a code of practice, if an applicable code of practice has been issued for that pollutant. In terms of the food processing sector, prescribed industries listed on Schedule 2 include the beverage industry; fish products industry; fruit and vegetables; poultry processing industry; and the slaughter industry.

It should be noted that while industries not prescribed by the WDR no longer require approval to discharge waste, they are still governed by the EMA, which prohibits any activity that results in environmental pollution.

1.8.5 Quebec

Water management in Quebec is shared among several agencies in the Quebec government, municipal governments and the federal government (e.g., Fisheries Act). The Environment Quality Act (EQA) is the main provincial act governing water quality and is administered by the Quebec Ministry of the Environment. Section 22 of the Act requires facilities to obtain a certificate of authorization for any activity that may result in an emission of contaminants into the environment.

Division V of the EQA is devoted exclusively for water quality and wastewater management. The project team contacted the Quebec MOE to obtain further information on regulations and polices governing wastewater management from the food industry. The project team was unable to obtain any documentation in English and was advised by EQA staff that wastewater dischargers from food processing operations were assessed on a case- by-case basis.

Government of Quebec Water Policy

The Québec Water Policy was released in November 2002. For the first time in its history, the Québec Government implemented a Water Policy to ensure the protection of this unique resource, to manage water with a view to sustainable development, and to better

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-37 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______protect public health and ecosystems. The policy introduces measures and government commitments to: • implement a watershed-based management to reform water governance; • apply this type of management to the St. Lawrence, notably by granting this important watercourse a special status; • protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems; • continue to clean-up and improve the management of water services; • promote water-related recreation and tourism activities.

1.8.6 United States (Federal)

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established national regulations that control the discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities to surface waters. Effluent limitations are based on process or treatment technologies that are technically feasible and affordable.

Industrial facilities that discharge directly to surface waters must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as mandated in the CWA. NPDES permits may be issued either by US EPA or by a delegated state. NPDES permits contain all the limitations required by the CWA and set forth schedules of compliance monitoring and reporting requirements.

Pollutant Control Technology Based Standards

The Clean Water Act requires EPA to specifically develop effluent guidelines that represent the following (USEPA, 2002):

Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) - The first level of technology-based standards established by the CWA to control pollutants discharged to surface waters. BPT effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on the average of the best existing performance by plants within an industrial category or subcategory. For example, the treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the BPT for large meat slaughterhouses and poultry processors are equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary biological treatment including some degree of nitrification, and chlorination/dechlorination.

Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) - Technology-based standard for the discharge from existing industrial point sources of conventional pollutants including BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, oil and grease. The BCT is established in light of a two- part "cost reasonableness" test, which compares the cost for an industry to reduce its

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-38 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______pollutant discharge with the cost to a municipal treatment system for similar levels of reduction of a pollutant loading. The second test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find limits that are reasonable under both tests before establishing them as BCT.

Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) - Technology-based standard established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) as the most appropriate means available on a national basis for controlling the direct discharge of toxic and non-conventional pollutants to navigable waters. BAT effluent limitations guidelines, in general, represent the best existing performance of treatment technologies that are economically achievable within an industrial point source category or subcategory. For example, the treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the BAT for large meat slaughterhouses are equalization, dissolved air flotation, and secondary biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification and chlorination/dechlorination. BAT for poultry processors was defined to be the same as BPT.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) - Technology-based standards for facilities that qualify as new sources consider that the new source facility has an opportunity to design operations to more effectively control pollutant discharges.

The effluent limits are implemented and enforced through the EPA’s NPDES permit system.

Development of Meat and Poultry Processing Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and Standards

On February 26, 2004, USEPA established new wastewater discharge limits for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) industry. The revised regulation affects wastewater discharged from slaughtering, rendering, and other processes such as cleaning, cutting, and smoking. The new rule reduces discharges of conventional pollutants (biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH, fecal coliform, and oil & grease), ammonia, and nitrogen to rivers, lakes, and streams. The rule establishes effluent limits for poultry processors for the first time.

The development of the effluent standards was based on a technical and economic analysis that included: estimated compliance costs; estimated pollutant loadings and removals; water quality impacts; and potential benefits associated with each of the technology options. The technical analysis also included an evaluation to determine the presence of pollutant parameters as a basis for selection of pollutants of concern for regulation.

The regulations that apply to the food processing industry are presented in Table 1.7.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-39 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 1.7: USEPA Technology Based Effluent Limits for the Food Industry NAICS Regulation Regulated Pollutants Industry Sub-Sector SIC

3115 40 CFR 405 BOD, pH, TSS Dairy Products 203 Manufacturing

3112 40 CFR 406 BOD, pH, TSS Grain Mill Products 204

3114 40 CFR 407 BOD, pH, TSS Canned, Frozen, & 203 Preserved Fruits & Vegetables 3117 40 CFR 408 TSS, Oil & Grease, pH Canned and Preserved Seafood

3113 40 CFR 409 BOD, pH, Temp, TSS, Fecal Sugar Processing 206 Coliform 3116 40 CFR 432 BOD, pH, Oil& Grease, Meat and Poultry 201 TSS, Fecal Coliform, Total Processing Nitrogen, Ammonia

Selection of Pollutants for Regulation

The following provides a summary of the rationale used by the EPA in selecting pollutants for regulation. Pollutants considered for regulation included conventional, priority and non-conventional pollutants as described below.

Conventional Pollutants - The CWA defines conventional pollutants as including biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliform bacteria. These pollutant parameters are subject to regulation, as specified in Act.

Priority Pollutants - The CWA requires the EPA to regulate any of 126 priority pollutants (40 CFR 423, Appendix A) if the EPA determines them to be present in significant concentrations.

Non-Conventional Pollutants - Non-conventional pollutants are those neither classified as conventional or priority pollutants. These include metals and organics such as pesticides.

EPA considered 52 pollutants (including 22 metals, and 6 pesticides) for meat processing facilities, and 51 pollutants (including 22 metals, and 6 pesticides) for poultry processing facilities. “Pollutants of concern” were determined by assessing untreated wastewater samples to determine which of these pollutants were detected at treatable levels. EPA set

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-40 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______treatable levels at five times an established baseline value to ensure that pollutants detected at only trace amounts would not be selected. EPA obtained the pollutants of concern by establishing which parameters were detected at treatable levels in at least 10 percent of all the influent wastewater samples. Based on these criteria, 31 pollutants of concern (including 5 metals and 3 pesticides) were identified for the meat processing wastewater, and 28 pollutants of concern (including 3 metals and 1 pesticide) were identified for poultry processing wastewaters.

A pollutant of concern was selected for regulation (i.e., for which numerical effluent limitations and standards were proposed) if it is: • Not used as a treatment chemical in the selected technology option. • Not considered a non-conventional bulk parameter. • Not considered a volatile compound. • Effectively treated by the selected treatment technology option. • Detected in the untreated wastewater at treatable levels in a significant number of samples, generally five times the minimum level at more than 10 percent of the raw wastewater samples. • Suitable as general performance indicator i.e., whose control through treatment processes would lead to control of a wide range of pollutants with similar properties; these chemicals are generally good indicators of overall wastewater treatment performance.

Using the above criteria EPA proposed to establish effluent limitations for the following pollutants of concern: BOD, COD, TSS, hexane extractable materials (oil and grease), fecal coliform, ammonia, total nitrogen (total Kjeldahl nitrogen plus nitrite and nitrate nitrogen), and total phosphorus.

Antibiotics and other animal drugs were not considered for regulation based on the following rationale described on Page 7-5 of the regulation Technical Development Document:

“Given the statutory and regulatory barriers in place to prevent residues of antibiotics and other animal drugs, as well as pesticides in food for human consumption above established tolerance limits, EPA assumes that it is highly improbable that antibiotics, other animal drugs, or pesticides are present routinely in detectable concentrations in the treated effluent of livestock or poultry processing plants. Obviously, the possibility of the slaughter of livestock or poultry containing drug or pesticide residues above tolerance limits exists. However, the financial self-interest of livestock and poultry producers suggests that such occurrences would be infrequent and highly random.”

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-41 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

US EPA Compliance Assistance Programs

The EPA's Office of Compliance has developed a Multimedia Environmental Compliance Guide for food processors. The purpose of the guide is to help food processors understand and improve their compliance with major federal legislation and regulations administered by the EPA. One section of the Guide is how food companies can comply with wastewater discharge and related regulations.

The EPA also operates Compliance Assistance Centers. Internet websites, telephone assistance lines, fax-back systems and e-mail discussion groups have been established to assist stakeholders such as food processors in understanding federal environmental requirements and in obtaining practical advice and information on Best Practice pollution prevention techniques.

1.8.7 Washington State

Washington State adopted a wastewater discharge permit system in 1955. In 1971 the state legislature issued the Washington Pollution Disclosure Act and delegated the implementation and enforcement of the regulation to the newly formed Department of Ecology. In 1973, Washington became one of the first states to be delegated by the US EPA to administer NPDES permits in addition to its state permit program.

Dischargers of wastewater require a State Wastewater Discharge Permit. The permit is issued by the Department of Ecology to control the discharge of wastewater to surface or ground waters and to publicly owned sewage systems. Permits place limits on the quantity and concentrations of contaminants that may be discharged. When necessary, permits require treatment of wastewater or impose other operating conditions on dischargers to ensure that permit limits are met. Permits may also set other conditions, including monitoring and reporting requirements, spill prevention planning, and other regulatory activities. Permits are grouped by geographical areas called Water Quality Management Areas (WQMAs) and, in most cases, have a five-year life span.

Washington State's goal is to maintain the highest purity of public waters by limiting pollutant discharges to the greatest extent possible. Four guiding principles drive the Washington State wastewater discharge permit program:

1. The discharge of pollutants is not a right. A permit is required to use the waters of the state, a public resource, for the purposes of wastewater discharge

2. Permits limit the amount of pollutants to be discharged

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-42 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

3. Wastewater must be treated with all known available and reasonable technology before it is discharged, regardless of the quality of the water into which it is discharged

4. Effluent limits are set using technology-based and water quality-based standards. The more stringent of the two is always applied.

1.8.8 California

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was created by the Legislature in 1967. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables the SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection of California's waters.

The State Board's mission is to preserve, enhance and restore the quality of California's water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. There are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The mission of the RWQCBs is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will best protect the beneficial uses of the State's waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology.

California Regulations For On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems

A new set of regulations proposes a shift from the previous prescriptive approach to wastewater management to a performance-based approach based on numerical standards for key constituents of concern. These regulations also require certification by a licensed professional of systems proximate to community water supplies to assure sources will not be affected, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board will have to attest that the hydrogeology has been adequately considered. Standards for these certifications would be effective starting January 2007 for systems adjacent listed impaired water bodies, and 2009 for all other new systems and major repairs.

1.8.9 Michigan

The Water Division of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has the responsibility to control the discharge of wastewater and other pollutants into surface waters of the state to protect the environment. The DEQ is one of the delegated states with the responsibility to administer and process NPDES permits to facilities that discharge pollutants into surface waters.

The DEQ issues NPDES permits on a facility basis and establishes water quality parameters and effluent limits as per the CWA, and receiving water quality standards as specified in the State of Michigan's Water Resources Protection Act.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-43 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

The DEQ also has responsibility for issuing certifications for industrial wastewater treatment facility operators. The purpose of this certification is to ensure skilled operation of wastewater treatment facilities to prevent degradation of the environment and to protect human health. Any industrial operation that discharges liquid wastes into surface waters must have wastewater treatment systems under the supervision and control of persons certified by the DEQ as being properly qualified to operate such systems.

The DEQ has established Annual Wastewater Reporting (AWR) and requires a report to be filed by every facility that discharges wastewater to surface waters. The report must include discharge volumes and quantities of chemicals and other characteristics of the wastewater stream.

1.8.10 Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, the Bureau of Watershed Management issues Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits, with federal oversight from the US EPA. The Department is responsible for the issuance, reissuance, modification, and enforcement of all WPDES permits issued for discharges into the waters of Wisconsin (except discharges occurring on Native American lands which are regulated directly by EPA). Wisconsin regulates discharges to both groundwater and surface water; EPA only requires regulation of surface water discharges. No person may legally discharge to waters of the state without a permit issued under this authority.

1.8.11 Netherlands

Overview

The Netherlands is a densely populated country of about 15 million people (1990). About one third of the country is below sea level and needs permanent protection against flooding. There is a national Policy Document on Water Management based on an integrated water management approach.

The Netherlands has 12 provinces, some 700 municipalities and 125 regional water authorities. The central government has responsibility over the large inland waters and the sea. The provinces have primary responsibility for the smaller non-state waters, although they usually delegate this responsibility to regional water boards. The municipalities are responsible for sewer treatment systems.

The main Act governing point source wastewater discharges is the Pollution of Surface Water Act. This law provides a framework and instruments to regulate the discharge of harmful substances into surface waters. Every single facility discharging wastewater into surface water is subject to a discharge license and must pay a levy according to the "polluter pay" principle.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-44 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Discharge permits are generally approved on a case-by-case basis and depending on the characterization of the wastewater and receiving water body, treatment methods used must involve the use of Best Technical Means (BTM) available or Best Practicable Means (BPM) available.

The amount of the levy paid by discharge facilities is based on the volume of effluent. Part of the revenue stream from the levies is used to pay for operational costs of municipal sewer treatment systems. A portion of levy revenue is also used to fund programs to build and install wastewater treatment equipment at municipal and industrial discharge facilities.

Industry Covenants

Since 1990, the Government of the Netherlands has signed a number of voluntary agreements or covenants with different sectors of industry. The covenants represent a commitment by industry sectors to meeting the broad environmental objectives established in the country's National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP).

The following provides a summary of how the Netherlands Government develops covenants with industry. The initial or preparation phase of developing a covenant involves consultations between the central government, representatives of provincial and municipal government (who are responsible for licensing and monitoring industrial operations) and representatives of the industry sector concerned. Industry representatives are usually from the appropriate trade and sector associations. The purpose of initial consultations is to reach agreement on the sector's commitment to environmental objectives as set out in the NEPP. These objectives form the basis of the sector's Integrated Environmental Target Plan (IETP).

The next step in the covenant process varies depending on whether the sector is homogeneous or heterogeneous in nature. For homogeneous sectors (e.g., companies use a limited number of similar processes), a relatively standardized approach to environmental management can be developed. The covenant would identify measures to be taken to implement the IETP and possibly lead to standard licensing regulations and checklists for enforcement.

A different approach is used for heterogeneous sectors involving large complex companies using numerous different processes and potential for a wide range of environmental impacts. A Declaration of Intent is first agreed by representatives of government and industry. The Declaration represents the sector's IETP. Individual companies within the sector then sign the Declaration and commit to establishing four year environmental plans which identify targets, timetables and measures the company will adopt in order to contribute to the IETP. The company environmental plans are prepared in close

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-45 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______cooperation with the licensing authority, and once approved, serve as the basis for issuing permits to the company.

Companies are also required to monitor their progress against their plan's targets and to report annually to the licensing authority. This fulfills three objectives. Annual reports assist licensing authorities in monitoring how individual companies are implementing and meeting the objectives of their company environmental plans. Aggregated data informs the central government on the progress by the sector as a whole towards meeting targets established in the covenant and the broader environmental objectives of the NEPP. The analysis also provides insight into where progress is faster or slower than expected and how targets may need to be adjusted to ensure the most efficient and cost effective implementation across the sector.

It is important to note that covenants are being used within industry as implementation instruments where legislation already exists and government can exercise control through issuing of licenses and permits. Covenants are not an alternative to regulation and do not take precedence over existing legislation.

Food Industry

The Netherlands Government has signed covenant agreements with four targeted food industry sectors: Dairy, Slaughtering, Sugar and Brewery. The sectors were selected since they have the most significant environmental impacts in terms of wastewater and solid waste discharges.

The project team was unable to obtain any public information to evaluate the performance of the food industry covenant agreements and their effectiveness in terms of reducing the impact of wastewater discharges and other pollutants.

In general terms, the Netherlands Government cites the following advantages for industry and government from use of environmental covenant agreements with industry.

Advantages for Companies

• Offer greater certainty over a period of years • Know what they are required to achieve and by when; investment decisions and environmental policies can be planned with some confidence that the rules will not change • Provide opportunity to negotiate realistic environmental plans with government • Environmental targets that apply to a sector as a whole minimize the risk of distorting competition or providing an unlevel playing field

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-46 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Advantages to Government

• Reduce cost and time to prepare and enforce new legislation • Responsibility for development and monitoring of environmental protection measures is largely transferred to industry (government controls permit process) • Reporting system of company plans enables government to monitor progress in achieving the overall objectives of the NEPP and to understand where there are problems and needs for improvement areas

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-47 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.9 VOLUNTARY APPROACHES FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

This section provides an overview and summary of a select number of voluntary approaches being used by government and the food industry to implement best practices for wastewater management and environmental improvements. Information on approaches deemed to be relevant to Ontario and meeting an objective to identify voluntary initiatives that could complement regulatory approaches, was obtained and reviewed. A detailed analysis to determine the effectiveness of voluntary programs would require extensive interviews with a number of stakeholders, and was outside the scope of this study.

The research found that the approaches being used involve a partnership between a government agency and the food industry. In many approaches, government financial incentives are used to encourage adoption of best practices. A summary of these approaches is provided below. Further details on mechanisms that can be used to encourage Ontario's food processing facilities to adopt best management practices and to foster an environment of continuous improvement are provided in Section 6 of this report.

1.9.1 Ontario

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

The Food Industry Competitiveness Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) promotes and supports the growth, development and investment in Ontario's agri-food industry. OMAF has a network of sector officers to meet the everyday needs of food companies by maintaining a proactive client account management system, researching and analyzing sector challenges and opportunities, providing a "one-stop" access point to assist food companies in building their business and improving their competitive position, and providing information to influence investment and growth decisions.

OMAF is a strong supporter of program initiatives that improve the environmental and sustainable performance of Ontario food processing operations.

OMAF operates the Rural Economic Development Program as a component of its Ontario Small Town and Rural (OSTAR) Development Initiative. Under this program, funding is provided to projects that support the economic growth and viability of rural communities. OSTAR has provided funding for projects to minimize the environmental impact of food processing operations. One project involved a collaborative effort of four meat processing companies to identify best practices for water reduction and wastewater management that could be used as a sector standard and benchmark.

Another proposed project is for the development of a water recycling system that would be capable of recycling treated water from a poultry company's existing wastewater treatment

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-48 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______system for use in the processing area. The system would meet the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requirements for water quality in order to be considered for reuse and could be transferred to other food company operations in Ontario.

Agricultural Adaptation Council

The industry-led Agricultural Adaptation Council (AAC) is a non-profit coalition of 58 Ontario agricultural, agri-food and rural organizations. AAC administers and delivers funding that assists Ontario's agri-food sector and rural communities to remain competitive, grow and maintain their economic strength.

The AAC administers several funding programs including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development (CARD) fund, the National Soil and Water Conservation Program (NSWCP) and its successor, the Agricultural Environmental Stewardship Initiative (AESI).

The AESI program supports projects involving education and awareness, technology transfer and stewardship tools to address the impacts of food processing operations on water, soil and air quality.

AESI funding support was used to deliver a highly successful 15-month project to improve the sustainable performance of Ontario food processing companies. Other project supporters and funding organizations included OMAF, the Ontario Dairy Council, Ontario Food Processors Association, Ontario Independent Meat Processors, Natural Resources Canada and Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.

The project led to the completion of site-specific plant assessments in 37 food operations from 10 sectors. The assessments identified a total of 180 opportunities to reduce energy and water usage, and improve wastewater management practices. One food direct discharger participated and used the program to identify opportunities to eliminate the current lagoon-based system through water reuse, wastewater segregation and alternative wastewater treatment technologies. A compendium of best practices and case studies were also created and disseminated to the food industry by OMAF.

Recently, AAC through the CARD program provided funding support to the creation of an umbrella industry-led organization known as the "Alliance of Ontario Food Processors". This new alliance has a mandate to build greater awareness of the food processing sector in Ontario; reduce duplication of activities being carried out by existing food associations, provide a one-stop resource to the industry, and create opportunities to improve the industry's sustainability and environmental performance.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-49 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.9.2 British Columbia

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Industry Development Trust Funds

This program provides the incentive and opportunity for industry sectors to lead, manage, and finance their own development by providing partial funding for development activities and assists industry in establishing partnerships with other parties who share their development priorities.

There are 10 Trust Funds (totalling over $16 million) that have been established for specific sectors to provide partial funding as a catalyst for their industry development initiatives. These Trust Funds are managed by an independent trustee, not the government, and provide earnings, and capital in some cases, for industry projects. Industry invests in all projects undertaken, i.e., industry must match the funds flowing from the Trust on a dollar for dollar basis.

All initiatives are approved, managed, and administered by advisory committees made up of producers and other industry members (with producers in majority). All non- government sources of funds can be used for match funding.

For more information: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/indcomp/ind_dev_pgm.htm

1.9.3 Quebec

Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation (MAPAQ) has a program targeted towards financing food processing projects.

The funding is geared towards strategic growth of the food processing industry, which includes feasibility studies and projects that make the food industry more competitive (i.e., wastewater management and treatment projects are eligible).

For more information: http://www.formulaire.gouv.qc.ca/cgi/affiche_doc.cgi?dossier=8459&table=0

1.9.4 Alberta

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

The Government of Alberta has two programs that target the food processing sector: Municipal Industrial Wastewater Infrastructure for Agricultural Processing Program and Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) Processing Based Program.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-50 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

The Municipal Industrial Wastewater Infrastructure for Agricultural Processing Program encourages shared funding of municipal industrial water/wastewater infrastructure and water/wastewater infrastructure feasibility studies between the Province, the municipality and the private sector.

For more information: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/afi5314?opendocument

The Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) Processing Based Program is intended to assist food processors to develop and adopt more sustainable processing practices and polices. AESA Processing Based Program may provide grants on cost- shared basis for eligible projects to a maximum of $20,000 per project.

The funding program specifically aims to reduce environmental impacts of food processing on the environment and build industry environmental stewardship and consumer confidence through awareness, extension and education programs. Areas of focus include: Resource Conservation (water and energy), Packaging and Waste Reduction and Environmental Management (developing and implementing systems, standard certification, and regulation compliance).

For more information: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/fpdc6545?opendocument

1.9.5 United States

United States EPA Sector Strategies Program

The US EPA through their Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI) launched a Sector Strategies Program in June 2003. The program was established to develop a better understanding and new ideas in environmental management on an industry sector basis.

OPEI staff members serve as sector points-of-contact. They develop expertise in the operations and issues of each industry sector and assess opportunities to improve environmental performance.

The program focuses on three priority areas: promoting environmental management systems (EMS); overcoming regulatory or other barriers to environmental performance improvement; and performance measurement.

One partner sector OPEI works with is defined as Agribusiness, which includes the food- processing segment. One of the first projects completed was a collaborative effort with the American Meat Institute, the American Association of Meat Processors to develop an EMS

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-51 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Implementation Guide for the Meat Processing Industry. A pilot test of the guide has been conducted with five meat-processing companies.

The Guide has been specifically designed to assist meat-processing facilities with a 10 module, step-by-step EMS implementation process. Workshop and training materials as well as a number of tools including sample procedures, templates and forms, are included each module of the guide to facilitate implementation at a facility level.

1.9.6 California

California Energy Commission

The Food Industry Energy Research (FIER) Grant Program, which is part of the Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) of the California Energy Commission (Commission).

The Food Industry Energy Research (FIER) Grant Program is part of the Industrial/Agricultural/ Water End-Use Energy Efficiency subject area. Research projects under the FIER Program are intended to encourage energy efficiency, cost savings, reliability, and environmental stewardship in California’s food processing industry. This solicitation primarily focuses on electrical energy efficiency, conservation, and reliability RD&D opportunities; however, other energy fuels such as natural gas may also be eligible if the proposed RD&D can directly and substantially affect electrical energy efficiency and/or conservation in the industry.

This industry sector encompasses all aspects of post-harvest agricultural processing, preservation, and packaging of food and beverage products. It is the third largest user of utility-provided energy in California and an important contributor to the state’s economy.

The FIER Grant Program is expected to award approximately $3 million for individual projects generally ranging from $200,000 to $500,000. The research projects are expected to last up to 36 months from the contract start date, with no more than 3 additional months allowed for report review and finalization.

For more information: http://ciee.ucop.edu/docs/fier_announce.pdf

1.9.7 Illinois

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

The Water Pollution Control Loan Program provides low interest loans to units of local government for the construction of wastewater facilities. This loan program is capitalized at an annual amount of $65-$75 million with federal and state funds. In addition, the loan

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-52 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______funds being repaid annually ($40-$50 million) are also available for new loan awards. The loans are awarded with a maximum term of 20 years at one-half the market rate (approximately 3 percent).

For more information: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/financial-assistance/waste-water/index.html

1.9.8 Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality - Food Processing

Through partnering and information transfer, BMP demonstration and case study development, more food processing companies, agricultural commodity organizations and producers will be encouraged to improve their environmental management activities. Project objectives include increased environmental protection through source reduction, reuse and recycling and promotion of environmental marketing incentives.

Through the Pollution Prevention (P2) Community Grants program, DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) has awarded a Food Processors grant to reduce Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in the wastewater. The Community P2 Grant Program seeks to bring local government, businesses, planning agencies, and residents together to achieve measurable waste reductions of pollutants using innovative sustainable pollution prevention practices.

For more information: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3585_4127_11417-63868--,00.html

1.9.9 Wisconsin

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Environmental Cooperation Pilot Program

The Environmental Cooperation Pilot Program evaluates innovative environmental regulatory methods. It was introduced by Governor Thompson and passed by the State Legislature as part of the 1997-1999 Biennial Budget. The program provides DNR with the authority to enter into up to ten cooperative environmental agreements over the next five years with persons who own or operate facilities that are covered by licenses or permits under current law.

Companies participating in this program look for ways to achieve superior environmental performance through the most cost-effective means possible. Whole-facility regulation and pollution prevention is key in these agreements. Institution of an environmental management system will allow a systematic review of a company’s impact on the environment. As part of the agreement, flexibility in regulations will be afforded to companies who meet these criteria.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-53 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

For more information: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/ecpp/index.htm

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-54 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

1.10 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1.0

Alberta Environment. Environmental Sciences Division. Environmental Service. Summary of Alberta Industrial Wastewater Limits and Monitoring Requirement. June 1999.

Boxall, A.B.A., Kolpin, D.W., Halling-Súrensen, B., and Tolls, J. 2003. “Are Veterinary Medicines Causing Environmental Risks?”, Environmental Science and Technology, v, 37, no. 15, p. 265A-304A, 2003.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Environmental Protection Division. 2004. Waste Discharge Regulation Implementation Guide (Draft). July 26, 2004.

Environment Canada. 1996. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention Guide for the Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry in the Lower Fraser Basin. DOE FRAP 1996-18.

Environment Canada. 1997. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention Guide for Dairy Processing Operations in the Lower Fraser Basin. DOE FRAP 1996-11.

Food Manufacturing Coalition for Innovation and Technology Transfer. 1997. Great Falls, VA, State-of-the-Art Report: Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Nutrient Removal From Food Processing Wastewater, March 1997.

Food Manufacturing Coalition for Innovation and Technology Transfer. 1997. Great Falls, VA, State-of-the-Art Report: Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations, March 1997.

Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment. Background and Objectives of Dutch Water Policy. No date provided.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering—Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, New York. (DCN 00213)

OMAF. 2003. Ontario’s Surveillance of Chemical Residues in Food. M. Cassidy, A. Matu, G. Downing, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), Food Safety Branch. Presentation at the Agricultural Institute of Canada Foundation (AICF), Conference on Food Safety "From the Farm Gate to the Dinner Plate”. November 4, 2003.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 1-55 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Internal Memorandum on Water and Wastewater Mission to Holland and Germany. January 1998.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Investment Development Unit, Food Industry Competitiveness Branch, Food Industry Division. Ontario's Food Industry, We've Got It All. March 2003.

Netherlands Government, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. Environmental Policy in Action No. 1: Working with Industry through Covenants. March 1994.

Personal Communication. Mr. Mark Vanderlan, Head, Inspections. Environment Canada, Inspection and Technical Services (Federal Fisheries Act). Burlington, Ontario. June 1, 2004.

Personal Communication. Mr. Harry Dahme, Partner and Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Environmental Law (Legislation for Controlling Point Sources of Pollution). Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Barristers & Soliicitors. June 28, 2004.

Personal Communication. Mr. Prasad Valupadas, Industrial Wastewater Engineer. Science and Standards Branch. Alberta Environment. July 14, 2004.

RiverSides Stewardship Alliance, the Toronto Environmental Alliance and the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. What's in Your Sewers? A Citizen's Introduction to Municipal Sewer Use By-Laws in Ontario. August 2003.

USEPA. 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPCRA Section 313 Reporting Guidance, EPA-746-R-98-011, September 1998.

USEPA. 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Multimedia Environmental Compliance Guide for Food Processors, EPA 305-B-99-005, March 1999.

USEPA. 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category (40 CFR 432), EPA- 821-B-01-007, January 2002.

Section 1: Industry & Sector Overview Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-1 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

SECTION 2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONTARIO FOOD-PROCESSING DIRECT DISCHARGERS DATABASE

2.1 INTRODUCTION

• Develop a list of food processing facilities in Ontario which discharge wastewater directly to or into a receiving water body or land;

• Create a database in a format acceptable to the MOE to identify these facilities by name, owner and operator, and to profile each facility in terms of its water usage, type of wastewater treatment methods, wastewater management and characteristics of discharge, and monitoring programs; and

• Review the potential environmental impacts created by direct dischargers.

2.2 CREATING THE FOOD DISCHARGER DATABASE

The database consists of five data tables, which were created according to the following category headings: Facility; Monitoring; Treatment; Product; and Wastewater. The content of these tables is described briefly below and depicted in Figure 2.1.

2.2.1 Facility Table

This table allows the user to enter address information for the head office and food- processing site location, together with owner and/or operator contact information. Data fields are also provided for MOE Regional and District Offices that have jurisdiction over the facility as well as a Notes column to allow entry of other relevant information.

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-2 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

2.2.2 Monitoring Table

This table allows the user to enter information related to wastewater monitoring programs in place at the facility. Information contained in this table includes sample location and method of collection (e.g., grab or composite), frequency of sampling (e.g., weekly, monthly), and contaminant parameters. A full listing of the parameters is provided in a supplementary Parameter Code table.

Figure 2.1: Structure of Food Processor Direct Discharger Database

2.2.3 Treatment Table

This table allows the user to enter information about how a facility treats its wastewater. Data fields in this table include information on the type and level of treatment, disinfection system (if applicable), design capacity of the treatment system, and a description of how residual solids are managed (if applicable).

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-3 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

2.2.4 Product Table

This table contains information about the facility's primary food product based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. It is noted that the NAICS system has replaced the SIC system, but both are included for completeness of the data.

2.2.5 Wastewater Table

This table allows the user to enter water supply and wastewater information. The table includes: Permit to Take Water (PTTW) number, process water source, well location and the permitted maximum rate of water taking. The following fields are provided for wastewater information: Certificate of Approval number, wastewater flow, contaminant characteristics, discharge mode, sources of contaminants, and the local and ultimate receiving bodies of water.

2.2.6 Supporting Tables

The database also contains the following supporting or secondary tables not shown in Figure 2.1.

Parameter Code Table - User can enter the type of metals, chemicals, compounds and other wastewater monitoring parameters. This information is presented in the Sample Parameter column in the Monitoring Table.

Wastewater Treatment Table - This table lists the common methods used for wastewater treatment in food processing facilities. It corresponds to the Type column in the Treatment Table.

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-4 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

2.3 POPULATING THE DATABASE

The project team used a number of data and information sources to identify direct discharge facilities and to populate the database. A lengthy and iterative process was used to complete this activity as described below and shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Identifying Direct Dischargers and Populating the Database

Food Direct Discharger List

Primary EAA Branch EAA Branch Data IDS List Pre-IDS List

Preliminary List of Direct Discharge Facilities

MOE Provided MOE Provided MOE PTTW PTTW Database Facility Monitoring Facility Cs of A Database on EBR Secondary Reports Data Sources Personal D&B Knowledge of Manufacturing NPRI Project Team Database

Final List of Direct Discharge Facilities

2.3.1 Step 1: Develop Preliminary List of Direct Discharge Facilities

At the project initiation meeting, the MOE provided the project team with the following four lists of food processing companies in Ontario:

• Tentative MOE Direct Discharge List of Food Processing Facilities in Ontario; • OMAF Draft Food Processors List; • Ontario Food Processors with Certificates of Approval (OWRA Section 53); and

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-5 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• Ontario Food Processors Registered as Waste Generators under Regulation 347 (included facilities discharging wastewater to municipal sewers).

This information was reviewed by the project team and used to begin the process of identifying a list of food-processing facilities that discharge wastewater directly to the environment, and populating the direct discharger database.

The next step in the process was to identify other information sources to assist in identifying and gathering facility information on direct dischargers. The project team recognized that the only two sources of comprehensive facility-level information were food-processing companies and MOE records such as approvals documents and annual monitoring reports.

The project team contacted the MOE Environmental Approvals and Assessment (EAA) Branch to determine the content and availability of information contained in databases maintained by the Branch related to approvals granted to direct wastewater dischargers under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). This was deemed to be the most efficient and reliable means to identify and obtain additional information on direct dischargers.

The EAA Branch provided the project team with two datasets that contained wastewater discharge Approvals information for food-processing facilities. The first was extracted from the Branch's Integrated Divisional System (IDS), which was implemented in 1999 to provide multi-user data management capability to all divisions of the MOE. The second was a database (referred to by the EAA Branch as the "pre-IDS" database) that contained Approvals information for the period from 1986 to 1999.

The project team used the IDS and pre-IDS databases as the primary information sources to develop the preliminary list of food-processing companies with direct process wastewater discharges.

The MOE also provided the project team with copies of Cs of A for some direct discharge food processing facilities.

Based on review and cross-referencing of the four draft lists provided by the MOE at the project initiation meeting, the IDS and pre-IDS databases, and some MOE provided facility Cs of A, the project team developed a preliminary list of direct dischargers.

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-6 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

2.3.2 Step 2: Review Preliminary List with MOE Water Policy Branch

The project team reviewed the preliminary list of direct discharge facilities with the MOE Water Policy Branch and OMAF. The project team identified two major issues relating to the definition of a direct discharger and the lack of facility-specific information.

Definition of a Direct Discharger

During review of the IDS and pre-IDS datasets, the project team found that some food- processing facilities use lagoon and spray irrigation systems to manage their wastewater. In other cases, it was found that some facilities had been issued Cs of A under Section 53 of the OWRA, but were discharging their wastewater directly to municipal sanitary sewers. In addition, the IDS and pre-IDS datasets had listed agri-food operations such as mushroom, vegetable and fish farms as direct dischargers of wastewater.

Based on subsequent discussions with the MOE Policy Branch, the food-processing facilities considered as direct dischargers were defined as follows:

• Facilities that have obtained Cs of A for process wastewater treatment under Section 53 of the OWRA; • Facilities that have been identified as direct dischargers of wastewater to the environment based on the personal knowledge of the project team and MOE or OMAF personnel; and • Facilities that have been issued Cs of A for their direct discharge of water and which also have been identified as having connections to a municipal sanitary sewer were to be included in the database with a notation to indicate this type of management approach.

Facilities not considered as direct dischargers for the purposes of this report were defined as follows:

• Facilities that manage wastewater discharge by lagoon and spray irrigation systems (these facilities were not counted as direct dischargers but are included in the direct discharger database with a notation indicating this type of treatment method); • Facilities identified as having a connection to a municipal sanitary sewer system, and do not have Cs of A under Section 53 of the OWRA, and have not been otherwise identified as a direct discharger; • Facilities identified as being out of business, closed or not defined as a food- processing facility; and • Agri-food operations such as mushroom farms and vegetable processors except for two facilities (Rol-land Farms in Blenheim and Wolfert Farms in Bradford), which were identified as direct dischargers by OMAF.

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-7 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Facility-Specific Information

After a detailed review of the IDS and pre-IDS datasets, the project team determined there was a lack of specific information on key data fields needed to populate the direct discharger database. These related to specifics on wastewater treatment methods, characterization and discharge information, and monitoring programs.

The project team did obtain copies of some facility-specific Cs of A and annual monitoring reports from the EAA Branch and MOE District Offices, and relevant information from these documents was entered in the direct discharger database.

Facility-specific information about the use of antibiotics, residual pesticides, colouring dyes, chemical agents and environmental impacts was not available. A detailed survey of individual facilities would need to be conducted to collect this information. These issues are discussed on an industry sub-sector level in Sections 1, 3 and 4 of this report.

2.3.3 Step 3: Survey of MOE District Offices

The preliminary list of food-processing direct discharge facilities developed by the project team was distributed to MOE District Offices for their review and input.

The specific information requested from the MOE District Offices was as follows:

• Identify any facilities missing from the list that should be included as direct dischargers based on the criteria described in Section 2.3.2; • Identify any facilities that should be removed from the list and the reasons for removal (e.g., the facility is no longer in business, process wastewater is managed by a lagoon and spray irrigation system or is discharged to a municipal sanitary sewer); • Provide basic information about the facilities wastewater management practices (e.g. treatment method and monitoring effluent requirements); and • Provide copies of Cs of A and monitoring reports, particularly for significant direct discharge facilities.

2.3.4 Step 4: Finalize List of Direct Dischargers and Populate the Database

The MOE District Offices provided the Project Team with comments on the preliminary list of direct dischargers. Many of the facilities were removed as direct dischargers since they were connected to municipal sanitary sewers or managed wastewater by a lagoon and spray irrigation system.

The District Offices also provided additional copies of Cs of A and Monitoring reports to assist in populating the database.

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-8 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

In addition to these information sources, the project team used several other secondary sources to populate fields in the direct discharger database as described below.

• The PTTW database was used to enter information related to water supply, where available, in the Wastewater table, and to identify the location of MOE Region and District Offices for each direct discharge facility, where available.

• The Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B) manufacturing directory and the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) were used, to identify contact information of the owner and/or operator, the mailing address and the site location of food-processing facilities identified as direct dischargers.

2.3.5 Final Listing of Direct Discharge Facilities

Table 2.1: Food Processing Direct Wastewater Discharge Facilities by MOE Region

MOE Region Number of Direct Discharge Facilities Southwestern Ontario 31 West Central Ontario 18 Eastern Ontario 8 Central Ontario 6 Northern Ontario 2 Total 65

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-9 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table 2.2: Direct Wastewater Discharge Facilities by Food Industry Sector

Food Industry Sector Number of Direct Discharge Facilities Beverage Processing 7 Dairy Processing 8 Fruit and Vegetable Processing 13 Grain and Oilseed Milling 5 Meat Processing 10 Poultry Processing 10 Sugar and Confectionary Products 3 Other Food Products 7 Other Miscellaneous 2 Total 65

Notes 1. Beverage processing includes beer, soft drink and wine manufacturing. 2. Dairy processing includes cheese, creamery butter and fluid milk manufacturing. 3. Fruit and vegetable processing includes frozen food and canning manufacturing. 4. Grain and oilseed milling includes flour milling, flour mixes and dough manufacturing. 5. Meat processing includes the slaughter of animals such as cattle and pheasant; the processing of carcasses into meat products; the rendering of the inedible and discarded remains into useful by-products such as oils and pet foods; and other animal food manufacturing. 6. Poultry processing includes the processing of carcasses into poultry products. 7. Sugar and confectionary products includes sugar refining, candy and chocolate manufacturing, and wet corn milling. 8. Other food products include mushroom production, cookie and cracker manufacturing, coffee and tea manufacturing, and fresh/frozen seafood processing. 9. Other miscellaneous includes crop farming.

The database is a current snapshot to identify and profile food-processing facilities in Ontario that discharge process wastewater directly to the environment. It represents a significant effort in searching, cross-referencing, correlating and validating information from multiple information sources.

Further work is required to address remaining data gaps and to populate the data fields related to facility specific information. For example, only a limited number of Cs of A and annual Monitoring reports were available from MOE sources during the timeframe of the project from which to develop this type of detailed information. Cs of A and Monitoring reports for all the remaining identified discharge facilities would need to be obtained and reviewed to extract and enter relevant information into the database. Alternatively, a detailed survey developed in collaboration with the food processing companies, could be used to obtain this information.

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-10 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

2.4 APPENDIX 2A: ONTARIO MOE REGIONS AND DISTRICT OFFICES

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 2-11 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

2.5 APPENDIX 2B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B) Guide to Canadian Manufacturers Dunn and Bradstreet MarketNet is an Internet marketing solution that provides online access to D&B's marketing database of more than one million Canadian businesses. Information is provided for approximately 50,000 Canadian manufacturers.

National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) Canada's National Pollutant Release Inventory came into effect in January 1993 requiring facilities to report each year on their releases of certain pollutants to air, water and land. These facilities must also report their transfers of these substances to other facilities for recycling or disposal.

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) A classification system that categorizes establishments into groups with similar economic activities. The structure of NAICS, adopted by Statistics Canada in 1997 to replace the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system, has been developed by the statistical agencies of Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) The Ontario Ministry of the Environment administers the OWRA, R.S.O. 1990, c. O-40, as amended that provides for the protection of Ontario's water resources. The OWRA requires facilities that take more than 50,000 litres of water per day to obtain a Permit to Take Water (PTTW). The OWRA also regulates discharges of wastewater, including a requirement for a site-specific Certificate of Approval (C of A) for a system that collects, transmits, treats and discharges wastewater directly to receiving water or land.

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) A classification system that categorizes establishments into groups with similar economic activities.

Section 2: Development of an Ontario Food-Processing Direct Dischargers Database Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-1 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

SECTION 3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER

This section describes considerations with respect to developing a characterization plan for wastewater discharged directly to surface water or land by food processors. These include: the nature and impact of contaminants that may be present in food processing wastewater; the selection wastewater and solid waste characterization parameters; guidelines for collection, preservation and storage of samples; analytical methods; a list of accredited analytical laboratories; and typical analytical costs.

An overview of the types wastewater pollutants associated with food processing operations together with their potential environmental impacts was provided in Section 1.0 of this report and includes a discussion of industry sub-sector wastewater characteristics. An analysis of available conventional pollutant monitoring data for food processors is provided in Section 4.0 of this report.

3.1 FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

Food-processing wastewaters can be characterized as having high concentrations of “conventional” pollutants i.e., biochemical oxygen demand; fats, oils and grease; suspended solids; dissolved solids; and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. In addition, pathogenic organisms are a concern in facilities where animals or dairy products are processed. Residual chlorine and disinfection byproducts may be present in effluent discharged from facilities that disinfect wastewater or equipment to control pathogens via chlorination. Trace quantities of other “emerging” pollutants may be present in food processing wastewater from the use of chemical products (e.g., disinfectants, catalysts, refrigerants, reactants, pesticides).

The characteristics and generation rates of wastewater are highly variable and dependent on site-specific raw materials, processing operations, and water and wastewater management systems. One important attribute is the general scale of the operations as food processing range from small, local operations to large-scale national or international producers. In addition to scale differences, the types of food production processes (e.g., fruit, vegetable, oils, dairy, meat, fish, etc.) vary widely with associated differences in the specific wastewater contaminants. Even within a given food processing plant, the wastewater discharged from different unit operations--or from different seasons--may vary with respect to flow rates and compositions.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-2 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

3.2 METHODOLOGY

In developing the proposed list of wastewater and solid waste characterization parameters the following general criteria were considered:

• Pollutants discharged from food processing facilities; • Pollutants regulated at food processing facilities in Canada and other jurisdictions; • Potential environmental impacts of conventional pollutants (i.e., biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and grease, pH, pathogens) associated with food processors; and • Non-conventional (e.g., metals, trace organics, pesticides) identified as potential pollutants of concern based on their environmental effects.

The following documents were found to be relevant and were used as a basis for identifying characterization parameters:

• Protocol for the Sampling and Analysis of Industrial/Municipal Wastewater, MOEE, January 1999.

• Monitoring requirements specified in Certificates of Approval issued to Ontario food processors as required by Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

• Deriving Receiving Water Based Point Source Effluent Requirements for Ontario Water. MOEE, 1994.

• Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits Regulations.

• Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook. World Bank Group. July 1998.

• Guideline F-5: Levels of Treatment of Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters. MOEE, April 1994.

• Technology based regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for effluents from dairy products processing (40 CFR 405), grain mills (40 CFR 406), canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing (40 CFR 407), canned and preserved seafood processing (40 CFR 408), sugar processing (40 CFR 409) and meat processing (40 CFR 432);

• Recently revised Effluent Guidelines for Meat and Poultry Products developed by the USEPA (40 CFR 432);

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-3 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

• Regulations under the Federal Fisheries Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-14: Meat and Poultry Products Plant Liquid Effluent Regulations; and Potato Processing Plant Liquid Effluent Regulations;

• Nutrient Management Act, 2002 Ontario Regulation 267/03, Amended by O. Reg. 447/03, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, June 2002;

• Guidelines for the Utilization of Biosolids and Other Wastes on Agricultural Land - Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, March 1996; and

• Water Management Policies, Guidelines, and Provincial Water Quality Objectives, MOEE, July 1994.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-4 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

3.3 SELECTION OF WASTEWATER PARAMETERS

Food processing wastewater parameters may be grouped into two broad categories: a) conventional and biological pollutants, and b) non-conventional pollutants. Table 3-1 provides a summary of these pollutants and indicates how these pollutants relate to the following relevant regulatory or policy instruments:

• Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, Tier I.

• Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, Tier II.

• Pollutants of Concern considered for regulation by the USEPA during the development of the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category (USEPA, 2002). The selection of pollutants of concern was based on assessing untreated wastewater samples to determine which of these pollutants were detected at treatable levels (Section 1.0 for additional details).

• Pollutants adopted by the USEPA as the final rule for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category (USEPA, 2004f).

• Pollutants reported to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) as being discharged to surface water by food processors.

• Other available data such as parameters included in existing North American food- industry specific regulations (e.g., U.S. EPA, Canadian Fisheries Act – see Appendix 3A) or Certificates of Approval issued by the MOE to food processors.

The conventional, biological and non-conventional pollutants listed in Table 3-1 are discussed in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-5 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 3-1: Pollutants Considered for Characterization and their Relationship to Regulatory Programs

Pollutant COA COA EPA EPA NPRI Other Tier I1 Tier II1 MPP MPP Surface Data (POC)2 (Rule)3 Waters4 Conventional or Biological Aeromonas X BOD5 5-day (Carbonaceous) X X 5,6 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) X X Chloride X Cryptosporidium X E.coli X Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) X X 6 Fecal Coliform X X Fecal Streptococcus X Nitrate/nitrite X X 5 pH X X Salmonella X Temperature 5 Total Ammonia (TNH3) X X X 6 Total Coliform X Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) X Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) X X Total Orthophosphate X Total Phosphorus (TP) X X Total Residual Chlorine X Total Suspended Solids (TSS) X X 5, 6 Un-ionized Ammonia Non-Conventional (Metals) Arsenic Cadmium X Chromium X Cobalt

1 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem 2 USEPA Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category (40CFR432). Most recent technology-based effluent standards developed for the food-processing sector replacing older regulation (see Note 5). EPA identified Pollutants of Concern (POC) for these the Meat and Poultry sectors by reviewing untreated wastewater data to determine those pollutants present at treatable levels in more than 10% of the samples. 3 USEPA Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category (40CFR432). Pollutants of Concern (POC) proposed for regulation based on multi-day sampling data collected at 11 facilities and detailed survey data obtained from 350 facilities. These pollutants were considered to be representative of the sectors’ wastewater characteristics and key indicators of performance of treatment processes that serve as the basis for the effluent limitations. 4 Pollutants reported to Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) as being discharged to surface water by food processors. Conventional or biological pollutants are not covered under the NPRI. 5 Included in other US EPA effluent regulations for the dairy-, grain-, canned fruit and vegetable-, seafood-, and sugar- processing sectors (see Table A.1: Appendix 3A). 6 Included in Canadian Fisheries Act Regulations for Potato Processing or Meat and Poultry Processing facilities (see Table A1:Appendix 3A).

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-6 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 3-1: Pollutants Considered for Characterization and their Relationship to Regulatory Programs

Pollutant COA COA EPA EPA NPRI Other Tier I1 Tier II1 MPP MPP Surface Data (POC)2 (Rule)3 Waters4 Copper X X Lead Manganese X X Mercury X Molybdenum Nickel X Selenium Titanium X Zinc X X Non-Conventional (Other) 1,4’-Dichlorobenzene X 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine X 4,4”-methylenebis (2-chloraniline) X Acute Lethality 7 Dinitropyrene X Formaldehyde X Hexachlorobenzene X 8 Hexachlorocyclohexane X Octachlorostyrene X Pentachlorophenol X 8 Pesticides X9 Veterinary Drugs Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) X Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) X Polychlorinated-dibenzofurans X (PCDF) Polychlorinated-dibenzo-p-dioxins X (PCDD) Tributyl tin X Trihalomethanes 10

7 Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) regulation that apply to nine industrial sectors include a requirement for monitoring wastewater effluent for rainbow trout acute lethality test and daphnia magna (water flea) acute lethality. Mortality for no more than 50 per cent of the test organisms in 100 per cent effluent is required. 8 Banned from use as pesticide in Ontario. 9 Pesticides considered as Pollutants of Concern were Carbaryl, Cis-permethrin, and Trans-permethrin. These materials were not included in final regulation. 10 Potential by-products associated with disinfection by chlorination.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-7 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

3.3.1 Conventional and Biological Pollutants

This group consists of pollutants typically used to characterize or monitor the quality of wastewater from food processing facilities.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

The five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) value is used as a gauge to measure the impact of the wastewater discharge on a receiving water body (i.e., lake, river, etc.). The BOD is determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen used by microorganisms during their break down of organic matter in the wastewater (aerobic respiration). The BOD usually addresses the carbonaceous (organic carbon matter) demand. The laboratory results are usually expressed as mg/L as O2. This test determines the approximate amount of biodegradable matter in the wastewater, and the potential impact of biodegradable matter in the wastewater on the dissolved oxygen levels in a receiving water body.

The BOD for food-processing wastewater is relatively high compared to other industries, which indicates that elevated amounts of biodegradable organic matter are present.

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

The chemical oxygen demand (COD) is used to estimate the amount of oxygen required to chemically oxidize organic and inorganic matter in wastewater. The laboratory results are usually expressed as mg/L as O2. In general, the COD is greater than the BOD because non-biodegradable compounds can be oxidized in addition to the biodegradable compounds through the COD test. As for the BOD, the COD for all food-processing wastewater is relatively high compared to other industries. A high COD level indicates that a wastewater contains elevated amounts of biodegradable and non-biodegradable organic and inorganic matter.

Fats, Oil & Grease (FOG)

The term Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) applies to a wide variety of organic substances. They include hydrocarbons, esters, oils, fats, waxes and fatty acids. The laboratory results are reported as mg/L. FOG in wastewater can impact the quality of a receiving water body and result in elevated BOD and COD, along with acute toxicity to Rainbow Trout and Daphnia Magna. FOG can also affect the aesthetic nature of the receiving water since the materials in the FOG will form sheens on the surface of water and can accumulate and cause harm to the ecosystem (i.e., animals, birds, fish, insects, and microorganisms). Many of the food processing sectors have wastewaters that have elevated concentrations of FOG and hence this parameter concentration must be monitored to meet effluent discharge criteria.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-8 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

The Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is a measure of the suspended matter in water that can be removed by a 0.45-micron filter. The laboratory results are reported as mg/L. Elevated TSS concentrations can impact the ecosystem (i.e. by reducing sunlight to the depths of the receiving water body and by affecting the respiration of fish and other gilled aquatic organisms), and affect the aesthetic nature of the receiving water body. It is an indirect measure of suspended organic and inorganic matter in the wastewater. All food-processing wastewater has relatively high TSS compared to other industries.

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Dissolved solids consist primarily of dissolved inorganic compounds (primarily calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, sulfur compounds) but also may contain colloidal organic material. The primary sources of dissolved solids in food processing wastewaters are potable water supplies used for processing, salts used in processing such as sodium chloride, and cleaning and sanitizing agents. Dissolved solids have the potential to impact on the subsequent use of receiving waters as sources of public and industrial water supplies.

Total Ammonia and Un-ionized Ammonia

The un-ionized portion of the total ammonia is potentially toxic to aquatic organisms, and can be estimated based on the pH and temperature of the receiving water body or wastewater. Also, elevated total ammonia may also impact on downstream drinking water and other water treatment systems. The laboratory results are reported as mg/L as Nitrogen. Many food-processing wastewaters have elevated total ammonia concentrations and hence may have elevated un-ionized ammonia concentrations.

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

The Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is a measure of the organic plus the total ammonia in the water. Hence, organic nitrogen can be determined by taking the difference of the TKN and the total ammonia results. The laboratory results are reported as mg/L as Nitrogen. Elevated TKN and organic nitrogen is an indication of septic wastes. It can impact on the receiving water quality and potentially cause a detrimental decrease in dissolved oxygen as a result of increased BOD and COD concentrations and increased microbiological and algae growth.

Nitrite/Nitrate

Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen is rarely present in food processing wastewaters before aerobic biological treatment, due to the lack of oxygen necessary for microbial driven nitrification.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-9 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

The principal source of nitrite and nitrate nitrogen following treatment is nitrification during aerobic biological treatment, which often is required, at least seasonally, to satisfy effluent limitations for the discharge of ammonia nitrogen to surface waters. Typically, nitrate nitrogen is the predominate form of oxidized nitrogen in these discharges, with nitrite nitrogen present only in trace amounts. High concentrations of nitrite nitrogen usually are indicative of incomplete nitrification and are accompanied by more than trace ammonia nitrogen concentrations. The primary concern with respect to oxidized forms of nitrogen in wastewater discharges relates to their role in creation of eutrophic conditions in surface waters.

Total Phosphorus (TP) and Orthophosphate

Phosphorus is a pollutant of concern given the role of phosphorus as a primary nutrient in freshwater ecosystems. In such aquatic ecosystems, an increase in ambient phosphorus concentration from wastewater discharges above naturally occurring levels results in the excessive growth of algae and other phytoplankton, which leads to eutrophic conditions. Eutrophic conditions have the potential to disrupt the natural aquatic ecosystem structure, cause fish kills, and impair receiving waters for recreational use or as a source of potable water. The laboratory results are reported as mg/L as phosphorus. Many food-processing wastewaters have elevated total phosphorus concentrations. Sources of phosphorus in food processing wastewaters include: detergents and sanitizers, boiler water additives to control corrosion, bone, soft tissue, and blood.

Total orthophosphate phosphorus (also known as total reactive phosphorus) provides an immediately available source of phosphorus, and can be directly used by phytoplankton and higher plants.

Temperature

The temperature of the wastewater can impact on the ecosystem and general use of the receiving water body. More specifically, high and low wastewater temperatures relative to the receiving water body temperature can impact on the diversity, distribution, and abundance of the plant and animal life. In worst cases, high temperature wastewater can drastically change an ecosystem. In worst-case conditions, high temperature wastewaters along with high nutrient conditions can cause excessive and noxious algae blooms that can essentially eliminate the natural ecosystem. Many food-processing wastewaters have elevated temperatures. pH

The pH of discharged wastewater should be maintained in the range of 6.5 to 8.5. pH results outside of this range can have a detrimental impact on the ecosystem (aquatic life), limit and/or restrict the use of the receiving water body by the general public for

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-10 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______recreational purposes, and impact on other water taking facilities downstream of the wastewater discharge. Many food-processing wastewaters have pH values that are outside of the above stated range unless there is an existing pH adjustment system in place.

Total Residual Chlorine

Chlorine is commonly used for the disinfection wastewaters containing pathogenic organisms (e.g., meat and poultry processors) before direct discharge to surface waters. Free chlorine is directly toxic to aquatic organisms and can react with naturally occurring organic compounds in natural waters to form toxic disinfection byproducts such as trihalomethanes. Total residual chlorine is an important characterization or control parameter for food processors that disinfect wastewater.

Pathogens

Another type of contaminant found in food-processing wastewaters, particularly from meat, poultry, and seafood processing facilities, is pathogenic organisms. These include total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, aeromonas, fecal streptococcus, salmonella, and cryptosporidium.

The total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus groups of bacteria share the common characteristic of containing species which normally are present in the enteric tract of all warm-blooded animals, including humans. Thus, these groups of bacteria commonly are used as indicators of fecal contamination of natural waters and the possible presence of enteric pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites of enteric origin.

The pathogens can impact on the health of the natural ecosystem, as well as, impact on drinking water sources and the general recreational use of the receiving water body. The laboratory results are typically reported as the number of colony forming units (CFU) per unit volume of sample.

3.3.2 Non-Conventional Pollutants

The non-conventional pollutants represent a group of emerging contaminants not typically associated with food processing effluent or subject to regulatory or monitoring requirements in this sector. However, some of these pollutants may be present at relatively low levels in wastewater generated by some facilities and are receiving increased attention from regulatory agencies and non-government organizations. The group includes metals, pesticides, veterinary drugs, disinfection byproducts and other organic contaminants, including those listed under the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA). A significant barrier to developing regulatory and non-regulatory programs is the availability of data for these parameters in food processor effluent in Canada and internationally. Hence, in determining the relevance of these parameters to

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-11 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______food processors in Ontario it was necessary, for the most part, to make inferences from secondary sources of information.

Acute Lethality Testing

Acute (short term) lethality testing is a method of determining whether or not wastewater is toxic to Rainbow Trout and Daphnia Magna (water fleas). Elevated levels of one or more contaminants may cause acute toxicity. The laboratory results are reported as the 96- hour LC50 (median lethal concentration) for Rainbow Trout and the 48-hour LC50 for Daphnia Magna. Acute lethality testing provides a broad indicator of the quality of the effluent, which may not be otherwise detected by the analysis of individual effluent parameters. Where a facility’s wastewater is found to be acutely lethal it is necessary to identify and reduce the cause of the toxicity. Acute lethality testing was included as a characterization parameter for the nine industrial sectors covered by the Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) regulations implemented by the Ministry of Environment. Based on a review of available information, acute lethality testing is not currently applied as a condition of approvals granted to direct dischargers in the Ontario food-processing sector.

Metals

Many of the metals listed in Table 3-1 are important constituents of most water bodies and are necessary for the growth of biological life. However, the presence of metals in excessive concentrations in wastewater can be toxic to the aquatic ecosystem and limit the beneficial use of the receiving water body. Potential sources of metals in some food processing wastewaters may include water supplies and distribution systems, processing equipment, cleaning and sanitizing agents, and wastewater collection systems and treatment equipment. Also, metals including arsenic, copper, and zinc are added as trace nutrients to livestock and poultry feeds and may be present in byproducts (e.g., manure, blood) generated by the meat and poultry processors.

Mercury and Cadmium are COA Tier I and II pollutants, respectively. As indicated in Table 3-1, neither of these metals is reported to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) as being released to surface waters by food processing facilities, nor were they identified by the USEPA as parameters of concern during the development of the technology based effluent guidelines for the meat and poultry products source category (USEPA, 2002). In addition, no data was found during Internet-based literature searches to indicate that these metals are parameters of concern for food processors.

Pesticides

Pesticides have the potential to be present in wastewater from meat- and poultry- processing and fruit- and vegetable processing facilities. Pesticides include: fungicides,

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-12 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______herbicides, insecticides, defoliants, plant bactericides, plant growth regulators, repellents, rodenticides, and others.

Pesticides are applied topically to livestock and poultry in some feeding operations to control external parasites. Although there are regulated minimum withdrawal periods before slaughter there is the possibility that pesticide residues remain on feathers, hair and skin.

Banned Pesticides

Chemicals listed under Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), which have been used in pesticides include: aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene, mirex, and pentachlorophenol. These materials have been banned from use and are no longer released in Ontario. Hence, establishing characterization programs and controls at food processing facilities for these banned substances would be of limited value.

Regulated Minimum Withdrawal Periods for Pesticides

Pesticide residues that remain on fruits, vegetables and field crops may enter wastewater streams during processing. Pesticide residues at the time of harvest are controlled through the use of minimum pre-harvest intervals that establish the minimum amount of time that must pass between the last pesticide application and the harvesting of the crop, or the grazing or cutting of the crop for livestock feed.

Mandated pre-harvest intervals and minimum withdrawal periods have been established to ensure that pesticide residues on crops remain below the Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) set by Health Canada under Canada’s Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. MRL’s are the maximum concentration of a chemical residue that is legally permitted as acceptable in or on food commodities and animal feeds. The limits are based on maximum acceptable human intake over a lifetime.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) Best Management Practices

A list of the pesticides used on fruits, vegetables and field crops in Ontario was published by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the Ministry’s Recommendations for Fruit Production (OMAF, 2004a), Recommendations for Vegetable Production (OMAF, 2004b), and Field Crop Protection Guide (OMAF 2003). The OMAF publications also provide Best Management Practices for the use of pesticides aimed at protecting human health and the environment, and recommendations for minimum pre-harvest intervals for the application of pesticides. When implemented these Best Management Practices are expected to have a positive impact on minimizing the quantity of pesticide residues entering the environment.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-13 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) Monitoring Program for Chemical Residues in Food

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food prepared a Baseline Risk Study of Chemical Contaminants in Raw Meats Processed in Ontario’s Provincially Licensed Plants (OMAF, 2002), which examined the prevalence and levels of chemical contaminants in meat. The objectives of the study included developing a baseline of quantitative data needed to measure the impact of intervention programs such as Good Agricultural Practices, Good Manufacturing Practices, HACCP, and others together with providing a basis for targeting and prioritizing intervention activities on products and contaminants of concern. The scope of the study included a literature review of the presence of veterinary drug residues, pesticides, and industrial chemicals in meat and control mechanisms for these contaminants in the United States, Australia, United Kingdom, and Canada. The study recommended contaminants to be monitored in OMAF’s baseline risk study, which were adopted from programs managed by the US Department of Agriculture and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as well as advice from veterinary practitioners in Ontario. Pesticides currently in use in Ontario that were recommended for monitoring were carbamates and pyrethroids both of which are used for control of external parasites.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) conducts annual monitoring for chemical residues in meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables. In 2002, 3.5% of 579 samples of fruits and vegetables samples contained pesticide residues in excess of the MRL (OMAF, 2003).

United States Environmental Protection Agency Meat and Poultry Products Wastewater Discharge Limits

On February 26, 2004, EPA established new wastewater discharge limits for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) industry. The development of the effluent standards was based on a technical and economic analysis that included: estimated compliance costs; estimated pollutant loadings and removals; water quality impacts; and potential benefits associated with each of the technology options. The technical analysis also included an evaluation to determine the presence of pollutant parameters as a basis for selection of pollutants of concern for regulation. EPA determined pollutants of concern for the meat and poultry products industry by assessing Agency sampling data. To establish the pollutants of concern, EPA reviewed the analytical data from influent wastewater samples to determine the pollutants, which were detected at treatable levels. EPA set treatable levels at five times the baseline value (typically set at the analytical quantitation limit) to ensure that pollutants detected at only trace amounts would not be selected. EPA obtained the pollutants of concern by establishing which parameters were detected at treatable levels in at least 10 percent of all the influent wastewater samples. Pesticides identified as pollutants of concern for meat and poultry facilities were as follows (USEPA, 2002): carbamates (carbaryl) and pyrethroids (cis- and trans-pymethrin) for meat processors, and carbamates

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-14 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

(carbaryl) for poultry processors. However, it should be noted that pesticides were not included in the final EPA rulemaking based on the following rationale (USEPA, 2002):

“Pesticides are used for controlling animal ecto-parasites and may be present in wastewaters from initial animal wash and processing operations. Some pesticides are bio-accumulative and retain their toxicity once they are discharged into receiving waters. Although EPA observed that many of the [secondary] biological treatment systems used within the meat processing industry provide adequate reductions of pesticides, most biological systems are not specifically engineered to remove pesticides. As a result, EPA believes that a facility will not be able to manage a biological treatment process to consistently achieve effluent limitations for pesticides. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to regulate pesticides.”

Veterinary Drugs

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) Monitoring Program for Chemical Residues in Food

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) Monitoring Program for Chemical Residues in Food includes monitoring for the most commonly used veterinary drugs used in meat and dairy animals: sulfas, carbadox, tetracyclines, beta-lactams, and gentamycin (OMAF, 2003). The monitoring is conducted to assess the effectiveness of control programs and compliance with food safety regulations. The results are used to determine the prevalence and levels of chemical contaminants in food and to prioritized inspection efforts. The levels of veterinary drugs in organs, muscle, urine and milk are generally very low. For example, for 2002-2003 antibiotics were detected in only one out of 1205 kidney and muscle samples collected (i.e., 0.08%).

United States Environmental Protection Agency Meat and Poultry Products Wastewater Discharge Limits

During the development of the new wastewater discharge limits for the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) industry, promulgated in 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that there was little or no benefit to including veterinary drugs in the regulations. The rationale presented in the technical background document to the regulations (U.S. EPA, 2002) was:

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-15 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

occurrences would be infrequent and highly random. Thus, the probability of detection would be low especially when pretreatment processes, such as anaerobic lagoons with relatively long hydraulic detention time, are used. Therefore, EPA has concluded that establishing effluent standards for antibiotics and other animal drugs and pesticides and requiring routine monitoring may impose an unnecessary burden on livestock and poultry processors”.

As noted previously, meat and dairy producers in Ontario are subject to regulatory controls and inspection programs similar to those in the United States, and monitoring results for chemical residues in Ontario food indicate that existing controls are effective. Thus, the rationale used by the U.S. EPA may be applicable in the Ontario context.

Disinfection Byproducts

Disinfection of food processing wastewaters (e.g., meat, poultry, seafood, dairy) is often required to control levels of pathogenic microorganisms. When organic material is exposed to chlorine there is the potential for the formation of byproducts during the disinfection process. Trihalomethanes (THMs) refer to one class of disinfection by-products found in nearly every chlorinated public water supply to some extent. The most prevalent is chloroform (trichloromethane), a THM that is carcinogenic to rats and mice. Reducing the potential for THM formation is achieved by controlling disinfection dosing rates within an optimum range and controlling the concentrations of organic precursors typically via treatment (e.g., filtration, carbon adsorption). Periodic monitoring for THM’s may be justified for facilities that disinfect wastewater by chlorination.

Other Emerging Pollutants

In addition to the pollutants described above other non-conventional pollutants shown in Table 3-1 are substances covered under the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA) (see Section 1.5.1). These are: 1,4’-dichlorobenzene, 3,3’-dichlorobenzidine, 4,4”-methylenebis (2-chloraniline), dinitropyrene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane, octachlorostyrene, pentachlorophenol, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF), and polychlorinated –dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD). These contaminants are persistent in the environment, and may originate from a wide variety of sources other than food processing facilities.

An extensive search of the Internet and general scientific literature was undertaken to identify sources of information on the presence or absence of these pollutants. The search included both broad keyword searches as well as targeted searches for data available from regulatory agencies, industry associations, and scientific organizations, which were deemed most likely to have relevant information. In addition, some of the targeted organizations were contacted directly to identify possible sources of information.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-16 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

The research undertaken in this study indicated there is a general lack of information about the presence or absence of these contaminants in food processing wastewater. Hence, it was not possible to develop a justification for selecting these pollutants as characterization parameters based on available information. Although the likelihood of these pollutants being present in food processing wastewater is expected to be low, some level of characterization may be justified based on the absence of information. It is noted that the potential for these pollutants to be present in food processing wastewater is expected to be highly dependent on site-specific conditions (e.g., specific chemical products used, nature of unit processing operations, nature of combustion processes used).

3.3.3 Proposed Wastewater Characterization Parameters for Ontario Food Processors

A set of general parameters proposed for use as guidelines in characterizing wastewater discharged directly to the environment by Ontario food processors is presented in Table 3- 2. The selected parameters were considered to be relevant to the food-processing sector as whole except as noted (i.e., four parameters are applicable only to specific types of processes or treatment systems). The selected parameters were intended to achieve a consistent baseline characterization for the sector to identify those pollutants that may be present. The baseline may be used to define facility- or sub-sector-specific routine (e.g., monthly) monitoring requirements. In addition, when developing a characterization plan for a given facility, consideration should be given to the site-specific use of chemicals as processing aids, sanitizing agents, etc.

The “other emerging pollutants”, pesticides and veterinary drugs described in the previous section are not specifically presented in Table 3-2. As previously noted, there is a general lack of information about the presence or absence of these pollutants in food processing wastewater, and the potential for their presence is expected to be highly dependent on site- specific conditions. Thus, characterization of wastewater discharges from specific food processing facilities for these parameters may be justified based on the lack of available information and a review of site-specific conditions (e.g., chemical inventories, material safety data sheets, unit processing operations, combustion processes).

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-17 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 3-2: Proposed Wastewater Characterization Parameters for Direct Discharge Ontario Food Processors Remarks Conventional or Biological BOD5 5-day (Carbonaceous) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) E.coli Meat and poultry processing. Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) Fecal Coliform Meat and poultry processing. pH Temperature Total Ammonia (TNH3) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Phosphorus (TP) Total Residual Chlorine Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat, poultry and dairy processors). Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Un-ionized Ammonia Non-Conventional Acute Lethality Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Titanium Trihalomethanes Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat & poultry processors). Zinc

3.4 SELECTION OF SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PARAMETERS

The study scope included a review of the parameters that should be used to characterize solids wastes generated during the handling and treatment of food-processing wastewater. Characterization of solid wastes may be undertaken to determine the fate of wastewater contaminants, to assess the suitability for land disposal, or both. The parameters were selected based on these objectives and other considerations such as recommendations for testing and disposal of industrial wastes on farmland in Ontario (OMAF, 1996), and the requirements of the Nutrient Management Act.

The proposed characterization parameters are presented in Table 3-3 and are grouped into the following types of indicators: a) general indicators; b) pathogens; and c) metals.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-18 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Included in the general indicator category is the Toxicity Leaching Characteristic Procedure (TLCP), which is used to determine the suitability of a solid waste for disposal on land. The selected parameters are described in the following section.

3.4.1 General Indicators

Fats, Oils & Greases (FOG)

The oils and grease parameter (FOG) is a measure of a wide variety of organic substances. This organic matter can cause odour issues at elevated concentrations when applied to landfills and/or land spreading operations but are a rich source of organic matter. Also, this organic matter at elevated concentrations can impact the ecosystem (i.e. plant and aerobic micro-organism growth) due to coating and cause anaerobic (oxygen deficient) environments that in turn result in odour issues. The laboratory results are typically reported as :g/g. The meat, poultry and seafood sectors often have significant levels of FOG in their solid waste.

Metals

The concentrations of many metals (as listed in Table 3-3) are important constituents of most ecosystems. Many metals are necessary for the growth of biological life and any absence of important metals can limit biological growth. However, the presence of metals in excessive concentrations in solid waste can be toxic to soil ecosystems and can limit the beneficial use of the receiving land area. It is also important to prevent accumulation of metals of concern if land spreading is permitted. The laboratory results are reported as :g/g. Some food processing solid wastes have elevated metal concentrations as a result of chemical additives in their processes.

Pathogens

Pathogens are another contaminant of food-processing solid wastes, particularly from meat, poultry, and seafood processing facilities. These include fecal coliform and E. coli. The pathogens can impact on the health of the natural ecosystem, as well as, impact on drinking water sources (i.e. ground water and/or surface waters) and the recreational use of the agricultural land if land spreading is permitted. The laboratory results are reported as the number of colony forming units (CFU) per unit volume of sample. pH

The pH of the solid waste is important because if a solid waste leachate has either a pH that is too high or too low it can impact on the ecosystem (i.e. reduced plant growth, microorganism mortality, ground water impact, and adverse impact on soil growing potential). In

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-19 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______general, a few food-processing sectors may be required to adjust the pH of the solid waste prior to landfilling or land spreading.

Table 3-3: Proposed Solid Waste Characterization Parameters for Direct Discharge Ontario Food Processors

Total Ammonia, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Nitrate and Nitrite

The total ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrites, and nitrates are all sources of nitrogen. Nitrogen is an important nutrient for plants and soil microorganisms. The liberated nitrogen is a by-product of microorganisms involved in the nitrogen cycle. The laboratory results are reported as :g/g. Many food-processing sectors are a good source of nitrogen.

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Total Phosphorus (TP) is another important nutrient for plants and soil microorganisms. This nutrient promotes plant and microorganism growth. The laboratory results are reported as :g/g. Typically, solids from food processing sectors are a good source of phosphorus.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-20 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Volatile Solids (VS)

The Volatile Solids (VS) is a measure of the concentration of solids that is lost at a temperature of 500 o C, which consist primarily of lighter molecular weight small chain organics that are generally easily biodegradable. The laboratory results are reported as :g/g. Many of the food processing sectors have waste solids that have high VS concentrations, especially the meat, poultry, and seafood sector.

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)

Small quantities of potentially hazardous contaminants (e.g., solvents, chemical additives, metals) may accumulate in solid wastes generated during food processing. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test is used to determine the potential for hazardous contaminants to leach from solid waste under ordinary landfill conditions i.e., it determines which regulated contaminants are present in landfill leachate and their concentrations. If the amount of a particular contaminant released under laboratory test conditions exceeds regulatory limits (e.g., Ontario. Reg. 347/558), the waste is classified as hazardous. If the solid waste is not hazardous, the waste material can be disposed of in a regular landfill or by an approved alternative disposal method. The laboratory TCLP results are reported as µg/g.

The regulatory limits that apply to the TCLP test are listed in Schedule 4 of the regulation. These include more than 80 parameters including metals, pesticides, organic chemicals, and inorganic chemicals. Consideration to site-specific conditions is required to identify the potential for these parameters to transfer to and accumulate in solid wastes generated by wastewater treatment processes. For example, solid wastes generated by wastewater treatment systems in the meat, poultry and fruits and vegetable processing subsectors may contain trace quantities of pesticides and other organic contaminants listed in Schedule 4. These wastes should be characterized by the TCLP test using the appropriate parameters to determine suitability for disposal via landfilling or land application.

3.4.2 Other Emerging Pollutants

Trace organic substances such as pesticides, veterinary drugs and substances covered under the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA) (see Section 1.5.1) are not presented in Table 3-3. These contaminants are persistent in the environment, and may originate from a wide variety of sources other than food processing facilities. These materials, if present in food processing wastewater, may partition and accumulate in the solid wastes generated by wastewater treatment systems.

As discussed in Section 3.3.2, an extensive search of the Internet and general scientific literature indicated there is a general lack of information about the presence or absence of these contaminants in food processing wastewater. Hence, it was not possible to develop a

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-21 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______justification for selecting these pollutants as characterization parameters based on available information. Although the likelihood of these pollutants being present in food processing wastewater is expected to be low, some level of characterization may be justified based on the general absence of information. It is noted that the potential for these pollutants to be present in food processing wastewater is expected to be highly dependent on site-specific conditions (e.g., specific chemical products used, nature of unit processing operations, nature of combustion processes used).

3.5 GUIDELINES FOR SAMPLING, PRESERVATION AND STORAGE

This section provides guidance on the proper techniques for collecting and handling samples of wastewater and solid waste. The guidance is consistent with the requirements set out in the document entitled “Protocol for the Sampling and Analysis of Industrial/Municipal Waste Water, MOE, July 1993 (as revised in 1999)” (referred to herein as the “MOE Protocol”).

Important general considerations in collecting characterization samples are:

• Ensure all samples are collected from a point that is representative of the whole wastewater stream or solid waste area.

• Ensure sufficient volumes of sample are to allow for testing of the full range of parameters required for characterization, and to provide quality control samples.

• Use composite samples (small multiple samples from different locations combined into one sample container) for solid wastes.

• Ensure that all sampling equipment is operated, maintained, and cleaned as per the protocols, described in Section 3 of the MOE Protocol.

• Where possible, sampling equipment should be dedicated to one sample location (if there is more than one sample location) to minimize cross contamination from one sample location to another.

A more detailed discussion of sampling and analytical techniques for wastewater and solid wastes is provided in the following sections.

3.5.1 Wastewater

Representative wastewater samples are obtained from locations where the wastewater stream is turbulent and well mixed. Sampling points should be located a sufficient distance (e.g., at least 25 pipe diameters) downstream of locations where streams join to ensure that

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-22 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______mixing is complete and the sample is representative. Samples should not be collected in locations where stagnant or otherwise unrepresentative conditions exist such as near boundaries of tanks, holding ponds, or pipes.

The types of wastewater samples are either discrete (i.e., grab) or composite. Grab samples are usually taken when maximum or peak contaminant levels are of greater interest than average levels, as may be the case with compliance monitoring. Grab samples are obtained by dipping an appropriate container, bucket, bottle or vial into a wastewater stream at a specified sample location. Composite samples are obtained either manually or automatically by programmable sampling equipment. A manual composite sample is prepared by combining multiple equal volume grab samples taken at equal time intervals into one sample for analysis. An automatic composite sample is prepared from multiple equal volume sub-samples taken either proportional to the wastewater flow or in equal time periods. On-line analyzers can also be applied for specific sample parameters (i.e. pH, temperature, etc.) as an alternative to taking manual and/or automatic grab samples.

The selection of an appropriate sampling frequency is site-specific and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. For the purpose of developing a baseline characterization the number of samples collected should be sufficient to provide at least a 95% statistical confidence level. For the purpose of on-going compliance monitoring frequencies should take into account the effluent volume, variability of the discharge, treatment method, past compliance, significance of pollutants, and cost of monitoring. High variability or fluctuations in the rate of effluent generation may necessitate more frequent monitoring if an effluent parameter is expected to reach levels of concern.

For the purpose of collecting baseline characterization samples from a specific facility, a combination of 24-hour composite and daily grab samples collected over a period that captures the variation in operations and effluent quality is appropriate for determining both the average and peak contaminant mass discharge rates. Food processing facilities typically cycle between production and sanitization shifts on a daily and weekly basis. The results of the baseline characterization should be used to assess the variability of the effluent quality and establish an appropriate sampling frequency for on-going compliance monitoring.

Sampling, preservation, and storage techniques are described in Sections 3 and 4 of the MOE Protocol. It should be noted that some sample parameters require unique sampling requirements to ensure that a representative and relatively reliable sample result for the wastewater location/stream is reported. Table A2 in Appendix 3A provides a summary of the requirements for sample volume, container size and material, preservation, and maximum sample holding times.

Quality assurance and quality control requirements are discussed in section 5.0 of the MOE Protocol.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-23 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

3.5.2 Solid Waste

Solid waste samples are generally obtained via manual grab samples. Grab samples are samples obtained by dipping an appropriate container, bucket, bottle or vial into a solid waste area or container at a specified sample location.

Composite solid waste samples are samples that are collected manually via a sample person at one or more sample locations from a solid waste storage area.

The accredited laboratory selected to perform the analysis often prescribes sampling, preservation, and storage techniques. Table A3 presented in Appendix 3A summarized typical sample volume requirements, sample container size and material, sample preservation requirements, and maximum sample holding times for each sample parameter.

3.5.3 Documentation and Record Keeping

Keeping accurate records is an important aspect of sample quality assurance and control. Persons responsible for collecting samples should be trained on proper record keeping procedures. For example, the following information should be recorded during field sampling and included as part of the sample record:

• Date and time of sample • Sample identification/location • Sample collection method (grab, 24 hr composite, etc.) • Name of sampling technician • Sample parameters collected • Weather conditions and temperature • Malfunctions and corrective action • Maintenance log • Calibration, cleaning, and repair log • Any other relevant information that may impact interpretation of analytical results

Refer to section 5.2 of the MOE Protocol for a detailed discussion of the requirements.

3.5.4 Analytical Performance Criteria (LMDL vs. RMDL)

Standards for analytical performance are established using the concept of Analytical Method Detection Limits (MDL). The MOE Protocol defines the MDL as:

“A statistically defined decision point such that measured results falling at or above this point are interpreted to indicate that the presence of analyte (sample parameter of interest)

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-24 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______in the sample with a specified probability, and assumes that there are no known sources of error in identification or biases in measurement.”

The MOE has established minimum acceptable standards for analytical performance by specifying a method detection limit for each characterization parameter. These are referred to as Regulation Method Detection Limits (RMDL). Analytical laboratories are required to specify the method detection limits of the procedures they use. The Laboratory Method Detection Limit (LMDL) must be less than the RMDL for each parameter. Therefore, a laboratory test method that has an LMDL greater than or equal to the RMDL cannot be used. Before arranging for sample analysis with a laboratory, it should be verified that the analytical procedures to be used would meet or exceed the RMDL.

Refer to section 4.3 of the MOE Protocol for additional information on method detection limits.

3.6 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYTICAL METHODS

The document entitled “MOE-LSB Analytical Methods/Quality Assurance Manual, MOE, Dec 15, 2003,” summarizes the Laboratory Services Branch (LSB) analytical reference method codes for wastewater and solid/sludge waste parameter analyses.

The reference method codes for the wastewater sample parameters are summarized in Table A2 in Appendix 3A. The reference method codes for the solid waste/sludge sample parameters are summarized in Tables A3 and A4 in Appendix 3A.

A list of the LSB reference method documents for each of the selected parameters can be found in Appendix 3B.

3.7 LIST OF ACCREDITED LABORATORIES

In selecting an laboratory to perform sample analysis it is important to ensure the laboratory has been accredited and registered under the Standards Council of Canada (SCC)/Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories (CAEAL) Partnership Agreement for the analysis being performed.

Table A5 in Appendix 3A provides a list of the accredited laboratories for the province of Ontario. Information in table includes laboratory name, location, registered tests, and contact number. Note that only those laboratories that are accredited and in Ontario to perform the majority of the recommended analyses are listed.

Table A5 indicates which laboratories are accredited/registered to perform wastewater testing for the various types of parameters (e.g., organic, inorganic, microbiological, and

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-25 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______acute lethality parameters), and laboratories that are accredited/registered to perform sludge/soil testing.

3.8 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL COSTS

Information on typical laboratory analytical fees for each of the recommended wastewater and solid waste parameters was obtained from published fee schedules from three laboratories. The costs are presented in Appendix 3A as discussed below.

3.8.1 Wastewater Analytical Costs

Table A2 in Appendix 3A provides information on the typical analytical costs for each of the recommended wastewater characterization parameters.

3.8.2 Sludge/Solid Waste Analytical Costs

Tables A3 and A4 list the analytical costs for each of the listed sludge/solid waste sample parameters

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-26 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

3.9 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.0

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1985. Regulation under the Federal Fisheries Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-14: Meat and Poultry Products Plant Liquid Effluent Regulations (F-14 – CRC, c818), Environment Canada, 1985

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1985. Regulation under the Federal Fisheries Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-14: Potato Processing Plant Liquid Effluent Regulations (F-14 – CRC, c829), Environment Canada, 1985

MOE and OMAF. 2002. Nutrient Management Act, 2002 Ontario Regulation 267/03, Amended by O. Reg. 447/03, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, June 2002.

MOE and OMAF. 1996. Guidelines for the Utilization of Biosolids and Other Wastes on Agricultural Land, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, March 1996.

MOEE. 1994. Water Management Policies, Guidelines, and Provincial Water Quality Objectives, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, July 1994.

OMAF. 2004a. Fruit Production Recommendations 2004-2005. Publication 360. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

OMAF. 2004b. Vegetable Production Recommendations 2004-2005. Publication 363. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

OMAF. 2003. Field Crop Protection Guide 2003-2004. Publication 812. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

OMAF. 2002. Baseline Risk Study of Chemical Contaminants in Raw Meats Processed in Ontario’s Provincially Licensed Plants. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Food Inspection Branch, Science and Advisory Unit. April 2002.

OMAF. 1996. Guidelines for the Utilization of Biosolids and Other Wastes on Agricultural Land - Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, March 1996

USEPA. 2004a. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part 405 – Dairy Products Processing Point Source Category, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC., April 22, 2004.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-27 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

USEPA. 2004b. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part 406 – Grain Mills Point Source Category, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC., April 22, 2004.

USEPA. 2004c. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part 407 – Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Point Source Category, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC., April 22, 2004.

USEPA. 2004d. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part 408 – Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source Category, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC., April 22, 2004.

USEPA. 2004e. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part 409 – Sugar Processing Point Source Category, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC., April 22, 2004.

USEPA. 2004f. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part 432 – Meat Products Point Source Category, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC., April 22, 2004.

USEPA. 1971. Dairy Food Plant Wastes and Waste Treatment Practices. EPA 12060 EGUO 3/71, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC., 1971.

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-28 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

3.10 APPENDIX 3A - TABLES

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report Wastewater Parameters Specified in EPA and Canadian Fisheries Act for Food Industry Page 1 of 3

Table A.1: Wastewater Parameters Specified in EPA and Canadian Fisheries Act for Food Industry Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Canadian Fisheries Act, Parameters Specified in Code of Federal Regulation R.S. 1985, c. F-14 No Pollutants Parameters Specified Under Parameters Specified Under No Discharge Oil & Fecal Discharge > 1.27 cm New Effluent Guidelines Liquid Effluent Regulations BOD TSS pH Temperature to Navigable 5 Grease Coliform (0.5 inch) in Any for Meat and Poultry Meat and Poultry Potato Processing Waters. Dimension. Products (MPP) Products Plant Part 405–Dairy Products Processing Point Source Category Subpart A-Receiving Stations Subcategory %%% Subpart B-Fluid Products Subcategory %%% Subpart C-Cultured Products Subcategory %%% Subpart D-Butter Subcategory %%% Subpart E-Cottage Cheese and Cultured Cream Cheese Subcategory %%% Subpart F-Natural and Processed Cheese Subcategory %%% Subpart G-Fluid Mix for Ice Cream and Other Frozen Desserts Subcategory %%% Subpart H-Ice Cream, Frozen Desserts, Novelties and Other Dairy Desserts Subcategory %%% Subpart I-Condensed Milk Subcategory %%% Subpart J-Dry Milk Subcategory %%% Subpart K-Condensed Whey Subcategory %%% Subpart L-Dry Whey Subcategory %%% Part 406–Grain Mills Point Source Category Subpart A-Corn Wet Milling Subcategory %%% Subpart B-Corn Dry Milling Subcategory %%% Subpart C-Normal Wheat Flour Milling Subcategory % Subpart D-Bulgur Wheat Flour Milling Subcategory %%% Subpart E-Normal Rice Milling Subcategory % Subpart F-Parboiled Rice Processing Subcategory %%% Subpart G-Animal Feed Subcategory % Subpart H-Hot Cereal Subcategory % Subpart I-Ready-to-Eat Cereal Subcategory %%% Subpart J-Wheat Starch and Gluten Subcategory %%% Part 407–Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing Point Source Category Subpart A-Apple Juice Subcategory %%% Subpart B-Apple Products Subcategory %%% Subpart C-Citrus Products Subcategory %%% Subpart D-Frozen Potato Products Subcategory %%%

Subpart E-Dehydrated Potato Products Subcategory %%% BOD5 and TSS Subpart F-Canned and Preserved Fruits Subcategory %%% Subpart G-Canned and Preserved Vegetables Subcategory %%% Subpart H-Canned and Miscellaneous Specialties Subcategory %%%%

ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd. 12 Banigan Drive, Toronto, Ontario M4H 1E9 Phone: (416) 467-5555 Fax: (416) 467-9824 www.altech-group.com Wastewater Parameters Specified in EPA and Canadian Fisheries Act for Food Industry Page 2 of 3

Table A.1: Wastewater Parameters Specified in EPA and Canadian Fisheries Act for Food Industry Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Canadian Fisheries Act, Parameters Specified in Code of Federal Regulation R.S. 1985, c. F-14 No Pollutants Parameters Specified Under Parameters Specified Under No Discharge Oil & Fecal Discharge > 1.27 cm New Effluent Guidelines Liquid Effluent Regulations BOD TSS pH Temperature to Navigable 5 Grease Coliform (0.5 inch) in Any for Meat and Poultry Meat and Poultry Potato Processing Waters. Dimension. Products (MPP) Products Plant Part 408–Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source Category Subpart A-Farm-Raised Catfish Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart B-Conventional Blue Crab Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart C-Mechanized Blue Crab Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart D-Non-Remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart E-Remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing Subcategory % Subpart F-Non-Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart G-Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Processing Subcategory % Subpart H-Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in the Contiguous States Subcategory %% % Subpart I-Non-Remote Alaskan Shrimp Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart J-Remote Alaskan Shrimp Processing Subcategory % Subpart K-Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States Subcategory %% % Subpart L-Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States Subcategory %% % Subpart M-Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States Subcategory %% % Subpart N-Tuna Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart O-Fish Meal Processing Subcategory %%%% Subpart P-Alaskan Hand-Butchered Salmon Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart Q-Alaskan Mechanized Salmon Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart R-West Coast Hand-Butchered Salmon Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart S-West Coast Mechanized Salmon Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart T-Alaskan Bottom Fish Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart U-Non-Alaskan Conventional Bottom Fish Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart V-Non-Alaskan Mechanized Bottom Fish Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart W-Hand-Shucked Clam Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart X-Mechanized Clam Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart Y-Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart Z-Atlantic and Gulf Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart AA-Steamed and Canned Oyster Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart AB-Sardine Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart AC-Alaskan Scallop Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart AD-Non-Alaskan Scallop Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart AE-Alaskan Herring Fillet Processing Subcategory %% % % Subpart AF-Non-Alaskan Herring Fillet Processing Subcategory %% % Subpart AG-Abalone Processing Subcategory %% %

ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd. Wastewater Parameters Specified in EPA and Canadian Fisheries Act for Food Industry Page 3 of 3

ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd. List of Parameters to be Analysed for Wastewater Page 1 of 1

Table A.2: List of Parameters to be Analysed for Wastewater Typical LMDL (A) RMDL (B) Recommended Holding Time Typical Reference Sample Contaminants Brief Description (For Lab) (Regulatory) Sample Volume Preservatives (For Preserved Analysis Cost Method Container (mg/L) (mg/L) (ml) Samples) ($) Biochemical Oxygen Demand MOE-E3182 By Dissolved Oxygen Meter 0.5 2 500 500 ml HDPE 4 /C, Protect From Light 4 days 25 Chemical Oxygen Demand MOE-E3246 Colourimetry 5 10 100 125 ml HDPE H2SO4 pH between 1.5 and 2 30 days 20 Oil & Grease MOE-E3401 Hexane Extraction 1 1 2 * 1000 1000 ml Amber Glass Hcl < pH 2 28 days 30 Total Suspended Solids MOE-E3188 Gravimetric 1 3 500 500 ml HDPE 4 /C 7 days 12 Total Ammonia MOE-E3366 Colourimetry 0.02 0.25 100 125 ml HDPE H2SO4 pH between 1.5 and 2 10 days 20 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) MOE-E3368 Colourimetry 0.02 0.25 100 125 ml HDPE H2SO4 pH between 1.5 and 2 10 days 25

Un-ionized Ammonia Calculations Based on pH, NH 3 & Temperature NA NA NA 100 125 ml HDPE H2SO4 pH between 1.5 and 2 10 days 20 Total Phosphorus MOE-E3368 Colourimetry 0.002 0.1 75 125 ml HDPE H2SO4 pH between 1.5 and 2 30 days 25 Temperature EPA-170.1 Thermometric Field Test NA pH MOE-E3218 Potentiometry NA NA 50 125 ml HDPE 4 /C 4 days 8 MOE-E3371 ©) Membrane Filtration 1 CFU/100 ml ND 200 Sterile Bottle Sodium Thiosulplhate 48 hrs Fecal Coliform Bacteria 25 EPA-MF Membrane Filtration 1 CFU/100 ml ND 200 Sterile Bottle Sodium Thiosulplhate 48 hrs E.Coli MOE-E3371 Membrane Filtration 1 CFU/100 ml 1 CFU/100 ml 250 Sterile, Glass or Polythelene Terephthalate Sodium Thiosulplhate 36 hrs 20 Non-Acutely Lethal Effluent Second Edition of EPS 1/RM/13 (D) Lethality NA NA 25 L Polyethylene With Plastic Liner 1-8/C, Protect From Light 24 hrs 275 Second Edition of EPS 1/RM/14 (E) Lethality NA NA 2 L Polyethylene With Plastic Liner 1-8/C, Protect From Light 24 hrs 275 Cadmium MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (F) 0.005 0.002 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days Chromium MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (F) 0.005 0.001 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days Cobalt MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (F) 0.005 0.01 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days Copper MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (F) 0.005 0.01 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days 50 Lead MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (F) 0.050 0.02 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days (Part of Complete Scan) Molybdenum MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (F) 0.020 0.01 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days Nickel MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (F) 0.020 0.02 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days Zinc MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (H) 0.005 0.01 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days Other Metals MOE-E3094 ICP-AES (F) (G) (G) 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days Mercury MOE-E3301 CV-FAAS (H) 0.00005 0.0001 200 250 ml Clear Glass K2Cr2O7/HNO3 < pH 2 7 days 20 Arsenic MOE-E3302 HYD-FAAS (I) 0.001 0.005 50 125 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days 15 Selenium MOE-E3302 HYD-FAAS (I) 0.001 0.005 500 500 ml HDPE HNO3< pH2 30 days 15 Note: (A) LMDL: Laboratory specific method detection limit. (B) RMDL: Applicable analytical method detection limit. (C) Used for total coliform only. (D) Biological test method: Reference method for determining acute lethality of effluents to Rainbow Trout. (E) Biological test method: Reference method for determining acute lethality of effluents to Daphnia Magna. (F) ICP-AES: Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy. (G) Depend upon the specific metal to be analysed. (H) CV-FAAS: Cold vapour-flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry. (I) HYD-FAAS: Hydride-flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry. (J) NA: Not applicable. (K) ND: No data available

ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd. 12 Banigan Drive, Toronto, Ontario M4H 1E9 Phone: (416) 467-5555 Fax: (416) 467-9824 www.altech-group.com List of Parameters to be Analysed for Sludge Page 1 of 1

Table A.3: List of Parameters to be Analysed for Sludge Typical LMDL (A) RMDL (B) Recommended Holding Time Typical Reference Sample Contaminants Brief Description (For Lab) (Regulatory) Sample Volume Preservatives (For Preserved Analysis Cost Method Container (ug/g) (ug/g) (gm) Samples) ($) Total Ammonia SM (C) 4500-NH3 B,C Colourimetry 40 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /CNA25 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) MOE-E3116 Colourimetry 60 ND 100 250 ml glass jar 4 /CNA30 Total Phosphorus MOE-E3116 Colourimetry 100 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /CNA30 pH MOE-E3137 Potentiometry NA NA 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /CNA12 Oil & Grease MOE-E3401 Hexane Extraction 100 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 28 days 30 MOE-E3371 (D) Membrane Filtration 1 CFU/100 ml ND 24 Sterile Container NA 48 hrs Fecal Coliform Bacteria 37 EPA-MF Membrane Filtration 1 CFU/100 ml ND 24 Sterile Container NA 48 hrs E.Coli MOE-E3371 Membrane Filtration 1 CFU/100 ml ND 24 Sterile Container NA 48 hrs 25 Extraction followed by TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure-Inorganics) (E) EPA-1311 ND ND 250 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C NA 150 ICP-AES (F) Cadmium MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) 0.6 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months Chromium MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) 1 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months Cobalt MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) 2 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months Copper MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) 1 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months 50 Lead MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) 5 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months (Part of Complete Scan) Molybdenum MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) 3 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months Nickel MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) 2 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months Zinc MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) 5 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months Other Metals MOE-E3095 ICP-AES (F) (G) (G) 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months Mercury MOE-E3058 CV-FAAS (H) 0.01 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 30 days 20 Arsenic MOE-E3091 HYD-FAAS (I) 0.2 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months 17 Selenium MOE-E3091 HYD-FAAS (I) 0.2 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months 17 Note: (A) LMDL: Laboratory specific method detection limit. (B) RMDL: Applicable analytical method detection limit. (C) SM: Standard method (D) Used for total coliform only. (E) Includes Arsenic, Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Selenium, Silver, Cyanide, Fluoride, Uranium, Nitrite and Nitrate. (F) ICP-AES: Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy. (G) Depend upon the specific metal to be analysed. (H) CV-FAAS: Cold vapour-flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry. (I) HYD-FAAS: Hydride-flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry. (J) NA: Not applicable. (K) ND: No data available

ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd. OMAF Recommended Parameters for Non-Agricultural Source other than Sewage Biosolids Page 1 of 1

Table A.4: OMAF Recommended Parameters to be Analysed for Industrial Waste for Farmland Typical LMDL (A) RMDL(B) Recommended Holding Time Typical Reference Sample Contaminants Brief Description (For Lab) (Regulatory) Sample Volume Preservatives (For Preserved Analysis Cost Method Container (ug/g) (ug/g) (gm) Samples) ($) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) MOE-E3116 Colourimetry 60 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /CNA30 Ammonia and Ammonium Nitrogen MOE-E3366 Colourimetry 0.3 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /CNA45 Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen MOE-E3366 Colourimetry 1.25 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /CNA40 Total Phosphorus MOE-E3116 Colourimetry 100 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /CNA30 Volatile Solids MOE-E3254 GC (C) ND ND 60 60 ml or 120 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 14 days 100 Regulated Metals Cadmium MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075 ICP-AES (D) 0.6 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C6 months Chromium MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075 ICP-AES (D) 1 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C6 months Cobalt MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075 ICP-AES (D) 2 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C6 months Copper MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075 ICP-AES (D) 1 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C6 months Lead MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075 ICP-AES (D) 5 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C6 months 50 (Part of Complete Scan) Molybdenum MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075 ICP-AES (D) 3 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C6 months Nickel MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075 ICP-AES (D) 2 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C6 months Zinc MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075 ICP-AES (D) 5 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C6 months Mercury MOE-E3059 CV-FAAS (E) 0.01 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 30 days 20 Arsenic MOE-E3245 HYD-FAAS (F) 0.2 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months 17 Selenium MOEE3245 HYD-FAAS (F) 0.2 ND 100 250 ml Glass Jar 4 /C 6 months 17 Note: (A) LMDL: Laboratory specific method detection limit. (B) RMDL: Applicable analytical method detection limit. (C) GC: Gas chromatography (D) ICP-AES: Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy. (E) CV-FAAS: Cold vapour-flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry. (F) HYD-FAAS: Hydride-flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry. (G) NA: Not applicable. (H) ND: No data available

ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd. Accredited Laboratories in Ontario Page 1 of 2

Table A.5: Accredited Laboratories under the SCC (A)/CAEAL (B) Partnership Agreement in Ontario Registered Tests Waste Water Sr.No. Name of the Laboratory Soil/ Location Lethality/ Phone Inorganic Organic Microbiological Sludge Toxicity

1 Accutest Laboratories Ltd. %% % %(613) 727-5692 Nepean 2 Activation Laboratories Limited %% %(905) 648-9611 Ancaster 3 AGAT Laboratories (Calgary): AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) %% % %(905) 501-9998 Mississauga 4 Agri-Service Laboratory Inc.: Entech %% % %(905) 821-1112 Mississauga 5 Caduceon Enterprises Inc.: Caduceon Environmental Laboratories (Ottawa) %% % %(613) 526-0123 Ottawa 6 Danzi Corporation: E3 Laboratories %% %(905) 641-9000 Niagara-on-the Lake 7 Enviro-Test Laboratories: Enviro-Test Laboratories - Sentinel Division %% % %(519) 886-6910 Waterloo 8 Kinectrics Inc. %% % %(416) 207-6000 Toronto 9 Maxxam Analytics Inc.: Maxxam Analytics Inc. %% % %(905) 890-2555 Mississauga 10 Ontario Ministry of Environment: Laboratory Services Branch %% % %(416) 235-6348 Etobicoke 11 Region of Durham: York-Durham Regional Environmental Lab %% % %(905) 686-0041 Pickering 12 SGS Group: SGS Lakefield %% % %(705) 652-2006 Lakefield 13 Testmark Laboratories Ltd. %% % %(705) 693-1121 Garson 14 AMEC: AMEC Earth & Environmental Limited (Mississauga) %% %(905) 890-0785 Mississauga 15 Environment Canada: National Laboratory for Environmental Testing %% %(905) 336-4761 Burlington Regional Municipality of Niagra - Environmental Centre: 16 %%(905) 685-1571 Thorold Public Works Department - Water and Wastewater Division 17 Paracel Laboratories Ltd. %% %(613) 731-9577 Ottawa 18 Philip Services Corp.: Philip Analytical Services Inc., Mississauga %%(905) 890-8566 Mississauga 19 Philip Services Inc.: PSC Analytical Services Inc., London %% %(519) 686-7558 London 20 PSC Analytical Services - Burlington %% %(905) 332-8788 Burlington

ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd. 12 Banigan Drive, Toronto, Ontario M4H 1E9 Phone: (416) 467-5555 Fax: (416) 467-9824 www.altech-group.com Accredited Laboratories in Ontario Page 2 of 2

Table A.5: Accredited Laboratories under the SCC (A)/CAEAL (B) Partnership Agreement in Ontario Registered Tests Waste Water Sr. No. Name of the Laboratory Soil/ Phone Location Lethality/ Inorganic Organic Microbiological Sludge Toxicity 21 City of Hamilton: City of Hamilton Environmental Laboratory %% % (905) 546-2424 Hamilton 22 City of Ottawa: City of Ottawa, Laboratory Services %% (613) 560-6086 Gloucester 23 Corporation of the City of London: Greenway PCC Laboratory %% (519) 661-2567 London 24 ETL Chemspec Analytical Ltd.: Enviro-Test Laboratories Thunder Bay Analytical %% 807) 623-6463 Thunder Bay 25 Regional Municipality of Halton: Halton Regional Laboratory %% (905) 825-6000 Oakville Regional Municipality of Peel: Regional Municipality of Peel - 26 %% % (905) 791-7800 Mississauga Environmental Control 27 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Environmental Enforcement Services %% % (519) 650-8275 Cambridge 28 Windsor Utilities Commission: EnWin Laboratories & Water Research Centre %% (519) 948-2075 Windsor 29 City of Toronto: City of Toronto Wastewater Quality Laboratories %% (416) 392-9930 Toronto 30 Environment Canada: Wastewater Technology Centre Analytical Laboratory %% (905) 336-4689 Burlington 31 Fisher Environmental Laboratories: Fisher Environmental Laboratories %% (905) 475-7755 Markham 32 Lakehead University Centre for Analytical Services % (807) 343-8590 Thunder Bay 33 Placer Dome C.L.A LTD/Kinross Gold Corporation: Porcupine Joint Venture % (705) 235-6525 South Porcupine 34 ASI Group Ltd. % (905) 641-0941 St. Catharines Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 35 % (416) 235-6346 Etobicoke Standards Development Branch: Aquatic Toxicology Unit 36 Stantec Consulting Ltd.: Stantec Consulting Ltd. % (519) 763-4412 Guelph 37 Stantec Consulting Ltd.: Stantec Consulting Ltd. % (905) 794-2325 Brampton 38 Tamm Holdings (Sarnia) Ltd.: Pollutech EnviroQuatics Limited % (519) 339-8787 Point Edward Note: (A) SCC: Standards Council of Canada (B) CAEAL: Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories (Inc.)

ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd. ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 3-29 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

3.11 APPENDIX 3B – REFERENCE METHODS LIST

Section 3: Sampling and Analysis of Food Processing Wastewater Final Report Ministry of the Environment Laboratory Services Branch Quality Management Unit 125 Resources Road Etobicoke, ON M9P-3V6

December 2003

The Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Laboratory Services Branch (LSB) is pleased to offer copies of their Analytical Methods and LSB Quality Assurance Manual to its customers, on a cost recovery basis. The attached listing provides an inventory of these documents and their associated costs, which are currently available only in hardcopy. (Please NOTE: GST and Shipping Costs are extra)

If you wish to order one or more of these documents, please fill out the attached Order Form and return it to:

Ministry of the Environment Laboratory Services Branch Quality Management Unit 125 Resources Road Etobicoke, ON M9P-3V6

Attn: Sheri Teresi Phone: (416) 235-6311 Fax: (416) 235-6312 E-mail: [email protected]

Once your Order Form is received, a quote will be faxed to you showing the total amount payable. Please note that we can only accept cheques as payment for these documents at this time. Upon receipt of your cheque, we will ship the documents to you via courier the next business day.

NOTE: The LSB Analytical Methods and the LSB Quality Assurance Manual are provided to you for reference only. Unless, specifically stated in MOE legislation, regulation or other communication, the MOE does not require the use of these methods by external organizations. No warranty, express or implied, is provided with these documents. The MOE-LSB and the Crown assume no liability or responsibility for the data quality, cost or other consequences as a result of the application of these documents by outside agencies.

Page -1-

LSB ANALYTICAL METHODS/QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL CUSTOMER ORDER FORM

INDICATE LSB METHOD QUANTITY COST OF DOCUMENT(S) CODE/QUALITY MANUAL (GST & SHIPPING COST EXTRA) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14)

Ministry of the Environment Laboratory Services Branch Quality Management Unit 125 Resources Road Etobicoke, ON M9P-3V6

Attn: Sheri Teresi Phone: (416) 235-6311 Fax: (416) 235-6312 E-mail:mailto:[email protected] [email protected]

Page -2-

MOE-LSB Analytical Methods/Quality Assurance Manual - December 15, 2003

LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3004 THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORIDE, NITRATE AND SULPHATE ON HIGH-VOLUME 24 U $34.80 NOV-01-02 FILTERS BY ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC)

E3012 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL CARBONATE-CARBON IN SOIL AND SEDIMENTS 20 U $34.00 SEP-8-03 BY COULOMETRY

E3013 THE DETERMINATION OF WATER-EXTRACTABLE CHLORIDE AND SULPHATE IN 24 U $34.80 NOV-01-02 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS BY ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC)

E3015 THE DETERMINATION OF FREE AND TOTAL CYANIDE IN ENVIRONMENTAL 32 U $36.40 JUN-25-03 SAMPLES BY COLOURIMETRY

E3016 THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORIDE IN DRINKING WATER, SURFACE WATER, 19 U $33.80 SEP-22-03 SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY COLOURIMETRY

E3024 THE DETERMINATION OF CONDUCTIVITY IN WATER AND PRECIPITATION BY 18 $33.60 DEC-18-02 POTENTIOMETRY (DORSET)

E3025 THE DETERMINATION OF TRUE COLOUR IN SURFACE WATER AND PRECIPITATION 19 $33.80 OCT-02-02 SAMPLES BY AUTOMATED COLOURIMETRY (DORSET)

E3028 THE DETERMINATION OF INORGANIC CARBON IN WATER BY COLOURIMETRY 29 $35.80 DEC-02-02 (DORSET)

E3036 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IN WATER BY COLOURIMETRY 21 $34.20 JAN-09-03 (DORSET)

E3042 THE DETERMINATION OF PH AND ALKALINITY IN LAKES, STREAMS, 16 $33.20 MAR-27-03 GROUNDWATER AND PRECIPITATION BY POTENTIOMETRY (DORSET)

E3043 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL DUSTFALL IN AIR PARTICULATE MATTER BY 13 $32.60 MAY-16-01 GRAVIMETRY

E3046 THE DETERMINATION OF DUSTFALL PARTICULATES IN AIR EMISSIONS AND 14 $32.80 OCT-03-02 PRECIPITATION BY OPTICAL MICROSCOPY

E3049 THE DETERMINATION OF ASBESTOS IN AIR BY ELECTRON MICROSCOPY 19 $33.80 FEB-28-03 Page -3- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3050 THE DETERMINATION OF ASBESTOS IN WATER BY ELECTRON MICROSCOPY 21 $34.20 FEB-28-03

E3051 THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN POTABLE WATERS BY INDUCTIVELY- 34 U $36.80 SEP-13-02 COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-MS)

E3053 THE DETERMINATION OF FLUORIDE IN VEGETATION BY ION SELECTIVE 21 U $34.20 JUL-14-03 ELECTRODE (ISE)

E3056 THE DETERMINATION OF HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM IN WATER, LANDFILL 15 U $33.00 NOV-22-02 LEACHATES AND EFFLUENTS BY COLOURIMETRY

E3057 THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN BIOMATERIALS BY COLD VAPOUR- 19 U $33.80 SEP-10-02 FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY (CV-FAAS)

E3058 THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN SLUDGE AND COMPOST SAMPLES BY 18 U $33.60 APR-14-03 AUTOMATED COLD VAPOUR-ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (CV- AAS)

E3059 THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN SOILS, SEDIMENTS AND VEGETATION BY 18 U $33.60 SEP-20-02 COLD VAPOUR-ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (CV-AAS)

E3060 THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN WATER BY COLD VAPOUR-FLAMELESS 47 U $39.40 JUL-30-02 ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (CV-FAAS)

E3061 THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN ACID PRECIPITATION AND LOW- 34 $36.80 JUL-17-01 VOLUME AIR FILTERS AND PRECIPITATION BY INDUCTIVELY-COUPLED PLASMA- MASS SPECTROMETRY (ICP-MS)

E3062 THE DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENTS BY THE SPECTRO 39 U $37.80 SEP-30-03 INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-OPTICAL EMISSION SPECTROMETER (ICP-OES)

E3063 THE DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENTS BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION 30 U $36.00 DEC-19-02 SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)

E3065 THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN VEGETATION BY THE SPECTRO 39 U $37.80 SEP-10-02 INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-OPTICAL EMISSION SPECTROMETER (ICP-OES)

E3067 THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN VEGETATION BY ATOMIC 30 U $36.00 DEC-12-02 ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)

E3070 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS ON GLASS FIBRE AIR FILTERS BY X-RAY 27 U $35.40 SEP-12-01 FLUORESCENCE Page -4- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3071 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN LIQUID SLUDGE AND SEWAGE FILTER CAKES 49 U $39.80 DEC-13-02 BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES) AND RST, RSTA,RSTLOI ON SEWAGE FILTER CAKES

E3072 THE DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS IN BIOMATERIALS BY ATOMIC 25 U $35.00 DEC-31-02 ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)

E3073 THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN SOIL AND COMPOST BY THE SPECTRO 44 U $38.80 SEP-19-02 INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA- OPTICAL EMISSION SPECTROMETER (ICP-OES)

E3075 THE DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOILS BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION 30 U $36.00 DEC-23-02 SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)

E3087 THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN BIOMATERIALS 20 U $34.00 DEC-21-01 BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD- FAAS)

E3088 THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY ON GLASS AND 21 U $34.20 JUN-28-02 QUARTZ FIBRE HIGH VOLUME FILTERS BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD-FAAS)

E3089 THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN WATER BY 20 U $34.00 FEB-12-02 HYDRIDE GENERATION-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD-FAAS)

E3091 THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN SEWAGE AND 21 U $34.20 NOV-20-01 SLUDGES BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD-FAAS)

E3092 THE IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICULATE MATTER BY QUALITATIVE TECHNIQUES 11 $32.20 DEC-02-02

E3093 THE IDENTIFICATION OF "IRON BACTERIA" IN WATER BY MEMBRANE FILTRATION 12 $32.40 MAY-12-03

E3094 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN FINAL EFFLUENT, INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND 39 U $37.80 DEC-13-02 LANDFILL LEACHATES BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)

E3095 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN SOLID INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY INDUCTIVELY 41 U $38.20 DEC-13-02 COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)

E3096 THE DETERMINATION OF SULPHUR IN SOIL BY LECO INDUCTION FURNACE 18 U $33.60 AUG-27-03

Page -5- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3097 THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN TRADE WASTES 21 U $34.20 DEC-19-02 BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD- FAAS)

E3100 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL SULPHIDE IN WATER, SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL 27 U $35.40 OCT-02-02 WASTES BY COLOURIMETRY

E3115 THE ENUMERATION OF "SULPHATE REDUCING" BACTERIA IN WATER BY THE 18 $33.60 JUL-23-03 INDICATED NUMBER METHOD

E3116 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 30 U $36.00 NOV-09-01 IN SOIL, SEDIMENTS AND SLUDGE BY COLOURIMETRY

E3118 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 26 U $35.20 NOV-14-01 IN VEGETATION BY COLOURIMETRY

E3119 THE DETERMINATION OF CHLOROPHENOLS (CP) AND PHENOXYACID HERBICIDES 61 U $42.20 DEC-20-02 (PA) IN WATER BY SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION (SPE) AND IN VEGETATION BY SOLID/LIQUID EXTRACTION (SONIFICATION) USING GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY- MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3121 THE DETERMINATION OF TRIAZINE HERBICIDES IN WATER, SOILS, VEGETATION 51 U $40.20 DEC-23-02 AND TCLP LEACHATE BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3124 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) IN 47 U $39.40 JAN-13-03 AMBIENT AIR BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3132 THE DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANOHALIDES AND HYDROCARBONS IN 47 U $39.40 NOV-19-03 WATER, LEACHATES AND EFFLUENTS BY HEADSPACE CAPILLARY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC) MASS SPECTROMETRY AND/OR PURGE AND TRAP GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC) MASS SPECTROMETRY

E3136 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB), 47 U $39.40 JAN-09-03 ORGANOCHLORINES (OC) AND CHLOROBENZENES (CB) IN FISH, CLAMS AND MUSSELS BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)

E3137 THE DETERMINATION OF pH IN SOIL AND DRIED SLUDGE BY POTENTIOMETRY 15 U $33.00 AUG-28-03

E3138 THE DETERMINATION OF CONDUCTIVITY IN SOILS AND SEDIMENTS BY 15 U $33.00 DEC-10-02 CONDUCTANCE METER

Page -6- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3139 THE DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT, RST, RSTA AND LOI IN SOLIDS BY 16 U $33.20 DEC-10-02 GRAVIMETRY

E3141 THE DETERMINATION OF PARTICULATE TOTAL CARBON IN SURFACE WATERS, 16 U $33.20 APR-07-02 EFFLUENTS AND SEWAGE BY THE LECO CARBON ANALYZER

E3142 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL CARBON IN SOIL AND SEDIMENTS BY THE LECO 16 U $33.20 NOV-22-02 CARBON ANALYZER

E3144 THE DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN RAW AND TREATED 25 U $35.00 JUL-24-02 DRINKING WATER BY PURGE AND TRAP CAPILLARY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY- FLAME IONIZATION/MASS SELECTIVE DETECTION (PT/GC-FID/MSD)

E3145 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN LIQUID 25 U $35.00 OCT-04-02 INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GC-ECD)

E3146 THE DETERMINATION OF CATIONS IN ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION BY ATOMIC 24 U $34.80 DEC-09-02 ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)

E3147 THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORIDE AND SULPHATE IN SURFACE WATER AND 23 $34.00 MAY-27-03 WET DEPOSITION BY AUTOMATED ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC) (DORSET)

E3153 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) IN SOILS AND 28 U $35.60 SEP-16-03 SOLID WASTE MATERIAL BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GC-ECD)

E3155 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs), 46 U $39.20 OCT-02-03 ORGANOCHLORINES (OCs) AND CHLOROBENZENES (CBs) IN VEGETATION BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)

E3158 THE DETERMINATION OF CARBAMATES IN WATER BY HIGH PERFORMANCE 27 $35.40 MAY-04-00 LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ULTRAVIOLET (HPLC-UV) DETECTION

E3166 THE DETERMINATION OF RESIN AND FATTY ACIDS IN EFFLUENTS AND WATER BY 24 U $34.80 OCT-04-02 GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GLC-FID)

E3169 THE DETERMINATION OF CHLOROPHYLL IN RIVER AND LAKE SAMPLES BY 22 U $34.40 JUL-30-01 SPECTROPHOTOMETRY

E3170 THE DETERMINATION OF CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) IN DOMESTIC AND 26 U $35.20 DEC-04-03 SURFACE WATERS BY COLOURIMETRY Page -7- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3171 THE DETERMINATION OF CATIONS IN SURFACE WATER BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION 27 U $35.40 NOV-28-02 SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)

E3172 THE DETERMINATION OF FLUORIDE AND SULPHATE IN WATER, LEACHATES AND 26 U $35.20 JUN-25-03 EFFLUENTS BY AUTOMATED ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC)

E3179 THE DETERMINATION OF PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS IN WATER, INDUSTRIAL 23 U $34.60 OCT-04-02 WASTES, LANDFILL LEACHATES AND SEWAGE BY COLOURIMETRY

E3181 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN RAW SEWAGE BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED 38 U $37.60 DEC-13-02 PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)

E3182 THE DETERMINATION OF BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND IN SURFACE WATER 29 U $35.80 NOV-06-03 AND SEWAGE EFFLUENTS BY DISSOLVED OXYGEN METER

E3186 THE CHARACTERIZATION OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS IN WATER, WASTE AND 50 U $40.00 DEC-18-02 SOIL BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3188 THE DETERMINATION OF SOLIDS IN LIQUID MATRICES BY GRAVIMETRY 68 U $43.60 SEP-04-02

E3189 THE CHARACTERIZATION OF VOLATILE ORGANICS IN WATER AND EFFLUENT BY 30 U $36.00 DEC-03-03 PURGE-AND-TRAP GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3197 THE SPECTROSCOPIC IDENTIFICATION OF UNKNOWN ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOR 14 $32.80 MAR-1-01 PROBLEM ASSESSMENT

E3201 THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANIC SOLVENT EXTRACTABLE MATTER USING 16 U $33.20 SEP-16-03 DICHLOROMETHANE BY GRAVIMETRY

E3202 THE DETERMINATION OF TANNINS IN LIQUIDS BY COLOURIMETRY 14 U $32.80 DEC-04-02

E3210 THE DETERMINATION OF DISSOLVED AND SUSPENDED URANIUM IN WATER BY 27 U $35.40 MAY-04-00 INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-MS)

E3214 THE DETERMINATION OF URANIUM IN SOIL, SEDIMENT AND VEGETATION BY 34 U $36.80 SEP-20-00 INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-MS)

E3216 THE DETERMINATION OF URANIUM IN LANDFILL LEACHATES, INDUSTRIAL 17 U $33.40 NOV-22-02 WASTES AND SEWAGE SAMPLES BY REFLECTANCE-FLUORESCENCE SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (RFS)

Page -8- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3217 THE DETERMINATION OF CATIONS IN WATER, SEWAGE, HEALTH SAMPLES, 27 U $35.40 DEC-10-02 INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND LANDFILL LEACHATES BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)

E3218 THE DETERMINATION OF CONDUCTIVITY, pH AND ALKALINITY IN WATER AND 34 U $36.80 NOV-01-02 EFFLUENTS BY POTENTIOMETRY

E3219 THE DETERMINATION OF TRUE COLOUR IN WATER, EFFLUENTS AND INDUSTRIAL 19 U $33.80 OCT-07-03 WASTES BY COLOURIMETRY

E3225 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL ORGANIC HALIDE (AOX) IN WATER SAMPLES BY 32 $36.40 JUL-11-03 THE TOX-10 ANALYZER SYSTEM

E3226 THE DETECTION OF COLIFORM BACTERIA (INCLUDING Escherichia coli) AND OTHER 21 U $34.20 DEC-11-03 INDICATORS OF DETERIORATING WATER QUALITY IN DRINKING WATER BY THE PRESENCE-ABSENCE PROCEDURE

E3230 THE DETERMINATION OF PHENYL UREAS IN WATER BY HIGH PERFORMANCE 26 $35.20 MAY-19-00 LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ULTRAVIOLET (HPLC-UV) DETECTION

E3233 THE DETERMINATION OF LEAD IN AIR PARTICULATES BY X-RAY FLUORESCENCE 15 U $33.00 AUG-8-01 (XRF)

E3234 THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORINE, POTASSIUM AND SULPHUR IN VEGETATION 17 U $33.40 JUL-25-02 BY X-RAY FLUORESCENCE (XRF)

E3245 THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN VEGETATION, 21 U $34.20 DEC-18-02 COMPOST, SOIL AND SEDIMENTS BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD-FAAS)

E3246 THE DETERMINATION OF CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) IN SEWAGE, 24 U $34.80 NOV-01-02 LEACHATES AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY COLOURIMETRY

E3247 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN AQUEOUS SAMPLES BY 21 U $34.20 NOV-17-03 COMBUSTION AND INFRARED SPECTROMETRY

E3249 THE DETERMINATION OF CATIONS IN PRECAMBRIAN SHIELD WATERS BY ATOMIC 27 $35.40 APR-15-03 ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS) (DORSET)

E3254 THE DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANOHALIDES AND HYDROCARBONS IN 20 U $34.00 OCT-04-02 SEDIMENTS, SLUDGES AND KILN DUST BY HEADSPACE GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC) Page -9- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3260 THE DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE ON SEDIMENT SAMPLES BY DRY SIEVING 11 U $32.20 JUL-09-03

E3263 THE DETERMINATION OF FLUORIDE IN SOIL BY ION SELECTIVE ELECTRODE (ISE) 25 U $35.00 AUG-27-03

E3265 THE DETERMINATION OF ACID/BASE AND NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS IN FINAL 34 U $36.80 JAN-29-02 EFFLUENTS AND INFLUENTS BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SELECTIVE DETECTION (GC-MSD)

E3270 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs), 49 U $39.80 OCT-02-03 ORGANOCHLORINES (OCs) AND CHLOROBENZENES (CBs) IN SOIL AND SEDIMENTS BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)

E3277 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS ON QUARTZ AIR FILTERS BY X-RAY 24 U $34.80 JAN-04-02 FLUORESCENCE

E3288 THE DETERMINATION OF SUSPENDED PARTICULATES ON GLASS AND QUARTZ 21 U $34.20 NOV-29-02 FIBRE AND ON TEFLON FILTERS BY GRAVIMETRY

E3291 THE DETERMINATION OF N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) IN WATER BY GAS 57 U $41.40 DEC-16-02 CHROMATOGRAPHY-HIGH RESOLUTION MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-HRMS)

E3292 THE DETERMINATION OF LEAD AND CADMIUM IN PAINT CHIPS BY MICROWAVE 37 $37.40 JUL-19-01 DIGESTION AND INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-OPTICAL EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-OES)

E3301 THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE, LANDFILL 20 U $34.00 JUN-08-00 LEACHATE AND SEWAGE SAMPLES BY COLD VAPOUR-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (CV-FAAS)

E3302 THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN LIQUID 21 U $34.20 MAY-17-02 INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND LANDFILL LEACHATES BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD-FAAS)

E3310 THE DETERMINATION OF TASTE AND ODOUR COMPOUNDS IN WATER BY GAS 75 U $45.00 DEC-16-02 CHROMATOGRAPHY-HIGH RESOLUTION MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-HRMS)

E3311 THE DETERMINATION OF TURBIDITY IN WATER BY NEPHELOMETRY UNDER 29 U $35.80 JUN-11-02 ROBOTIC CONTROL

E3314 THE DETERMINATION OF AMBIENT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs) 42 U $38.40 JUN-28-02 USING THERMAL DESORPTION/GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (TD/GC-MS) Page -10- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3323 THE IDENTIFICATION OF UNKNOWN ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN AQUEOUS, SOLID 9 $31.80 SEP-08-03 AND ORGANIC LIQUID MATRICES

E3325 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) IN WASTEWATER, 24 $34.80 OCT-19-01 WATER, EFFLUENTS AND OTHER AQUEOUS SAMPLES USING GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GC-ECD)

E3327 THE DETERMINATION OF TITANIUM IN SOIL BY X-RAY FLUORSCENCE 14 U $32.80 DEC-03-01

E3328 THE DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ON SEDIMENTS, 24 U $34.80 NOV-17-02 PARTICULATE MATTER AND LIQUIDS BY THE COULTER MODEL LS130PS ANALYZER

E3335 THE IDENTIFICATION OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS BY CHEMICAL IONIZATION-MASS 38 U $37.60 SEP-05-02 SPECTROMETRY (CI-MS)

E3350 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) IN 36 U $37.20 JAN-10-03 SOIL AND SEDIMENTS BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC- MS)

E3351 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) IN 36 U $37.20 JAN-10-03 BIOTA BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3352 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) IN 35 U $37.00 JAN-10-03 VEGETATION BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GLC- MS)

E3361 THE DETERMINATION OF FREE AND TOTAL CARBON IN AIR PARTICULATE BY 23 U $34.60 OCT-09-03 THERMAL OXIDATION AND INFRARED DETECTION

E3364 THE DETERMINATION OF AMMONIA NITROGEN, NITRITE NITROGEN, NITRITE PLUS 84 U $46.80 JUN-6-02 NITRATE NITROGEN AND REACTIVE ORTHO-PHOSPHATE IN SURFACE WATERS, DRINKING WATERS AND PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY

E3366 THE DETERMINATION OF AMMONIA NITROGEN, NITRITE NITROGEN, NITRITE PLUS 80 U $46.00 JUN-5-02 NITRATE NITROGEN AND REACTIVE ORTHO-PHOSPHATE IN WATER, SEWAGE, LEACHATE AND INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENTS BY COLOURIMETRY

E3367 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS 52 U $40.40 FEB-15-02 IN WATER, PRECIPITATION AND SOIL EXTRACTS BY COLOURIMETRY

Page -11- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3368 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 51 U $40.20 FEB-11-02 IN WATER, SEWAGE, LEACHATE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY COLOURIMETRY

E3370 THE DETERMINATION OF MOLYBDATE SILICATES AND DISSOLVED CARBON IN 47 U $39.40 FEB-13-02 WATER, INDUSTRIAL WASTE, SOIL EXTRACTS AND PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY

E3371 A MEMBRANE FILTRATION METHOD FOR THE DETECTION AND ENUMERATION OF 30 U $36.00 OCT-21-03 TOTAL COLIFORM, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa AND FECAL STREPTOCOCCI

E3374 THE DETERMINATION OF AMMONIA NITROGEN AND NITRATE PLUS NITRITE 26 $35.20 MAY-12-03 NITROGEN IN WATER AND PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY (DORSET)

E3377 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN WASTE OILS BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED 36 $37.20 MAY-22-01 PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)

E3378 THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC IN WASTE OILS BY BOMB CALORIMETER 16 $33.20 JUL-20-01 COMBUSTION

E3379 THE DETERMINATION OF AVAILABLE CHLORIDE IN ACID SOLUBLE SOLIDS AND 27 $35.40 MAR-2-01 TOTAL CHLORINE IN COMBUSTIBLE SUBSTANCES BY TITRATION WITH SILVER NITRATE SOLUTION

E3380 THE DETERMINATION OF THE ASH CONTENT OF WASTE OILS BY GRAVIMETRY 13 $32.60 JUL-14-03

E3381 THE DETERMINATION OF WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTENT OF WASTE OILS BY 13 $32.60 JUL-14-03 CENTRIFUGATION

E3382 THE DETERMINATION OF HEAT OF COMBUSTION OF WASTE OILS USING AN 14 $32.80 JUL-09-03 AUTOMATED BOMB CALORIMETER

E3383 THE DETERMINATION OF HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA) IN DRINKING WATER BY 46 U $39.20 OCT-04-02 LIQUID-LIQUID EXTRACTION USING DERIVITIZATION AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3386 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN SURFACE WATER BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED 40 U $38.00 JUL-25-03 PLASMA - ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES) USING ULTRASONIC NEBULIZATION

E3388 THE DETERMINATION OF N-NITROSAMINES IN WATER BY GAS 63 U $42.60 DEC-16-02 CHROMATOGRAPHY - HIGH RESOLUTION MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-HRMS) Page -12- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3389 THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES IN WATER BY HIGH 36 $37.20 JUN-07-00 PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ULTRAVIOLET (HPLC-UV) DETECTION

E3391 THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN SURFACE WATER BY INDUCTIVELY 39 U $37.80 NOV-18-03 COUPLED PLASMA - MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-MS) USING AN INTERNAL STANDARDIZATION PROCEDURE

E3397 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (C5 TO C50) IN 39 U $37.80 DEC-19-02 SOILS BY HEADSPACE GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GC-FID) COMBINED WITH MICROWAVE SOLVENT EXTRACTION AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GC-FID)

E3398 THE DETERMINATION OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL FOR THE 39 U $37.80 DEC-20-02 DECOMMISSIONING OF CONTAMINATED SITES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY- FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GC-FID) AND GRAVIMETRY

E3399 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) IN AQUEOUS 38 U $37.60 NOV-29-02 MATRICES BY LIQUID/LIQUID MICROEXTRACTION (LLME) AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3400 THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANOCHLORINES, CHLOROBENZENES, AROCLORS, 50 U $40.00 DEC-02-02 AND TOXAPHENES IN WATER, EFFLUENT AND WASTEWATER BY HEXANE MICROEXTRACTION AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC- MS)

E3401 THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANIC SOLVENT EXTRACTABLE MATTER USING 13 U $32.60 SEP-16-03 HEXANE BY GRAVIMETRY

E3402 THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN AIR PARTICULATES BY INDUCTIVELY 39 U $37.80 SEP-06-01 COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROMETRY (ICP-MS)

E3404 THE DETERMINATION OF PESTICIDES IN VEGETATION, SOIL AND SWAB MATRICES 23 $34.60 MAY-29-00 BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC-MS) AND HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ULTRAVIOLET VISIBLE PHOTODIODE ARRAY DETECTION (HPLC-UV)

E3406 THE DETERMINATION OF NITRILOTRIACETIC ACID (NTA) IN AQUEOUS SAMPLES 22 U $34.40 JAN-09-03 BY AUTOMATED ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC)

E3407 MEMBRANE FILTRATION METHOD USING DC AGAR FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS 25 U $35.00 JUN-26-03 DETECTION AND ENUMERATION OF TOTAL COLIFORMS AND Escherichia Coli Page -13- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3408 THE SPREAD PLATE METHOD FOR THE ENUMERATION OF AEROBIC 21 U $34.20 JUL-02-03 HETEROTROPHIC BACTERIA IN DRINKING WATER

E3409 THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN AIR BY MOSSBAG COLLECTION AND 30 $36.00 DEC-21-01 INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROMETRY (ICP-MS)

E3411 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONGENERS (PCBs) IN 47 U $39.40 JAN-15-03 FISH, CLAMS AND MUSSELS BY GAS LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)

E3412 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONGENERS (PCBs) IN 49 U $39.80 JAN-15-03 SOIL, SEDIMENT AND VEGETATION BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY- ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)

E3414 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) CONGENERS, 71 U $44.20 DEC-20-02 POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs), CHLOROBENZENES (CB) AND ORGANOCHLORINES (OC) IN LARGE VOLUME, AMBIENT WATER SAMPLES BY SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION (SPE) AND GC-MS

E3415 THE DETERMINATION OF GLYPHOSATE AND AMINOMETHYLPHOSPHONIC ACID IN 39 U $37.80 DEC-06-02 WATER AND VEGETATION BY HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY (HPLC)-ELECTROSPRAY IONIZATION MASS SPECTROMETRY (ESI-MS)

E3417 THE DETERMINATION OF DIQUAT AND PARAQUAT IN WATER, SOIL AND 35 U $37.00 NOV-29-02 VEGETATION ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES BY HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY (HPLC) PHOTODIODE ARRAY AND/OR ELECTROSPRAY MASS SPECTROMETRY (MS)

E3418 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS, 81 U $46.20 JAN-15-03 POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZOFURANS AND DIOXIN-LIKE POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (DLPBCs) IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3420 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (C5 TO C50) IN 32 U $36.40 DEC-20-02 WATER AND EFFLUENTS BY HEADSPACE GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GC-FID) COMBINED WITH LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION AND GC-FID

Page -14- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3421 THE DETERMINATION OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN WATER FOR THE 34 U $36.80 DEC-20-02 DECOMMISSIONING OF SITES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GC-FID) AND GRAVIMETRY

E3422 THE DETERMINATION OF MOLYBDATE REACTIVE SILICATES AND DISSOLVED 33 $36.60 NOV-28-02 ORGANIC CARBON IN WATER AND PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY (DORSET)

E3424 THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN IN SURFACE WATER AND 28 $35.60 OCT-05-01 PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY (DORSET)

E3425 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) IN SOIL 60 U $42.00 OCT-04-02 AND SEDIMENT BY ISOTOPE-DILUTION GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)

E3428 THE DETERMINATION OF FORMALDEHYDE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES BY 35 U $37.00 DEC-10-02 GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY[GC-MS]

E3430 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYBROMINATED DIPHENYL ETHERS (PBDEs) IN 32 U $36.40 JAN-14-03 ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-HIGH RESOLUTION MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-HRMS)

E3434 THE DETERMINATION OF BROMIDE IN SOURCE WATER BY ION 24 U $34.80 DEC-03-02 CHROMATOGRAPY/ELECTROCHEMICAL DETECTION AND TRACE LEVELS OF BROMATE IN OZONATED DRINKING WATER WITH THE ADDITION OF POSTCOLUMN REAGENT AND A UV/VISIBLE DETECTOR

E3435 THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS AND 43 U $37.80 JAN-7-03 TRIAZINE PESTICIDES IN WATER MATRICES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-TIME OF FLIGHT-MASS SPECTROMETRY

E3436 THE DETERMINATION OF PHENYL UREAS IN WATER AND LEACHATE BY HIGH 34 U $36.80 APR-22-03 PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY AND MASS SPECTROMETRY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (LC-MS-MS) ANALYSIS

E3437 THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES IN WATER AND 38 U $37.60 APR-22-03 LEACHATE BY HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY AND MASS SPECTROMETRY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (LC-MS-MS) ANALYSIS

E3438 THE DETERMINATION OF CARBAMATES IN WATER AND LEACHATE BY HIGH 36 U $37.20 APR-22-03 PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY AND MASS SPECTROMETRY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (LC-MS-MS) ANALYSIS Page -15- LSB TITLE OF LSB METHOD NO. OF INCLUDED IN COST CURRENT METHOD PAGES 2002 LSB SCOPE OF VERSION CODE OF CAEAL METHOD DATE ACCREDITATION (GST & Shipping Extra)

E3449 THE DETERMINATION OF MOSQUITO LARVICIDE AND ADULTICIDE AND THE 39 $37.80 DEC-05-03 SCREENING OF DECOMPOSITION BY-PRODUCTS OF METHOPRENE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES USING MICRO-EXTRACTION AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-TIME OF FLIGHT-MASS SPECTROMETRY

E3450 THE DETERMINATION OF MICROCYSTINS AND NODULARIN IN WATER BY LIQUID 27 $35.40 DEC-09-03 CHROMATOGRAPHY-(ELECTROSPRAY IONIZATION) TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY [LC-(ESI)MS/MS]

E9000 THE DETERMINATION OF FLASHPOINT AND PH FOR REGULATION 347 15 U $33.00 DEC-17-02

E9002 THE PREPARATION OF LEACHATES USING THE TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC 31 U $36.20 NOV-04-03 LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)

----- THE LSB QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL (2002) __ $400.00 SEP-02

Page -16- ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-1 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

SECTION 4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF FOOD PROCESSOR WASTEWATER

4.1 INTRODUCTION

As discussed in Section 1.3 of this report, the food industry comprises a large variety of products and processes. The characteristics and volume of wastewater generated by food processing plants are dependent on a number of factors, including: nature of raw materials; scale of operations; number and type of products produced; frequency of sanitation cycles; wastewater management systems; water use efficiency practices; and level of training provided to operations staff.

An overview of the characteristics of food processor wastewater was presented in Section 1.5 of this report, and a review of the types of monitoring parameters that may be used to characterize Ontario food processor wastewater was covered in Section 3.0. The review covered both conventional pollutants associated with the food processing industry as well as non-conventional or emerging pollutants that may be present.

The primary purpose of this section was to review wastewater data available for Ontario food processors. To characterize wastewater effluent data from the food industry the industry was divided into the ten main sectors, where available, according to the NAICS classification system:

• NAICS 3111 – Animal food manufacturing • NAICS 3112 – Grain and oilseed milling • NAICS 3113 – Sugar and confectionary product manufacturing • NAICS 3114 – Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty food manufacturing • NAICS 3315 – Dairy product manufacturing • NAICS 3116 – Meat product manufacturing • NAICS 3117 – Seafood product preparation and packaging • NAICS 3118 – Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing • NAICS 3119 – Other food manufacturing • NAICS 3121 – Beverage manufacturing

The wastewater profile for each sub-sector was prepared using existing information that could be obtained with a reasonable effort. The data sources and analysis are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-2 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.2 DATA USED TO DEFINE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

To characterize wastewater discharges from Ontario food processors data were obtained from the following sources:

The data from each of these sources are discussed in Sections 4.2.3 –4.2.6 below.

4.2.1 Conventional and Non-Conventional Pollutants

The data available from the above sources was limited to conventional pollutants associated with the food industry (see Section 3.3.1). Quantitative information on non- conventional or “emerging” pollutants (e.g., pesticides, veterinary drugs, disinfection byproducts and other organic contaminants including those listed under the Canada- Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem - see Section 3.3.2) was not found. A detailed discussion of the selection of wastewater characterization parameters for Ontario food processors is presented in Section 3.3 of this report.

To address the data gaps with respect to non-conventional pollutants it would be necessary to obtain information directly from individual facilities or from facilities determined to be representative of a given industry sub-sector. Sampling and analysis of facility wastewater would be required to develop a quantitative baseline in terms of the presence, absence or concentration of specific parameters. In order to understand the results of the baseline characterization, detailed information about each facility should also be collected via a survey. The final design of a baseline characterization program would be influenced by the specific objectives of the program and the resources available. The following are considerations with respect to the program:

• Determining the potential for the presence of other non-conventional parameters (e.g., acute lethality, metals, COA) on a subsector level is not possible without

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-3 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

undertaking a detailed review of all raw materials and chemical products used, or an analysis of wastewater generated at individual facilities.

• A decision with respect to the sample size to be used for the baseline characterization would be required i.e., whether or not to include all 65 facilities identified in this study in the baseline, or to select representative facilities from each of the nine subsectors. In order to identify representative facilities it would be necessary to obtain basic site-specific information (e.g., types of processing operations, production capacity, operating hours, age, number of employees, wastewater treatment practices, effluent flow rates, regulated effluent parameters). This information could be collected as the first phase of a two-stage survey. To encourage a good response the initial survey should be kept relatively simple.

• A collaborative approach with other agencies (e.g., OMAF) and trade associations (e.g., Alliance of Ontario Food Processors, Ontario Independent Meat Processors, Ontario Dairy Council, Association of Ontario Chicken Processors) may facilitate the development of and response to the survey.

4.2.2 Comparability of Data Sources

Factors that limit comparisons of data obtained from the above sources include the following:

• Information on treatment systems was not available from the municipalities and would have to be obtained directly from the facilities. Based on the project team’s experience the data obtained from the municipalities largely represents wastewater that is either untreated or has undergone primary treatment (e.g., screening gravity separation, dissolved air flotation). In the case of indirect dischargers the municipal treatment plant provides the secondary level of treatment prior to discharge to the environment.

• The method of sampling (i.e., frequency and type of sample) and reporting format varies from municipality to municipality and, in some cases, from facility to facility within the same jurisdiction. For example, municipalities compile results for both individual grab and composite samples while others report annual averages. In order to compare the data it was necessary to use annual averages. The use of averages is not indicative of maximum instantaneous pollutant concentrations.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-4 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

• Confidential information available to the project team was largely limited to wastewater discharged to the municipal sanitary sewer e.g., for facilities that have undertaken improvements to avoid over strength surcharge fees or participated in capital rebate programs offered by the municipalities for investments in pretreatment (see Section 5.1.1).

• Data reported in the literature or obtained from Internet searches were reported in a variety of formats (e.g., different sample types, single values, average values, concentrations, mass discharge rates without corresponding flow rates, etc.). The information was often presented without supporting information on the level and type of treatment used. Based on the pollutant concentrations presented these data appear to be untreated wastewater or wastewater that has received limited treatment.

• Reports obtained from the literature or Internet searches did not specify the production capacity of the facility from which the data was obtained, nor do they provide information on the number of product changes or types of wash down or sanitation practices used. For example, the scale of production likely has a significant impact on the water and wastewater management efficiencies achieved, with larger plants achieving higher water management efficiencies than smaller plants. In larger facilities water use in proportion to production may be lower and the treatment of effluent may become more economical. The use of higher capacity production lines and economy of scale may be contributing factors. These considerations are important in comparing data from different countries. For example, meat processors in the United States use similar processes to those used in Ontario, however, U.S. facilities tend to be larger.

Additional discussion of how the data were analyzed and the associated uncertainties are discussed in the following sections. The uncertainties discussed above and in the following sections should be kept in mind when attempting to make comparisons between data sources or industry sub-sectors.

4.2.3 Data from Ontario Municipalities

Wastewater quality data were obtained for more than 200 food-manufacturing facilities that discharge to municipal sanitary sewers in the City of Toronto, Region of Peel, City of London, City of Hamilton and the Region of Niagara. The facilities were classified according to the food sectors based on the facility’s primary NAICS classification, which was obtained from the 2003 Scott’s Ontario Manufacturers Select database.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-5 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

The frequency and method of sampling by the municipalities is generally dependent on the contaminant loading (i.e., product of the wastewater flow rate and the contaminant concentration). Municipalities typically use 24-hour composite sampling methods, however, grab samples are also used. Higher contaminant loadings are typically sampled more frequently, while lower contaminant loadings are monitored less frequently. The frequency of sampling during a year differs significantly from facility to facility. For example, at some facilities only one composite sample was collected during the year while as many as twenty composite samples were collected at other facilities during the year.

Data from the municipalities were reported in different formats. In some cases actual sampling data were available, while in others only the average value for the year was available. To make the greatest use of the available data an annual average concentration was used to compare the data from different facilities. As noted above, the variable frequency of sampling means that the annual average for some facilities were based on a single sampling event, while for others it was based on twenty sampling events. The comparison of the annual average data will be discussed separately for each of the food sectors.

The municipalities typically do not monitor wastewater flow rates. To calculate facility pollutant loadings the municipalities typically use monthly water consumption data, which can be highly site-specific. Large volumes of water may be incorporated into the product or lost through evaporation. Water consumption can be significantly higher (e.g., 10-20%) than the final effluent volumes. Monitoring data available from the municipalities were limited to final wastewater effluent. When interpreting these data the following points should be considered:

• A facility may have implemented wastewater management actions including wastewater treatment (likely primary treatment), pollution prevention practices, or water use efficiency measures. At those facilities these initiatives will reduce the effluent contaminant concentrations and water consumption monitored by the municipality.

• Process wastewater is often combined with sanitary wastewater from offices and washrooms prior to the municipal sampling point. Although sanitary wastewater makes up only a small portion (e.g., less than 10%) of the total wastewater effluent, its impact may be more significant when water use reduction measures are implemented.

• Municipal effluent quality data are presented in this report as contaminant concentrations. It was not possible to compare facilities on the basis of contaminant loadings (i.e., mass discharge rate or total mass of a contaminant discharged), as sufficient flow data was unavailable. Considering contaminant mass loadings is important in determining the technical and economic feasibility of installing new

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-6 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

treatment systems.

• Available data on metals was limited to the meat and poultry processing subsectors.

4.2.4 Ministry of Environment Direct Discharger Monitoring Data

Monthly monitoring data for the period 1992-1997 were obtained from the Ministry of Environment for five meat and poultry processors and four dairy facilities. The monitoring parameters in the dataset were limited to conventional pollutants. Annual averages were derived from the monthly values to facilitate comparison with the data from other sources particularly the municipal effluent data as discussed above.

It was noted that the data were provided in more than one electronic format and appeared to be raw data. For example seven pH values were deleted as outlier as they were reported as being greater than 14, and in one case a value of “17.35” was reported (pH scale runs from 1 to 14). These data points not used in calculating the range and averages.

4.2.5 Data from Projects and Case Studies

Confidential data from projects at food processing facilities in Ontario were used to supplement the municipal data, mentioned above in Section 4.2.3. The facilities for which project data were available were located within the municipalities for which data was obtained. The project data were used in interpreting the data provided by the municipalities and were incorporated into the analysis of the municipal discharge data.

4.2.6 Data from National and International Reports

A literature survey was performed to obtain data from national and international sources. The reliability and/or accuracy of the data may vary significantly. Some of the reports provide detailed information to support the data and results, while other reports provide only ‘typical’ values with minimal or no supporting data and references. Critical information required to put the data in context was typically not reported (e.g., sampling and analytical method, type of wastewater treatment, number of monthly sanitation and cleaning cycles). The data reported in the literature was used as a tool to interpret and generally compare data from other sources.

4.3 MEAT PRODUCT PROCESSING

4.3.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

Meat processing wastewater contains mainly a variety of biodegradable organic compounds, primarily fats and proteins, present in both particulate and dissolved forms. Compared to domestic wastewater, meat-processing wastewater is generally high in

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-7 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______concentrations of BOD, TSS, nitrogen and phosphorus. Wastewater quality is significantly influenced by the presence of rendering in the meat processing facility. The rendering plant is generally the largest single source of effluent contamination at those plants where rendering occurs. It is reported that rendering typically contributes about 60% of a plant’s total organic load but only 5 – 10 % of the total volume (UNEP (a)).

At poultry processing facilities the principal sources of contaminants in the wastewater are from live bird holding and receiving, killing, de-feathering, carcass washing, chilling, cut- up and cleanup operations. Wastes from the first processing include blood not collected, feathers, viscera, soft tissue, bone, soil, and cleaning and sanitizing compounds. Further processing and rendering operations generate additional wastes, like animal fat and other soft tissue, and other substances such as cooking oils. Thus, the main constituents of the wastewater are readily biodegradable organic compounds, primarily fats and proteins in both particulate and dissolved format. Similar to meat processing wastewater, wastewater from poultry processing facilities contains high levels of BOD, TSS, nitrogen and phosphorus when compared to domestic wastewater.

Quantitative information on the acute lethality testing of effluent from meat processing facilities was not available. It is noted that contaminants such as unionized ammonia or residual chlorine, if present, have the potential to impart acute lethality characteristics to the final effluent.

The main sources of these contaminants are summarized in Table 4.1.

4.3.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Effluent data were obtained for 55 meat and poultry processing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The dataset consistently included the following parameters: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), pH (alkalinity and acidity), and phosphorus. Limited monitoring was undertaken for the following contaminants:

• Oil and grease • Phenols • TKN • Ammonia • Barium • Beryllium • Cadmium • Chromium • Cobalt • Copper • Iron • Lead • Manganese • Molybdenum • Nickel • Tin • • • Vanadium • Zinc

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-8 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.1: Main sources of contaminants in meat product manufacturing facilities.

Contaminant Source Biochemical Meat Processing: In the first processing stages up to carcass washing the BOD Oxygen Demand concentration in the wastewater is mainly a result of blood not collected, solubilized (BOD) fat, urine and feces. High BOD concentrations are associated with blood and manure, for example reported BOD5 for beef cattle blood is 156,500 mg/l and beef cattle manure is 27,000 mg/kg (USEPA, 2002). Poultry Processing: In the first processing stage BOD is mainly caused by blood not collected and manure. BOD concentrations in chicken and turkey manures are reported to be in excess of 40,000 mg/kg on an excreted basis (USEPA, 2002). A significant source of wastewater BOD in the further processing stage is fat from immersion chilling and feather and skin oils desorbed during scalding for feather removal.

Total Suspended Suspended solids are mainly due to the organic matter in the wastewater. The organic Solids (TSS) matter is primarily from processing carcasses and animal products.

Phosphorus Blood, manure, and cleaning and sanitizing compounds are the primary contributors to phosphorus in meat processing wastewater.

Nitrogen Blood, urine and manure are significant sources of nitrogen in meat and poultry processing wastewater. The nitrogen is mainly present as organic nitrogen with some ammonia nitrogen. Meat and poultry processing water generally contains nitrite and nitrate nitrogen only in trace concentrations (less than 1 mg/l), however, these concentrations may increase when nitrites are used in the meat processing, for example in curing of bacon and ham.

Sodium Sodium (or salt) originates from manure and undigested stomach contents, and from rendering and pickling processes. In some areas, high salt levels in the wastewater may be due to the raw water used in the facility.

Metals A variety of metals may be detected in meat and poultry processing wastewater. Water supply systems and mechanical equipment at these facilities may be sources of metals, like copper, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium and vanadium. Additives to feed can result in the manure being a significant source of copper, arsenic and zinc, especially hog manure.

Pesticides In the production of meat animals external parasites are usually controlled with the use of pesticides such as Dichcorvos, malathion and Carbaryl. Concentrations of these pesticides should be close to non-detectable or at trace levels, if the required withdrawal periods prior to slaughter are observed. Bacteria The presence of manure in the wastewater will cause the densities of total coliform, fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus to be in the order of several million colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml (USEPA 2002). The presence of these bacteria are mainly due to the manure in the processing wastewaters and the commingling of the processing and sanitary wastewater after screening. These bacteria are generally not pathogenic, but they do indicate the possible presence of pathogens like Salmonella ssp. and Campylobacter jejuni, parasites like Ascaris sp., Giarda lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum, and enteric viruses.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-9 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Annual average concentrations of BOD and TSS are illustrated in Figures 4.1 – 4.4. The individual 55 meat and poultry processing facilities are labeled M1 to M55. The meat and poultry processing facilities were grouped into the three main sub-sectors according to NAICS codes, namely:

• NAICS 311611 – Animal (except poultry) slaughtering. Facilities with labels M1 to M10. • NAICS 311614 – Rendering and meat processing from carcasses. Facilities with labels M11 to M41. • NAICS 311615 – Poultry processing. Facilities with labels M42 to M55.

The average and range of annual average effluent BOD concentrations for meat and poultry processing facilities are presented in Table 4.2 and Figures 4.1 and 4.3. The average for the slaughtering, rendering and meat processing, and poultry processing sectors were 922, 999 and 1,194 mg/l, respectively. Eight facilities had annual average BOD concentration above 2,000 mg/l during one year of monitoring. Annual values for two poultry processing facilities were 4,690 mg/l (facility labeled M46) and 5,749 mg/l (facility labeled M54), which were based on 2 and 14 sampling events during the year.

The average and range of annual average effluent TSS concentrations for meat and poultry processing facilities are presented in Table 4.2 and Figures 4.2 and 4.4. The average for the slaughtering, rendering and meat processing, and poultry processing sectors were 643, 709, and 947mg/l, respectively. The highest annual average TSS concentration of 6,203 mg/l was monitored at facility M47 and was based on 18 sampling events.

The pH monitored in the wastewater from the meat and poultry processing facilities ranged between 5.9 and 7.3. Figure 3.5 illustrates that the pH of the wastewater from meat processing facilities are between 6.7 and 7.3, while the pH in the effluent from poultry processing facilities are mainly between 6.5 and 7.0.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-10 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.1: Slaughtering and poultry processing facilities annual average BOD concentrations.

7000

Animal (Except Poultry) Poultry Processing Slaughtering 6000

5000

4000

BOD (mg/l) BOD 3000

2000

1000

0 1999 2000 1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 2000 2000 1999 2000 2002 2002 2002 2002 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2002 2000 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 1999 2000 2002 2002 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9M10 M42 M43 M44 M45 M46 M47 M48 M49 M50 M51 M52M53M54 M55 Meat Processing Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD

Figure 4.2: Slaughtering and poultry processing facilities annual average TSS concentration.

7000

Animal (Except Poultry) Poultry Processing Slaughtering 6000

5000

4000

SS (mg/l) 3000

2000

1000

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-11 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.3: Rendering and meat processing facilities annual average BOD concentrations.

7000

Rendering and Meat Processing

6000

5000

4000

BOD (mg/l) 3000

2000

1000

0 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 2000 2002 2002 1999 2000 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 2002 2003 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24 M25 M26M27 M28 M29 M30 M31 M32 M33M34M35M36M37M38M39M40M41 Meat Processing Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD

Figure 4.4: Rendering and meat processing facilities annual average TSS concentrations.

7000

Rendering and Meat Processing

6000

5000

4000

SS (mg/l) 3000

2000

1000

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-12 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.5: Rendering, and meat and poultry processing facilities annual average pH. [Note: (1) – Animal Slaughtering]

(1) Rendering and Meat Processing Poultry Processing 7.5

7.0

6.5 pH

6.0

5.5

5.0 2000 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 1999 2000 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003

M6 M12 M14 M16 M18 M20 M27 M30 M31 M42 M49 M54 M55 Meat Processing Plant Label and Year

Annual average pH

The annual average phosphorus concentrations in the wastewater are illustrated in Figure 4.6. The data shows the average for phosphorus concentrations for meat processing and poultry processing facilities was 24.6 and 23.0 mg/l, respectively. The highest annual average phosphorus concentration of 127 mg/l occurred at the poultry facility labeled M54 based on 14 sampling events.

Contaminants for which limited monitoring data were available are summarized in Table 4.2.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-13 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.6: Rendering, and meat and poultry processing facilities annual average phosphorus concentrations.

Rendering and Meat Processing Poultry Processing 140.0

120.0

100.0

80.0 P (mg/l) 60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0 1999 2002 2003 2002 2003 1999 2000 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003

M25 M40 M41 M42 M45 M49 M54 M55 Meat Processing Plant Label and Year

Annual average phosphorus

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-14 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.2: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from meat and poultry processing plants.

Contaminant Sub-sector Number of Unit Average Range Annual Average Values BOD Slaughtering 15 mg/l 922 40 – 1,610 R&M 86 mg/l 999 160 – 2,503 Poultry 33 mg/l 1,194 180 – 5,749 TSS Slaughtering 15 mg/l 643 48 – 2,950 R&M 85 mg/l 709 96 – 2,915 Poultry 33 mg/l 947 56 – 6,203 pH Slaughtering 15 pH 6.9 6.7 – 7.3 and R&M Poultry 8 pH 6.7 5.9 – 7.0 Phosphorus R&M 5 mg/l 24.6 22.8 – 94.5 Poultry 10 mg/l 23.0 3.7 – 127.2 FOG (M) All 5 mg/l 141.9 59.8 – 229.8 TKN All 3 mg/l 47.0 30.5 – 62.9 Ammonia All 4 mg/l 9.5 3.8 – 12.3 Phenols All 1 mg/l 1.0 1.0 Aluminum All 2 mg/l 0.18 0.06 – 0.30 Barium All 1 mg/l - - Beryllium All 1 mg/l - - Cadmium All 4 mg/l - - Chromium All 4 mg/l 0.16 0.00 – 0.63 Cobalt All 2 mg/l - - Copper All 4 mg/l 0.02 0.00 – 0.04 Iron All 3 mg/l 0.45 0.22 – 0.70 Manganese All 2 mg/l 0.10 0.05 – 0.15 Molybdenum All 2 mg/l 0.01 0.01 Tin All 3 mg/l - - Vanadium All 2 mg/l - - Zinc All 4 mg/l 0.9 0.0 – 3.6 Footnote: R&M = Rendering and meat processing “-“ Reported as non-detectable; method detection limit was not reported

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-15 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.3.3 Ministry of Environment Direct Discharge Monitoring Data

Annual average effluent monitoring data for five direct discharge meat and poultry processors are summarized in Table 4.3. The data for BOD, TSS, pH and phosphorus are presented in Figures 4.7 – 4.10 to facilitate comparison to the municipal discharge data as discussed below. The meat and poultry processing facilities were grouped into the three main sub-sectors according to NAICS codes, and individual facilities are labeled MD1 to MD5 as follows:

• NAICS 311614 – Rendering and meat processing from carcasses. Facilities with labels MD1 – MD2. • NAICS 311615 – Poultry processing. Facilities with labels MD3 -MD5.

The data presented in Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show significantly lower levels of BOD and TSS in the final effluent from the five direct dischargers as compared to levels of these parameters in effluent from facilities in the same sub-sectors that discharge to municipal sewers. The range of annual average values for BOD and TSS was 1.58 – 11.71 mg/l and 2.00-22.63 mg/l, respectively (see Table 4.3). These pollutant levels are indicative of effluent from secondary treatment and comply with the Effluent Guidelines in the MOE F- 5 Guideline (see Table 5.5 in Section 5.3.3). By comparison, the range of values for BOD and TSS from the municipal discharge data was 160 – 5,749 mg/l and 48 – 2,950 mg/l, respectively (see Table 4.2).

The range of annual average phosphorus concentrations for the direct and municipal dischargers was 0.10 – 1.27 mg/ and 3.7-127.2 mg/l, respectively. The lower levels for the direct dischargers are indicative of secondary treatment with removal of phosphorus by chemical precipitation, and comply with the Effluent Treatment Objectives in the MOE F- 5 Guideline (average TP was 0.41mg/l – see Table 4.3).

The range of annual average total ammonia values for the direct discharger dataset was 2.05 – 11.10 mg/l, which is typical of typical of wastewater that has not been treated to remove total ammonia. The range of values for the municipal dischargers was 3.8 – 12.3 mg/l, which is similar. This is consistent with the technical limitations of conventional secondary treatment (without advanced treatment to remove ammonia), which is capable of removing only 10-30% of total nitrogen (organic nitrogen plus total ammonia) from wastewater.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-16 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.3 Effluent Contaminant Concentrations, Direct Discharging Meat and Poultry Processing Plants Number of Contaminant Sub-sector Annual Average Unit Average Range Values

BOD R&M 6 mg/l 6.73 2.68 - 11.71 Poultry 11 mg/l 4.82 1.58 - 10.00 TSS R&M 6 mg/l 13.32 5.47 - 22.63 Poultry 11 mg/l 8.80 2.00 - 15.44 pH R&M 6 pH 7.34 7.14 - 7.78 Poultry 10 pH 7.72 7.47 - 8.03 Phosphorus R&M 6 mg/l 0.41 0.10 - 1.27 Poultry 11 mg/l 0.44 0.16 - 0.71 FOG (M) All 9 mg/l 5.13 1.08 - 9.27 TKN All 10 mg/l 4.16 2.05 - 11.10 Ammonia All 16 mg/l 3.88 0.10 - 18.50 Nitrates All 6 mg/l 31.02 2.20 - 62.40 Nitrites All 2 mg/l 8.63 7.21 - 10.05 Sulphides All 2 mg/l 0.03 0.02 - 0.05 Footnote: R&M = Rendering and meat processing

Figure 4.7: Direct Discharging Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities Average Annual BOD Concentrations

14 Meat Processing Poultry Processing

BOD (mg/l) 6

0 1992 1993 1992 1993 1995 1997 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1992 MD1 MD2 MD3 MD4 MD5 Meat Processing Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-17 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.8: Direct Discharging Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities Average Annual TSS Concentrations

25 Meat Processing Poultry Processing

15 SS (mg/l)

0 1992 1993 1992 1993 1995 1997 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1992 MD1 MD2 MD3 MD4 MD5 Meat Processing Plant Label and Year

Annual average TSS

Figure 4.9: Direct Discharging Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities Average Annual pH

8.5 Meat Processing Poultry Processing

8.0

7.5 pH

7.0

6.5

6.0 1992 1993 1992 1993 1995 1997 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 MD1 MD2 MD3 MD4 Meat Processing Plant Label and Year

Annual average pH

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-18 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.10: Direct Discharging Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities Average Annual Phosphorus Concentrations

1.4 Meat Processing Poultry Processing

1.2

1.0

0.8 P (mg/l) 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 1992 1993 1992 1993 1995 1997 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1992 MD1 MD2 MD3 MD4 MD5 Meat Processing Plant Label and Year

Annual average Phosphorus

4.3.4 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

A literature survey of contaminants in wastewater from the food industry indicated that the meat and poultry-processing sub-sector is one of the most extensively studied of all the sub-sectors. The literature reported mainly contaminant values for the following contaminants:

• BOD • COD • TSS • Hexane extractables • TKN • Total phosphorus • Oil and grease • Fecal coliform bacteria • pH

An extensive study to characterize the wastewater from the meat and poultry processing industry in the USA was completed by the USEPA in 2002. Another major study in the meat industry was commissioned by UNEP and the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and reported wastewater characteristics from meat and poultry processing

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-19 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______facilities. These two studies and most of the other literature reported data according to the following processing sectors:

• Cattle • Pigs or hogs • Chicken or poultry • Mixed species

Most reports separately report data for slaughtering and rendering, or sometimes referred to as first processing, and meat processing, or referred to as further processing. The data from literature is summarized in Tables 4.4 – 4.9. Tables 4.4 – 4.7 present data for slaughtering and rendering facilities, while Tables 4.8 – 4.10 present data for meat processing facilities. The results presented in the following tables were reported as representing untreated or minimally treated (e.g., equalization) wastewater. Some studies reported normalized data, namely the concentration of contaminants in terms of production, and these data are presented in Tables 4.6, 4.7 and 4.10.

Table 4.4: Concentration of contaminants in wastewater from cattle, pig and chicken slaughtering and rendering facilities.

Parameter Units Cattle Pig Chicken USEPA UNEP USEPA UNEP USEPA Kiepper 2002 (a) 2002 (a) 2002 2003 BOD mg/l 7,237 2,000 2,220 1,250 1,662 – COD mg/l – 4,000 – 2,500 – – TSS mg/l 1,153 1,600 3,314 700 760 – Hexane mg/l 146 – 674 – 665 – Extractables TKN mg/l 306 180 229 150 54 39 – 195 Total mg/l 35 27 72 25 12 8.1 – 38.0 phosphorus Oil and grease mg/l – 270 – 150 – – Fecal coliform CFU/100 7.3x105 – 1.6x106 – 9.8x105 – bacteria ml pH pH – 7.2 – 7.2 – – Footnote: CFU = colony forming units

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-20 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.5: Concentration of contaminants in wastewater from mixed species slaughtering and rendering facilities.

Parameter Units UNEP(a) Poland Netherlands (Verheijen 1996) (Verheijen 1996) COD mg/l 1,000 – 3,000 648 700 TSS mg/l 400 – 800 – – Total nitrogen mg/l < 300 – – Total phosphorus mg/l < 10 – – FOG mg/l < 350 – – pH 7 – 8.5 – –

Table 4.6: Normalized average concentration of contaminants in wastewater from cattle, pig and chicken slaughtering and rendering facilities (USEPA 2002).

Parameter Units Cattle Pig Poultry BOD lb/1,000LWK 23.55 8.34 13.84 TSS lb/1,000LWK 3.75 11.20 6.69 Hexane Extractables lb/1,000LWK 0.48 2.82 7.22 TKN lb/1,000LWK 1.00 1.17 0.44 Total phosphorus lb/1,000LWK 0.11 0.25 0.10 Fecal coliform bacteria CFU/1,000 LWK 1.1x1010 2.6x1010 3.4x1010 Footnote: LWK = Live weight killed

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-21 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.7: Normalized concentration of contaminants in wastewater from mixed species meat slaughtering facilities (UNEP (a)).

Parameter Pollutant Load kg/tonne LCW kg/tonne HSCW 1 2 3 4 COD – – 12 – 66 – BOD 12 – 15 6 – 16 – 8 – 66 Suspended solids 9 – 12 4 – 18 4 - 14 – Total nitrogen 1 – 1.7 – 1 - 3 0.9 – 3.4 Ammonia nitrogen – 0.08 – 0.25 – – Organic nitrogen – 0.3 – 0.8 – – Total phosphorus – 0.1 – 0.5 0.1 – 0.5 Soluble phosphorus – 0.06 – 0.21 – – Sodium – – 0.6 – 4.0 – Oil and grease 1.5 – 8 1.5 – 23 2 – 12 – Footnote: LCW = Live carcass weight; HSCW = Hot standard carcass weight

1) Reported 2000 survey data of US abattoirs 2) Reported 1992 survey data of US abattoirs 3) Reported 1995 survey data of Australian abattoirs 4) Reported 1998 survey data of Australian abattoirs

Table 4.8: Concentration of contaminants in wastewater from cattle, pig and chicken meat processing facilities.

Parameter Units Cattle Pig Poultry USEPA USEPA USEPA Rausch & Kiepper 2002 2002 2002 Powell 1997 2003 BOD mg/l 5,038 1,492 3,293 1,306 – COD mg/l – – – 1,581 – TSS mg/l 2,421 363 1,657 – – Hexane Extractables mg/l 1,820 162 793 – – TKN mg/l 72 24 80 – 28 – 292 Total phosphorus mg/l 44 82 72 – 7.7 – 130 Fecal coliform bacteria CFU/100 ml 1.4x106 1.4x106 8.6x105 – – Footnote: CFU = colony forming units

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-22 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.9: Average concentration of contaminants in wastewater from mixed species meat-processing facilities.

Parameter Unit University of Georgia Rausch & Powell 1997 BOD mg/l 1,800 1,433 COD mg/l 1,600 2,746 TKN mg/l 60 – FOG mg/l 1,600 –

Table 4.10: Normalized average concentration of contaminants in wastewater from cattle, pig and chicken meat processing facilities (USEPA 2002).

Parameter Units Cattle Pig Poultry BOD lb/1,000LWK 14.97 8.48 52.94 TSS lb/1,000LWK 7.28 2.06 26.64 Hexane Extractables lb/1,000LWK 5.65 0.92 12.75 TKN lb/1,000LWK 0.21 0.14 1.29 Total phosphorus lb/1,000LWK 0.12 0.47 0.65 Fecal coliform bacteria CFU/1,000 LWK 1.8x1010 3.6x1010 6.3x1010 Footnote: LWK = Live weight killed CFU = colony forming units

4.3.5 Water Use and Wastewater Quantity Characteristics

Water is used in the meat processing industry primarily for:

$ Carcass washing after hide removal from cattle, calves and sheep or hair removal from hogs. $ Carcass washing after evisceration. $ Cleaning and sanitizing of equipment and facilities. $ Cooling of mechanical equipment such as compressors and pumps.

Wastewater generation can be highly variable at a facility due to the significant difference in water usage during a production shift and the cleanup period that follows it. Water usage during the production is relatively constant and low when compared to the cleanup period. Wastewater generated on a per unit of production basis, such as finished product or live weight killed (LWK)1 can vary substantially among process plants. Some of this variation is a reflection of the different levels of effort among plants to minimize water use to reduce wastewater treatment costs.

1 1 USGal/1000 lb LWK = 8.3453 litres/1000 kg LWK

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-23 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Most recent reports that present wastewater flow rates from meat and poultry processing facilities refer to USEPA studies completed in 1974 and 1975, without adding updated information. The 1974 USEPA study reported wastewater flow rates from 24 slaughterhouses with a range of 160 - 1,755 USgal/1,000 lb LWK and a mean value of 639 USgal/1,000 lb LWK (USEPA, 2002).

Water is primarily used in poultry processing for scalding in the process of feather removal, bird washing, chilling, cleaning and sanitizing of equipment and facilities, and cooling of mechanical equipment. Wastewater generation at poultry facilities vary significantly and is largely influenced by the water minimization efforts implemented at the facility, the process steps, hours of operation and the scale of the operation.

The 1975 USEPA study reported wastewater flow from 88 chicken processing plants with a range from 4.2 to 23 USgallon per bird and a mean value of 9.3 USgallon per bird (or 2,428 USgal/1,000 lb LWK). The mean wastewater flow rate from 34 turkey-processing plants was reported as 1,714 USgal/1,000 lb LWK. The higher flow rates when compared to meat processing were attributed to two factors (USEPA, 2002): 1) poultry processing requires a continuous overflow at scalding tanks; and 2) ice bath chillers are used in poultry processing and require a continuous overflow for removal of body heat after evisceration.

In 2002, the USEPA reported data obtained from detailed survey and site sampling programs, which are summarized in Tables 4.11 and 4.12, respectively.

Table 4.11: Normalized median wastewater volumes generated by meat and poultry facilities (USEPA, 2002(1)).

Type of Facility (2) Process Waste Generated (USgallons per 1,000 lbs) production unit) First Processing and Further Processing (4) Rendering (3) Small meat facilities 348 672 Non-small meat facilities 323 555 Small poultry facilities 1,167 606 Non-small poultry facilities 1,289 316 Footnotes: 1. Data source: reported by facilities to detailed survey 2. Small meat/poultry processing facilities are defined as facilities that process less than 95,000 lb LWK per day. 3. “First processing” refers to slaughtering operations. Production unit for first processing operations is 1,000 lb of live killed weight (LKW). These numbers include facilities that may also generate wastewater from cutting operations. 4. “Further processing” refers to the processing of meat and poultry after slaughtering. Production unit for further processing operations is 1,000 lb of finished product.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-24 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.12: Average wastewater flow rates for cattle, pig and chicken processing facilities (USEPA, 2002(1)).

Sub-sector Process Flow Flow per Unit (MGD)(2) Production (1,000 lb/day) Cattle First processing and rendering (3) 1.86 3,942 Further processing (4) 1.47 4,044 Pig First processing and rendering (3) 1.95 3,639 Further processing (4) 0.30 435 Chicken First processing and rendering (3) 0.89 880 Further processing (4) 1.10 573 Footnotes:

1. Data Source: generated during USEPA site sampling visits 2. MGD = Million USgallons per day. 3. “First processing” refers to slaughtering operations. Production unit for first processing operations is 1,000 lb of live killed weight (LKW). These numbers include facilities that may also generate wastewater from cutting operations. 4. “Further processing” refers to the processing of meat and poultry after slaughtering. Production unit for further processing operations is 1,000 lb of finished product.

4.4 DAIRY PRODUCT MANUFACTURING

4.4.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

Studies from various regulatory agencies in Canada and USA identified the following most common contaminants in wastewater from dairy product manufacturing facilities (Environment Canada, 1997a):

$ Biological oxygen demand (BOD); $ Total suspended solids (TSS); $ pH, acidity and alkalinity; $ Temperature; $ Phosphorous; $ Nitrogen; $ Chloride; and $ FOG.

The main sources of these contaminants are summarized in Table 4.13.

4.4.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 20 dairy product manufacturing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-25 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______contaminants:

• BOD • TSS • pH • Phosphorus • TKN • Oil and grease • Chloride

A summary of the range and average values for the dataset is presented in Table 4.14.

The annual average concentrations of BOD and TSS are illustrated in Figures 4.11 and 4.12 for the 20 dairy facilities labeled D1 to D20. The facilities were grouped according to the three main manufacturing sub-sectors, namely:

• Ice cream and frozen dessert manufacturing (NAICS 31152). • Cheese, butter, and dry and condensed dairy product manufacturing (NAICS 311515). Six companies have cheese as the primary manufacturing process, namely D7 and D10 – D14. • Fluid milk manufacturing (NAICS 311511).

The facility labeled D9 manufactures both cheese and fluid milk. Based on case study data for this facility it was confirmed that neither treatment systems nor pollution prevention practices were in place during the period 2001 - 2002.

Figure 4.11 illustrates that the BOD concentrations of a dairy company’s effluent tend to be either in the range 400 – 3,000 mg/l or in the range 3,000 – 7,000 mg/l. The plants with effluent BOD concentrations at the higher end of the range are five cheese manufacturing plants, which include both small and large facilities, and one large fluid milk manufacturing plant. All the ice cream manufacturing facilities and most of the fluid manufacturing plants have effluent BOD concentrations below 3,000 mg/l. The data are also summarized in Table 4.14.

Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations presented in Figure 4.12 and summarized in Table 4.14 indicate effluent from ice cream manufacturing companies have concentrations less than 450 mg/l. Effluent TSS concentrations for the other two sub-sectors were more varied within the range of 80 – 1160 mg/l. pH values were reported for five dairy manufacturing facilities. Two of the facilities are ice cream manufacturing plants (labeled D2 and D4), two facilities produce non-frozen dairy products (labeled D5 and D9) and the fifth facility is a fluid milk manufacturing plant (labeled D15). The range, average and median values of the annual averages are

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-26 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______summarized in Table 4.14.

Table 4.13: Main sources of contaminants in dairy product manufacturing facilities.

Contaminant Source Biochemical Oxygen Most of the waste material in dairy plant wastewater is organic Demand (BOD) in nature, consisting of milk solids and organic components of cleaners, sanitizers and lubricants.

Total Suspended Solids Suspended solids in the wastewater are mainly organic (TSS) particulate derived from the milk, e.g. coagulated milk or fine particles of cheese curd, and other processed materials, like pieces of fruit and nuts from ice cream operations.

pH Mainly the types and amount of cleaning and sanitizing compounds discharged to waste at the processing facility affect the pH of a dairy plant’s wastewater.

Temperature Primarily the degree of hot water conservation, the temperature of cleaning solutions and the relative volume of cleaning solution in the wastewater will affect wastewater temperature. Higher temperatures can be expected in plants were condensing operations are in use and the condensate is wasted.

Phosphorus Most of the phosphorus in dairy wastewater originates from wasted detergents and cleaner, which generally contain significant amounts of phosphorus. Milk or milk products contribute only a part of the phosphorus contained in the wastewater. It is estimated that wastewater containing 1% milk would contain about 12 mg/l of phosphorus (Environment Canada, 1997a).

Nitrogen Milk contributes an estimated 55 mg/l of nitrogen when it is present at a 1% concentration in the wastewater (Environment Canada, 1997a). Another source of nitrogen in the wastewater is quaternary ammonium compounds used for sanitizing, and which is present in certain detergents.

Chloride The primary sources of chloride in dairy wastewater are generally brine used in refrigerator systems and chlorine based sanitizers. Milk and milk products may contribute 10 mg/l of chloride when present at a 1% concentration in the wastewater (Environment Canada, 1997a).

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-27 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.11: Annual average BOD concentrations for dairy product manufacturing facilities.

Ice Cream and Cheese, Butter, and Dry and Condensed Products Fluid Milk Frozen Dessert 12000

10000

8000

6000 BOD (mg/l)

4000

2000

0 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2001 2002 2002 2003 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 D15 D16 D17 D18D19 D20 Dairy Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD Figure 4.12: Annual average TSS concentrations for dairy product manufacturing facilities.

Ice Cream and Cheese, Butter, and Dry and Condensed Products Fluid Milk Frozen Dessert 1400

1200

1000

800

SS (mg/l) 600

400

200

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-28 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Phosphorus concentrations were reported for six dairy manufacturing facilities and are illustrated in Figure 4.13. Three of the facilities, namely D4, D7 and D8, have phosphorus concentrations below 15 mg/l, while the other three facilities (labeled D9, D10 and D12) have phosphorus concentrations above 20 mg/l. This difference in phosphorus concentration correspond with the BOD concentrations, where the first three mentioned plants have BOD concentrations below 2,500 mg/l and the last three mentioned facilities have BOD concentrations mostly above 2,500 mg/l.

Figure 4.13: Annual average phosphorus concentrations for dairy product manufacturing facilities.

Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Cheese, Butter, and Dry and Condensed Products 90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0 Phosphorus (mg/l) 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2003 1999 D4 D7 D8 D9 D10 D12 Dairy Plant Label and Year

Annual average phosphorus Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations were reported for three facilities, of which two (labeled D7 and D10) produce only cheese and the third, namely D9, processes also fluid milk. Each of the annual average values was based on two to four sampling events during the year. The lower TKN annual average value of 44.7 mg/l was monitored at the D7 facility, while the higher average concentration of 133.2 mg/l was monitored at the D10 facility. The annual average TKN concentrations monitored at the D9 facility were 44.0 mg/l in 2001 and 82.0 mg/l in 2002.

Concentration data for oil and grease and chloride were available for only one dairy product manufacturer, namely facility D9. This facility manufactures both cheese and fluid milk and did not have any wastewater treatment or wastewater management strategies

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-29 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______during 2001 and 2002. Annual average concentrations for 2001 and 2002 were available and are summarized in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from dairy product processing plants.

Contaminant Sub-Sector Number of Number of Range Median Average Facilities Annual Average Values BOD (mg/l) Ice cream and 4 11 40 – 2,376 1,127 1,256 frozen dessert Cheese 10 27 385 – 10,077 2,853 3,306 Fluid milk 6 18 460 – 7,050 2,199 2,720 All 20 56 40 – 10,077 2,006 2,715 TSS (mg/l) Ice cream and 4 11 44 – 447 244 233 frozen dessert Cheese 10 27 79 – 1,149 509 567 Fluid milk 6 17 144 – 1,162 695 665 All 20 55 44 – 1,162 497 531 pH All 5 12 6.1 – 8.0 7.4 7.2 Phosphorus (mg/l) All 6 12 4.9 – 84.0 13.9 26.3 TKN (mg/l) All 3 4 44.0 – 133.2 63.3 76.0 FOG(V) (mg/l) Non-frozen 1 2 89.8 – 99.5 94.6 94.6 FOG(M) (mg/l) Non-frozen 1 2 3.0 – 6.0 4.5 4.5 Chloride (mg/l) Non-frozen 1 2 517 – 624 571 571

Footnote: FOG(V) = Oil and grease, vegetable FOG(M) = Oil and grease, mineral

4.4.3 Ministry of Environment Direct Discharger Monitoring Data

The annual average direct discharge effluent monitoring data for four dairy processors are summarized in Table 4.15. The data for BOD, TSS and phosphorus are presented in Figures 4.14 – 4.16 to facilitate comparison to the municipal discharge data as discussed below. The dairy facilities were grouped into two main sub-sectors according to NAICS codes, and individual facilities are labeled DD1 – DD4 as follows:

• Cheese, butter, and dry and condensed dairy product manufacturing (NAICS 311515). DD1 – DD2. • Fluid milk manufacturing (NAICS 311511). DD3 - DD4.

The data presented in Figures 4.14 and 4.15 show significantly lower levels of BOD, TSS in the final effluent from the direct dischargers as compared to levels in effluent from

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-30 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______facilities in the same sub-sectors that discharge to municipal sewers. The range of annual average values for BOD and TSS was 2.5 – 638.0 mg/l and 9.6 – 899.0 mg/l, respectively (see Table 4.15). The average values for BOD and TSS were 93.34 and 107.45 mg/l, respectively. These pollutant levels do not comply with the Effluent Guidelines in the MOE F-5 Guideline (see Table 5.5 in Section 5.3.3) of 25 mg/l. By comparison, the range of values for BOD and TSS from the municipal discharge data was 40 – 10,077 mg/l and 44 – 1,162 mg/l, respectively (see Table 4.14). The average values from the municipal discharge dataset for BOD and TSS were 2,715 and 531 mg/l, respectively. There was insufficient site-specific information to evaluate the reasons why the BOD and TSS concentrations do not comply with the MOE Effluent Guidelines.

The range of annual average phosphorus concentrations for the direct and municipal dischargers was 0.46 – 4.31 mg/ and 4.9-84.0 mg/l, respectively. The average value of 1.73 mg/l for phosphorus for the direct dischargers (see Table 4.15) does not comply with the Effluent Treatment Design Objective of 1 mg/l specified in the MOE F-5 Guideline for total phosphorus removal treatment.

Total ammonia data was not available in municipal discharger dataset. The range of annual average total ammonia values for the direct discharger dataset was 0.38 – 14.8 mg/l. This is consistent with the technical limitations of conventional secondary treatment (without advanced treatment to remove ammonia), which is capable of removing only 10-30% of total nitrogen (organic nitrogen plus total ammonia) from wastewater.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-31 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.15: Effluent Contaminant Concentrations, Direct Discharging Dairy Producers Number of Annual Contaminant Sub-sector Unit Average Range Average Values BOD Cheese 7 mg/l 47.07 2.50 - 277 Fluid Milk 7 mg/l 139.61 4.57 - 638 All 14 mg/l 93.34 2.50 - 638 TSS Cheese 7 mg/l 14.35 9.76 - 18.10 Fluid Milk 7 mg/l 200.56 10.73 - 899 All 14 mg/l 107.45 9.76 - 899 pH All 8 pH 7.98 7.57 - 8.41 Phosphorus All 6 mg/l 1.73 0.46 - 4.31 Ammonia All 11 mg/l 3.97 0.38 - 14.80 Sulphides All 2 mg/l 0.05 0.00 - 0.10

Figure 4.14: Direct Discharging Dairy Producers Average Annual BOD Concentrations

700 Cheese Fluid Milk

600

500

400

BOD (mg/l) 300

200

100

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1992 1993 1994 1992 1993 1994 1995 1992 1993 1994 DD1 DD2 DD3 DD4 Dairy Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-32 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.15: Direct Discharging Dairy Producers Average Annual TSS Concentrations

1,000 Cheese Fluid Milk

900

800

700

600

500 SS (mg/l)

400

300

200

100

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1992 1993 1994 1992 1993 1994 1995 1992 1993 1994 DD1 DD2 DD3 DD4 Dairy Plant Label and Year

Annual average TSS

Figure 4.16: Direct Discharging Dairy Producers Average Annual Phosphorus Concentrations

5.0 Cheese Fluid Milk

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5 P (mg/l)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 1992 1993 1994 1992 1993 1994 DD2 DD4 Dairy Plant Label and Year

Annual average Phosphorus

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-33 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.4.4 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

Most of the literature discussing dairy wastewater characteristics refers to a report published by the USEPA in 1971 (USEPA, 1971). The data from this study and other studies assessing the dairy industry is summarized in Table 4.16.

The differences in contaminants from different dairy product manufacturing plants are reported by USEPA and Dutch studies, and are summarized in Table 4.17. An international study (Verheijen, 1996) reported that good water and wastewater management practices at a dairy product manufacturing facility will result in BOD concentrations less than 1 kg/ton milk processed, while poor wastewater management will result in BOD concentrations more than 3 kg/ ton. Assuming 2,400 kg wastewater per ton milk consumed, as reported by the study, and the density of wastewater as 1 kg/L then 1 and 3 kg BOD/ton milk processed is respectively equal to BOD concentrations of 417 mg/l and 1,250 mg/l.

Table 4.16: Reported contaminants in wastewater from the dairy industry.

Parameter Normalized Average (mg/l) Range (mg/l) Concentration (kg/ton milk consumed) Average Range (2) (3) (4) (5) (2) (5) (1) (1) BOD 6 0.2 – 71.5 – 2,700 2,300 2,300 1,000 – 4,000 500 – 5,000 COD 7,000 – – – – TSS 2.0 0.06 –10.8 2,000 1,500 820 – 400 – 3,500 FOG – – – – 700 450 – 200 – 3,000 Phosphorus 0.012 0.007 – 0.16 28 – – 33 9 – 210 – Ammonia – – 5.5 – – – 1.0 – 13.4 – nitrogen Total nitrogen 0.15 0.002 – 0.43 64 – – 56 1.0 – 115 – Chloride – – 483 – – – 46 – 1,930 – pH and Temperature pH – – 7.8 – – – 4.0 – 10.8 – Temperature – – 24 °C – – – 8 – 38 °C – Sources: 1) Verheijen, 1996 referring to USEPA, 1971 2) Environment Canada, 1997a referring to USEPA, 1971 3) Rausch and Powell, 1997 4) University of Georgia 5) MOEE, 1995

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-34 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.17: Wastewater from dairy processing facilities (Verheijen, 1996).

Type of Product BOD BOD (kg/ton milk consumed) (mg/l) (1) Average Range Average Range 1971 USEPA study Milk 4.2 0.20 – 7.8 1,750 83 – 3,250 Condensed milk 7.6 0.20 – 13.3 3,167 83 – 5,541 Butter 0.85 – 354 – Milkpowder 2.2 0.02 – 4.6 917 8 – 1,917 Cottage cheese 34.0 1.30 – 71.2 14,167 542 – 29,667 1974 USEPA study Milk (canned) – 0.02 – 1.13 – 8 – 471 Condensed milk – 0.17 – 1.48 – 70 – 617 Butter – 0.19 – 1.91 – 79 – 796 Natural cheese – 0.30 – 4.04 – 125 – 1,683 Cottage cheese – 1.30 – 42 – 542 – 17,500 1990 Dutch study Milk – 0.2 – 4.0 83 – 1,667 Cheese 0.9 – 375 – Butter/milkpowder 0.3 – 125 – Footnote: 1) Kg/ton milk consumed values were recalculated assuming 2,400 kg wastewater/ton milk consumed and the density of wastewater is 1 l/kg.

4.4.5 Wastewater Quantity Characteristics

Ontario municipalities generally do not monitor effluent flow rates, but rely on monthly consumption rates to calculate contaminant loads. There may be a significant difference between the effluent flow rates compared to the metered water consumption, which may be influenced by water conservation efforts implemented at the plant. This wide range of flow rates was apparent in data reported by the USEPA, which indicates typical effluent flow rates from dairy processing plants as ranging between 0.5 l/l of product and 70 l/l of product (MOEE, 1995). The aspects that have a significant influence of the wastewater volume discharged from a dairy plant are whether or not condenser and cooling water are recycled, and how much water is used as an ingredient in the product.

Wastewater volumes are to a large extent dependent on the size of the dairy processing facility. To compare different facilities the volumes should be expressed in terms of a production unit, for example milk consumed. Wastewater volumes reported by previous studies are summarized in Table 4.18. An international study (Verheijen, 1996) reported that good water and wastewater management practices at a dairy processing facility result in wastewater volumes of less than 1 kg/kg milk processed. Poor wastewater management practices result in wastewater volumes of more than 3 kg/kg milk processed.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-35 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.18: Wastewater volumes from dairy processing plants (Verheijen, 1996).

Type of Product Wastewater Volume (kg/ton milk consumed) Average Range USEPA 1971 study Milk 3,250 100 – 5,400 Condensed milk 2,100 1,000 – 3,000 Butter 800 – Milkpowder 3,700 1,500 – 5,900 Cottage cheese 6,000 800 – 12,400 USEPA 1974 study Milk (canned) – 320 – 1,870 Condensed milk – 800 – 7,290 Butter – 800 – 6,550 Natural cheese – 200 – 5,850 Cottage cheese – 830 – 12,540 1990 Dutch study All dairy facilities 4,000 –

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-36 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.5 BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING

4.5.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

Beverage manufacturing includes soft drink processing facilities, breweries, wineries and distilleries. Wastewater from beverage processing facilities is generally characterized by high BOD and TSS concentrations and a wide variation in these concentrations. The main contaminants associated with wastewater from the beverage industry are:

$ Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD); $ Total Suspended Solids (TSS); $ pH, Acidity and Alkalinity; $ Temperature; $ Phosphorous; $ Nitrogen.

The main sources of these contaminants are summarized in Table 4.19.

4.5.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 28 beverage processing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following contaminants:

• BOD • TSS • pH • Phosphorus • TKN

The annual average concentrations of these contaminants for facilities in this sub-sector are illustrated in Figures 4.17 – 4.21. Additional contaminants were monitored at one brewery and are summarized in Table 4.20. The data are reported as the annual average values for each facility. The 28 beverage facilities are labeled B1 to B28 and were divided according to the following three sub-sectors:

• NAICS 31211 – Soft drink and ice manufacturing (facilities labeled B1 – B14) • NAICS 31212 – Breweries (facilities labeled B15 – B20) • NAICS 31213 and 31214 – Wineries and distilleries (facilities labeled B21 – B28)

The beverage processing facility labeled B28 is the only distillery and for presentation purposes was combined with the winery sub-sector.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-37 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.19: Main sources of wastewater contaminants in beverage processing facilities Contaminant Source Biochemical Oxygen BOD concentration in the wastewater from beverage Demand (BOD) manufacturing facilities is significantly influenced by bottle washing, residual product loss and cleaning processes. Soft drink: A large portion of the BOD in the wastewater is a result of organic material like sugars and flavouring compounds. Brewery: Most of the waste material in the wastewater is organic in nature and are residue from malting, brewing, fermenting and storage. Winery: High BOD concentrations are mainly caused by organic material in the wastewater, which originates from the discharge of stillage and lees, and the bottom sediments that accumulated during storage.

Total Suspended Solids Suspended solids in the wastewater are mainly organic (TSS) particulate derived from the beverage manufacturing process, e.g. yeast, spent grains, trub, and other processed materials. pH The pH of the wastewater is affected mainly by residue from the equipment cleaning operations and bottle washing operations. Wastewater from ion exchange regeneration may add lower pH wastewater to the effluent.

Temperature Wastewater temperature will be affected primarily by the degree of hot water conservation. The warm residue kettles and other processes will also increase the wastewater temperature.

Phosphorus Most of the phosphorus in beverage manufacturing wastewater originates from cleaning agents. In breweries the malting process may also contribute a significant amount of phosphorus.

Nitrogen The nitrogen concentration depends mainly on the water ratio and cleaning agents used. In breweries nitrogen in the wastewater may also come from malt processing.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-38 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.17 illustrates that most of the BOD concentrations in the effluent from beverage processing facilities are between 500 mg/l and 2,500 mg/l. Two breweries have BOD concentrations above 5,000 mg/l, which were based on between 4 and 11 annual sampling events.

The TSS concentrations presented in Figure 4.18 shows significant variations in the effluent from breweries and the distillery (B28), which range between 130 mg/l and 2,100 mg/l. The TSS concentrations in the effluent from most of the soft drink processing facilities and wineries are below 300 mg/l.

Effluent pH values were within the range of 6.5 - 9.7. The phosphorus concentrations monitored at 6 facilities were below 7 mg/l, while the phosphorus concentration monitored at the only brewery was 62.7 mg/l. The annual average TKN concentrations reported for 6 facilities ranged from 1.6 mg/l to 31.3 mg/l.

Figure 4.17: Annual average BOD concentrations for beverage manufacturing facilities.

Wineries and Soft Drink Breweries Distilleries 9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000 BOD (mg/l)

3000

2000

1000

0 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 1999 2000 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 1999 2000 B1 B2B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8B9B10B11B12B13B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 Beverage Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-39 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.18: Annual average TSS concentrations for beverage manufacturing facilities.

Wineries and Soft Drink Breweries Distilleries 2500

2000

1500 SS (mg/l) 1000

500

0 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 1999 2000 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 1999 2000 2002 B1 B2B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8B9B10B11B12B13B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 Beverage Plant Label and Year

Annual average SS

Figure 4.19: Annual average pH for beverage manufacturing facilities.

Wineries and Soft Drink Breweries Distilleries 12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 pH

4.0

2.0

0.0 1999 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 2000 2001 2003 1999 1999 2000

B1 B5 B15 B17 B20 B22 B28 Beverage Plant Label and Year

Annual average pH

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-40 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.20: Annual average total phosphorus for beverage manufacturing facilities.

Soft Drink Breweries Wineries 70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0 Total phosphorus (mg/l) Total

20.0

10.0

0.0 2002 2003 1999 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

B14 B18 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 Beverage Plant Label and Year

Annual average phosphorus

Figure 4.21: Annual average TKN for beverage manufacturing facilities.

Soft Drink Wineries 35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

TKN (mg/l) 15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 2002 2002 2003 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

B14 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 Beverage Plant Label and Year

Annual average TKN

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-41 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.20: Contaminants monitored in beverage processing plants.

Contaminant Sub-sector Number of Unit Average Range Annual Average Values BOD Soft drink 28 mg/l 1,826 608 – 4,200 Breweries 20 mg/l 2,244 820 – 8,267 Wineries 14 mg/l 1,190 213 – 2,400 TSS Soft drink 28 mg/l 151 23 – 667 Breweries 20 mg/l 737 137 – 1,909 Wineries 14 mg/l 194 27 – 618 pH All 13 pH 7.6 6.5 – 9.7 Phosphorus All 13 mg/l 7.8 1.2 – 62.7 TKN All 9 mg/l 11.2 1.3 – 31.3 Annual Average at One Brewery Phenols Brewery 1 mg/l 0.0 N/A Aluminum Brewery 1 mg/l 0.294 N/A Barium Brewery 1 mg/l 0.034 N/A Beryllium Brewery 1 mg/l 0.001 N/A Cadmium Brewery 1 mg/l 0.001 N/A Chromium Brewery 1 mg/l 0.006 N/A Cobalt Brewery 1 mg/l 0.004 N/A Copper Brewery 1 mg/l 0.397 N/A Iron Brewery 1 mg/l 1.01 N/A Lead Brewery 1 mg/l 0.022 N/A Manganese Brewery 1 mg/l 0.117 N/A Molybdenum Brewery 1 mg/l 0.01 N/A Tin Brewery 1 mg/l 0.002 N/A Vanadium Brewery 1 mg/l 0.001 N/A Zinc Brewery 1 mg/l 0.349 N/A

4.5.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

Typical concentrations for BOD, COD and TDS in the beverage industry were obtained from information published in three reports. These values are summarized in Table 4.21. The concentration of contaminants in the wastewater is significantly influenced by the type of technology in use at the beverage processing facility and the following typical BOD concentrations in the wastewater were reported (UNEP (b)):

• Older technology = 1.8 kg BOD/m3 beer • Average technology = 1.4 kg BOD/m3 beer • Best available technology = 1.2 kg BOD/m3 beer

Comparing the concentrations reported in Table 4.21 with the municipal data summarized in Table 4.20, it appears that the concentrations of BOD and TSS are marginally lower in the effluent from facilities discharging to the municipal sewer.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-42 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.21: Reported contaminant concentrations in the wastewater from beverage processing plants.

Parameter Unit Sub- University of UNEP (b) Environment sector Georgia Canada, 1997b BOD mg/l Beverage 8,500 – – COD mg/l Breweries – 2,000 – 7,000 – mg/l Wineries – – 2,080 – 6,850 average: 4,040 TDS mg/l Wineries – – 490 – 3,180 average: 1,100

4.5.4 Wastewater Quantity Characteristics

In the beverage industry the amount of wastewater generated is to a large degree influenced by the amount of product produced and the wastewater management actions implemented at the facility. Typical wastewater flow rates are summarized in Table 4.22.

Table 4.22: Reported wastewater flow rates from beverage processing plants.

Sub-sector Unit UK DTI & Environment DETR Canada 1997b Soft drink – bottled water m3/m3 product 0.8 – Soft drink – fruit juices m3/m3 product 1.5 – Soft drink – carbonated (dilutables) m3/m3 product 1.4 – Soft drink – carbonated (fruit juices) m3/m3 product 3.6 – Breweries m3/m3 product – 3.6 – 6.2 typical: 4.7 Wineries m3/m3 product – 7.2 – 11.4

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-43 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.6 FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRESERVING AND SPECIALTY FOOD MANUFACTURING

4.6.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty food manufacturing can be divided into the following two main categories:

• NAICS 31141 – Frozen foods. • NAICS 31142 – Fruit and vegetable canning, pickling and drying.

The processing of fruit and vegetables typically produces wastewater high in organic matter and solids. The organic matter and solids are mostly soil and residue from fruits and vegetable processing. The main contaminants in the wastewater are usually:

$ Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD); $ Total Suspended Solids (TSS); $ pH, Acidity and Alkalinity; $ Temperature; $ Phosphorous; $ Nitrogen; $ Pesticides.

The main sources of these contaminants are summarized in Table 4.24. Wastewater characteristics vary significantly and is highly dependant on the type of product being processed, the equipment and processes used, and the water management strategies employed.

4.6.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 13 processing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following contaminants:

• BOD • TSS • pH • Phosphorus

The annual average concentrations of these contaminants monitored at the facilities are illustrated in Figures 4.22 – 4.24. The facilities are labeled F1 to F13 and were divided according to the two main sub-sectors:

• Frozen foods.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-44 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

• Fruit and vegetable canning, pickling and drying.

Figure 4.22 illustrates that most of the BOD concentrations in the wastewater from frozen food, and fruit and vegetable processing facilities are between 190 mg/l and 3,500 mg/l. One facility (F10) has an annual BOD concentration of 6,113 mg/l during 2000. This annual average value is based on 11 sampling events and ranged between 3,100 mg/l and 11,300 mg/l.

The TSS concentrations presented in Figure 4.23 shows significant variations in the effluent from the processing plants. The TSS concentrations ranged between 110 mg/l and 1,433 mg/l. The pH of the effluent from seven processing facilities ranged between 6.0 and 7.7. The phosphorus concentrations monitored at 2 frozen food facilities were below 9 mg/l. These concentrations are summarized in Table 4.23.

Table 4.23: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from frozen food, and fruit and vegetable processing plants.

Contaminant Number of Unit Average Range Annual Average Values BOD 40 mg/l 1,528 190 – 6,113 TSS 39 mg/l 517 117 – 1,433 pH 16 pH 7.0 6.0 – 7.7 Phosphorus 8 mg/l 4.6 3.1 – 8.6

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-45 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.24 Main sources of wastewater contaminants in frozen food, and fruit and vegetable processing facilities.

Contaminant Source Biochemical Oxygen BOD concentration in the wastewater is mainly a result of Demand (BOD) the organic matter in the water. The organic matter consists mainly of residue from fruit and vegetable processing, e.g. peels, pulp, fibers, starch, sugars. The processes include mainly washing, peeling, cutting, blanching and cooking.

Total Suspended Solids Suspended solids in the wastewater are mainly organic (TSS) particulate derived from fruit and vegetable processing, e.g. peels, pulp and other processed materials. pH The pH of the wastewater is affected mainly by residue from the equipment cleaning operations and specific processes that use acidic ingredients, e.g. pickling.

Temperature Wastewater temperature will be affected primarily by the degree of hot water conservation. Hot water is produced at cooking and blanching processes and hot water may also be used during product washing and equipment cleaning. Canning processes have the potential to generate large amounts of hot water, mainly during sterilization and preservation stages.

Phosphorus Most of the phosphorus in the wastewater originates from cleaning agents.

Nitrogen The nitrogen concentration depends mainly on the water ratio and cleaning agents used.

Pesticides Washing of fruit and vegetables that were treated with pesticides will add these contaminants to the wastewater from the facility.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-46 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.22: Annual average BOD concentrations for frozen food and fruit and vegetable processing facilities.

Canning, Pickling and Drying Frozen Food Manufacturing 7000

6000

5000

4000

BOD (mg/l) 3000

2000

1000

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2002 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 Plant label and Year

Annual average BOD Figure 4.23: Annual average TSS concentrations for frozen food and fruit and vegetable processing facilities.

Frozen Food Manufacturing Canning, Pickling and Drying 1600

1400

1200

1000

800 SS (mg/l)

600

400

200

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 Plant label and Year

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-47 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.24: Annual average pH for frozen food and fruit and vegetable processing facilities.

Canning, Pickling Frozen Food Manufacturing and Drying 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0 pH 4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 2000 2001 1999 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 1999 2000 2000

F1 F3 F5 F6 F8 F10 F13 Plant label and Year

Annual average pH

4.6.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

A literature survey of the characteristics of wastewater from frozen food, and fruit and vegetable processing facilities indicated that quality data for BOD and TSS are available in the fruit and vegetable sector. It seems that the effluent quality characterization for the frozen food sector is not as extensively studied as some of the other food sectors, for example meat and dairy processing. The reported BOD and TSS concentrations in wastewater from fruit and vegetable processing facilities are summarized in Table 4.25.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-48 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.25: Contaminants in wastewater from the fruit and vegetable industry.

Sub-Sector Parameter University of UNEP (c) Environment Georgia (kg/tonne Canada (1996) (1) (mg/l) product) (kg/ tonne product) Fruit and vegetable BOD 500 7.2 – 34 – TSS 1,100 – – Fruit – Lambert BOD – – 10.8 (8.8 – 14) Cherries TSS – – 0.54 (0.3 – 0.88) Fruit – Royal Anne BOD – – 7.8 (5.6 – 9.7) Cherries TSS – – 0.43 (0.08 – 0.8) Fruit – Pears BOD – – 14.8 (11.4 – 18.1) TSS – – 1.4 (0.95 – 1.9) Vegetable – Corn BOD – – 13 (13 – 14) Vegetable – Beets BOD – – 32 (30 – 35) Vegetable – Snap BOD – – 1.8 (1.3 – 2.8) beans TSS – – 1.3 (0.78 – 2.3) Footnote: 1) Average values with range in parenthesis.

4.6.4 Wastewater Quantity Characteristics

The volume of wastewater generated at frozen food, and fruit and vegetable processing facilities is to a large degree influenced by the type of product processed, processing technologies used, plant size, amount of product processed and water management strategies implemented. Typical wastewater flow rates for fruit and vegetable processing facilities are summarized in Table 4.26.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-49 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.26: Reported wastewater flow rates from fruit & vegetable processing plants.

Sub-sector Unit UNEP (c) Environment Canada 1997 (c) (1) Fruit and vegetable m3/tonne product 3 – 23 – Fruit – Lambert Cherries m3/tonne product – 3.8 (2.1 – 5.3) Fruit – Royal Anne Cherries m3/tonne product – 6.3 (4.2 – 8.1) Fruit – Pears m3/tonne product – 11.1 (6.9 – 13.5) Vegetable – Corn m3/tonne product – 5.5 (3.4 – 8.3) Vegetable – Beets m3/tonne product – 6.9 (5.9 – 8.3) Vegetable – Snap beans m3/tonne product – 10.4 (9.0 – 12.2) Footnote: 1) Average values with range in parenthesis.

4.7 GRAIN AND OILSEED MILLING

4.7.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

The grain and oilseed-milling sector includes the milling of flour, rice, wet corn, the manufacturing of malt, breakfast cereal, vegetable oil and fat, and the processing of oilseed. Wastewater from these processing facilities generally contains a significant amount of organic matter, solids, and fat and oil and may result in high BOD, TSS and FOG concentrations in the effluent. The organic matter and solids consist mainly of chaff, hulls, pods, stems and other organic residue from grain, rice, corn and oilseed. Nitrogen and phosphorus may be present in the wastewater and are generally due to the cleaning agents used.

4.7.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 13 processing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following contaminants:

• BOD • TSS • pH

Additional contaminants were monitored at one facility and the results are summarized in Table 4.27. The annual average concentrations of BOD and TSS monitored at the facilities are illustrated in Figures 4.25 – 4.26. The facilities are labeled G1 to G13 and are associated with the following three sub-sectors:

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-50 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

• NAICS 31121 – Flour milling and malt manufacturing (facilities labeled G1 and G2) • NAICS 31122 – Starch and vegetable fat and oil manufacturing (facilities labeled G3 – G11) • NAICS 31123 – Breakfast cereal manufacturing (facilities labeled G 12 and G13)

Figure 4.25 illustrates that most of the BOD concentrations in the wastewater from grain and oilseed milling plants are less than 1,000 mg/l. An annual average BOD concentration of 5,813 mg/l was monitored at one facility and the average value is based on three sampling events during the year.

Most of the TSS concentrations in wastewater are below 500 mg/l. The TSS concentrations in the effluent from the two cereal processing facilities are above 2,000 mg/l. The pH of the effluent from four processing facilities ranged between 7.0 and 8.1. The concentrations of the contaminants in the wastewater are summarized in Table 4.27.

Table 4.27: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from grain and oilseed milling plants.

Contaminant Number of Unit Average Range Annual Average Values BOD 25 mg/l 1,029 82 – 5,813 TSS 25 mg/l 622 2 – 2,660 pH 7 pH 7.5 7.0 – 8.1 Annual Average at One Facility Phosphorus 1 mg/l 64.3 N/A Aluminum 1 mg/l 0.26 N/A Cadmium 2 mg/l N/A ND – 0.001 Chromium 2 mg/l N/A ND – 0.002 Cobalt 1 mg/l 0.01 N/A Copper 1 mg/l 0.284 0.180 – 0.387 Iron 2 mg/l 0.65 0.45 – 0.85 Lead 2 mg/l N/A ND – 0.009 Manganese 1 mg/l 0.077 N/A Molybdenum 1 mg/l 0.025 N/A Nickel 2 mg/l N/A ND – 0.01 Tin 1 mg/l ND N/A Vanadium 1 mg/l ND N/A Zinc 2 mg/l 0.39 0.36 – 0.42 Footnote: N/A: Not applicable ND: Not detected

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-51 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.25: Annual average BOD concentrations for grain and oilseed milling facilities.

7000

6000

5000

4000

BOD (mg/l) 3000

2000

1000

0 1999 2000 2002 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2002 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 G13 Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD

Figure 4.26: Annual average TSS concentrations for grain and oilseed milling facilities.

3000

2500

2000

1500 SS (mg/l)

1000

500

0 1999 2000 2002 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2002 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 G13 Plant Label and Year

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-52 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.7.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

The University of Georgia reported that typical BOD concentrations in wastewater from grain and grain mill facilities are close to 700 mg/l and a typical TSS concentration is 1,000 mg/l. For facilities that process fats and oils the reported typical concentrations are 4,100 mg BOD/l and 500 mg FOG/l. The concentration of BOD reported for grain and grain mill facilities are relatively close to the concentrations monitored in the effluent from facilities that discharge to the municipal sewer. The typical value of 4,100 mg/l is, however, significantly higher than those indicated in Figure 4.25, but 3 facilities have effluent concentration relatively close to this value. The TSS concentrations monitored in effluent discharged to the municipal sewer are relatively close to the reported concentration of 1,000 mg/l.

4.8 BAKERIES AND TORTILLA MANUFACTURING

4.8.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

Wastewater in bakeries is primarily generated from cleaning operations, which includes cleaning-in-place (CIP) processes, plant and equipment cleaning, and tray and crate washing. Significant organic loads come from the ingredients, mostly flour, sugar, yeast and shortening, which are lost and flow into drains during processing and cleaning. Cleaning agents, lubricants (oil and grease) and solids washed from equipment and floors may add to the contaminant load of the wastewater. Large scale automated bread production lines are generally characterized as generating low volumes of wastewater, compared to pastry, cake and specialty bread lines, which are usually characterized as generating large volume of wastewater.

The BOD, COD and TSS concentrations in the wastewater are highly dependent on the amount of product lost and introduced into the wastewater stream via floor drains. BOD and COD concentrations can also be high at facilities that process sweet products, like doughnuts, fruit pies and cream buns.

Bakery wastewater generally contains high loads of FOG. Food grade oils are used to grease baking trays prior to each baking. These oils are usually applied using automated spray systems and over spraying usually contribute to FOG in the wastewater. The processing of products with high fat and oil content may also contribute to a high FOG concentration in the wastewater. Lubricants containing oil and grease are generally used in conveyor systems and can also contribute to the FOG load in the effluent from the bakery.

Other contaminants in the wastewater like phosphorus and nitrogen are usually a result of cleaning agents used at the bakery.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-53 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.8.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 23 processing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following contaminants:

• BOD • TSS • pH

Phosphorus was monitored at two facilities and TKN at one. The annual average BOD and TSS concentrations monitored in the effluent from bakeries discharging to municipal sewers are illustrated in Figures 4.27 and 4.28. The concentrations of the contaminants are also summarized in Table 4.28. The facilities are labeled BT1 to BT23 and are grouped according to the following two sub-sectors:

• NAICS 31181 – Bread and bakery product manufacturing (facilities labeled BT1– BT17) • NAICS 31182 – Cookie, cracker and pasta manufacturing (facilities labeled BT18 – BT23)

The annual average BOD concentrations presented in Figure 4.27 indicates a significant variation in the effluent from the bakeries. Most of the concentrations are below 2,500 mg/l and two bakeries (labeled BT11 and BT23) have BOD effluent concentrations above 3,000 mg/l. The annual average concentrations of BT11 were based on 11 sampling events for 2000, and 2 events for 2001. For BT23 the annual average concentrations were based on 5 sampling events for 2002, and 12 events for 2003.

Most of the TSS concentrations in wastewater are below 2,000 mg/l and the highest annual average concentration is 2,630 mg/l. The pH of the effluent from five processing facilities ranged between 6.7 and 8.4. The concentrations of the contaminants in the wastewater are summarized in Table 4.28.

Table 4.28: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from bakeries.

Contaminant Number of Annual Unit Average Range Average Values BOD 55 mg/l 1,399 20 – 4,480 TSS 52 mg/l 921 30 – 2,630 pH 8 pH 6.9 6.7 – 8.4 Phosphorus 3 mg/l 35.3 10.0 – 63.1 TKN 1 mg/l 280.4 N/A

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-54 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.27: Annual average BOD concentrations in effluent from bakeries.

Cookie, Cracker Bread and Bakery Products and Pasta 5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500 BOD (mg/l) 2000

1500

1000

500

0 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2000 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 2003 BT1 BT2 BT3 BT4 BT5 BT6 BT7 BT8 BT9 BT10 BT11 BT12 BT13 BT14BT15BT16BT17BT18 BT19 BT20 BT21 BT22BT23 Bakery Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD Figure 4.28: Annual average TSS concentrations in effluent from bakeries.

Cookie, Cracker Bread and Bakery Products and Pasta 3000

2500

2000

1500 SS (mg/l)

1000

500

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-55 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.8.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

Typical BOD, COD and TSS concentrations in wastewater from bakeries reported in the USA are summarized in Table 4.29. The reported BOD concentrations are comparable with the BOD concentrations monitored in the effluent discharged to the municipal sewer, which is indicated in Table 4.28. The reported TSS concentration of 4,000 mg/l is significantly higher than the concentrations monitored by the municipalities, which was not more than 2,630 mg/l. This difference may be due to practices at the bakeries to prevent lost product from entering the wastewater. It can be expected that bakeries which discharge to the municipal sewer and have to pay for the TSS load will aim to minimize the amount of lost product and other solids in the wastewater stream.

Table 4.29: Contaminants reported in the wastewater from bakeries.

Parameter Unit Rausch and Powell University of Georgia (1997) BOD mg/l 3,200 2,000 COD mg/l 7,000 – TSS mg/l – 4,000

4.9 OTHER FOOD MANUFACTURING

4.9.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

The other food manufacturing sector includes a diverse range of food processing facilities that are divided into the following sub-sectors:

• Snack food manufacturing • Coffee and tea manufacturing • Flavouring syrup and concentrate manufacturing • Seasoning and dressing manufacturing • All other food manufacturing not included in any of the other nine main sectors

The wastewater characteristics from facilities that are classified in this food sector may differ significantly from each other due to the different type of products and processes that are present at these facilities. The main contaminants in the wastewater are usually:

• BOD • TSS • FOG

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-56 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

• pH, acidity and alkalinity • Temperature • Phosphorus • Nitrogen

The main sources of these contaminants are summarized in Table 4.30.

4.9.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 32 processing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following contaminants:

• BOD • TSS • pH

Phosphorus was monitored at two facilities. The annual average BOD and TSS concentrations monitored in the effluent from the other food processing facilities discharging to municipal sewers are illustrated in Figures 4.29 and 4.30. The concentrations of the contaminants are also summarized in Table 4.31. The facilities are labeled O1 to O32 and are associated with the following sub-sectors:

• NAICS 31191 – Snack food manufacturing (facilities labeled O1 – O6) • NAICS 31192 – Coffee and tea manufacturing (facility labeled O9) • NAICS 31193 – Flavouring syrup and concentrate manufacturing (facilities labeled O7 and O8) • NAICS 31194 – Seasoning and dressing manufacturing (facilities labeled O10 – O14) • NAICS 31199 – All other food manufacturing (facilities labeled O15 – O32)

Most of the BOD concentrations in wastewater are below 3,500 mg/l. The annual average BOD concentration in the wastewater from four facilities is above 4,000 mg/l and the highest annual average concentration is 7,543 mg/l. This value is based on 3 sampling events during the year.

The annual average TSS concentrations presented in Figure 4.30 indicates that most of the concentrations are below 2,000 mg/l. One facility (labeled O16) has an annual average BOD concentration as high as 18,709 mg/l, which was based on 10 sampling events during the year.

The pH of the effluent from ten processing facilities ranged between 5.7 and 8.1. The concentrations of the contaminants in the wastewater are summarized in Table 4.31.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-57 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.30: Main sources of wastewater contaminants in other food manufacturing facilities.

Contaminant Source Biochemical Oxygen BOD concentration in the wastewater is mainly a result of the Demand (BOD) organic matter in the water. In most of the sub-sectors the organic matter will be related to the type of product processed, for example coffee beans, tea leaves and sugars. In the snack food sub-sector the organic matter consists mainly of potato peels, fibers, starch, and pieces of potatoes, corn and nuts and other processed products. The processes may include washing, peeling, cutting, frying, cooking and cleaning of equipment and floors. Total Suspended Solids Suspended solids in the wastewater are mainly organic (TSS) particulate derived from processing the products, e.g. peels, starch and other processed materials. Lost product washed from the floors and equipment into wastewater drains may add a significant TSS load. FOG Facilities that incorporate frying processes use food grade oil in the fryers. Cleaning of the fryers may result in large amounts of wastewater with high concentrations of FOG. Baking processes also use food grade oil, which are sprayed on baking trays. Over spraying of the trays may result in additional oil in the wastewater. Product that has a high fat and oil content may add to the FOG load in the wastewater, due to lost product that is washed into wastewater floor drains. Lubricants containing oil and grease are usually used on conveyors and may add to the FOG load in the wastewater. pH The pH of the wastewater is affected mainly by residue from the equipment cleaning operations. Fryers are generally cleaned by alternative washing processes involving large amounts of caustic and acidic water. This wash water may result in significant pH fluctuations in the effluent. Temperature Wastewater temperature will be affected primarily by the degree of hot water conservation. Hot water is produced at cooking processes and hot water may also be used during equipment cleaning. Cleaning of fryers general includes a boil out processes, which may generate large amounts of hot water. Phosphorus Most of the phosphorus in the wastewater originates from cleaning agents. Nitrogen The nitrogen concentration depends mainly on the water ratio and cleaning agents used.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-58 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.29: Annual average BOD concentrations in effluent from other food processing facilities.

Coffee, Tea, Syrups Snack Food and Seasoning All Other Food Manufacturing 8000

7000

6000

5000

4000 BOD (mg/l)

3000

2000

1000

0 1999 2002 2002 2002 2001 2002 2003 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 1999 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O11O12O13O14 O15 O16 O17 O18 O19 O20 O21 O22 O32 Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD Figure 4.30: Annual average TSS concentrations in effluent from other food processing facilities.

Coffee, Tea, Syrups Snack Food and Seasoning All Other Food Manufacturing 20000

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000 SS (mg/l) 8000

6000

4000

2000

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-59 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.31: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from other food manufacturing facilities.

Contaminant Number of Unit Average Range Annual Average Values BOD 51 mg/l 1,878 166 – 7,543 TSS 50 mg/l 1,561 89 – 18,709 pH 14 pH 6.8 5.7 – 8.1 Phosphorus 2 mg/l 5.45 4.49 – 6.40

4.9.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

The University of Georgia reported typical BOD and TSS concentration in wastewater from miscellaneous food and kindred products to be 6,000 mg/l and 3,000 mg/l respectively. Based on the concentrations indicated in Figures 4.29 and 4.30 it appears that the concentration of the contaminants is highly variable. The variability is most likely due to the type of products processed at the facility, as well as the type of process used and the wastewater management practices employed at the facility.

4.10 SUGAR AND CONFECTIONARY PRODUCT MANUFACTURING

4.10.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

The wastewater effluent from facilities that process sugar and confectionary products generally contains significant amounts of organic material. The organic material primarily consists of sugars, substances associated with raw product processing, for example, sugar cane pulp, molasses, cocoa beans, nuts, fruit pieces, and lost product washed down wastewater drains. The organic matter is usually the main reason for high BOD and TSS concentrations in the wastewater. Cleaning of equipment and floors may result in significant amounts of organic matter in the wastewater.

The pH of the wastewater may be influenced by washing and cleaning procedures that incorporate caustic or acidic wash water. Processes that generate hot water, like cooking and product heating, may result in temperature increases in the wastewater. Phosphorus and nitrogen in the wastewater are usually a result of the cleaning agents used at the facility.

4.10.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 10 processing facilities that discharge to municipal

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-60 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following contaminants:

• BOD • TSS • pH

Phosphorus was monitored at two facilities. The annual average BOD and TSS concentrations monitored in the effluent from the sugar and confectionary product processing facilities discharging to municipal sewers are illustrated in Figures 4.31 and 4.32. The concentrations of the contaminants are also summarized in Table 4.32. The facilities are labeled SC1 to SC10 and are associated with the following sub-sectors:

• NAICS 31131 – Sugar manufacturing (facilities labeled SC1 and SC2) • NAICS 31132 and NAICS 31133 – Chocolate and confectionary manufacturing from cocoa beans or purchased chocolate (facilities labeled SC3 – SC6) • NAICS 31134 – Non-chocolate confectionary manufacturing (facilities labeled SC7 – SC10)

Most of the BOD concentrations in wastewater are below 3,000 mg/l. The annual average BOD concentration in the wastewater from two facilities (labeled SC2 and SC7) is above 7,000 mg/l and the highest annual average concentration is 26,185 mg/l. This value is based on 20 sampling events during the year and the highest concentration from a sampling event is 39,390 mg/l.

The annual average TSS concentrations presented in Figure 4.32 indicates that most of the concentrations are below 1,500 mg/l. The highest annual average TSS concentration is 2,153 mg/l.

The pH of the effluent from four processing facilities ranged between 5.9 and 7.2. The concentrations of the contaminants in the wastewater are summarized in Table 4.32.

Table 4.32: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from sugar and confectionary product processing facilities.

Contaminant Number of Annual Unit Average Range Average Values BOD 30 mg/l 4,082 177 – 26,185 TSS 30 mg/l 597 47 – 2,153 pH 6 pH 6.8 5.9 – 7.2 Phosphorus 2 mg/l 21.15 20.10 – 22.20

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-61 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.31: Annual average BOD concentrations in effluent from sugar and confectionary processing facilities.

Sugar Chocolate Non-Chocolate

30000

25000

20000

15000 BOD (mg/l) BOD

10000

5000

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 1999 2000 2002 2001 2002 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5 SC6 SC7 SC8 SC9 SC10 Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD

Figure 4.32: Annual average TSS concentrations in effluent from sugar and confectionary processing facilities.

Sugar Chocolate Non-Chocolate

2500

2000

1500 SS (mg/l) 1000

500

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-62 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.10.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

The University of Georgia reported typical BOD concentration in wastewater from sugar and confectionary products manufacturing to be 500 mg/l. Compared to the concentrations presented in Figure 4.31 and Table 4.32 the reported 500 mg/l value is significantly lower than the monitored values.

4.11 SEAFOOD PRODUCT PREPARATION AND PACKAGING

4.11.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

The wastewater effluent from seafood product preparation and packaging generally contains significant amounts of organic material. The organic material primarily consists of pieces of fish, like fins, tails, heads and meat, and blood. The organic material contributes primarily to the BOD and TSS load in the wastewater. The FOG concentration in the wastewater is too a large extent dependant on the oil and fat content of the seafood product processed at the facility. Ammonia in the wastewater may originate from blood and slime, while high chlorine concentrations may be a result of disinfection agents used. The contaminant load in the wastewater from seafood processing facilities depends on the type of seafood processed, for example wastewater from facilities that process shellfish is usually characterized by lower BOD and ammonia concentrations.

4.11.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 4 processing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following contaminants:

• BOD • TSS • PH • Phosphorus

Phenols was monitored at one facility. The annual average BOD and TSS concentrations monitored in the effluent from seafood processing facilities discharging to municipal sewers are illustrated in Figures 4.33 and 4.34. The concentrations of the contaminants are summarized in Table 4.33 and the facilities are labeled S1 to S4.

The annual average BOD concentrations in the wastewater range from 60 mg/l – 6,698 mg/l. The highest annual average concentration is based on 10 sampling events during the year.

The annual average TSS concentrations range between 30 mg/l and 1,305 mg/l.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-63 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Figure 4.33: Annual average BOD concentrations in effluent from seafood processing facilities.

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000 BOD (mg/l) BOD

3000

2000

1000

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 1999 S1 S2 S3 S4 Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD Figure 4.34: Annual average TSS concentrations in effluent from seafood processing facilities.

1400

1200

1000

800

SS (mg/l) 600

400

200

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 1999 2000 1999 S1 S2 S3 S4 Plant Label and Year

Annual average SS

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-64 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

The pH of the effluent from three processing facilities ranged between 4.0 and 7.0. The lowest pH value of 4.0 is based on one sampling event during the year. The concentrations of the contaminants in the wastewater are summarized in Table 4.33.

Table 4.33: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from seafood processing facilities.

Contaminant Number of Unit Average Range Annual Average Values BOD 11 mg/l 2,387 60 – 6,698 TSS 11 mg/l 737 30 – 1,305 pH 5 pH 6.1 4.0 – 7.0 Phosphorus 3 mg/l 16.2 2.1 – 44.2 Phenols 1 mg/l 0.83 N/A

4.11.3 Reported Wastewater Quality Characteristics

Wastewater quality data for four seafood processing facilities in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia are summarized in Table 4.34. The data are based on three to four composite samples collected at each facility during August – October 1993. The reported TSS concentrations are comparable to the concentrations monitored by the municipalities. The reported BOD concentrations are, however, significantly lower than those measured by the Ontario municipalities. The difference may be due to differences in product processed, type of processes used and wastewater management practices employed.

Table 4.34: Reported contaminant concentrations in the wastewater from seafood processing facilities.

Contaminant Unit Average Range BOD mg/l 718 128 – 2,680 TSS mg/l 427 40 – 1,240 pH pH 6.5 5.7 – 7.4 Ammonia mg/l 23.7 0.9 – 69.7 Oil and grease mg/l 36 8 – 89

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-65 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

4.12 ANIMAL FOOD MANUFACTURING

4.12.1 Contaminants in Wastewater

Wastewater from facilities that process animal food generally contains organic matter associated with the processing of the raw products, like meat, blood and animal offal. Washing of equipment and floors may add the organic matter to the wastewater, which will cause an increase in BOD and TSS concentrations. Cleaning chemicals may influence the pH, nitrogen concentration and phosphorus concentration in the effluent.

4.12.2 Wastewater Quality Characteristics Based on Ontario Municipal Data

Water effluent data were obtained for 4 processing facilities that discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following contaminants:

• BOD • TSS

The annual average concentrations of the contaminants are summarized in Table 4.35.

Table 4.35: Contaminant concentrations in the wastewater from animal food manufacturing facilities.

Contaminant Number of Unit Average Range Annual Average Values BOD 6 mg/l 1,111 212 – 1,961 TSS 6 mg/l 623 140 - 932

4.13 SECTION SUMMARY

The annual average concentrations compiled from the municipal data for the four most frequently monitored contaminants are summarized in Tables 4.37 – 4.40. The tables also include a summary of the direct discharger monitoring data obtained from the Ministry of Environment for the meat processing, poultry processing and dairy sub-sectors as well as typical values reported in literature.

The Effluent Objectives and Design Guidelines specified in the MOE F-5 Guideline (see Table 5.5 in Section 5.3.3) for BOD, TSS, Total Phosphorus and typical municipal sanitary sewer-use by-law discharge limits (see Table 4.36) for these limits and pH may be used to put the data in perspective. These criteria are included at the top of each table.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-66 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.36: Municipal by-law limits for contaminants in discharge to sanitary sewer in City of Toronto and Region of Peel.

BOD TSS pH Phosphorus By-law limit 300 mg/l 350 mg/l 6.0 – 11.5 (Toronto) 10 mg/l 5.5 – 9.5 (Region of Peel)

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-67 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.37: BOD concentrations from municipal and reported data. [By-law limit = 300 mg/l; F-5 Effluent Guideline 25 mg/l)]

Industry Sector Sub-Sector Annual Average Concentrations Annual Average Concentrations Typical Reported from Municipal Data (mg/l) from MOE Monitoring Data (mg/l) Concentrations Average Range Average Range (mg/l) Meat products Slaughtering 922 40 – 1,610 - - 1,250 – 7,237 R&M 999 160 – 2,503 6.7 2.7 – 11.7 1,492 – 5,038 Poultry 1,194 180 – 5,749 4.8 1.6 – 10.0 1,306 Dairy products Ice cream and 1,256 40 – 2,376 – – – frozen desert Cheese 3,306 375 – 10,077 47.0 2.5 – 277 125 – 29,667 Fluid milk 2,720 460 – 7,050 140 4.6 – 638 83 – 3,250 Beverage manufacturing Soft drink 1,826 608 – 4,200 – – 8,500 Breweries 2,244 820 – 8,267 – – 8,500 Wineries 1,190 213 – 2,400 – – 8,500 Fruit and vegetable, and specialty food All 1,528 190 – 6,113 – – 500 Grain and oilseed milling All 1,029 82 – 5,813 – – 700 – 4,100 Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing All 1,399 20 – 4,480 – – 2,000 – 3,200 Other food manufacturing All 1,878 166 – 7,543 – – 6,000 Sugar and confectionary products All 4,082 177 – 26,185 – – 500 Seafood products All 2,387 60 – 6,698 – – 128 – 2,680 Animal food manufacturing All 1,111 212 – 1,961 – – – Footnote: R&M = Rendering and meat processing

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-68 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.38: TSS concentrations from municipal and reported data. [By-law limit = 350 mg/l; F-5 Effluent Guideline 25 mg/l)]

Industry Sector Sub-Sector Annual Average Concentrations Annual Average Concentrations Typical Reported from Municipal Data (mg/l) from MOE Monitoring Data (mg/l) Concentrations Average Range Average Range (mg/l) Meat products Slaughtering 643 48 – 2,950 – – 700 – 1,600 R&M 709 96 – 2,915 13.3 5.5 – 22.6 363 – 2,421 Poultry 947 56 – 6,203 8.8 2.0 – 15.4 760 Dairy products Ice cream and 233 44 – 447 – – 1,500 – 2,000 frozen desert Cheese 567 79 – 1,149 14.4 9.8 – 18.1 1,500 – 2,000 Fluid milk 665 144 – 1,162 201 10.7 – 899 1,500 – 2,000 Beverage manufacturing Soft drink 151 23 – 667 – – – Breweries 737 137 – 1,909 – – – Wineries 194 27 – 618 – – – Fruit and vegetable, and specialty food All 517 117 – 1,433 – – – Grain and oilseed milling All 622 2 – 2,660 – – 1,000 Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing All 921 30 – 2,630 – – 4,000 Other food manufacturing All 1,561 89 – 18,709 – – 3,000 Sugar and confectionary products All 4,082 177 – 26,185 – – – Seafood products All 737 30 – 1,305 – – 40 – 1,240 Animal food manufacturing All 623 140 – 932 – – – Footnote: R&M = Rendering and meat processing

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-69 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.39: pH concentrations from municipal and reported data. [By-law limit: 6.0 – 11.5 (Toronto); 5.5 – 9.5 (Region of Peel)]

Industry Sector Sub-Sector Annual Average Concentrations Annual Average Concentrations Typical Reported from Municipal Data (mg/l) from MOE Monitoring Data (mg/l) Concentrations Average Range Average Range (mg/l) Meat products Slaughtering, R&M 6.9 6.7 – 7.3 7.3 7.1 – 7.8 7.2 Poultry 6.7 5.9 – 7.0 7.7 7.5 – 8.0 – Dairy products All 7.2 6.1 – 8.0 8.0 7.6 –8.4 4.0 – 10.8 Beverage manufacturing All 7.6 6.5 – 9.7 – – – Fruit and vegetable, and specialty All 7.0 6.0 – 7.7 – – – food Grain and oilseed milling All 7.5 7.0 – 8.1 – – – Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing All 6.9 6.7 – 8.4 – – – Other food manufacturing All 6.8 5.7 – 8.1 – – – Sugar and confectionary products All 6.8 5.9 – 7.2 – – – Seafood products All 6.1 4.0 – 7.0 – – 5.7 – 7.4 Footnote: R&M = Rendering and meat processing

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 4-70 For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector ______

Table 4.40: Phosphorus concentrations from municipal and reported data. [By-law limit = 10 mg/l; F-5 Design Objective = 1.0 mg/l]

Industry Sector Sub-Sector Annual Average Concentrations Annual Average Concentrations Typical Reported from Municipal Data (mg/l) from MOE Monitoring Data (mg/l) Concentrations Average Range Average Range (mg/l) Meat products R&M 24.6 22.8 – 94.5 0.41 0.10 – 1.27 25 – 82 Poultry 23.0 3.7 – 127.2 0.44 0.16 – 0.71 7.7 – 13 Dairy products All 26.3 4.9 – 84.0 1.7 0.46 – 4.3 9 – 210 Beverage manufacturing All 7.8 1.2 – 62.7 – – – Fruit and vegetable, and specialty food All 4.6 3.1 – 8.6 – – – Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing All 35.3 10.0 – 63.1 – – – Other food manufacturing All 5.45 4.49 – 6.40 – – – Sugar and confectionary products All 21.15 20.10 – 22.20 – – – Seafood products All 16.2 2.1 – 44.2 – – – Footnote: R&M = Rendering and meat processing

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector Page 4-71 ______

4.14 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.0

City of Toronto, 2000. By-Law No. 457-2000 To Regulate the Discharge of Sewage and Land Drainage. The Council of the City of Toronto.

Environment Canada. 1993. Fraser River Action Plan: Wastewater Characterization of Fish Processing Plant Effluent. DOE FRAP 1993-39.

Environment Canada. 1996. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention Guide for the Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry in the Lower Fraser Basin. DOE FRAP 1996-18.

Environment Canada. 1997a. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention Guide for Dairy Processing Operations in the Lower Fraser Basin. DOE FRAP 1996-11.

Environment Canada. 1997b. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention Guide for Brewery and Wine Operations in the Lower Fraser Basin. DOE FRAP 97-20.

Kiepper, B.H. 2003. Characterization of Poultry Processing Operations, Wastewater Generation, and Wastewater Treatment Using Mail Survey and Nutrient Discharge Monitoring Methods. University of Georgia. Thesis for the Degree Master of Science.

MOEE, 1995. Guide to Resource Conservation and Cost Savings Opportunities in the Dairy Processing Sector. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,

Rausch, K.D and Powell G.M., 1997: Dairy Processing Methods to Reduce Water Use and Liquid Waste Load. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Kansas State University.

Region of Peel. By-Law Number 90-90. The Regional Municipality of Peel.

University of Georgia. An Assessment of the Recovery and Potential of Residuals and By- Products from the Food Processing and Institutional Food Sectors in Georgia – Executive Summary. Engineering Outreach Service, University of Georgia.

UNEP (a). Cleaner Production Assessment in Meat Processing. Prepared by COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners AS, Denmark for United Nations Environment Programme – Division of Technology, Industry and Economics and Danish Environmental Protection Agency

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector Page 4-72 ______

UNEP (b). Fact Sheet 5 – Food Manufacturing Series. Working group for Cleaner Production in Food Industry.

UNEP (c). Fact Sheet 3 – Food Manufacturing Series. Working group for Cleaner Production in Food Industry.

UK DTI & DETR (United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry, and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) 1998. Environmental Technology Best Practice Program: Water Use in the Soft Drink Industry. Guide EG126.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-1 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

SECTION 5.0 REVIEW OF WASTEWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR FOOD PROCESSORS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This section reviews Best Management Practices (BMP) that may be applied to food processing facilities to reduce the discharge of pollutants directly to surface waters. The two broad categories of practices discussed are: a) pollution prevention practices and b) treatment technologies. Information is presented about pollution prevention techniques (e.g., operational changes, process and equipment modifications, and water use efficiency strategies) and wastewater treatment technologies (e.g., target pollutants, typical contaminant reductions, ease of implementation, and relative costs) that may be applied to specific wastewater streams or final effluent.

5.1.1 Ontario Context

In Ontario, food processors that discharge wastewater directly to the environment are regulated under the Ontario Water Resources Act. The Act requires that the discharging facility obtain an approval from the Ministry of Environment (MOE) in the form of a Certificate of Approval (CofA). The certificate describes the proposed treatment systems and typically includes conditions specified by the MOE for contaminant limits, monitoring and reporting, maintenance practices and annual performance reporting. Compliance with the conditions set out in the CofA and the avoidance of costs associated with non- compliance and enforcement actions are currently the primary (and perhaps the only) drivers for food processors to implement BMPs.

In Ontario, the level of treatment required of industrial wastewater treatment systems (defined by the Ontario Water Resources Act as “private sewage works”) that discharge directly to surface waters are described in the Ministry of Environment Guideline F-5 and its related procedures (MOEE, 1994a). The F-5 guideline calls for secondary treatment or equivalent as the “normal level of treatment”. As such, Table 1 in MOEE Procedure F-5-1 (MOEE, 1994b) sets out concentration-based Design Objectives and Effluent Guidelines

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-2 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

for various configurations of secondary or equivalent treatment. For example, maximum recommended effluent design objectives for conventional activated sludge systems with phosphorus removal are 15:15:1 mg/L for BOD, TSS and phosphorus, respectively. More stringent limits maybe required based on receiving water impacts.

5.1.2 The BMP Approach

Best Management Practices (BMPs) may be used to reduce the discharge of pollutants entering the environment in wastewater effluent. This is accomplished through the use of: a) pollution prevention practices aimed at preventing pollutants from entering water streams; b) treatment technologies to remove pollutants from individual wastewater streams or final effluent; or c) a combination of both. This is illustrated conceptually in Figure 5-1.

Pollution Prevention Practices

Pollution prevention BMPs focus on reducing overall water use as well as on preventing contaminants from entering water streams that contribute to the final wastewater effluent. These practices are generally simple, low cost techniques that are available to most food processing operations regardless of size. These practices often reduce the demand on downstream treatment equipment and make available additional capacity without further capital investment. Specific pollution prevention BMPs are discussed in Section 5.2 below.

Wastewater Treatment

Wastewater treatment is typically an important aspect in the overall wastewater management strategy. Treatment of specific wastewater streams may permit the reuse of water within the plant and reduce overall water consumption and the volume of final wastewater effluent. Treatment may also be required to reduce contaminant concentrations and/or mass loadings to limits specified in regulatory approvals. Numerous types and configurations of wastewater treatment technologies are available for treating food processor wastewater. The discussion in Section 5.3 focuses on those technologies that have been applied in full-scale operations at food processing plants. The optimum combination of these technologies is dependent on site-specific conditions (e.g., baseline wastewater pollutant profile, variation in quantity and quality of wastewater, existing treatment systems, mass- or concentration-based discharge limits, capital costs).

Implementation

The successful implementation of wastewater BMPs relies on a commitment from the facility’s management and the participation of employees. This involves setting water conservation and contaminant reduction goals, developing a strategy to achieve these goals, and providing the resources required to implement the strategy. The opportunities for improvement and the overall quality of effluent are influenced by activities throughout the food processing plant. As such, it is important for employees to understand the impact

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-3 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

that their activities have on water consumption and effluent quality. Education and communication are important tools to be used in the development and implementation of BMPs.

An important consideration for both food processors and regulatory agencies is the impact that water use efficiency (WUE) programs have on the quantity and quality of the final wastewater effluent. WUE programs aimed to reduce the consumption of water, or to reuse water before it is discharged as wastewater. The net effect of such measures is to reduce the volume and increase contaminant concentrations of the final effluent. In these situations, the mass loadings of contaminants do not change significantly (product of wastewater volume and contaminant concentration), however, the effluent contaminant concentrations may exceed concentration-based regulatory limits. The use of mass loading limits in regulatory approvals would be required to avoid penalizing facilities for reducing wastewater volume.

It is important to note that BMPs aimed at recycling or reusing wastewater containing pathogenic mico-organisms (e.g., generated by meat and poultry processors) must be implemented in accordance with applicable food safety requirements, which in many cases, may restrict the recycling and reuse of wastewater.

5.1.3 Conventional and Non-Conventional Pollutants

The characteristics of wastewater generated by food processing facilities are distinct when compared to other manufacturing industries. Typically, the pollutants with the highest mass discharge rates are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fats, oils and grease (FOG) and nutrients like ammonia or phosphorus. Where chlorination is used to control pathogens there is also the potential for residual chlorine to be present in wastewater. As discussed in Section 3.0, these parameters are considered “conventional pollutants” for the food processing industry and it follows that BMPs (e.g., water recycling, contaminant source control, wastewater treatment) directed at controlling these parameters will be the most technically and economically feasible.

A group of non-conventional or “emerging” pollutants, which are receiving increased attention from regulatory agencies includes: metals, pesticides, veterinary drugs, disinfection byproducts, and other persistent and toxic organic contaminants listed under the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA). These parameters have not typically been associated with food processing effluent or have not been subject to regulatory characterization, monitoring or control requirements applied in this sector. This is likely a contributing factor to the general absence of existing data from which to quantify their presence in food processing wastewater. Currently, this presents a significant challenge with respect to estimating the technical and economic effectiveness of Best Management Practices aimed at controlling these pollutants. Although practices such as water use reduction, contaminant source control and secondary biological treatment are typically designed to address conventional pollutants it is expected

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-4 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

they will also be capable, at some level, of removing the non-conventional pollutants.

5.2 POLLUTION PREVENTION (PP) BMPS

5.2.1 Benefits

Pollution prevention BMPs are aimed at: a) preventing contaminants from entering water streams that contribute to final effluent; b) improving water use efficiency; or c) a combination of both. The benefits of applying these practices include a reduction in:

• Discharge of pollutants in final effluent (kg/day); • Demand on existing downstream treatment systems and a corresponding increase in existing capacity without additional capital investment; • Operating and maintenance costs; • Water consumption and costs; • Energy and raw material consumption and operating costs; and • Quantity of waste (e.g., sludge) generated and corresponding disposal costs.

5.2.2 Types of Pollution Prevention BMPs

The following is a summary of the main types of pollution prevention BMPs.

Operational and Housekeeping Changes

Theses practices include procedural changes, training, simple equipment or process modifications, water recycling and reuse, and improved inspection and maintenance practices. A review of process changes should address the use of various chemical products that may contain non-conventional pollutants such as COA Tier I and Tier II substances. These practices are characterized as relatively easy to implement and requiring a low capital investment.

Process and Equipment Modifications

These modifications are generally associated with technology advancements and usually require a higher capital investment than operational and housekeeping changes. It is prudent to assess the technical and economic feasibility of the technology prior to implementing any full-scale modifications.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-5 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Figure 5-1: Impact of pollution prevention (PP) and wastewater treatment (WWT) on wastewater quality and quantity.

Prior to implementing PP and WWT

Feed water

Contaminants

Process

Discharged Wastewater: •Poor water quality •Large water quantity

After implementing PP and WWT Feed Water Pollution Prevention: Preventing or minimizing Pollution Prevention: the amount of Optimized water usage contaminants entering water system

Process

Contaminants

Wastewater Treatment: Removing contaminants

Discharged Wastewater: •Improved water quality •Reduced water quantity

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-6 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Strategies

Identifying an optimum strategy for the recycling and reuse of water requires a complete assessment of processing operations and all utilities. It is more difficult to identify recycling and reuse opportunities when a single operation is evaluated independently from other operations and utilities. As previously discussed, the net effect of implementing WUE strategies is a significant reduction in the volume, and an increase in contaminant concentration of final effluent to be treated or discharged. The benefits of reducing effluent volume prior to final treatment include freeing up additional treatment capacity in existing systems and reducing the size, and capital and operating costs of new or modified systems.

Examples of Cross-Cutting and Sub-Sector Specific BMPs

Examples of pollution prevention measures for each of the three categories are presented in Table 5-1. These practices are “cross-cutting” in the sense that they can be applied to many of the sub-sectors of the food processing industry. Examples of pollution prevention BMPs used by meat and poultry processors, dairy products manufacturing and beverage manufacturing plants are presented in Tables 5-2 – 5-4.

Table 5-1: Wastewater pollution prevention BMPs for food processors.

Application Technique Ease of Implementation Operational and Improved scheduling. Sequential scheduling of products that use the Moderate –difficult housekeeping same line or equipment can reduce cleaning requirements. changes Maximise the dedication of process equipment. This can reduce Moderate equipment cleaning frequency and waste generation. Train employees how to use water efficiently. Easy Shut water off during breaks. Easy Centralise the control of the water supplies. This will enable water supply Moderate - difficult to be shut off during breaks. Minimize the loss of product by minimizing spilling ingredients and Easy product on floors. Place catch pans under potential overflows/leaks. Easy Use pre-clean and dry cleanup methods before wet cleaning. This Moderate prevents adding additional waste to the wastewater stream. Sweep up solid materials for use as by-products (if possible) instead of Easy washing it down the drain. Reuse final rinse from cleaning operations for the initial rinse on the Easy following day. Use the minimum amount of cleaning agents and detergents necessary to Easy comply with food safety requirements. Cover non-process drains that should not be connected to wastewater Easy stream. Fit drains with screens and/or traps to prevent solid materials from Easy - moderate entering the effluent system. Skim grease traps regularly. Easy

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-7 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table 5-1: Wastewater pollution prevention BMPs for food processors.

Application Technique Ease of Implementation Install screens at strategic locations in the process to prevent solids from Moderate entering the wastewater stream. Inspect and execute preventative maintenance of potential discharge Easy areas. Maintain tanks, equipment and pipes to prevent leakage. Moderate Improve maintenance and operational programs to identify process Moderate upsets, malfunctions and problems early in the process to minimize the amount wastewater produced. Include nozzle inspection in routine maintenance schedule. Wear of Easy spray nozzles increase the water flow rate. Monitor liquid fill machines frequently. Easy - moderate Recover as much condensate as possible. Moderate - difficult Do not allow water to run continuously unless necessary. Easy - moderate Avoid use of wastewater streams as a transport medium. Transfer solids Moderate-difficult and particulate matter by mechanical means. Review Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and other information Easy-Moderate provided by manufacturers of chemicals used or purchased to identify products containing non-conventional pollutants (e.g., COA Tier I/II). Identify alternative products for any containing those pollutants. Recycling/reuse Separate wastewater streams according to level and type of Moderate contamination and investigate the potential for reuse of each stream. Some streams may require filtering or other treatment prior to reuse. Reuse process water wherever possible. Easy – moderate Eliminate once-through cooling water usage, by implementing recycling Moderate or reuse practices where possible. Use counter current wash procedures. Moderate Process/ Install flow meters and monitor water usage. Easy equipment Install automatic shut-off nozzles/valves on all water supplies when Easy modification feasible. Install controls, like solenoid valves, to stop water flow when equipment Moderate is not in operation and no water is required. Replace traditional faucets with more efficient faucets. Easy – moderate Install flow control valves to regulate water flow in sprayers at conveyors Moderate with variable speed. Replace water based conveyors with mechanical conveyors. Moderate - difficult Install spray nozzles on hoses and use high pressure rather than high Easy - moderate volume for cleaning surfaces. Use automated cleaning-in-place (CIP) where feasible. Difficult Install controls, like high level alarms, to prevent tanks from Moderate overflowing. Direct clean stormwater away from wastewater drains. Moderate Use dry peeling methods. Difficult

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-8 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table 5-2: Examples of pollution prevention BMPs used by meat & poultry processors

Process Objective/ Best Management Practice Pollutant Reduction Washing Wastewater reduction Reuse relative clean wastewater from cooling systems for washing livestock if possible. Washing Wastewater reduction Reuse wastewater from slaughter floor, washbasins, knife and implement sterilizers and carcass washing for gut cutting and washing. Water may require screening to remove gross solids prior to reuse. Washing Wastewater reduction Reuse final rinse water from paunch and casings washing for other non-critical cleaning steps in the casings department Singeing Wastewater reduction Reuse cooling water from the singeing process for other purposes in the pig de-hairing area. Scalding Wastewater reduction Boiler condensate that is not returned to the boiler can be used as make-up water for the scalding process. Scalding Wastewater reduction Use automated operated scalding chambers rather than scalding tanks for de-hairing Bleeding BOD, TSS Maximize the segregation of blood and water by designing suitable blood collection facilities that will ensure blood is directed to the blood collection facility. Bled animals only once they are above blood collection facility and allow sufficient time for bleeding, generally more than 7 minutes. Evisceration Wastewater reduction Install automated control with sensors to supply wash spray water to viscera section only when required. Evisceration Wastewater reduction Set and maintain minimum water flow rates for viscera table wash sprays. Processing Wastewater reduction Replace single-skinned knife sterilizers with more water efficient sterilizers, e.g. water jacket sterilizer. Processing Wastewater reduction Use automated control systems to operate flow of water at knife sterilisation and hand-wash stations. Processing Wastewater reduction Use dry dumping techniques for processing of cattle paunches and pig stomachs instead of wet dumping techniques. Processing Treatment Separate high strength effluent streams, such as rendering effluent and optimisation wastewater from paunch washing and treat them separately. Processing Wastewater reduction Use water sprays on splitting saws to remove bone dust and reduce the water required fro carcass washing. Processing Wastewater reduction Install on/off controls for cooling water on breaking saws. This will ensure water is only supplied when the saw is operated. Carcass FOG, BOD, TSS Use water sprays with pressure of less than 10 bar for carcass washing Washing to avoid removing fat from the surface. Carcass FOG, BOD, TSS Aim to use water with temperatures below 30°C in carcass washing to Washing reduce fat removal from surface. Carcass Wastewater reduction Use automated sensor control to regulate water supply for carcass Washing washing. Carcass Wastewater reduction Use of air chillers for carcass cooling in poultry plants to reduce water Washing FOG, BOD, TSS use by up to 2 litres per bird. This also reduces the incidence of Coliforms coliforms on the product and in the wastewater streams.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-9 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table 5-3: Examples of PP BMPs implemented in dairy product manufacturing plants.

Process Objective/ Best Management Practice Pollutant Reduction Cooling BOD, TSS, FOG Ensure accurate temperature control of plate, tubular and surface coolers to prevent freeze-on, which may result in loss of product. Processing Wastewater reduction Reuse water from reverse osmosis process, which is used to concentrate whey, for example to wash equipment or purge lines Processing BOD, TSS, FOG Install suitable liquid level controls with automatic pump stop, alarms and other control mechanisms at equipment where overflow can occur, e.g. storage tanks, processing tanks. Processing BOD, TSS, FOG Ensure cheese vats, vat processors, cooling tanks and other mixing tanks are filled to level that will not cause spillage during agitation. Processing BOD, TSS, FOG Avoid foaming of fluid dairy products. Foam readily overflow vats and tanks and contains large amounts of BOD and TSS. Use air tight separators, proper seals on pumps and proper line connections to prevent inflow of air when lines are under partial vacuum.

Table 5-4: Examples of PP BMPs implemented in beverage manufacturing plants.

Process Objective/ Best Management Practice Pollutant Reduction Processing BOD, TSS, Brewing: remove grain from tun with dry methods, like raking or wastewater reduction brushing. Cleaning Wastewater reduction Brewing: clean tun, copper and whirlpool with wash water from other cleaning operations, but ensure that hygienic conditions are not compromised. Cleaning Wastewater Adjust tank washing cycles to reduce the water and detergent usage reduction, ammonia, according to the size of the tank. phosphorus Cleaning Ammonia Increase the lifetime of the cleaning caustic by collecting it in an insulated settling tank and reuse it in bottle washing after removal of the sediment. Cleaning Wastewater reduction Use the bottle rinse water for crate washing. Utilities Wastewater reduction Reuse the seal water from liquid ring vacuum pumps, for example in bottle washing process. Cooling Wastewater reduction Brewing: defrost cold radiators in conditioning tank rooms with electricity instead of water sprays.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-10 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

5.2.3 Implementing Pollution Prevention BMPs

Identifying, evaluating and implementing pollution prevention measures should be undertaken using a team approach including representatives from the production, product quality, food safety and maintenance functions of the plant. A continuous process for implementing pollution prevention BMPs is shown conceptually in Figure 5-2. Each step in this process is described as follows.

Step 1: Develop a Water Balance

To develop a water balance it is necessary to identify processes and activities where water is used and where wastewater is generated. A process flow diagram should be developed to indicate the flow paths and usage of water, and wastewater generation and flow paths through the facility. Flow rates for each flow path should be determined and the best practice is to monitor the flow rates. The following points should be considered when developing a monitoring program:

• The influence of production and cleaning shifts. • Monitoring of water consumption outside production periods can assist in identifying leaks and other areas of unnecessary waste. • Monitoring data over a period of time can assist in interpreting water consumption trends related to production and seasonal fluctuations.

At some points or paths in the water system it may not be practical or feasible to monitor the flow rates and it may be more appropriate to determine the flow rates with mass balance or engineering calculations. The complete water balance should be presented in a format that is easy to update with new information as it becomes available.

Step 2: Identify Contaminant Sources

The wastewater effluent should be analysed to determine what contaminants are present, and the sources of each contaminant should then be identified and documented on a water flow diagram. A water audit is typically conducted to identify wasteful practices and should include production processes as well as ancillary and utility operations. The audit will also require the flow rates and contaminant concentrations to be measured or otherwise estimated. This information is used to prepare contaminant mass balance (i.e., contaminant concentrations and mass flow rates).

Step 3: Identify and Implement Housekeeping and Operational Changes

Housekeeping and operational activities that contribute to wasteful practices and add contaminants to the water system should be identified. Changes and measures to prevent or minimize the addition of contaminants to the water streams by these activities should be identified and implemented. This should include a review of chemical products used or

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-11 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

purchased that may contain substances on the COA Tier I and Tier II lists together with other non-conventional pollutants. A good starting point is to review the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for chemical composition and hazard information. Companies are required by the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System Regulations to keep current MSDS on-site.

Step 4: Update the Water Balance

The water balance should be updated to reflect the impact of the changes to housekeeping and operational procedures. The changes may affect both water and wastewater flow rates, and contaminant concentrations and loads.

Step 5: Identify and Implement Water Use Efficiency Opportunities

Assess all areas in the facility for water recycling and reuse opportunities and implement an integrated water use efficiency strategy. Consider the following points when identifying these opportunities:

• To identify the potential for reusing water from recycled sources, it is necessary to define the water quality requirements associated with each use taking food safety into consideration. • Less contaminated water, e.g. once through cooling water, should be kept separate where there is potential for reuse possibly after treatment. • Recycling should take place in as many areas and processes as possible. • Recycling methods to be considered are: Sequential reuse – water stream is used at two or more processes before disposal. Recycling within a unit or process without treatment. Recycling with treatment. Recycle or reuse water at another process with lower water quality requirements.

Step 6: Update the Water Balance

The water balance should be updated to reflect the impact of implementing recycling and reuse opportunities. The changes may affect both water and wastewater flow rates, and contaminant concentrations and loads.

Step 7: Identify and Implement Process and Equipment Modifications

Evaluate processes and equipment to identify options for modifying existing equipment or installing new technologies that will assist in improving wastewater quality and quantity. This step includes analyzing the technical and economic feasibility of each option under consideration.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-12 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Step 8: Update the Water Balance

The water balance should be updated to reflect the impact of implementing new technologies and/or redesign options. The changes may affect both water and wastewater flow rates, and contaminant concentrations and loads.

Continuous Improvement Cycle

As illustrated in Figure 5-2 the implementation of a pollution prevention plan is an iterative process for achieving the objective of continuous improvement in a cost-effective manner. This requires that pollution prevention measures such as improved housekeeping and operational practices, water use efficiency strategies, and modifications to existing equipment be prioritized and implemented in an iterative manner before implementing new capital projects. This will ensure that the capability of existing facilities and equipment is optimized before new capital investments are made.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-13 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Figure 5-2: Continuous improvement process to improve food processor wastewater quality and quantity with pollution prevention actions.

Develop Water Balance

Identify Sources of Water Contamination

Identify and Implement Operational and Housekeeping Changes to Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Update Water Balance

Identify and Implement Recycling/Reuse Opportunities to Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Update Water Balance

Identify and Implement Equipment and Process Redesign Actions to Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Update Water Balance

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-14 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

5.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT BMPS

5.3.1 Classification of Treatment Technologies

Once pollution prevention practices have been implemented it may be necessary to treat the wastewater to meet internal or regulated effluent water quality objectives. Wastewater treatment (WWT) technologies can be classified into four broad categories as illustrated in Figure 5-3 and described as follows:

• Preliminary techniques include processes that reduce the potential for upsets in downstream wastewater treatment processes. • Primary treatment includes systems that remove floatable and settleable solids. • Secondary treatment includes systems that remove most of the organic matter in the wastewater stream. • Tertiary treatment involves the removal of nutrients, particulate matter and other specific contaminants like pathogens.

5.3.2 Level of Treatment Required

Each of the four WWT categories listed above will result in the removal of specific contaminants from the wastewater stream as indicated. The Ministry’s Guideline F-5 defines the normal level of treatment for wastewater discharges to surface water as secondary, or equivalent. The Ministry’s treatment specifications for BOD, suspended solids and phosphorous are presented in Section 5 (see Table 5-5) of the guideline. More stringent requirements than those specified in the guideline and additional parameters may be applied where a site-specific assessment of the facility’s operation and the receiving water indicates that there is a water quality concern. The assessment and requirements are based on the ministry’s Water Management Policies, Guidelines and Provincial Water Quality Objectives with respect to the capacity of receiving body of water to accept effluent without adverse impacts. The guidance is normally incorporated as conditions of Certificates of Approval issued under the authority of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

5.3.3 Selection of Treatment Technologies

A variety of technologies are available that may be applied to food processor wastewater. Each technology has been designed to remove specific contaminants and will achieve different levels of reduction for different contaminants. For example, while aerated lagoons are designed primarily for the removal (e.g., 70%) of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) they may also achieve a modest reduction in nitrogen levels (e.g., 5%). The selection of the optimum combination of wastewater treatment technologies and the design of the treatment system is dictated by site-specific conditions, including:

• The wastewater profile (i.e., which contaminants are present, concentration and mass discharge rate of each contaminant);

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-15 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• The wastewater flow rate profile, which includes the volume of wastewater generated and the fluctuation over time. There may be significant fluctuations due to daily shifts, hours of operation and seasonal variation in production; and

• Existing treatment equipment and its performance.

Variability

Based on the review of available wastewater quality data discussed in Section 4.0 it was concluded that the wastewater profiles on a sector or even on a sub-sector level cannot be defined within a narrow band of concentrations and flow rates. The challenge of variability was also highlighted in a recent report published by the Environmental Agency in Wales, UK (EA, 2004). This report presented the results of the final phase in a three-phase study to develop water use and effluent discharge benchmarks for agriculture and selected sub- sectors of the food industry. The following excerpts from the report highlight the importance of variability, the need to address water and effluent management on a site- specific basis, and the link between water use, effluent generation and pollutant discharge rates:

“The next step in the development of water use and effluent benchmarks is to understand the variability affecting a specific industry type. In certain cases, the industry type will be so complex that setting of benchmarking values across similar industries is impracticable. Of more importance is that the industry understands, manages and sets site specific water management targets for that process.”

“In developing benchmark values, including effluent benchmarks, it is critical to understand some of the factors that contribute to variability within the industry, or even in the same factory. Without an understanding of this potential variability, the success of deriving and then applying benchmark values may be limited. Variables will often jointly affect water use, effluent generation and pollution load and therefore the variables are considered together.”

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-16 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table 5-5: Ontario effluent criteria – MOE Procedure F-5-1 (MOEE, 1994b)

Treatment Level and Processes Effluent Design Objectives1 Effluent (mg/l) Guidelines2 (mg/l) 3 BOD5 TS TP T A/N BOD5 TS S S SECONDARY TREATMENT OR EQUIVALENT Conventional Activated Sludge without TP 15 15 - - 25 25 removal Conventional Activated Sludge with TP removal 15 15 1.0 - 25 25 Conventional Stabilization without TP removal 20 20 - - 25 25 Conventional Stabilization with TP removal 20 20 1.0 - 25 25 Extended Aeration without TP removal 15 15 - - 25 25 Extended aeration with TP removal 15 15 1.0 - 25 25 Continuous Discharge Lagoon without TP 25 30 1 - 30 40 removal Continuous Discharge Lagoon with TP removal 25 30 1.0 - 30 40 Seasonal Retention Lagoon without TP removal 25 30 1 - 30 40 Seasonal Lagoon with TP removal by batch 15 20 0.5 – - 25 25 chemical dosage 1.0 Seasonal Lagoon with TP removal by continuous 25 30 1.0 - 30 40 chemical dosage Physical-chemical Treatment 20 20 1.0 - 25 25 ADVANCED TREATMENT Conventional Activated Sludge with TP removal 10 5 0.3 - x 4 x 4 and filtration Conventional Activated Sludge with nitrification 15 15 - <1.0 5 x 4 x 4 Extended Aeration with TP removal and 5 5 0.3 1 x 4 x 4 filtration

Footnotes: 1 Expected effluent quality under optimum conditions when treating raw sewage with BOD5 = 170 mg/l, soluble BOD5=50%, TSS=200 mg/l, TP=7mg/l, T A/N=20mg/l. 2 Criteria which the average annual effluent quality should not exceed. 3 T A/N = (NH3+NH4+)-N 4 Effluent quality and permissible periods of discharge will be stipulated as a result of receiving water assessment methods. Where effluent BOD5 and suspended solids concentration are not found to be critical, then Effluent Guideline BOD5 and suspended solids concentrations of 25 and 25 mg/l should be used. 5 Expected warm weather effluent concentration.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-17 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Figure 5-3: Classification of wastewater treatment processes.

Source Control Including course screens for removal of large solid particulates at sources

Diversion and Retention Tanks

•Contingency for accidental release •Keeping “clean” water separate

PRELIMINARY TECHNIQUES from water to be treated

Removal of Solids Technologies included are: Screening Flow equalization

PRIMARY Gravity separation

TREATMENT Dissolved air flotation Chemical precipitation

Removal of Organic Material Technologies included are: Biological treatment Lagoons SECONDARY TREATMENT

Removal of Specific Contaminants Technologies included are: Nutrient removal Filtration

TERTIARY Disinfection TREATMENT

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-18 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Implementation Steps

The variation in food processor wastewater quality and quantity makes it impractical to recommend one specific generic wastewater treatment process as the BMP for the food industry or each of its sub-sectors. The specific wastewater treatment process at a facility should be determined based on the facility’s wastewater profile and the level of treatment required, as discussed above under Section 5.3.2. The following steps may be undertaken by any food processing facility to select treatment technologies suitable for treating its wastewater and ensure that its final effluent complies with regulatory standards.

Step 1: Develop Baseline Wastewater Profile

Determine flow rate, and contaminant load and concentration profiles of the wastewater streams to be treated. The wastewater profiles should be part of the development of the water balance discussed above under Section 5.2.

Step 2: Determine Final Treatment Specifications

Determine the required specifications for contaminant concentrations and mass discharge rates in the final effluent. As previously discussed in Section 5.3.2, the specifications will typically be based on the application of the F-5 Guidelines, a receiving water impact assessment, or a combination of both. The difference between the final effluent contaminant specifications and the wastewater contaminant concentrations before treatment will indicate the removal rate required by the treatment system.

Step 3: Preliminary Design

This step involves defining the treatment steps and selecting specific technologies to accomplish each step. An iterative process is typically used to determine the optimum configuration of individual treatment steps. This process considers such factors as baseline wastewater profiles, removal efficiencies of individual treatment steps, the capability of existing treatment equipment, and the final effluent specifications. Factors such as sludge handling and disposal may also have to be included in the analysis. The selection and configuration of technologies is determined by evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of each configuration under consideration. This may involve bench scale or pilot testing one or more types of technologies using the facility’s wastewater. The types of technologies commonly used to treat food processor wastewater are discussed in Section 5.3.4. At the end of this step the treatment steps and types of technologies have been defined and documented on a process flow diagram and equipment specifications.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-19 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Step 4: Detailed Engineering

This step involves developing detailed engineering plans and specifications required to procure, install and commission the treatment system, such as: piping and instrumentation diagrams, equipment layout, equipment datasheets, utilities diagrams, and tender packages. A more detailed description of this step is beyond the scope of this study.

Step 5: Procurement, Installation and Commissioning

This step follows the detailed engineering step and involves the procurement of materials and equipment, installation and construction. When construction, including tie-ins to existing treatment systems, is complete the system is commissioned. During commissioning the objective is to allow the system to achieve a steady state and confirm that it is performing in accordance with the specifications.

5.3.4 Types of Treatment Technologies

Wastewater treatment technologies commonly used to treat food industry wastewater and that have been proven in full-scale operations are reviewed in this section. Table 5-6 provides a comparative summary of each technology in terms of target pollutants, reduction efficiency, principle of operation, ease of implementation, advantages, disadvantages, and cost.

The pollutant reduction efficiencies presented are based on a combination of information available from the literature, equipment vendors, and study team experience. Reduction efficiencies reported for primary and secondary treatment technologies in the food industry are generally limited to BOD, TSS and fats, oil and grease. A relatively wide range of reduction efficiencies is reported for some types of technologies. The range of efficiencies reflects the differences from facility to facility in design capacities and actual performance, variation of input contaminant loadings, capacity to equalize untreated wastewater flow, operator experience and wastewater management systems.

Comparative capital and operating costs for the various technologies are presented in Table 5-6. Both the type and capacity of treatment unit operations influence the capital, operating and maintenance costs. The cost estimates summarized in Table 5.6 are for comparative purposes and are based on a wastewater influent flow rate of 280 m3/day or 70,000 m3/year. This flow rate is regarded as a typical flow rate for a medium sized food manufacturing facility. The capital costs include equipment, design and installation costs, while the operating and maintenance costs are based on estimation factors provided in literature (FAO, 1996; MLA, 2002; USEPA, 1998a; 1998b; 1999). It should be noted that the costs are order of magnitude costs (i.e. 50% accuracy) and will be influenced by site- specific conditions such as the incorporation of existing or used equipment.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-20 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Primary Treatment

Screening

Screening is typically the most inexpensive form of primary treatment and is usually the first process step in the treatment system. Screening removes large solid particles from the wastewater stream that could otherwise damage or interfere with downstream processes and equipment. There are a number of different types of screen technologies and the most commonly used screens in the food industry are: static or stationary, rotary drum and vibrating. Typical examples of static and rotary drum screens are illustrated in Figures 5-4 and 5-5.

The removal rate of solid particles in a screening process depends mainly on the characteristics of the solid particles and the size of the openings in the screen or mesh. The efficiency of screens vary widely, for example removal rates of TSS in wastewater from meat facilities were reported to be in the range 30% - 80%, 20% - 50 for BOD and 20% - 90% for oil and grease (MLA, 2002).

Figure 5-4: Typical static screen process (US. EPA, 1999).

Flow Equalization

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-21 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

smaller and they prevent process upsets in downstream treatment systems due to variations in treatment wastewater feed quality. Aeration and mixing is typically used in situations where there is a potential for odours or settling of solids.

Figure 5-5: Typical rotary drum screen process (US. EPA, 1999)

Gravity Separation

Gravity separation is used to separate waste materials such as oil and grease or suspended solids from wastewater based on their difference in density. This is typically achieved using settling ponds, a concrete basin, or specific types of tanks designed for minimum turbulence, flow-through operation with typical hydraulic retention times of 20 to 45 minutes. Materials less dense than water (e.g., oil and grease, fine solids) float to the surface and are removed by skimming, and heavier solids settle to the bottom of the pond or vessel and are periodically removed and disposed.

Dissolved Air Flotation

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is used extensively by food processors as primary treatment to remove suspended solids and emulsified oil and grease. The basic operating principle involves passing gas bubbles through the wastewater, which adhere to contaminant particles causing them to rise to the surface and float where a skimmer mechanism continually removes the floating solids. A bottom sludge collector removes any solids that settle. DAF technology has a number of advantages over gravity settling and the primary one is the more rapid and more complete removal of small and light particles, including grease. Chemicals, like polymers and flocculants, are often added to the feed water to improve the DAF performance. Typical removal rates of TSS by DAFs vary from 40% – 60% without chemical addition and 80% – 93% with chemical addition (US EPA, 1999). Oil and grease removals by DAF improve from 60% - 80% without chemical addition to

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-22 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

85% – 99% with chemical addition (US EPA, 1999).

The main advantages usually associated with DAF systems are (US EPA, 1999):

• Relatively low installation cost • Compact design • Ability to accept variable loading rates • Relatively low level of maintenance

A typical lay out of a DAF process with recycling is illustrated in Figure 5-6.

Figure 5-6: Typical DAF process with recycling (FAO, 1996).

Chemical Addition

Chemicals are often added to remove contaminants from the wastewater and require a solids removal step. Chemicals are often added to the wastewater prior to a DAF or clarifier process to coagulate or flocculate suspended solids and improve the solids removal process performance. Practically all the chemicals added to the wastewater are removed with the separated solids.

Secondary Treatment

The primary objective of secondary treatment is the reduction of BOD through the removal organic matter, primarily in the form of soluble organic compounds, remaining after

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-23 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

primary treatment. Although secondary treatment of wastewater can be performed using a combination of physical and chemical unit processes, use of biological processes remained the preferred approach (US EPA, 1999). The most commonly used secondary treatment technologies are: anaerobic biological treatment, anaerobic lagoons, aerobic biological treatment and aerated lagoons.

Anaerobic Biological Treatment

Anaerobic wastewater treatment processes make use of microbiological activated reduction of complex organic compounds to methane and carbon dioxide as the mechanism for organic matter and BOD reduction. Anaerobic wastewater treatment processes are generally more sensitive to loading rate and temperature fluctuations compared to aerobic wastewater treatment processes. The BOD removal efficiency by an anaerobic wastewater treatment process can be very high. Due to the relatively low energy requirement, anaerobic treatment processes are attractive for the treatment of wastewater with high BOD loads. The effluent from the anaerobic process will most likely not produce dischargeable effluent, but will significantly reduce the energy requirement for a subsequent aerobic treatment process to produce dischargeable effluent.

Anaerobic processes used on a commercial scale include: anaerobic contact (AC), up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and anaerobic filter (AF) processes. The choice between the different technologies is dependent on the BOD load in the wastewater and the contaminant and flow rate profile of the wastewater. BOD and COD removal rates by these processes depend on the feed water characteristics and are summarized in Table 5-6.

Anaerobic Lagoons

A typical anaerobic lagoon is relatively deep, between 3 to 5 meters (10 to 17 feet) and a retention time of about 5 to 10 days. Anaerobic lagoons are generally only used for wastewater with a BOD concentration of more than 10,000 mg/l. An anaerobic system alone would generally not achieve a final effluent quality suitable for discharge to a watercourse, and is often followed by an aerobic process. The following aspects should be considered when designing and operating an anaerobic process (Environment Agency, 2001):

• Sufficient macronutrients should be supplied. BOD:N:P ratios should normally be maintained to be 100:5:1. • Minimum quantities of micronutrients should be maintained, especially Fe, Ca, Mg and Zn. • The pH should be maintained at 6.8 – 7.5. • The optimum temperature for mesophillic bacteria is 35 – 37 °C. • Significant quantities of fats, oil (mineral) and grease should be removed prior to the reactor.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-24 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

• Effective screening and primary treatment are necessary to prevent physical blockage of the inlet pipe work. • The original hydraulic and loading design rates should not be exceeded.

Aerobic Biological Treatment

The primary objective of aerobic wastewater treatment is transforming the soluble and suspended organic compounds into microbial biomass, with the subsequent removal of the biomass formed by settling or mechanical separation. The treatment of food manufacturing wastewater aerobic treatment may follow directly after primary treatment or follow an anaerobic treatment process to reduce BOD and TSS concentrations to levels required for discharge. Aerobic treatment may also be used to reduce ammonia concentration in the wastewater. Typical advantages of aerobic wastewater treatment processes are: fast biological growth, low odour generation, and relatively quick adjustments to temperature and loading rate changes. Aerobic treatment systems generally require more space, maintenance, management and energy than anaerobic system, which makes the operating costs of aerobic systems higher.

Aerobic treatment process can be divided into suspended and attached growth processes. Activated sludge processes, like conventional, extended aeration, and sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) are examples of suspended growth processes, while trickling filters and rotating biological contactors (RBCs) are examples of attached growth processes (US EPA, 2002). Activated sludge processes are some of the most commonly used wastewater treatment processes and a typical activated sludge process is illustrated in Figure 5-7. Aerobic processes are generally very effective in removing BOD, TSS and oil and grease and reported removal rates are summarized in Table 5-6.

Aerobic Lagoons

Aerated lagoons are the most widely used type of aerobic lagoon in the food processing industry with direct wastewater discharge. Aerated lagoons are usually basins excavated in the earth with aerators on the surface of the water in the lagoon. In completely mixed lagoons dissolved oxygen and solids are kept fairly uniform, which ensures aerobic activity throughout the lagoon. In facultative lagoons the power supply to the mixers is reduced, causing solids to accumulate at the bottom of the lagoon and undergo anaerobic decomposition, while aerobic activity is maintained in the upper portion of the lagoon. Uncovered lagoons are influenced by temperature fluctuations and low temperatures may result in reduced efficiency and freezing of the surface. Increasing the depth of the unit can partially alleviate this problem. Aerobic units usually require a settling process, like a sedimentation unit or settling tank, downstream and prior to the final discharge point to remove suspended solids. If an excavated basin is used as a settling unit then care should be taken to provide a sufficient hydraulic residence time for the solids to settle. Provision

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-25 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Figure 5-7: Typical activated sludge process (US EPA, 2002).

for settling sludge should also be accommodated in the design of the unit. Offensive odours and algae growth can occur at aerobic lagoons. Odour can be minimized when the minimum depth of the lagoon is maintained at 2 meters, and using hydraulic retention times of less than 2 days can reduce algae growth. Solids will accumulate at the bottom of the lagoon, even in completely mixed lagoons, and regular removal of the solids is required.

Aerobic lagoons are more resistant to organic or toxic shock loads than other aerobic treatment processes like activated sludge or trickling filters. Lagoons are also easier to operate and require less capital cost and operating and maintenance costs than the other treatment processes. Lagoons, however, require much more space than the other processes. Typical reported BOD, TSS and oil and grease removal rates are summarized in Table 5-6.

Tertiary Treatment

Tertiary treatment generally involves any treatment beyond conventional secondary treatment to remove suspended or dissolved substances. This may involve one or more treatment objectives and processing steps. For example, tertiary treatment may be used to: 1) remove nitrogen and phosphorus; 2) further reduce suspended solids concentration after secondary clarification; or 3) remove soluble toxic or dissolved inorganic substances. Disinfection for pathogen control has been included in this category.

Nutrient Removal

Some reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus occurs in primary and secondary wastewater treatment processes due to the separation of solids during settling or use as a nutrient by the biomass. Additional reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations may be required to achieve regulatory effluent limits based on the limited assimilative capacity of

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-26 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

receiving waters for these parameters. Both biological and physicochemical treatment systems may be used, however, biological technologies are commonly applied as the cost of treatment is typically lower.

Removal of Residual Suspended Solids – Filtration

Disinfection

Disinfection is used destroy pathogenic microorganisms that may remaining after animals are processed, and is typically required to treat wastewater from meat and poultry processing facilities prior discharge to the environment. Chlorination is the most commonly used method for wastewater disinfection; however, use of ultraviolet light, and combinations of ozone injection UV disinfection are alternatives to disinfection. Where chlorination is used as the disinfection agent, de-chlorination using an oxidizing agent (e.g., sodium meta bi-sulfite) may be required to remove chlorine residuals to acceptable levels.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-27 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table 5-6: Comparison of wastewater treatment processes.

Process Target Pollutant Principle of Operation Ease of Advantages Disadvantages Cost ($) Pollutant Reduction Implementation and Operation Preliminary Techniques Diversion tanks Accidental Prevent material Store wastewater with Easy to implement Minimize downtime of Space required for tanks. CC: 20,000 release of from entering accidentally released and to operate. wastewater treatment OMC: 30,000 material that treatment plant. material that may be plant. may be detrimental to treatment detrimental to plant. treatment plant. Primary Treatment – Removal of Gross Solids, Oil and Grease Screening TSS, 30 – 80% TSS; Particles larger than Relatively easy to • Simple to operate. Screen may clog up if not CC: 70,000 settleable 90% settleable screen’s mesh size are implement and to • Inexpensive to well maintained. OMC: 40,000 solids, solids prevented from passing operate. implement and 20 – 50% BOD; through screen. operate. 20 – 90% FOG Flow equalization Fluctuation in Uniform flow Store wastewater to Easy to implement • Improve performance Space required for tanks. CC: 20,000 flow rates and and waste dampen fluctuation in and to operate. of downstream OMC: 40,000 waste composition. hydraulic load and treatment processes. composition. waste composition • Reduce size and cost upstream of subsequent of downstream treatment processes. treatment processes. Gravity separation TSS, 50-90% FOG Due to gravitational Relatively easy to Simple to operate. Require large surface area CC: 230,000 settleable 40% - 90% TSS, force solid particles implement and to with long retention time to OMC: 90,000 solids, 15% - 50% BOD sink to bottom of operate. remove smaller particles. BOD clarifier/ tank. FOG with lower density than water floats on surface of water. Dissolved Air TSS, 40% - 80% TSS Fine air bubbles carry Easy to moderately Relative short retention Turbulent or large CC: 350,000 Flotation O&G 60% - 95% solids to surface of difficult to time and smaller fluctuation in flow rates can OMC: 270,000 BOD O&G water where it is implement and surface area required. reduce treatment efficiency 15 – 70% BOD scraped off. FOG with operate. Remove solid particles substantially. (with chemical lower density than with a wide range of addition: water floats on surface sizes. 80% - 93% TSS of water. 85% – 99% O&G)

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-28 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table 5-6: Comparison of wastewater treatment processes.

Process Target Pollutant Principle of Operation Ease of Advantages Disadvantages Cost ($) Pollutant Reduction Implementation and Operation Chemical addition TSS 60% - 80% TSS Solid particulates Easy to moderately Require relatively small • May limit use of sludge for CC: 125,000 coagulate or form difficult to footprint. animal or agricultural use. OMC: 25,000 flocks due to chemical implement and • Efficiency is influenced by bonds. operate fluctuation in feed water quality and quantity Secondary Treatment – Removal of Organic Material Biological BOD 70 – 95% BOD Organic matter is Well known • Treat water with high • Sensitive to toxic and CC: 1,600,000 treatment: 60 – 90% TSS decomposed by technology. BOD loads (> 10,000 hydraulic shocks. OMC: 125,000 Anaerobic 85 – 98% FOG microbiological activity Requires skill to mg/l). • Sludge requires disposal. treatment operate. • Low energy • Excessive levels of consumption phosphorus or ammonia • Produce methane gas might occur. that may be used as • Effluent requires aerobic fuel. treatment. • Odor Anaerobic lagoons BOD 60 – 97% BOD Depth 3 - 5 m. Well-known Same as above for • Same as above for CC: 180,000 60 – 90% TSS technology. biological treatment: biological treatment: OMC: 15,000 70 – 90% FOG anaerobic treatment anaerobic treatment Biological BOD 85 – 97% BOD Organic matter is Well known • Effluent water quality • BOD concentration in feed CC: 460,000 – Treatment: Aerobic Less than 10 – decomposed by technology and high in terms of BOD. < 2,000 mg/l 2,130,000 treatment (e.g. 15 mg/l soluble microbiological activity commonly used. • Sensitive to toxic and OMC: 175,000 activated sludge) BOD in effluent Requires skill to • Can treat high flow hydraulic shocks. 95 – 98% TSS operate. rates and have a • Sludge requires disposal. 0 – 50% relatively small • Excessive levels of Nitrogen footprint. phosphorus or ammonia might occur. • Odor Aerated lagoons BOD 50 – 80% BOD Oxygenated by Well known Low capital cost. • Same as above for CC: 200,000 – 0 – 10% mechanical devices. technology and biological treatment: 567,000 Nitrogen Depth up to 5m. commonly used. aerobic treatment. OMC: 20,000 – • Require relatively large 110,000 surface area. • Require energy for aeration.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-29 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Table 5-6: Comparison of wastewater treatment processes.

Process Target Pollutant Principle of Operation Ease of Advantages Disadvantages Cost ($) Pollutant Reduction Implementation and Operation Tertiary Treatment for Removal of Specific Contaminants Nutrient removal Nitrogen Biological or Easy to moderately May reduce BOD and Biological processes may be CC: 125,000 Phosphorus physicochemical difficult to implement TSS concentrations sensitive to temperature and OMC: 25,000 treatment systems are and operate load fluctuations. used. Filtration TSS < 23 mg/l TSS in Gravity or pressure is Easy to moderately • Reliable process. • Buildup of emulsified oils. CC: 60,000 Taste effluent used to filter liquid difficult to implement • Low space • Breakthrough of filter OMC: 35,000 Odour < 98% BOD through filter media. and operate requirement. media may occur. Chemicals Contaminants are adsorbed onto carbon in granulated activated carbon filter (GAC). Disinfection (e.g. Bacteria and Methods of Easy to moderately Handling of hazardous CC: 25,000 chlorination) other disinfection include difficult to implement chemicals. OMC: 35,000 pathogens chlorination, and operate ozonation and UV light.

Footnote: CC = Total installed Capital Cost ($) for a process with an influent flow rate of 280 m3/day, or 70,000 m3/year. OMC= Operating and maintenance cost ($/year) for a process with an influent flow rate of 280 m3/day or 70,000 m3/year.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-30 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

5.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.0

DDNREC. A Pollution Prevention Guide for Food Processors by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

Environmental Agency, 2004. Optimum Use of Water for Agriculture and Industry: Phase III. Environmental Agency – Scientific and Technical Information Service, Bristol. R&D Technical Report W6-056/TR1

Environment Agency, 2001. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control – General Guidance for the Food and Drink Sector. Environmental Agency – Scientific and Technical Information Service, Bristol: Technical Guidance Note – IPPC S6.10.

Environment Canada. 1996. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention Guide for the Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry in the Lower Fraser Basin. DOE FRAP 1996-18.

Environment Canada. 1997a. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention Guide for Dairy Processing Operations in the Lower Fraser Basin. DOE FRAP 1996-11.

Environment Canada. 1997b. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention Guide for Brewery and Wine Operations in the Lower Fraser Basin. DOE FRAP 97-20.

Envirowise, 2001. Reducing Water and Waste Costs in Fruit and Vegetable Processing. Envirowise, UK – Good Practice Guide GG280.

Envirowise, 2002. Water Minimisation in the Food and Drink Industry. Envirowise, UK – Good Practice Guide GG349.

ETBPB, 1998a. Reducing Water and Effluent Costs in Breweries. Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme, London. Good Practice Guide GG135.

ETBPB, 1998b. Water Use in the Soft Drinks Industry. Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme, London. EG126.

ETBPB, 1999a. Reducing Waste for Profit in the Dairy Industry. Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme, London. Good Practice Guide GG242.

ETBPB, 1999b. Reducing Water and Effluent Costs in Fish Processing. Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme, London. Good Practice Guide GG187.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-31 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

ETBPB, 2000. Reducing Water and Effluent Costs in Red Meat Abattoirs. Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme, London. Good Practice Guide GG234.

FAO, 1996. Wastewater Treatment in the Fishery Industry. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper – 335.

FAO, 1996. Management of Waste from Animal Product Processing. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

MOEE, 1994a. Guideline F-5: Levels of Treatment for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters. Ministry of Environment and Energy. April 1994.

MOEE, 1994b. Procedure F-5-1: Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters. Ministry of Environment and Energy. April 1994.

MOEE, 1994c. Water Management – Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. July 1994.

MOEE, 1995. Guide to Resource Conservation and Cost Savings Opportunities in the Dairy Processing Sector. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,

MLA, 2002. Eco-Efficiency Manual for Meat Processing. Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd.

Philips, R.J. 1997. Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations. Food Manufacturing Coalition.

Rausch, K.D and Powell G.M., 1997: Dairy Processing Methods to Reduce Water Use and Liquid Waste Load. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Kansas State University.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 5-32 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

UNEP (b). Fact Sheet 5 – Food Manufacturing Series. Working group for Cleaner Production in Food Industry.

UNEP (c). Fact Sheet 3 – Food Manufacturing Series. Working group for Cleaner Production in Food Industry.

USEPA, 1998a. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. EPA821-R-98-020, December 1998.

USEPA, 1998b. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Category. EPA 821-B-98-011, May 1998.

USEPA. 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Multimedia Environmental Compliance Guide for Food Processors, EPA 305-B-99-005, March 1999.

Section 5: Review of Best Management Practices Final Report

ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-1 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

SECTION 6.0 MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE ADOPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section reviews and identifies mechanisms to encourage Ontario's food processing facilities to adopt best management practices and to foster a culture of continuous improvement. The feasibility and impacts of the implementation associated with each mechanism are described. Many of the mechanisms identified are based on practical experience of the project team in delivering programs and providing services directly to Ontario food processing companies to improve their environmental performance through best practice improvements.

Barriers and challenges that typically limit or prevent adoption of best practice environmental improvements by companies are reviewed together with how they can be removed or minimized.

Recommendations are provided on the appropriate mechanisms that can effectively encourage adoption of best management practices by Ontario food processing facilities. These include the identification and role of key organizations currently providing support services to Ontario food processing facilities to improve their competitiveness and environmental performance. Opportunities for organizational partnerships and linkages that can be developed for a more coordinated delivery are outlined.

6.2 BARRIERS TO ADOPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

This section of the report provides a summary of the barriers and challenges typically faced by food companies in adopting best management practices. An understanding of these barriers is necessary in order to identify appropriate mechanisms to address them and to encourage and create a continuous improvement culture in food company operations.

Several studies have analyzed the barriers that limit or prevent companies from adopting best practices to improve their environmental performance (AAC, 2003; Industry Canada, 2004; NRCan and NRC/IRAP, 2002; NRC/IRAP, 2000). Barriers can be faced by any company regardless of size, but tend to be more common in small and medium sized (SME) companies.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) has developed working definitions to categorize food companies based on annual sales and number of employees. Small companies are defined as having annual sales of less than $10 million and between 10 and 50 employees. Medium-sized companies have annual sales between $10 and $200 million

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-2 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

and between 50 and 100 employees. Large food companies have annual sales of more than $200 million and more than 100 employees.

The level and extent of barriers facing food companies varies and depends on their size, location, sector, and organizational and management structure. For the purposes of this report, the goal was to identify a broad set of common challenges faced by Ontario food processors, and to make recommendations on mechanisms that can address them.

In simplest terms, lack of awareness, time, expertise, money, and access to an information and training support network, are common barriers faced by food companies. These are discussed in further detail below.

6.2.1 Lack of Awareness and Vision

Many food companies lack awareness on the tangible economic and environmental benefits that can be realized from best practice improvements. They do not generally view best practice environmental improvements as a strategic business opportunity that can increase profit margins and reduce liability and risk. Some companies perceive they are too small to realize economic benefits, and cost-saving opportunities are only available for larger companies. They also lack the vision of the compelling business case of best practices and how adoption of such practices can provide a competitive advantage.

6.2.2 Lack of Time and Human Resources

Food companies have limited time to consider best practice and operational efficiency improvements in their operations. Senior management focus is on short-term business survival or growth. Human resources are limited and plant engineering focus and priority is on production. Medium to longer-term focus such as best practice environmental improvements is a secondary priority, particularly if senior management lacks awareness on the economic benefit.

6.2.3 Lack of Technical Knowledge and Expertise

In some cases, food companies lack knowledge and know-how to identify and implement best practice improvements. In other cases, they may know where opportunities exist, but lack the technical expertise or engineering resources to conduct a more detailed evaluation to identify, prioritise and implement. The ideal technical mix is the knowledge of the food manufacturing process and the know-how required to identify and implement best management practices. This mix of expertise is generally available in larger food companies but typically is lacking in many SME food companies.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-3 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

6.2.4 Lack of Financial Resources

Many food companies have difficulty in accessing internal financing and capital to study and implement best practice projects. Capital is limited and is usually prioritised to production, facility expansion and marketing. There is also difficulty in achieving acceptable corporate ROI and payback criteria for best practice projects. Smaller food companies can struggle with cash flow issues and business survival, and can view investments in environmental best practices as a low priority discretionary cost.

For food companies that are well managed and have an appropriate level of cash flow that would allow for investment in best practice improvements, the senior financial decision- maker may be unaware or unwilling to prioritise capital for such projects. There is a gap between plant management and finance that limits support of investment to improve environmental performance.

6.2.5 Lack of Relevant Information and Support Network

Many food companies lack relevant information on the financial and operational benefits of implementing best practice improvements. They require practical food case study examples that quantify these benefits and how they can be applied to their specific operation.

Other food companies, especially the smaller ones, lack a mentoring and support network that can provide assistance in the form of counseling, training workshops and seminars. They generally do not have the time or financial resources to join and actively participate in industry and professional associations, or to attend conferences and tradeshows.

6.2.6 Summary

The main barriers discussed in this section were developed from studies, surveys of food companies conducted by project team members, and the project team's experience in delivering programs and providing services to encourage adoption of best practices by food companies in Ontario.

The barriers identified are common across different sectors of the food industry and a wide range of companies regardless of their size or ownership. There is some degree of overlap between the barriers, but there is consistency across multi-media environmental issues such as water, wastewater management, energy and pollution prevention.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-4 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

6.3 MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE ADOPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

This section of the report identifies and reviews appropriate mechanisms to address the barriers discussed in Section 6.2, and that encourage the adoption of best practice environmental improvements by Ontario food processing facilities.

The project team researched mechanisms currently being used in Ontario and other jurisdictions. A description of the mechanisms, examples of how they are being used to encourage adoption of best practices and an assessment of potential application to Ontario food processing facilities is provided below.

6.3.1 Site-Specific Facility Assessment Programs

There are several government program initiatives in Canada and the United States (US) designed to improve the environmental performance of food processing facilities through site-specific facility assessments and reviews. For government-sponsored programs in Ontario and other parts of Canada, financial incentives are provided to companies to share in the cost of conducting the assessment.

In general, these programs provide companies with technical assistance and expertise to identify best practice measures to improve environmental performance at the facility or plant level. They share common design elements and delivery mechanisms, as follows.

• An external contractor conducts an on-site facility assessment to identify opportunities for pollution prevention, environmental and energy best practice improvements. • The Program has a cost-sharing arrangement with the company, where matching funds are provided to pay for a portion of the assessment cost. • The contractor and company develop a customized scope of work, fixed-price budget and schedule. • The contractor provides the company with an action-oriented report with recommendations on best practice improvements including details on costs to implement, projected savings and payback periods. • Findings from the assessment are confidential. There is no requirement for companies to implement any of the contractor's recommendations. However, the premise is that the contractor will recommend improvements with business case justification, which compel the company to move forward with implementation. • Marketing of the program is driven by a proactive approach to educate companies on the benefits of best practice improvements. • There is Program funding allocated for a dedicated agent to market and manage the program. Dedicated program delivery provides companies with a one-point contact and ensures that the government sponsor's environmental objectives and priorities are achieved.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-5 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Further details on a select number of programs and their potential application to Ontario food processing facilities are described in the following sections.

Ontario

Ontario Food Processing Program

This initiative was a 20-month program that provided Ontario food companies with the tools and management support to adopt best practices in energy and water efficiency, and wastewater management. Funding for the project was provided from the Agricultural Adaptation Council's Agricultural Environmental Stewardship Initiative and OMAF.

Facility assessments were conducted in 36 Ontario food-processing facilities from nine sub-sectors. The total cost of the assessments typically ranged between $10,000 and $15,000. The Program provided funding support to the food company to pay for 50 percent of the cost, up to a maximum of $5,000. The program also involved delivery of group assessments in the meat processing and bakery sectors to address the needs of smaller food companies. Other aspects included preparation of nine company case studies, best practices on energy and water management, and energy monitoring and tracking seminars to sensitize and influence management culture in Ontario's food industry to view energy as a strategic tool to improve competitiveness.

The program demonstrated how a voluntary multi-stakeholder industry, government and association partnership, with dedicated project management by OCETA, could work to raise awareness and improve the environmental performance of Ontario food companies.

The Ontario food-processing program was based on the success and lessons learned from two previous Ontario pilot programs designed to improve the environmental performance of companies through best practice improvements. Combined, facility assessments have been conducted at more than 75 Ontario food-processing facilities to identify best practice improvements. On average, five opportunities for best practices were identified per facility from the assessments. Based on follow-up evaluation surveys, about 80 percent of companies indicated they were taking action and implementing best practice improvements identified from the facility assessments. This compares with implementation rates of 10 to 15 percent for previously operated programs in Ontario.

The program was viewed by OMAF as highly successful. It was effective in overcoming many of the barriers typically faced by food companies in adopting best practice environmental improvements.

This type of program model and approach could be replicated to assist food companies that are direct dischargers of wastewater with adopting best practice improvements. A program

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-6 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

of this nature could be delivered in partnership with OMAF, the Alliance of Ontario Food Processors (AOFP) and other food associations in Ontario.

Region of Waterloo Business Water Quality Program

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo is dependent on groundwater wells and the Grand River for their entire water supply. To protect these water resources, the Region developed the Business Water Quality Program to prevent industrial spills to groundwater, surface water and sewers.

Under this program, financial incentives are provided to companies to share the cost of a facility assessment to develop an inventory on the type and quantity of chemical and toxic substances that pose a threat to water resources and the environment; a review of operating procedures for managing substances to assess risk and potential for spills; and identification of opportunities for procedural and capital best practice improvements.

A unique feature of the Program is that financial incentives are provided to companies to implement best practice improvements identified from the facility assessment. These include incentives for employee training, development of formal spill prevention and pollution prevention plans, preparation of a facility specific Environmental Management System (EMS) in accordance with the ISO 14001 or other recognized standards, and installation of capital equipment. Implementation funding is only available for best practice opportunities identified from the facility assessment. This acts as a key driver for company participation in the program.

Toronto Region Sustainability Program

The Toronto Region Sustainability Program was initiated in 2000 by Environment Canada, Ontario Region to encourage the adoption and implementation of pollution prevention planning by SME companies in the Greater Toronto Area. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and City of Toronto are also providing funding support.

Under this program, participating companies have a pollution prevention assessment conducted by specialized and pre-qualified consulting firms. The program provides an incentive to share the assessment cost with the company. The objective is to identify best practice improvements to reduce the generation and release of emissions and toxic and hazardous substances to the municipal sanitary sewer, air and environment.

A key aspect of the program is preparation of best practice case studies that are used to demonstrate the linkage between pollution prevention best practices and profitability, and to promote the program to attract company participation.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-7 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Nova Scotia

The Eco-Efficiency Business Assistance Pilot Program provides support to SME companies in Nova Scotia to identify and adopt pollution prevention and best practice environmental improvements. The Eco-Efficiency Centre in Burnside, Nova Scotia delivers the program. Funding partners include the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Environment Canada, Atlantic Region and the National Research Council, Industrial Research Assistance Program.

This program is similar to the Ontario-based facility assessment programs, where incentives are provided to companies for cost sharing of a facility assessment conducted by external contractors. There is one notable difference that may have application for Ontario food processing facilities.

Staff from the Eco-Efficiency Centre are available to provide a no cost eco-efficiency and environmental walk-through review of a facility. A general set of protocols and sector- specific information such as best practices and checklists were developed to assist in the review process. Following the walk-through review, the Centre prepares a report for the company summarizing their findings, including a list of recommendations for environmental goals and target setting, opportunities for best practice improvements, and any regulatory or compliance issues that may be of concern. The company is also provided with a "Greening Your Business" Starter Kit.

A no cost facility review or walk-through assessment can be a useful mechanism to heighten awareness and identify best practice improvements. This service could be provided to Ontario food processing facilities, especially smaller companies who may not know where to start or how to identify best practice opportunities in their facilities.

British Columbia

The Science Council of British Columbia delivered an Eco-Efficiency Partnership Program to assist British Columbia SME companies in improving their environmental performance and economic competitiveness through best practice improvements. Funding organizations included several federal, provincial and regional government agencies. An initial pilot phase was operated from January 2001 to October 2001. Based on the results of the pilot, the program was extended to other industry sectors, including food processing.

The program was based on a cost-sharing arrangement with SME companies to hire a qualified consultant to identify pollution prevention and environmental best practice improvements. The process was divided into two phases. Phase 1 was an Opportunity Assessment where the consultant conducted a detailed review of the facility to identify best

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-8 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

practice improvement areas. Phase 2 was the Feasibility Assessment to examine the opportunities in more detail and to develop site-specific options for implementation. Canada-Wide Industrial Energy Efficiency Program

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) as part of its Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation operates an Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program to assist Canadian manufacturing plants in identifying best practice measures to improve energy efficiency performance and reduce costs. NRCan provides a financial incentive to companies toward the cost of customized plant energy assessments conducted by specialized contractors. Companies are eligible to receive funding support for up to 50 percent of the assessment cost, to a maximum of $5,000 per facility.

US Department of Energy

The Office of Industrial Technologies of the US Department of Energy (DOE) has been assisting SME manufacturing companies with improving their energy and environmental performance since 1976 through Industrial Assessment Centres (IACs). Located at 26 universities around the country, the IACs provide no-cost and confidential plant assessments to SME companies. Trained engineering graduate students under the supervision of professors conduct the assessments.

The assessment process is carried out in three steps. In Step 1, the university-based IAC team conducts a survey, followed by a one-to two-day in-plant audit of energy, waste and productivity. Step 2 is preparation of a confidential report detailing the IAC team's analysis and cost-saving recommendations, along with estimates of related costs, performance impact and payback periods. Step 3 involves follow-up by the IAC team with the SME company to determine which recommendations were implemented and to identify any barriers limiting implementation.

Application to Ontario Food Processing Facilities

Programs in Ontario that provide site-specific assessments of Ontario food processing facilities are a proven approach to motivate action and change company behavior to adopt best management practices. These programs have been able to overcome many of the barriers faced by food companies. A key factor for success is the recognition that each food facility is unique and companies seek customized solutions specific to their operations.

This approach can be replicated to assist Ontario food facilities that have direct discharges of wastewater with implementing best practice improvements. As part of an initial step, a no cost, walk-through review of food facilities can be undertaken to educate companies on wastewater discharge issues and opportunities for best practice improvements. The walk- through review would benefit smaller food companies that may not know where to start or

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-9 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

how to identify improvements. The combination of the no cost, walk-through review and detailed comprehensive assessment would be an effective mechanism to encourage adoption of best practices by food facilities that have direct discharges of wastewater.

6.3.2 Best Practice Training Workshops

Workshop training and information sessions can be an effective mechanism to raise awareness of environmental performance issues and to sensitize management on the benefits of best management practices provided they are appropriately designed and delivered. Some examples of effective workshops are described below.

Energy Management Workshops

The Office of Energy Efficiency of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) delivers energy management workshops referred to as "Dollars to Sense" to industrial companies in Ontario, including food processing facilities.

Three workshop modules have been developed. The first is the "Spot the Energy Savings Opportunities" module that provides companies with tips and best practices to implement low-cost and no-cost energy saving opportunities. The second module, "Energy Monitoring and Tracking", assists companies in collecting, monitoring and recording energy savings and losses. The final module, "Energy Master Plan", provides companies with the tools and know-how to design and execute an integrated energy management plan for their operations.

NRCan delivers these interactive energy management workshops across Canada and they are available to any company including Ontario food processing facilities. Companies are required to pay a moderate registration fee to attend the training workshops. NRCan also offers customized training workshops for specific sectors and for individual facilities to demonstrate how energy is used in the facilities and where there are opportunities for energy savings.

An extensive number of companies have participated in the NRCan training workshops. NRCan views the workshops as one support tool of a comprehensive package to assist industry with adopting energy best practices.

OMAF has collaborated with NRCan to design and deliver customized "Dollars to Sense" energy management workshops for the Ontario food industry sector.

CFO Food Industry Energy Workshops

OCETA and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), with funding support from the Climate Change Action Fund, designed an energy-training workshop targeted to

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-10 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

senior financial executives of Ontario food companies. The objective was to foster a culture of energy efficiency investment and to create a business environment at the CFO level, which is supportive and receptive to energy investments. Two workshops were delivered as part of this project.

OCETA is also collaborating with OMAF to deliver energy workshop training targeting Plant Managers. This would provide plant management with an understanding of energy efficiency opportunities and an approach to present the business case to senior management when requesting capital approval.

Application to Ontario Food Processing Facilities

Training workshops can be an effective tool to sensitize food companies on the benefits of best practice improvements. A customized company training approach can address many of the barriers identified in Section 6.2. For example, there is an opportunity for further collaboration between OMAF and NRCan to deliver "Dollars to Sense" energy workshops to a larger number of Ontario food processing facilities.

A series of workshops could also be designed and delivered to Ontario food facilities, including direct dischargers of wastewater to the environment. These can be delivered in collaboration with food industry associations such as the Alliance of Ontario Food Processors, the Ontario Food Processors Association, the Ontario Independent Meat Processors, Association of Chicken Processors and the Ontario Dairy Council.

6.3.3 Education and Outreach

This mechanism involves education and outreach to Ontario food processing facilities through dissemination of best practice information.

The Task 5 Report of this project identifies several water and wastewater management best practices that can be implemented by Ontario food companies. These include pollution prevention practices and wastewater treatment technologies.

OMAF has developed a series of "Efficiency Bulletins" to demonstrate the linkage between best practice improvements and improved competitiveness. Bulletin topics include process water and wastewater, compressed air systems, steam and condensate recovery and process cooling and refrigeration. The Efficiency Bulletins were based on a compendium of more than 250 Canadian and international food case study projects on best practice environmental improvements prepared by the project team.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has published several Resource Conservation and Cost Savings Opportunities Guides that identify best practice improvements. In the

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-11 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

food industry, the MOE has published one best practice guide for the entire food sector and individual guides for the meat and poultry sector and the dairy processing sector.

In the US, the Office of Industrial Technologies of the US Department of Energy offers a "Best Practices" program to SME companies. Best Practices resources include self-help tools for SME companies that prefer to conduct their own assessments. This includes a self-assessment workbook and methodology to assist SME companies with improving their environmental performance and implementing measures that are common to most operations.

Application to Ontario Food Processing Facilities

There is considerable information on best management practices that can be adopted by Ontario food processing facilities. Many best practices are no cost or low cost procedural improvements that can result in cost-savings and environmental improvements. There are several options to disseminate this information to encourage uptake by food companies. Previous efforts have shown that it is not effective to simply provide the information to companies through hard copy publications or the Internet and expect them to take action on their own. Best practice information needs to be disseminated through training workshops or other site-specific mechanisms.

6.3.4 Research and Technology Demonstrations

National Research Council, Industrial Research Assistance Program

The National Research Council (NRC) through its Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) provides non-repayable contributions to Ontario companies on a cost-shared basis for research and pre-competitive technology development projects. NRC/IRAP also delivers pre-commercialization assistance to companies through Industry Canada's Technology Partnerships Program. Under this program, IRAP provides financial assistance for projects at the pre-commercialization stage. Companies can receive repayable contributions to develop technology for new or significantly improved products, processes or services, and support for demonstration and pilot projects.

An example of an R&D project funded by NRC/IRAP in the Ontario food sector was for a snack food manufacturer. NRC/IRAP provided financial and technical support for a research and technology demonstration project to determine the economic and technical feasibility of a water reduction and wastewater treatment system. The specific objectives were to determine how to recycle the wash and rinse waters; to assess the feasibility of recovering starch from the wastewater for sale as an industrial ingredient; and to identify wastewater treatment options that could be integrated with the water recycling and starch recovery system.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-12 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

The research project included a successful pilot demonstration of a technology, which was shown to be more cost-effective than conventional technology. Based on the technology demonstration, the company installed the full system and benefited from significant cost- savings and improved environmental performance. From this success, the company installed the technology at its other facilities in Canada.

In Ontario, NRC/IRAP has a field staff of Industrial Technology Advisors (ITAs) with scientific, technical and business expertise. The ITAs coach clients through all stages of the innovation process, providing technical advice, referrals and other information services as needed. IRAP has extensive networks with more than 100 partner organizations and links to universities, technical and community colleges, the Canadian Technology Network, local sources of financing and technology transfer centers.

As part of its support services to the Ontario food sector, NRC/IRAP has placed two of their senior ITAs in offices located at the Guelph Food Technology Centre at the University of Guelph. The ITAs have considerable expertise in the food sector and provide research and business support to food companies, including collaborative research efforts with the Guelph Food Technology Centre.

Michigan State Technology Demonstration Program

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of Michigan State uses a two-tiered incentive approach to encourage P2 adoption including provision of technology demonstration grants and human resources through summer engineering student interns.

Matching grants are provided by DEQ to test and pilot P2 technologies. Part of this activity includes a workshop hosted and presented at each site to allow the facility to share results with industry peers or opinion leaders including the technology evaluation, effect on production, advantages and disadvantages as well as cost analysis. This approach attempts to motivate the attendees to pilot the same P2 technology at their own facility. As further incentive, financial support for implementation to interested facilities is available from the Small Business P2 Loan Program.

The P2 Internship Program provides a manufacturing company with interns to assist in installation of the technology and to evaluate its performance.

Accelerated Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Technologies (ADOP2T)

An interesting technology diffusion tool (form of technology demonstration) has been developed by the State of Illinois to assist companies with implementing pollution prevention projects. The tool or model is called the Accelerated Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Technologies (ADOP2T). Illinois State officials recognized that adoption of P2 technologies is an important aspect of assisting companies to prevent pollution. The

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-13 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

ADOP2T model program assists in identifying barriers to the adoption of P2 technologies by companies and how to overcome those barriers. The model demonstrates that the key to adoption of new P2 technologies rests with how-to and hands-on implementation assistance, in addition to the strong awareness component that already exists with most technology diffusion programs. The ADOP2T model recommends process assessments, feasibility studies, and technology demonstrations to provide businesses with the how-to information. In addition, the model illustrates the importance of involving sector opinion leaders in demonstration projects, promotion efforts, and mentoring of peers.

The ADOP2T model uses the following approach that has resulted in innovation adoption of P2 technologies at several companies located in the State of Illinois:

• Identify best practices; • Identify opinion leaders; • Recruit mentors; • Establish demonstration sites at opinion leader facilities; • Provide demonstration implementation assistance to companies; and • Conduct pilot trials for companies at their facilities.

The University of Minnesota has also adopted this approach with the Technical Assistance Program they deliver to businesses in Minnesota State.

Application to Ontario Food Processing Facilities

Technology development and transfer diffuses slowly across most industry sectors including food processing. Companies require technology education assistance to create technology awareness and to promote an understanding of technical principles. Pilot trials and demonstrations must be conducted at the facilities of potential food company adopters and technical and financial assistance must be available to support this activity. Demonstrations of this nature enable potential adopters to reduce the uncertainty issues with technology and economic feasibility, and to develop the know-how to implement the technology.

6.3.5 Environmental Management Systems

US EPA

The US EPA through their Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation launched a Sector Strategies Program in June 2003. The program was established to develop a better understanding and new ideas in environmental management on an industry sector basis. The program focuses on three priority areas: promoting environmental management

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-14 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

systems (EMS); overcoming regulatory or other barriers to environmental performance improvement; and performance measurement.

One partner sector is Agribusiness, including food processing. One of the first projects completed was a collaborative effort with the American Meat Institute and the American Association of Meat Processors to develop an EMS Implementation Guide for the Meat Processing Industry. A pilot test of the guide has been conducted with five meat- processing companies.

The Guide has been specifically designed to assist meat-processing facilities with a 10 module, step-by-step EMS implementation process. Workshop and training materials and tools such as sample procedures, templates and forms, are included in each module of the guide to facilitate implementation at a facility level.

EMS Training Workshops in Ontario

Industry based courses and training workshops are available to companies in Ontario interested in developing an Environmental Management System for their facility.

For example, the Automotive Parts' Manufacturers Association has hosted EMS and ISO 14001 training workshops for their members since 1998. These are two-day working sessions that provide company participants with training and knowledge on completing an EMS for their facility. Automotive parts suppliers are now being required by their customers to have an EMS in accordance with ISO 14001.

Another example is EMS industry training courses delivered by the Jacques Whitford Training Institute and the Sustainable Enterprise Academy at the Schulich School of Business, York University. This course provides participants with training on the objectives, principals and components of EMS; general requirements of ISO 14001; environmental management tools and techniques for planning, operating and maintaining an EMS; and the preparation and process for ISO 14001 EMS registration. There is a cost for participation in the course.

Application to Ontario Food Processing Facilities

There is a considerable cost and time commitment by a company to develop an EMS in accordance with ISO 14001 or other recognized standards. Uptake has been high in the automotive parts sector because this is now a requirement of doing business. Given the barriers faced by many food companies, considerable support would need to be provided to companies to assist them in implementing an EMS.

One option is to use the experience and EMS implementation guide developed by the American Meat Institute and the American Association of Meat Processors to conduct a

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-15 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

pilot EMS project for the meat sector in Ontario. The pilot could be developed in collaboration with the Ontario Independent Meat Processors and OMAF. Another option is to develop a specific approach that could realize the benefits of the key elements of an EMS, but does not involve the burden, expense and reporting requirements of full ISO 14001 registration.

6.3.6 Sector or Geographic Specific Initiatives

Enviroclub Program in Quebec

The Enviroclub is a program developed by the National Research Council, Environment Canada, Quebec Region and the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions to assist Quebec-based SME companies in improving their environmental performance.

An Enviroclub involves a group of some 15 companies from a given geographic region or industry sector. The program provides two main services. The first is an in-plant project conducted with the assistance of a specialized consultant. This could take the form of a technical pollution prevention project or a project related to the implementation of an environmental management system (EMS). Eligible pollution prevention projects include process optimization and improved use of resources, substitution or reduction in the use of toxic substances, on-site reuse or recycling of materials, and improvement of operating and maintenance practices. The program supports implementation of the key elements of an EMS allowing SME companies to better manage the environmental impacts of their operations.

The second service provided by the Enviroclub program are four days of interactive training workshops. The workshops allow SME companies to acquire new skills and abilities in pollution prevention and environmental management, and to establish, measure and communicate their environmental performance.

Companies pay a registration fee of $2,500 to participate in the Enviroclubs. This entitles the company to participate in the four workshop days and to receive 90 hours of technical support from a specialized consultant for the in-plant project. The company incurs implementation costs for in-plant pollution prevention projects.

The Enviroclub program development and activities are completed over a period of eight to 10 months. These include recruitment of SME companies to form a club, implementation of the in-plant projects and workshops, and compilation of results and assessment of the club.

Seven Enviroclubs have been implemented in certain regions of Quebec for the period from 1999 to 2003. Four clubs are underway in 2004. Environment Canada, Quebec

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-16 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Region has published partial results of the clubs including environmental and economic benefits.

Small Chemical Manufacturers P2 Initiative

Michigan has nearly 400 chemical plants and it is estimated that about 85 percent of these are considered small businesses with less than 100 employees. The Small Chemical Manufacturers P2 Initiative works with the chemical industry to encourage greater adoption of P2 practices by individual chemical companies. The initiative is based on a cooperative approach with representative chemical companies, the chemical industry's traditional technical assistance service and product providers, and other established programs to achieve the following objectives:

• Promote P2 technology transfer; • Build P2 awareness through education and outreach; • Encourage participation in established recognition and incentive programs; and • Foster greater cooperation among the sector's technical assistance providers.

As part of this program, the Michigan DEQ offered a limited time grant program in 2002 for technology demonstrations. Up to $50,000 in matching funding was available for the implementation of P2 technology within a Michigan-based chemical manufacturing operation. Evaluation criteria included a technology that would achieve measurable reductions in waste generation, enhance process efficiency, improve overall business profitability, be transferable, and serve as a showcase to be shared with other chemical businesses and industry sectors.

Application to Ontario Food Processing Facilities

An Enviroclub for Ontario food processing facilities could be developed to assist facilities in implementing best management practices in the areas of water and energy efficiency, wastewater management and air emissions. The Enviroclub offers the advantages of site- specific facility assessments combined with hands-on training.

Further discussions would be required with the Quebec Region of Environment Canada to determine the feasibility of transferring the Enviroclub model and applying it to the Ontario food industry sector.

6.3.7 Human Resource Assistance

ON-SITE

ON-SITE assists Canadian job seekers by placing them in professional positions in a range of disciplines. In Ontario, candidates must be receiving Canadian Employment Insurance

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-17 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Benefits (EI) or collected benefits in the last three years. Employers are usually seeking university or college graduates in environment, science, engineering, technology, commerce or administration. Successful candidates will be placed with Ontario employers for work-terms of 26 weeks in the areas of environmental management and ISO 14000, quality management and ISO 9000, occupational health and safety, export development, energy management or information technology.

The wages of ON-SITE employees are paid through Human Resources Development Canada and provincial labour market agreements. Employers are invoiced $2,600 per placement. This covers all the operating and maintenance costs of ON-SITE. The company is under no obligation to hire the person at the end of the ON-SITE placement.

ON-SITE is sponsored by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) and managed by Energy Pathways Inc.

Youth Internship Program For SME Companies

NRC/IRAP delivers this program on behalf of the Government of Canada's Youth Employment Strategy with funding support from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.

The program provides financial assistance to Canadian SME companies towards the employment of post-secondary graduates to work on innovative projects. In addition to meeting the human resource needs of SME companies, graduates gain valuable work experience for future employment.

Post-secondary graduates can provide assistance to SME companies in areas such as research and development, engineering, development of new products and processes, market analysis for a new technology-based product, and business development related to science and technology activities.

Internships are between six to twelve months. Maximum financial support provided is $12,000 to cover a portion of the graduate's salary. The company is responsible for paying for the balance of salary and other expenses such as benefits and overhead costs.

Application to Ontario Food Processing Facilities

The ON-SITE and Youth Internship programs can assist Ontario food processing facilities with a wide range of environmental best practice projects. For example, in the area of water quality and water conservation, qualified ON-SITE employees could provide the following services: set-up and manage testing and monitoring equipment for wastewaters; assess reuse possibilities for industrial wastewater; and implement water conservation programs.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-18 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

There are practical examples to demonstrate how Ontario food companies have effectively used the services of ON-SITE. A meat processing company used an ON-SITE employee to oversee the implementation of a wastewater treatment program. A brewery retained an ON-SITE employee to investigate options to use biogas recovered from water treatment. A fish processing company used an ON-SITE employee who was a mechanical engineer to carry out an energy audit and to develop tracking systems for electrical and natural gas consumption.

6.3.8 Other Mechanisms

State of Massachusetts Environmental Results Program

The Massachusetts Environmental Results Program (ERP) is an initiative designed to improve environmental performance of companies through a less burdensome, and more transparent regulatory system. Under this program, facility owners and operators are educated about their environmental impact and obligations, are required to certify compliance, and are tracked to monitor and evaluate environmental performance. The approach is similar to that used to determine environmental compliance in many industrial Environmental Management Systems (EMS).

The ERP is complemented by the State's random and targeted compliance inspections. ERP is not a voluntary or leadership program. For those industry sectors covered by the program, participation by companies is mandatory.

The first stage of ERP implementation was a 1996 Demonstration Project involving 18 SME businesses. The firms volunteered to participate and worked with the State to develop process-specific standards. The Demonstration also tested other ERP techniques, such as annual compliance certification, compliance assistance, and performance standards.

The State formally launched the ERP in 1997 in two industry sectors: dry cleaners and photo finishing processors. The printing sector was added in 1998. The ERP applies to more than 2,000 facilities in the state. The State is in the process of expanding the program to other categories: facilities discharging wastewater to sewers, and facilities installing new boilers.

The ERP uses three tools to enhance and measure environmental performance: • An annual self-certification of compliance by companies to increase self-evaluation and accountability; • Compliance assistance through outreach and workbooks; and • A performance measurement approach to track results, determine priorities and strategically target compliance inspections and assistance efforts.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-19 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Self-Certification Forms

A senior company official is required to annually self-certify the facility's compliance status and that the facility has measures and systems in place to maintain compliance with all applicable water, air and waste management performance standards. The ERP supports this self-certification by providing training, reporting assistance, and a checklist of regulatory requirements.

Compliance Assistance Workbooks

Companies are provided with workbooks and workshop training to identify and explain the facilities environmental obligations. The compliance assistance is linked to self- certification by requiring the facility operator to certify to compliance with all the requirements found in the workbook. The workbooks and workshops also include best practice measures that are "beyond compliance", and information about impact of a facility's operation on employee health and safety.

Environmental Business Practice Indicators (EBPI) The ERP has developed industry-specific performance measures to provide a snapshot of a facility's environmental performance. The EBPI include traditional compliance measures and measures that go beyond compliance. The number of EBPI's varies by sector: there are 18 EBPIs for printers, 16 for dry cleaners and eight for photo processors. The State conducts statistical analysis based on data from random inspections and review of self- certifications to evaluate the performance of individual facilities, sectors and the ERP as a whole.

Application to Ontario Food Processing Facilities

The Massachusetts ERP is a unique approach to improve industry's environmental performance. The project team understands that the Air Policy and Climate Change Branch of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has been in discussions with the State of Massachusetts on the ERP in terms of administration, how it has improved the environmental performance of SME companies, and possible application in Ontario.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-20 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

6.4 SUMMARY

This report has identified several mechanisms that would encourage Ontario's food processing facilities to adopt best management practices and to foster a culture of continuous improvement.

Some of the identified mechanisms are proven approaches that have been highly successful and effective in motivating food companies to implement best practice improvements. An example was the Ontario food processing program that provided site-specific and customized facility assessments.

Other mechanisms identified in this report such as adoption of EMS and technology demonstrations are promising but require further investigation and development.

Based on the practical experience of the project team in delivering programs and services to Ontario food processing facilities, when considering mechanisms to encourage adoption of best practices, a key success factor is to match the mechanism with an appropriate driver that will motivate companies to change their behavior and create a continuous improvement culture. The more customized and specific the mechanism, the more likely a food company will buy-into the process and adopt best practices.

Organizational Partnerships and Linkages

As described in this report, there are several key organizations that are involved in delivery of services to Ontario food processing facilities to improve their competitiveness and environmental performance. These include:

Efforts to encourage adoption of best practice environmental improvements by Ontario food processing facilities should be coordinated with these organizations to optimize delivery, reach and impact.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-21 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

6.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.0

Agricultural Adaptation Council (AAC). 2003. Energy Efficiency and Innovation in the Ontario Food Processing Industry. Final Report Prepared by the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement, August 2003.

Industry Canada. 2004. Involving Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) in Sustainability Management. Obstacles and Opportunities. Confidential and Unpublished Report prepared by Canadian Plastics Industry Association, March 2004.

Industry Canada and Environment Canada. 1998. Manufacturing Based Small to Medium Sized Enterprises and Climate Change. A Review of Status, Barriers and Opportunities. Final Draft Report Prepared by Peck & Associates, October 31, 1998.

Industry Canada and Environment Canada. Eco-Efficiency and SMEs: Developing an EcoFund Pilot Project. Final Report. Prepared by Peck & Associates, January 1998.

Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Ontario Division. Gaining the Competitive Edge: An Environmental Guidebook for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. 2004.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2004. Demonstrating the Linkage Between Energy Efficiency, Reduced GHG Emissions and Improved Profitability in the Ontario Food Processing Industry. Final Report Prepared by the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement, March 2004.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2002. Food Industry Case Study Projects in Utility and Environmental Efficiency. Prepared by the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement and ALTECH Environmental Consulting Ltd., March 2002.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Phase 3 Survey Findings: Energy Efficiency Programs for SMEs. 2003. Final Report Prepared by COMPAS Inc., May, 2003.

National Research Council, Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC/IRAP), Eco- Efficiency Innovation, Ontario Pilot Project, 2000. Final Report Prepared by the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement, July 2000.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and National Research Council, Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC/IRAP), Industrial Energy Innovators Audit Incentive Service, Ontario Pilot Project, 2002. Final Report Prepared by the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement, July 2002.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report ALTECH

A Review of Wastewater Management & Best Practices Page 6-22 For Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector

Personal Communication. Ms. Helga McDonald, Client Account Officer. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. February 3, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, “Multimedia Environmental Compliance Guide for Food Processors”, EPA 305-B- 99-005, March 1999.

Section 6: Mechanisms to Encourage Adoption of Best Management Practices Final Report