A Review of Wastewater Management and Best Practices For Dischargers in The Food Processing Sector

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 partys 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
henry.jun@ene.gov.on.ca
Final Report
ALTECH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1.0
INDUSTRY AND SECTOR OVERVIEW
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
OVERVIEW OF THE CANADIAN FOOD AND MANUFACTURING SECTOR....................... 1-1

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
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
DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS AFFECTING THE ONTARIO FOOD INDUSTRY.............. 1-9
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
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
CURRENT PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................... 1-20
1.7.1 Source Control ..................................................................................................................... 1-20
1.7.2 Treatment Technologies....................................................................................................... 1-20
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
1.8.11 Netherlands .......................................................................................................................... 1-43

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
1.9
SECTION 2.0
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONTARIO FOOD-PROCESSING DIRECT
DISCHARGERS DATABASE
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

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
APPENDIX 2A: ONTARIO MOE REGIONS AND DISTRICT OFFICES ................................ 2-10
APPENDIX 2B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS................................................................................... 2-11
SECTION 3.0
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS .................................................... 3-1

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 3-2
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
SELECTION OF SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PARAMETERS............................. 3-17
3.4.1 General Indicators ................................................................................................................ 3-18
3.4.2 Other Emerging Pollutants................................................................................................... 3-20
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
SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYTICAL METHODS.......................................................... 3-24
LIST OF ACCREDITED LABORATORIES ................................................................................ 3-24
Final Report
ALTECH
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
4.2
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

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
4.4.5 Wastewater Quantity Characteristics ................................................................................... 4-34
4.5 BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING ............................................................................................... 4-36
4.6 FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRESERVING AND SPECIALTY FOOD MANUFACTURING.. 4-43
4.7 GRAIN AND OILSEED MILLING............................................................................................... 4-49
4.8 BAKERIES AND TORTILLA MANUFACTURING................................................................... 4-52
4.9 OTHER FOOD MANUFACTURING ........................................................................................... 4-55
4.10 SUGAR AND CONFECTIONARY PRODUCT MANUFACTURING ....................................... 4-59
Final Report
ALTECH
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14

SEAFOOD PRODUCT PREPARATION AND PACKAGING .................................................... 4-62
ANIMAL FOOD MANUFACTURING......................................................................................... 4-65
SECTION SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 4-65
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.0............................................................................................... 4-71
SECTION 5.0
REVIEW OF WASTEWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR FOOD
PROCESSORS
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
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
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
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
SECTION 6.0
MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE ADOPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
6.1
6.2
6.3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 6-1

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
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
6.4
6.5
6.3.7 Human Resource Assistance ................................................................................................ 6-16

6.3.8 Other Mechanisms ............................................................................................................... 6-18
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... 6-20
Final Report
ALTECH
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADOP2T
AAC
AESI
AESA
AC
AF
AWR
BAT
BCT
BMP
BTM
BOD
BPT
CARD
CAEAL
COA
CC
CME
C of A
CIP
CWA
COD
CFU
DOE
DEQ
DFO
D&B
DAF
ELG
EI
EBPI
EMS
EPEA
EQA
ERP
FOG
FIER
GDP
IACs
IDS
Accelerated Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Technologies

Agricultural Adaptation Council
Agricultural Environmental Stewardship Initiative
Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture
Anaerobic contact
Anaerobic filter
Annual Wastewater Reporting
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
Best Management Practices
Best Technical Means
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development
Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories
Canada Ontario Agreement
Capital Cost
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
Certificate of Approval
Cleaning-in-place
Clean Water Act
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Colony Forming Units
Department of Energy
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Dunn & Bradstreet
Dissolved air flotation
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
Employment Insurance Benefits
Environmental Business Practice Indicators
Environmental Management System
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act
Environment Quality Act
Environmental Results Program
Fats, Oils and Grease
Food Industry Energy Research
Gross Domestic Product
Industrial Assessment Centres
Integrated Divisional System
Final Report
ALTECH
LIST OF ACRONYMS
IETP
ITAs
LMDL
LSB
LWK
MRL
MPP
MDL
MNR
MISA
NEPP
NPRI
NPDES
NRCan
NSWCP
NSPS
NAICS
OPEI
OMAF
OSTAR
OWRA
OMC
PTTW
POC
P2
PAH
PCB
PCDF
PCDD
PIER
RWQCBs
RMDL
RBCs
SBRs
SME
SCC
SIC
SWRCB
TDS
TKN
TP
Integrated Environmental Target Plan

Industrial Technology Advisors
Laboratory Method Detection Limit
Laboratory Services Branch
Live weight killed
Maximum Residue Limits
Meat and Poultry Products
Method Detection Limits
Ministry of Natural Resources
Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement
National Environmental Policy Plan
National Pollutant Release Inventory
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Natural Resources Canada
National Soil and Water Conservation Program
New Source Performance Standards
North American Industry Classification System
Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Ontario Small Town and Rural
Ontario Water Resources Act
Operating and maintenance cost
Permit to Take Water
Pollutants of Concern
Pollution Prevention
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated-dibenzofurans
Polychlorinated-dibenzo-p-dioxins
Public Interest Energy Research Program
Regional Water Quality Control Boards
Regulation Method Detection Limits
Rotating Biological Contactors
Sequencing Batch Reactors
Small and Medium Sized
Standards Council of Canada
Standard Industrial Classification
State Water Resources Control Board
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Final Report
ALTECH
LIST OF ACRONYMS
TLCP
TRI
TSM
TSS
THMs
UASB
US
USEPA
USGS
VS
WQMAs
WUE
WWT
WPDES
Toxicity Leaching Characteristic Procedure

Toxic Release Inventory
Total Suspended Matter
Total Suspended Solids
Trihalomethanes
Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
United States
United States Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Volatile Solids
Water Quality Management Areas
Water Use Efficiency
Wastewater Treatment
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Final Report
ALTECH
Page ES- 1
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
Page ES- 2
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 nonconventional 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 Canadas 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
Page ES- 3
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
Page ES- 4
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
Page ES- 5
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
Page ES- 6
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
Page ES- 7
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 facilityspecific 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
Page ES- 8
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 foodprocessing 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.
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 be needed to collect this information.
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
Page ES- 9
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
Page ES- 10
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
Page ES- 11
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
Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG)
Fecal Coliform
pH
Temperature
Total Ammonia (TNH3)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Total Residual Chlorine
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Un-ionized Ammonia
Non-Conventional
Acute Lethality
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Titanium
Trihalomethanes
Zinc
Meat and poultry processing.

Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat, poultry and dairy processors).
Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat, poultry & dairy processors).
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 sectors wastewater. Selective
characterization of wastewater discharges and solid wastes for the emerging pollutants at
Executive Summary
Final Report
ALTECH
Page ES- 12
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
Pollutant
General
Nitrate and Nitrite
pH
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
Volatile Solids (VS)
Pathogens
E.coli
Fecal Coliform
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Remarks
Meat and poultry products processing.

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
Page ES- 13
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 teams
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
Page ES- 14
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
Page ES- 15
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

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.,
Executive Summary
Final Report
ALTECH
Page ES- 16
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
Page ES- 17
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
Page ES- 18
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

Recycling/Reuse Opportunities to
Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Equipment and Process Redesign Actions
Executive Summary
Final Report
ALTECH
Page ES- 19
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
from water to be treated
TERTIARY
TREATMENT
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
PRIMARY
TREATMENT
PRELIMINARY TECHNIQUES
Figure ES-2: Classification of Wastewater Treatment Processes
Executive Summary
Removal of Solids
Technologies included are:
Screening
Flow equalization
Gravity separation
Chemical precipitation
Removal of Organic Material

Biological treatment
Lagoons
Removal of Specific Contaminants

Nutrient removal
Filtration
Disinfection
Final Report
ALTECH
Page ES- 20
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
Page ES- 21
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 teams 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 buyinto 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:

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
Executive Summary
Final Report
ALTECH
Page I - 1
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.
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 Canadas 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. The study described in this report addresses practices that
may be adopted by this latter group of direct discharger facilities.
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:
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.
Introduction
Final Report
ALTECH
Page I - 2
Summarize the characteristics of wastewater discharges from the various subsectors 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
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.
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
Page I - 3

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.
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
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
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.
Introduction
Final Report
ALTECH
For Direct Dischargers in the Food Processing Sector
Page 1-1
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Ontarios 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 Canadas food and beverage shipments.
Ontarios 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
Page 1-2
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 1.1: Number of Establishments ** in Canada by Industry Groups in the Food and
Beverage Manufacturing Sector - (NAICS 311 and 3121)
NAICS
Code
Industry Group
Number of Food
Establishments
1992
3111
Animal Food Manufacturing
3112
Grain and Oilseed Milling
3113
2001
CAGR*
%
1992- Change
2001
20002001
480
562
1.8%
1.4%
94
177
7.3%
5.4%
Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing
106
189
6.6%
3.3%
3114
Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food

Manufacturing
217
372
6.2%
-1.3%
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%
3,291
6,035
33,129
54,031
5.6%
1.2%
Total
31-33
All Manufacturing
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-3
_________________________________________________________________________
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**
Ontario (Food)
Ontario
(Beverage)
Total
1-4
5-9
10 - 19
20 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 199
200 - 499
500+
1,115
718
372
293
303
184
114
65
24
182
169
24
17
16
17
1297
887
396
310
319
201
123
71
29
Grand Total
3633
** No employees or an unknown number of employees
1.2.2
Industry Employment
Ontarios 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.
Ontarios 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, Ontarios food industry generated total annual sales of about $40 billion; $32
billion in domestic sales and $8 billion in export sales (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Since
1970, Ontarios food exports have doubled every five years.
Ontarios food products compete for North American and global market share. A
breakdown of export sales by food product is shown in Figure1.2.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-4
_________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1.1: Ontario Food Industry Domestic Sales by Sector
Total Value of Food Shipments ($Billion)
$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
$1.0
$0.0
Beverage &
Tobacco
Sugar &
Dairy Products
Confectionery
Other*
Fruit &
Vegetable
Meat Products
Grain &
Oilseed Milling
Bakeries &
Tortilla
Animal Food
*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
$2.0
Total Value of Food Exports ($Billion)
$1.8
$1.8
Total Value of 2002 Export Sales: $ 8.35 Billion

$1.6
$1.4
$1.4
$1.2
$1.1
$1.0
$1.0
$0.8
$0.8
$0.7
$0.6
$0.6
$0.5
$0.4
$0.3
$0.2
$0.2
$0.0
Grain & Oilseed
Products
Other*
Beverage & Tobacco
Meat Products
Vegetables
*Other includes: fish and products, floriculture, and live animals.
Food Ingredients
Sugar &
Confectionary
Animal Feeds & ByProducts
Coffee & Tea
Dairy Products &

Eggs
Source: Statistics Canada, OMAF
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-5
_________________________________________________________________________
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:
1.3
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).
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
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-6
_________________________________________________________________________
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
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 twothirds 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 dairyprocessing sector, handling more than a third of the milk processed.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-7
_________________________________________________________________________
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
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 cocoabased 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 Canadas confectionary industry resides
in Ontario, where the major multinational manufacturers have plants and headquarters.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-8
_________________________________________________________________________
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
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-9
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-10
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-11
_________________________________________________________________________
1.5
FOOD PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
Despite the diverse nature of the food industrys 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 largescale 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-12
_________________________________________________________________________
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

(BOD5)
Reduces dissolved oxygen levels in receiving waters

contributing to increased mortality of fish and aquatic
organisms.
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-13
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 1.3: Conventional Pollutants in Food Processing Wastewater
Contaminant
Potential Environmental Impact
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.
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 poultryprocessing, 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-14
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-15
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 1.4: Chemicals Discharged to Surface Waters by Canadian Food

Processors
Chemicals
Ammonia
Chlorine
Chlorine Dioxide
Copper
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
n-Hexane
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrogen Sulphide
Isopropyl Alcohol
Manganese
Nickel
NAICS
311119
311221
311310
311410
311511
311515
311611
311614
311615
311814
311821
311940
311990
312120
312140
311119
311211
311410
311614
311119
311119
311310
311119
311224
311990
311221
311310
311515
311611
311615
311990
312110
311224
311611
311310
311410
311119
311224
311990
Sub-Sector
Other Animal Food Mfg.
Wet Corn Milling
Sugar Mfg.
Frozen Food Mfg.
Fluid Milk Mfg.
Dairy Product
Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering
Rendering & Meat Processing
Poultry Processing
Commercial Bakeries & Frozen Products Cookie &
Cracker Mfg.
Seasoning & Dressing Mfg.
All Other Food Mfg.
Breweries
Distilleries
Flour Milling
Frozen Food Mfg.
Other Animal Food Mfg
Sugar Mfg.
Oilseed Processing
All Other Food Mfg.
Wet Corn Milling
Sugar Mfg.
Dairy Product (except Frozen & Fluid) Mfg.
Poultry Processing
All Other Food Mfg.
Soft Drink & Ice Mfg.
Oilseed Processing
Sugar Mfg.
Frozen Food Mfg.
Oilseed Processing
All Other Food Mfg.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-16
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 1.4: Chemicals Discharged to Surface Waters by Canadian Food
Processors
Chemicals
Nitrate
Nitric Acid
Peracetic Acid
Sulphuric Acid
Zinc
NAICS
311310
311410
311511
311515
311919
311940
311990
311511
311515
311520
311919
311940
312120
311515
311119
311221
311224
311310
311410
311511
311515
311611
311614
311919
311940
311990
312120
312140
311119
Sub-Sector
Sugar Mfg.
Frozen Food Mfg.
Fluid Milk Mfg.
Other Snack Food Mfg.
All Other Food Mfg.
Fluid Milk Mfg.
Ice Cream & Frozen Dessert Mfg.
Breweries
Wet Corn Milling
Oilseed Processing
Sugar Mfg.
Frozen Food Mfg.
Fluid Milk Mfg.
All Other Food Mfg.
Breweries
Distilleries
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-17
_________________________________________________________________________
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, CFC114, 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
solvents
n-Butyl alcohol, dichloromethane, n-hexane, phosphoric acid,

cyclohexane, tert-butyl alcohol
Cleaners or
disinfectants
Chlorine, chlorine dioxide, formaldehyde, nitric acid, phosphoric acid,

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
Herbicides
Various pesticides (e.g., aldrin, captan, 2,4-D, hydrazine, lindane, maneb,

parathion, zineb, malathion, atrazine, diazinon bromine, naphthalene)
Source: USEPA 1998.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-18
_________________________________________________________________________
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
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
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
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
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-19
_________________________________________________________________________
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
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-20
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-21
_________________________________________________________________________
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
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. Chemicals (e.g., polymers and flocculants) are often added upstream to improve
DAF performance. DAF provides greater removal of very small or light particles in a
shorter period of time compared with gravity separation.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-22
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-23
_________________________________________________________________________
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 semicontinuous). 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-24
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-25
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-26
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-27
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-28
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 1.6: Summary of Acts and Legislation Governing Environmental Protection

and Wastewater Management in Select Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Legislation /Act
Canada
Canada Water Act
Prohibits the deposit of waste

into any waters, which are part
of a water quality management
area.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C11/index.html
Canada
Fisheries Act
Prohibits the deposit into fishbearing waters any substance

that may be deleterious to fish.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F14/
Canada
Meat and Poultry

Products Plant
Liquid Effluent
Regulations
Outlines deleterious
substances prescribed in the
Fisheries Act specific to the
Meat and Poultry Products
sector and provides limits on
discharges.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F14/C.R.C.-c.818/index.html
Canada
Potato Processing
Plant Liquid
Effluent
Regulations
Outlines deleterious
substances prescribed in the
Fisheries Act specific to the
Potato Processing sector and
provides limits on discharges.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F14/C.R.C.-c.829/index.html
Alberta
Environmental
Protection
Enhancement Act
Activities Designation
Regulation (276/2003) where
the Act defines which
industrial activities and food
processing facilities require
approval to discharge
wastewater.
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/pro
tenf/approvals/factsheets/enhan
act.html
British
Columbia
Environmental
Management Act
(EMA)
Prohibits the introduction of

waste into the environment
without a valid permit or
approval.
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epdi
v/env_mgt_act/
British
Columbia
Waste Discharge
Regulation
Applies to certain industries

including Food Processing
Sector. Details how the EMA
approves discharges into the
environment.
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epdi
v/env_mgt_act/waste_dis_reg.h
tml
Manitoba
The Environment
Act
Prohibits development that

results in the discharge of
pollutants unless a permit is
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/reg
s/index.php
Comment
Website
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-29
_________________________________________________________________________
Jurisdiction
Legislation /Act
Comment
Website
pollutants unless a permit is

granted.
Manitoba
Disposal of Whey
Regulation
Regulates the approval and

discharge of whey into the
environment.
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/reg
s/index.php
New Brunswick
Clean Water Act

contaminants to the
environment unless
permission is given under an
Act of the Legislature.
http://www.gnb.ca/acts/acts/c06-1.htm
Newfoundland
Environmental
Protection Act
http://www.gov.nf.ca/hoa/statut
es/e14-2.htm#7_
Nova Scotia
Environment Act
Ontario
Ontario Water
Resources Act
Forbids the release of any

substance into the
environment that may cause
an adverse effect unless
authorized by the Act or an
approval issued under the Act.
Prohibits the release of any
substance to the environment
that may cause a significant
adverse effect without a
permit.
Prohibits the discharge of any
materials that may impair the
quality of the water unless a
certificate of approval is
granted.
Protects against adverse
impacts on the environment
Environmental
Protection Act
P.E.I.
Environmental
Protection Act
Quebec
Environment
Quality Act
Saskatchewan
The Environmental
and Management
Protection Act
Forbids the discharge of any

contaminant to the
environment without written
permission of the Minister.
Division V is devoted
exclusively for water quality
and wastewater management.
Discharges from food
processing operations are
handled on a case-by-case
basis.
waste into the environment
without a valid permit or
approval.
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/legc/
statutes/environ3.htm
http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statut
es/English/90o40_e.htm
http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statut
es/English/90e19_e.htm
http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statu
tes/pdf/e-09.pdf
http://www.publicationsduqueb
ec.gouv.qc.ca/accueil.en.html
http://www.se.gov.sk.ca/enviro
nment/protection/general/gener
al.asp
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-30
_________________________________________________________________________
Jurisdiction
Legislation /Act
United States
Clean Water Act

(CWA)
Renders the discharge of any

pollutant illegal unless a
permit or license has been
granted.
http://www.epa.gov/region5/wa
ter/cwa.htm
United States
National Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES)
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
California
California Water
Code
Michigan
Natural Resources
and Environmental
Protection Act
Authorized by the CWA to

regulate point sources that
discharge directly into waters.
Uses Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and Standards to
set acceptable levels for
different industries.
Requires anyone who
discharges waste that could
affect the quality of the waters
to file a report of discharge
with the appropriate regional
board.
Prohibits the discharge of
waste or waste effluent unless
permission is granted by a
valid permit.
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Act
Prohibits the discharge of any

contaminants into the
environment so as to cause
water pollution in Illinois
without a valid NPDES
permit.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation
/ilcs/ilcs.asp
Comment
Website
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water
_laws/
http://www.michiganlegislature
.org/
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-31
_________________________________________________________________________
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 Ontarios 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-32
_________________________________________________________________________
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 Ministrys Guideline F-5 defines the normal
level of treatment for wastewater discharges to surface water as secondary, or equivalent.
The Ministrys 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 facilitys operation and the receiving water indicates that there is a water quality
concern. The assessment and requirements are based on the ministrys 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-33
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-34
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-35
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-36
_________________________________________________________________________
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 caseby-case basis.
Government of Quebec Water Policy
The Qubec Water Policy was released in November 2002. For the first time in its history,
the Qubec 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-37
_________________________________________________________________________
protect public health and ecosystems. The policy introduces measures and government
commitments to:
1.8.6
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.
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 twopart "cost reasonableness" test, which compares the cost for an industry to reduce its
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-38
_________________________________________________________________________
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 EPAs 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-39
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 1.7: USEPA Technology Based Effluent Limits for the Food Industry
Industry Sub-Sector
SIC
Dairy Products
Manufacturing
203
Grain Mill Products
204
Canned, Frozen, &

Preserved Fruits &
Vegetables
203
Canned and Preserved

Seafood
Sugar Processing
206
Meat and Poultry

Processing
201
NAICS
Regulation
Regulated Pollutants
3115
40 CFR 405
BOD, pH, TSS
3112
40 CFR 406
BOD, pH, TSS
3114
40 CFR 407
BOD, pH, TSS
3117
40 CFR 408
TSS, Oil & Grease, pH
3113
40 CFR 409
3116
40 CFR 432
BOD, pH, Temp, TSS, Fecal

Coliform
BOD, pH, Oil& Grease,
TSS, Fecal Coliform, Total
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-40
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-41
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-42
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-43
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-44
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-45
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-46
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-47
_________________________________________________________________________
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

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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-48
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-49
_________________________________________________________________________
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 nongovernment 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
Ministre de l'Agriculture, des Pcheries 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-50
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
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 costshared basis for eligible projects to a maximum of $20,000 per project.
The funding program specifically aims to reduce environmental impacts of food processing
on the environment and build industry environmental stewardship and consumer
confidence through awareness, extension and education programs. Areas of focus include:
Resource Conservation (water and energy), Packaging and Waste Reduction and
Environmental Management (developing and implementing systems, standard certification,
and regulation compliance).
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$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 foodprocessing 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-51
_________________________________________________________________________
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 Californias 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 states 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-52
_________________________________________________________________________
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).
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.
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 companys impact on the
environment. As part of the agreement, flexibility in regulations will be afforded to
companies who meet these criteria.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-53
_________________________________________________________________________
For more information: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/ecpp/index.htm
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-54
_________________________________________________________________________
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-Srensen, 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.
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 EngineeringTreatment, Disposal, and Reuse.
3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, New York. (DCN 00213)
OMAF. 2003. Ontarios 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 1-55
_________________________________________________________________________
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), EPA821-B-01-007, January 2002.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 2-1
SECTION 2.0
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONTARIO FOOD-PROCESSING DIRECT
DISCHARGERS DATABASE
2.1
INTRODUCTION
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. The objectives of this part of the project were:
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
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. 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 foodprocessing 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
2.2.2
Page 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).
Final Report
ALTECH
2.2.4
Page 2-3
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
2.3
Page 2-4
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
Data
EAA Branch
IDS List
EAA Branch
Pre-IDS List
Preliminary List of
Direct Discharge
Facilities
Secondary
Data
Sources
MOE Provided
Facility Cs of A
MOE Provided
Facility Monitoring
Reports
MOE PTTW
Database
Personal
Knowledge of
Project Team
D&B
Manufacturing
Database
NPRI
PTTW Database
on EBR
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 2-5
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
2.3.2
Page 2-6
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 foodprocessing 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 foodprocessing 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 2-7
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:
2.3.4
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.
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 2-8
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
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 Tables 2.1 and 2.2
below. A map of Ontario showing MOE Regions and District Offices is provided in
Appendix 2A.
Table 2.1: Food Processing Direct Wastewater Discharge Facilities by MOE Region
MOE Region
Southwestern Ontario
West Central Ontario
Eastern Ontario
Central Ontario
Northern Ontario
Total
Number of Direct
31
18
8
6
2
65
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 2-9
Table 2.2: Direct Wastewater Discharge Facilities by Food Industry Sector

Food Industry Sector
Beverage Processing
Dairy Processing
Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Meat Processing
Poultry Processing
Sugar and Confectionary Products
Other Food Products
Other Miscellaneous
Total
Number of Direct
7
8
13
5
10
10
3
7
2
65
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Beverage processing includes beer, soft drink and wine manufacturing.

Dairy processing includes cheese, creamery butter and fluid milk manufacturing.
Fruit and vegetable processing includes frozen food and canning manufacturing.
Grain and oilseed milling includes flour milling, flour mixes and dough manufacturing.
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.
Poultry processing includes the processing of carcasses into poultry products.
Sugar and confectionary products includes sugar refining, candy and chocolate manufacturing,
and wet corn milling.
Other food products include mushroom production, cookie and cracker manufacturing, coffee
and tea manufacturing, and fresh/frozen seafood processing.
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
2.4
Page 2-10
APPENDIX 2A: ONTARIO MOE REGIONS AND DISTRICT OFFICES
Final Report
ALTECH
2.5
Page 2-11
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-1
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Page 3-2
_________________________________________________________________________
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);
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-3
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-4
_________________________________________________________________________
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 foodindustry 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-5
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 3-1: Pollutants Considered for Characterization and their Relationship to
Regulatory Programs
Pollutant
Aeromonas
Chloride
Cryptosporidium
E.coli
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Streptococcus
Nitrate/nitrite
pH
Salmonella
Temperature
Total Coliform
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Orthophosphate
Un-ionized Ammonia
Non-Conventional (Metals)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
COA
Tier I1
COA
Tier II1
EPA
MPP
(POC)2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EPA
MPP
(Rule)3
NPRI
Surface
Waters4
Other
Data
X
X
5,6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5, 6
X
X
Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem

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 Canadas 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 sugarprocessing 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).
2
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-6
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 3-1: Pollutants Considered for Characterization and their Relationship to
Regulatory Programs
Pollutant
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
Non-Conventional (Other)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
4,4-methylenebis (2-chloraniline)
Acute Lethality
Dinitropyrene
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Octachlorostyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Pesticides
Veterinary Drugs
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Polychlorinated-dibenzofurans
(PCDF)
Polychlorinated-dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDD)
Tributyl tin
Trihalomethanes
COA
Tier I1
COA
Tier II1
EPA
MPP
(POC)2
X
X
EPA
MPP
(Rule)3
NPRI
Surface
Waters4
X
Other
Data
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
8
X
X
X
X
X9
X
X
X
X
X
10
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-7
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-8
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-9
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-10
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-11
_________________________________________________________________________
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 96hour 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 facilitys 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 poultryprocessing and fruit- and vegetable processing facilities. Pesticides include: fungicides,
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-12
_________________________________________________________________________
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 Canadas Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. MRLs 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 Ministrys 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-13
_________________________________________________________________________
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 Ontarios 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 OMAFs 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-14
_________________________________________________________________________
(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:
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-15
_________________________________________________________________________
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 THMs 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-16
_________________________________________________________________________
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 32. 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 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 sitespecific 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).
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-17
_________________________________________________________________________
Table 3-2: Proposed Wastewater Characterization Parameters for Direct
Remarks
E.coli
Fecal Coliform
pH
Temperature
Un-ionized Ammonia
Non-Conventional
Acute Lethality
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Titanium
Trihalomethanes
Zinc
3.4

Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat, poultry and dairy processors).
Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat & poultry processors).
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-18
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-19
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Pollutant
General
Nitrate and Nitrite
pH
Pathogens
E.coli
Fecal Coliform
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Remarks

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) 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-20
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
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 g/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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-21
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-22
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-23
_________________________________________________________________________
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)
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-24
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-25
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-26
_________________________________________________________________________
3.9
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, Queens 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, Queens Printer for Ontario, March 1996.
MOEE. 1994. Water Management Policies, Guidelines, and Provincial Water Quality
Objectives, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Queens 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
Ontarios 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-27
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 3-28
_________________________________________________________________________
3.10
APPENDIX 3A - TABLES
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,
R.S. 1985, c. F-14
Parameters Specified in Code of Federal Regulation
Parameters Specified Under
No Pollutants
No Discharge
Liquid Effluent Regulations
Discharge > 1.27 cm New Effluent Guidelines
Fecal
Oil &
to Navigable
Temperature
BOD5 TSS pH
for Meat and Poultry
(0.5 inch) in Any
Coliform
Grease
Meat and Poultry Potato Processing
Waters.
Products (MPP)
Dimension.
Products
Plant
Part 405Dairy 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 406Grain 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 407Canned 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
Page 2 of 3
R.S. 1985, c. F-14
No Pollutants
No Discharge
Fecal
Oil &
to Navigable
Temperature
BOD5 TSS pH
(0.5 inch) in Any
Coliform
Grease
Waters.
Products (MPP)
Dimension.
Products
Plant
Part 408Canned 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
% %
%
Page 3 of 3
R.S. 1985, c. F-14
No Pollutants
No Discharge
Fecal
Oil &
to Navigable
Temperature
BOD5 TSS pH
(0.5 inch) in Any
Coliform
Grease
Waters.
Products (MPP)
Dimension.
Products
Plant
Part 409Sugar Processing Point Source Category
Subpart A-Beet Sugar Processing Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Subpart B-Crystalline Cane Sugar Refining Subcategory
%
% %
Subpart C-Liquid Cane Sugar Refining Subcategory
%
% %
Subpart D-Louisiana Raw Cane Sugar Processing Subcategory
%
% %
Subpart E-Florida and Texas Raw Cane Sugar Processing Subcategory
%
Subpart F-Hilo-Hamakua Coast of the Island of Hawaii Raw Cane Sugar Processing Subcategory %
% %
Subpart G-Hawaiian Raw Cane Sugar Processing Subcategory
%
Subpart H-Puerto Rican Raw Cane Sugar Processing Subcategory
%
% %
Part 432Meat Products Point Source Category
Subpart A-Simple Slaughterhouse Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Subpart B-Complex Slaughterhouse Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Subpart C-Low-Processing Packinghouse Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
BOD5, TSS,
Subpart D-High-Processing Packinghouse Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Fecal Coliform,
BOD5, TSS,
Subpart E-Small Processor Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Oil & Grease, COD,
Oil & Grease and
Ammonia Nitrogen,
Subpart F-Meat Cutter Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen and
Subpart G-Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Total Phosphorous
Subpart H-Ham Processor Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Subpart I-Canned Meats Processor Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
Subpart J-Renderer Subcategory
%
% %
%
%
List of Parameters to be Analysed for Wastewater
Page 1 of 1
Table A.2: List of Parameters to be Analysed for Wastewater
Contaminants
Reference
Method
RMDL (B)
Recommended
Typical LMDL (A)
(For Lab)
(Regulatory) Sample Volume
(ml)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Brief Description
Sample
Container
Holding Time
(For Preserved
Samples)
Preservatives
Typical
Analysis Cost
($)
0.5
500
500 ml HDPE
4 /C, Protect From Light
4 days
25
Colourimetry
10
100
125 ml HDPE H2SO4 pH between 1.5 and 2
30 days
20
MOE-E3401
Hexane Extraction
2 * 1000
1000 ml Amber Glass
Hcl < pH 2
28 days
30
MOE-E3188
Gravimetric
500
500 ml HDPE
4 /C
7 days
12
Total Ammonia
MOE-E3366
Colourimetry
0.02
0.25
100
10 days
20
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
MOE-E3368
Colourimetry
0.02
0.25
100
10 days
25
Calculations Based on pH, NH3 & Temperature
NA
NA
NA
100
10 days
20
MOE-E3368
Colourimetry
0.002
0.1
75
30 days
25
EPA-170.1
Thermometric
MOE-E3218
Potentiometry
NA
NA
50
125 ml HDPE
4 /C
4 days
Membrane Filtration
1 CFU/100 ml
ND
200
Sterile Bottle
Sodium Thiosulplhate
48 hrs
EPA-MF
Membrane Filtration
1 CFU/100 ml
ND
200
Sterile Bottle
48 hrs
MOE-E3371
Membrane Filtration
1 CFU/100 ml 1 CFU/100 ml
250 Sterile, Glass or Polythelene Terephthalate
36 hrs
20
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
2L
Polyethylene With Plastic Liner
1-8/C, Protect From Light
24 hrs
275
MOE-E3094
ICP-AES
(F)
0.005
0.002
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
ICP-AES
(F)
0.005
0.001
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
ICP-AES
(F)
0.005
0.01
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
ICP-AES
(F)
0.005
0.01
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
(F)
0.050
0.02
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
50
30 days (Part of Complete Scan)
MOE-E3182 By Dissolved Oxygen Meter
Chemical Oxygen Demand
MOE-E3246
Oil & Grease
Un-ionized Ammonia
Total Phosphorus
Temperature
pH
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
E.Coli
Non-Acutely Lethal Effluent
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
MOE-E3371
MOE-E3094
MOE-E3094
Copper
MOE-E3094
Field Test
NA
Lead
MOE-E3094
ICP-AES
Molybdenum
MOE-E3094
ICP-AES (F)
0.020
0.01
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
MOE-E3094
ICP-AES
(F)
0.020
0.02
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
ICP-AES
(H)
0.005
0.01
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
ICP-AES
(F)
(G)
(G)
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
Nickel
Zinc
MOE-E3094
8
25
Other Metals
MOE-E3094
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
MOE-E3302
(I)
0.001
0.005
500
500 ml HDPE
HNO3< pH2
30 days
15
Selenium
HYD-FAAS
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

Phone: (416) 467-5555 Fax: (416) 467-9824
List of Parameters to be Analysed for Sludge
Page 1 of 1
Table A.3: List of Parameters to be Analysed for Sludge

Contaminants
Reference
Method
Typical LMDL (A)

(For Lab)
(ug/g)
Brief Description
RMDL (B)
(Regulatory)
(ug/g)
Recommended
Sample Volume
(gm)
Sample
Container
Preservatives
Holding Time
(For Preserved
Samples)
Typical
Analysis Cost
($)
SM (C) 4500-NH3 B,C
Colourimetry
40
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
NA
25
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
MOE-E3116
Colourimetry
60
ND
100
250 ml glass jar
4 /C
NA
30
Total Phosphorus
MOE-E3116
Colourimetry
100
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
NA
30
pH
MOE-E3137
Potentiometry
NA
NA
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
NA
12
Oil & Grease
MOE-E3401
Hexane Extraction
100
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
28 days
30
(D)
Membrane Filtration
1 CFU/100 ml
ND
24
Sterile Container
NA
48 hrs
EPA-MF
Membrane Filtration
1 CFU/100 ml
ND
24
Sterile Container
NA
48 hrs
MOE-E3371
Membrane Filtration
1 CFU/100 ml
ND
24
Sterile Container
NA
48 hrs
25
EPA-1311
Extraction followed by
ICP-AES (F)
ND
ND
250
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
NA
150
MOE-E3095
ICP-AES (F)
0.6
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
MOE-E3095
(F)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
ICP-AES
(F)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
ICP-AES
(F)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
(F)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
Total Ammonia
Fecal Coliform Bacteria

E.Coli
TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure-Inorganics) (E)
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
MOE-E3371
MOE-E3095
Copper
MOE-E3095
ICP-AES
37
50
(Part of Complete Scan)
Lead
MOE-E3095
ICP-AES
Molybdenum
MOE-E3095
ICP-AES (F)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
Nickel
MOE-E3095
ICP-AES (F)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
MOE-E3095
ICP-AES
(F)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
ICP-AES
(F)
(G)
(G)
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
CV-FAAS
(H)
0.01
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
30 days
20
HYD-FAAS
(I)
0.2
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
17
HYD-FAAS
(I)
0.2
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
17
Zinc
Other Metals
Mercury
MOE-E3095
MOE-E3058
Arsenic
MOE-E3091
Selenium
MOE-E3091
Note:
(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
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
Contaminants
Reference
Method
Typical LMDL (A)

(For Lab)
(ug/g)
Brief Description
RMDL(B)
(Regulatory)
(ug/g)
Recommended
Sample Volume
(gm)
Sample
Container
Preservatives
Holding Time
(For Preserved
Samples)
Typical
Analysis Cost
($)
MOE-E3116
Colourimetry
60
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
NA
30
Ammonia and Ammonium Nitrogen
MOE-E3366
Colourimetry
0.3
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
NA
45
Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen
MOE-E3366
Colourimetry
1.25
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
NA
40
Total Phosphorus
MOE-E3116
Colourimetry
100
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
NA
30
MOE-E3254
(C)
ND
ND
60
60 ml or 120 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
14 days
100
MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075
ICP-AES (D)
0.6
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
Chromium
MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075
ICP-AES
(D)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
Cobalt
MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075
ICP-AES (D)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075
ICP-AES
(D)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
(D)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
Volatile Solids
GC
Regulated Metals
Cadmium
Copper
50
(Part of Complete Scan)
Lead
MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075
ICP-AES
Molybdenum
MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075
ICP-AES (D)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075
ICP-AES
(D)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
ICP-AES
(D)
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
CV-FAAS
(E)
0.01
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
30 days
20
HYD-FAAS
(F)
0.2
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
17
HYD-FAAS
(F)
0.2
ND
100
250 ml Glass Jar
4 /C
6 months
17
Nickel
Zinc
MOE-E3073,MOE-E3075
Mercury
MOE-E3059
Arsenic
MOE-E3245
Selenium
MOEE3245
Note:
(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
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
Sr.No.
Waste Water
Name of the Laboratory
Accutest Laboratories Ltd.
Activation Laboratories Limited
AGAT Laboratories (Calgary): AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga)
Agri-Service Laboratory Inc.: Entech
Caduceon Enterprises Inc.: Caduceon Environmental Laboratories (Ottawa)
Danzi Corporation: E3 Laboratories
Enviro-Test Laboratories: Enviro-Test Laboratories - Sentinel Division
Kinectrics Inc.
Maxxam Analytics Inc.: Maxxam Analytics Inc.
10
Ontario Ministry of Environment: Laboratory Services Branch
11
Region of Durham: York-Durham Regional Environmental Lab
12
SGS Group: SGS Lakefield
13
Testmark Laboratories Ltd.
14
AMEC: AMEC Earth & Environmental Limited (Mississauga)
15
Environment Canada: National Laboratory for Environmental Testing
16
Regional Municipality of Niagra - Environmental Centre:

Public Works Department - Water and Wastewater Division
17
Paracel Laboratories Ltd.
18
Philip Services Corp.: Philip Analytical Services Inc., Mississauga
19
Philip Services Inc.: PSC Analytical Services Inc., London
20
PSC Analytical Services - Burlington
Inorganic
Organic
Microbiological
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Phone: (416) 467-5555 Fax: (416) 467-9824
Lethality/
Toxicity
Soil/
Sludge
Location
Phone
(613) 727-5692
Ancaster
(905) 648-9611
(905) 501-9998
Mississauga
(905) 821-1112
Mississauga
(613) 526-0123
Ottawa
(905) 641-9000
Niagara-on-the Lake
(519) 886-6910
Waterloo
(416) 207-6000
Toronto
(905) 890-2555
Mississauga
(416) 235-6348
Etobicoke
(905) 686-0041
Pickering
(705) 652-2006
Lakefield
(705) 693-1121
Garson
(905) 890-0785
Mississauga
(905) 336-4761
Burlington
(905) 685-1571
Thorold
(613) 731-9577
Ottawa
(905) 890-8566
Mississauga
(519) 686-7558
London
(905) 332-8788
Burlington
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Nepean
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
Sr. No.
Waste Water
Name of the Laboratory

Inorganic
21
City of Hamilton: City of Hamilton Environmental Laboratory
22
City of Ottawa: City of Ottawa, Laboratory Services
23
Corporation of the City of London: Greenway PCC Laboratory
24
ETL Chemspec Analytical Ltd.: Enviro-Test Laboratories Thunder Bay Analytical
25
Regional Municipality of Halton: Halton Regional Laboratory
26
Regional Municipality of Peel: Regional Municipality of Peel Environmental Control
27
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Environmental Enforcement Services
28
Windsor Utilities Commission: EnWin Laboratories & Water Research Centre
29
City of Toronto: City of Toronto Wastewater Quality Laboratories
30
Environment Canada: Wastewater Technology Centre Analytical Laboratory
31
Fisher Environmental Laboratories: Fisher Environmental Laboratories
32
Lakehead University Centre for Analytical Services
33
Placer Dome C.L.A LTD/Kinross Gold Corporation: Porcupine Joint Venture
34
ASI Group Ltd.
35
Ontario Ministry of the Environment,

Standards Development Branch: Aquatic Toxicology Unit
36
Stantec Consulting Ltd.: Stantec Consulting Ltd.
37
Stantec Consulting Ltd.: Stantec Consulting Ltd.
38
Tamm Holdings (Sarnia) Ltd.: Pollutech EnviroQuatics Limited
%
%
Organic
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Hamilton
Gloucester
(519) 661-2567
London
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Location
(613) 560-6086
Note:
(A) SCC: Standards Council of Canada
(B) CAEAL: Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories (Inc.)
Phone
(905) 546-2424
Soil/
Sludge
%
%
%
%
Microbiological
Lethality/
Toxicity
807) 623-6463
Thunder Bay
(905) 825-6000
Oakville
(905) 791-7800
Mississauga
(519) 650-8275
Cambridge
(519) 948-2075
Windsor
(416) 392-9930
Toronto
(905) 336-4689
Burlington
(905) 475-7755
Markham
(807) 343-8590
Thunder Bay
(705) 235-6525
South Porcupine
(905) 641-0941
St. Catharines
(416) 235-6346
Etobicoke
(519) 763-4412
Guelph
(905) 794-2325
Brampton
(519) 339-8787
Point Edward
ALTECH
Page 3-29
_________________________________________________________________________
3.11
APPENDIX 3B REFERENCE METHODS LIST
Final Report

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:
125 Resources Road
Etobicoke, ON
M9P-3V6
Attn: Sheri Teresi
Phone: (416) 235-6311
Fax: (416) 235-6312
E-mail: sheri.teresi@ene.gov.on.ca
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

CODE/QUALITY MANUAL
QUANTITY
COST OF DOCUMENT(S)
(GST & SHIPPING COST EXTRA)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)

125 Resources Road
Etobicoke, ON
M9P-3V6
Attn: Sheri Teresi
Phone: (416) 235-6311
Fax: (416) 235-6312
E-mail:mailto:mackca@ene.gov.on.ca sheri.teresi@ene.gov.on.ca
Page -2-
MOE-LSB Analytical Methods/Quality Assurance Manual - December 15, 2003

LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3004
THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORIDE, NITRATE AND SULPHATE ON HIGH-VOLUME

FILTERS BY ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC)
24
$34.80
NOV-01-02
E3012
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL CARBONATE-CARBON IN SOIL AND SEDIMENTS

BY COULOMETRY
20
$34.00
SEP-8-03
E3013
THE DETERMINATION OF WATER-EXTRACTABLE CHLORIDE AND SULPHATE IN

SOILS AND SEDIMENTS BY ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC)
24
$34.80
NOV-01-02
E3015
THE DETERMINATION OF FREE AND TOTAL CYANIDE IN ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLES BY COLOURIMETRY
32
$36.40
JUN-25-03
E3016
THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORIDE IN DRINKING WATER, SURFACE WATER,

SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY COLOURIMETRY
19
$33.80
SEP-22-03
E3024
THE DETERMINATION OF CONDUCTIVITY IN WATER AND PRECIPITATION BY

POTENTIOMETRY (DORSET)
18
$33.60
DEC-18-02
E3025
THE DETERMINATION OF TRUE COLOUR IN SURFACE WATER AND PRECIPITATION

SAMPLES BY AUTOMATED COLOURIMETRY (DORSET)
19
$33.80
OCT-02-02
E3028
THE DETERMINATION OF INORGANIC CARBON IN WATER BY COLOURIMETRY

(DORSET)
29
$35.80
DEC-02-02
E3036
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IN WATER BY COLOURIMETRY

(DORSET)
21
$34.20
JAN-09-03
E3042
THE DETERMINATION OF PH AND ALKALINITY IN LAKES, STREAMS,

GROUNDWATER AND PRECIPITATION BY POTENTIOMETRY (DORSET)
16
$33.20
MAR-27-03
E3043
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL DUSTFALL IN AIR PARTICULATE MATTER BY

GRAVIMETRY
13
$32.60
MAY-16-01
E3046
THE DETERMINATION OF DUSTFALL PARTICULATES IN AIR EMISSIONS AND

PRECIPITATION BY OPTICAL MICROSCOPY
14
$32.80
OCT-03-02
E3049
THE DETERMINATION OF ASBESTOS IN AIR BY ELECTRON MICROSCOPY
19
$33.80
FEB-28-03
Page -3-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
$34.20
FEB-28-03
E3050
THE DETERMINATION OF ASBESTOS IN WATER BY ELECTRON MICROSCOPY
21
E3051
THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN POTABLE WATERS BY INDUCTIVELYCOUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-MS)
34
$36.80
SEP-13-02
E3053
THE DETERMINATION OF FLUORIDE IN VEGETATION BY ION SELECTIVE

ELECTRODE (ISE)
21
$34.20
JUL-14-03
E3056
THE DETERMINATION OF HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM IN WATER, LANDFILL

LEACHATES AND EFFLUENTS BY COLOURIMETRY
15
$33.00
NOV-22-02
E3057
THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN BIOMATERIALS BY COLD VAPOURFLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY (CV-FAAS)
19
$33.80
SEP-10-02
E3058
THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN SLUDGE AND COMPOST SAMPLES BY

AUTOMATED COLD VAPOUR-ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (CVAAS)
18
$33.60
APR-14-03
E3059
THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN SOILS, SEDIMENTS AND VEGETATION BY

COLD VAPOUR-ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (CV-AAS)
18
$33.60
SEP-20-02
E3060
THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN WATER BY COLD VAPOUR-FLAMELESS

ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (CV-FAAS)
47
$39.40
JUL-30-02
E3061
THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN ACID PRECIPITATION AND LOWVOLUME AIR FILTERS AND PRECIPITATION BY INDUCTIVELY-COUPLED PLASMAMASS SPECTROMETRY (ICP-MS)
34
$36.80
JUL-17-01
E3062
THE DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENTS BY THE SPECTRO

INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-OPTICAL EMISSION SPECTROMETER (ICP-OES)
39
$37.80
SEP-30-03
E3063
THE DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENTS BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION

SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)
30
$36.00
DEC-19-02
E3065
THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN VEGETATION BY THE SPECTRO

INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-OPTICAL EMISSION SPECTROMETER (ICP-OES)
39
$37.80
SEP-10-02
E3067
THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN VEGETATION BY ATOMIC

ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS)
30
$36.00
DEC-12-02
E3070
THE DETERMINATION OF METALS ON GLASS FIBRE AIR FILTERS BY X-RAY

FLUORESCENCE
27
$35.40
SEP-12-01
Page -4-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3071
THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN LIQUID SLUDGE AND SEWAGE FILTER CAKES

BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)
AND RST, RSTA,RSTLOI ON SEWAGE FILTER CAKES
49
$39.80
DEC-13-02
E3072
THE DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS IN BIOMATERIALS BY ATOMIC

25
$35.00
DEC-31-02
E3073
THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN SOIL AND COMPOST BY THE SPECTRO

INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA- OPTICAL EMISSION SPECTROMETER (ICP-OES)
44
$38.80
SEP-19-02
E3075
THE DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOILS BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION

30
$36.00
DEC-23-02
E3087
THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN BIOMATERIALS

BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYDFAAS)
20
$34.00
DEC-21-01
E3088
THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY ON GLASS AND

QUARTZ FIBRE HIGH VOLUME FILTERS BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC
ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD-FAAS)
21
$34.20
JUN-28-02
E3089
THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN WATER BY

HYDRIDE GENERATION-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY
(HYD-FAAS)
20
$34.00
FEB-12-02
E3091
THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN SEWAGE AND

SLUDGES BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY
(HYD-FAAS)
21
$34.20
NOV-20-01
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

LANDFILL LEACHATES BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION
SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)
39
$37.80
DEC-13-02
E3095
THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN SOLID INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY INDUCTIVELY

COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)
41
$38.20
DEC-13-02
E3096
THE DETERMINATION OF SULPHUR IN SOIL BY LECO INDUCTION FURNACE
18
$33.60
AUG-27-03
Page -5-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3097
THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN TRADE WASTES

BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYDFAAS)
21
$34.20
DEC-19-02
E3100
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL SULPHIDE IN WATER, SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL

WASTES BY COLOURIMETRY
27
$35.40
OCT-02-02
E3115
THE ENUMERATION OF "SULPHATE REDUCING" BACTERIA IN WATER BY THE

INDICATED NUMBER METHOD
18
$33.60
JUL-23-03
E3116
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS

IN SOIL, SEDIMENTS AND SLUDGE BY COLOURIMETRY
30
$36.00
NOV-09-01
E3118

IN VEGETATION BY COLOURIMETRY
26
$35.20
NOV-14-01
E3119
THE DETERMINATION OF CHLOROPHENOLS (CP) AND PHENOXYACID HERBICIDES

(PA) IN WATER BY SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION (SPE) AND IN VEGETATION BY
SOLID/LIQUID EXTRACTION (SONIFICATION) USING GAS CHROMATOGRAPHYMASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
61
$42.20
DEC-20-02
E3121
THE DETERMINATION OF TRIAZINE HERBICIDES IN WATER, SOILS, VEGETATION

AND TCLP LEACHATE BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
51
$40.20
DEC-23-02
E3124
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) IN

AMBIENT AIR BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
47
$39.40
JAN-13-03
E3132
THE DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANOHALIDES AND HYDROCARBONS IN

WATER, LEACHATES AND EFFLUENTS BY HEADSPACE CAPILLARY GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC) MASS SPECTROMETRY AND/OR PURGE AND TRAP GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC) MASS SPECTROMETRY
47
$39.40
NOV-19-03
E3136
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB),

ORGANOCHLORINES (OC) AND CHLOROBENZENES (CB) IN FISH, CLAMS AND
MUSSELS BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION
(GLC-ECD)
47
$39.40
JAN-09-03
E3137
THE DETERMINATION OF pH IN SOIL AND DRIED SLUDGE BY POTENTIOMETRY
15
$33.00
AUG-28-03
E3138
THE DETERMINATION OF CONDUCTIVITY IN SOILS AND SEDIMENTS BY

CONDUCTANCE METER
15
$33.00
DEC-10-02
Page -6-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3139
THE DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT, RST, RSTA AND LOI IN SOLIDS BY

GRAVIMETRY
16
$33.20
DEC-10-02
E3141
THE DETERMINATION OF PARTICULATE TOTAL CARBON IN SURFACE WATERS,

EFFLUENTS AND SEWAGE BY THE LECO CARBON ANALYZER
16
$33.20
APR-07-02
E3142
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL CARBON IN SOIL AND SEDIMENTS BY THE LECO

CARBON ANALYZER
16
$33.20
NOV-22-02
E3144
THE DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN RAW AND TREATED

DRINKING WATER BY PURGE AND TRAP CAPILLARY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHYFLAME IONIZATION/MASS SELECTIVE DETECTION (PT/GC-FID/MSD)
25
$35.00
JUL-24-02
E3145
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN LIQUID

INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE
DETECTION (GC-ECD)
25
$35.00
OCT-04-02
E3146
THE DETERMINATION OF CATIONS IN ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION BY ATOMIC

24
$34.80
DEC-09-02
E3147
THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORIDE AND SULPHATE IN SURFACE WATER AND

WET DEPOSITION BY AUTOMATED ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC) (DORSET)
23
$34.00
MAY-27-03
E3153
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) IN SOILS AND

SOLID WASTE MATERIAL BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE
DETECTION (GC-ECD)
28
$35.60
SEP-16-03
E3155
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs),

ORGANOCHLORINES (OCs) AND CHLOROBENZENES (CBs) IN VEGETATION BY
GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)
46
$39.20
OCT-02-03
E3158
THE DETERMINATION OF CARBAMATES IN WATER BY HIGH PERFORMANCE

LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ULTRAVIOLET (HPLC-UV) DETECTION
27
$35.40
MAY-04-00
E3166
THE DETERMINATION OF RESIN AND FATTY ACIDS IN EFFLUENTS AND WATER BY

GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GLC-FID)
24
$34.80
OCT-04-02
E3169
THE DETERMINATION OF CHLOROPHYLL IN RIVER AND LAKE SAMPLES BY

SPECTROPHOTOMETRY
22
$34.40
JUL-30-01
E3170
THE DETERMINATION OF CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) IN DOMESTIC AND

SURFACE WATERS BY COLOURIMETRY
26
$35.20
DEC-04-03
Page -7-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3171
THE DETERMINATION OF CATIONS IN SURFACE WATER BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION

27
$35.40
NOV-28-02
E3172
THE DETERMINATION OF FLUORIDE AND SULPHATE IN WATER, LEACHATES AND

EFFLUENTS BY AUTOMATED ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC)
26
$35.20
JUN-25-03
E3179
THE DETERMINATION OF PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS IN WATER, INDUSTRIAL

WASTES, LANDFILL LEACHATES AND SEWAGE BY COLOURIMETRY
23
$34.60
OCT-04-02
E3181
THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN RAW SEWAGE BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED

PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)
38
$37.60
DEC-13-02
E3182
THE DETERMINATION OF BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND IN SURFACE WATER

AND SEWAGE EFFLUENTS BY DISSOLVED OXYGEN METER
29
$35.80
NOV-06-03
E3186
THE CHARACTERIZATION OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS IN WATER, WASTE AND

SOIL BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
50
$40.00
DEC-18-02
E3188
THE DETERMINATION OF SOLIDS IN LIQUID MATRICES BY GRAVIMETRY
68
$43.60
SEP-04-02
E3189
THE CHARACTERIZATION OF VOLATILE ORGANICS IN WATER AND EFFLUENT BY

PURGE-AND-TRAP GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
30
$36.00
DEC-03-03
E3197
THE SPECTROSCOPIC IDENTIFICATION OF UNKNOWN ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOR

PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
14
$32.80
MAR-1-01
E3201
THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANIC SOLVENT EXTRACTABLE MATTER USING

DICHLOROMETHANE BY GRAVIMETRY
16
$33.20
SEP-16-03
E3202
THE DETERMINATION OF TANNINS IN LIQUIDS BY COLOURIMETRY
14
$32.80
DEC-04-02
E3210
THE DETERMINATION OF DISSOLVED AND SUSPENDED URANIUM IN WATER BY

INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-MS)
27
$35.40
MAY-04-00
E3214
THE DETERMINATION OF URANIUM IN SOIL, SEDIMENT AND VEGETATION BY

INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-MS)
34
$36.80
SEP-20-00
E3216
THE DETERMINATION OF URANIUM IN LANDFILL LEACHATES, INDUSTRIAL

WASTES AND SEWAGE SAMPLES BY REFLECTANCE-FLUORESCENCE
SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (RFS)
17
$33.40
NOV-22-02
Page -8-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3217
THE DETERMINATION OF CATIONS IN WATER, SEWAGE, HEALTH SAMPLES,

INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND LANDFILL LEACHATES BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION
27
$35.40
DEC-10-02
E3218
THE DETERMINATION OF CONDUCTIVITY, pH AND ALKALINITY IN WATER AND

EFFLUENTS BY POTENTIOMETRY
34
$36.80
NOV-01-02
E3219
THE DETERMINATION OF TRUE COLOUR IN WATER, EFFLUENTS AND INDUSTRIAL

WASTES BY COLOURIMETRY
19
$33.80
OCT-07-03
E3225
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL ORGANIC HALIDE (AOX) IN WATER SAMPLES BY

THE TOX-10 ANALYZER SYSTEM
32
$36.40
JUL-11-03
E3226
THE DETECTION OF COLIFORM BACTERIA (INCLUDING Escherichia coli) AND OTHER

INDICATORS OF DETERIORATING WATER QUALITY IN DRINKING WATER BY THE
PRESENCE-ABSENCE PROCEDURE
21
$34.20
DEC-11-03
E3230
THE DETERMINATION OF PHENYL UREAS IN WATER BY HIGH PERFORMANCE

LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ULTRAVIOLET (HPLC-UV) DETECTION
26
$35.20
MAY-19-00
E3233
THE DETERMINATION OF LEAD IN AIR PARTICULATES BY X-RAY FLUORESCENCE

(XRF)
15
$33.00
AUG-8-01
E3234
THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORINE, POTASSIUM AND SULPHUR IN VEGETATION

BY X-RAY FLUORESCENCE (XRF)
17
$33.40
JUL-25-02
E3245
THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN VEGETATION,

COMPOST, SOIL AND SEDIMENTS BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS ATOMIC ABSORPTION
SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD-FAAS)
21
$34.20
DEC-18-02
E3246
THE DETERMINATION OF CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) IN SEWAGE,

LEACHATES AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY COLOURIMETRY
24
$34.80
NOV-01-02
E3247
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN AQUEOUS SAMPLES BY

COMBUSTION AND INFRARED SPECTROMETRY
21
$34.20
NOV-17-03
E3249
THE DETERMINATION OF CATIONS IN PRECAMBRIAN SHIELD WATERS BY ATOMIC

ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (AAS) (DORSET)
27
$35.40
APR-15-03
E3254
THE DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANOHALIDES AND HYDROCARBONS IN

SEDIMENTS, SLUDGES AND KILN DUST BY HEADSPACE GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
(GC)
20
$34.00
OCT-04-02
Page -9-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3260
THE DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE ON SEDIMENT SAMPLES BY DRY SIEVING
11
$32.20
JUL-09-03
E3263
THE DETERMINATION OF FLUORIDE IN SOIL BY ION SELECTIVE ELECTRODE (ISE)
25
$35.00
AUG-27-03
E3265
THE DETERMINATION OF ACID/BASE AND NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS IN FINAL

EFFLUENTS AND INFLUENTS BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SELECTIVE
DETECTION (GC-MSD)
34
$36.80
JAN-29-02
E3270
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs),

ORGANOCHLORINES (OCs) AND CHLOROBENZENES (CBs) IN SOIL AND SEDIMENTS
BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)
49
$39.80
OCT-02-03
E3277
THE DETERMINATION OF METALS ON QUARTZ AIR FILTERS BY X-RAY

FLUORESCENCE
24
$34.80
JAN-04-02
E3288
THE DETERMINATION OF SUSPENDED PARTICULATES ON GLASS AND QUARTZ

FIBRE AND ON TEFLON FILTERS BY GRAVIMETRY
21
$34.20
NOV-29-02
E3291
THE DETERMINATION OF N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) IN WATER BY GAS

CHROMATOGRAPHY-HIGH RESOLUTION MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-HRMS)
57
$41.40
DEC-16-02
E3292
THE DETERMINATION OF LEAD AND CADMIUM IN PAINT CHIPS BY MICROWAVE

DIGESTION AND INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-OPTICAL EMISSION
SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-OES)
37
$37.40
JUL-19-01
E3301
THE DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE, LANDFILL

LEACHATE AND SEWAGE SAMPLES BY COLD VAPOUR-FLAMELESS ATOMIC
ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (CV-FAAS)
20
$34.00
JUN-08-00
E3302
THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM AND ANTIMONY IN LIQUID

INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND LANDFILL LEACHATES BY HYDRIDE-FLAMELESS
ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY (HYD-FAAS)
21
$34.20
MAY-17-02
E3310
THE DETERMINATION OF TASTE AND ODOUR COMPOUNDS IN WATER BY GAS

CHROMATOGRAPHY-HIGH RESOLUTION MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-HRMS)
75
$45.00
DEC-16-02
E3311
THE DETERMINATION OF TURBIDITY IN WATER BY NEPHELOMETRY UNDER

ROBOTIC CONTROL
29
$35.80
JUN-11-02
E3314
THE DETERMINATION OF AMBIENT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)

USING THERMAL DESORPTION/GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY
(TD/GC-MS)
42
$38.40
JUN-28-02
Page -10-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3323
THE IDENTIFICATION OF UNKNOWN ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN AQUEOUS, SOLID

AND ORGANIC LIQUID MATRICES
$31.80
SEP-08-03
E3325
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) IN WASTEWATER,

WATER, EFFLUENTS AND OTHER AQUEOUS SAMPLES USING GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GC-ECD)
24
$34.80
OCT-19-01
E3327
THE DETERMINATION OF TITANIUM IN SOIL BY X-RAY FLUORSCENCE
14
$32.80
DEC-03-01
E3328
THE DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ON SEDIMENTS,

PARTICULATE MATTER AND LIQUIDS BY THE COULTER MODEL LS130PS
ANALYZER
24
$34.80
NOV-17-02
E3335
THE IDENTIFICATION OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS BY CHEMICAL IONIZATION-MASS

SPECTROMETRY (CI-MS)
38
$37.60
SEP-05-02
E3350
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) IN

SOIL AND SEDIMENTS BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GCMS)
36
$37.20
JAN-10-03
E3351

BIOTA BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
36
$37.20
JAN-10-03
E3352

VEGETATION BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GLCMS)
35
$37.00
JAN-10-03
E3361
THE DETERMINATION OF FREE AND TOTAL CARBON IN AIR PARTICULATE BY

THERMAL OXIDATION AND INFRARED DETECTION
23
$34.60
OCT-09-03
E3364
THE DETERMINATION OF AMMONIA NITROGEN, NITRITE NITROGEN, NITRITE PLUS

NITRATE NITROGEN AND REACTIVE ORTHO-PHOSPHATE IN SURFACE WATERS,
DRINKING WATERS AND PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY
84
$46.80
JUN-6-02
E3366
THE DETERMINATION OF AMMONIA NITROGEN, NITRITE NITROGEN, NITRITE PLUS

NITRATE NITROGEN AND REACTIVE ORTHO-PHOSPHATE IN WATER, SEWAGE,
LEACHATE AND INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENTS BY COLOURIMETRY
80
$46.00
JUN-5-02
E3367
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS

IN WATER, PRECIPITATION AND SOIL EXTRACTS BY COLOURIMETRY
52
$40.40
FEB-15-02
Page -11-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3368

IN WATER, SEWAGE, LEACHATE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE BY COLOURIMETRY
51
$40.20
FEB-11-02
E3370
THE DETERMINATION OF MOLYBDATE SILICATES AND DISSOLVED CARBON IN

WATER, INDUSTRIAL WASTE, SOIL EXTRACTS AND PRECIPITATION BY
COLOURIMETRY
47
$39.40
FEB-13-02
E3371
A MEMBRANE FILTRATION METHOD FOR THE DETECTION AND ENUMERATION OF

TOTAL COLIFORM, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa AND FECAL
STREPTOCOCCI
30
$36.00
OCT-21-03
E3374
THE DETERMINATION OF AMMONIA NITROGEN AND NITRATE PLUS NITRITE

NITROGEN IN WATER AND PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY (DORSET)
26
$35.20
MAY-12-03
E3377
THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN WASTE OILS BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED

PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)
36
$37.20
MAY-22-01
E3378
THE DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC IN WASTE OILS BY BOMB CALORIMETER

COMBUSTION
16
$33.20
JUL-20-01
E3379
THE DETERMINATION OF AVAILABLE CHLORIDE IN ACID SOLUBLE SOLIDS AND

TOTAL CHLORINE IN COMBUSTIBLE SUBSTANCES BY TITRATION WITH SILVER
NITRATE SOLUTION
27
$35.40
MAR-2-01
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

CENTRIFUGATION
13
$32.60
JUL-14-03
E3382
THE DETERMINATION OF HEAT OF COMBUSTION OF WASTE OILS USING AN

AUTOMATED BOMB CALORIMETER
14
$32.80
JUL-09-03
E3383
THE DETERMINATION OF HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA) IN DRINKING WATER BY

LIQUID-LIQUID EXTRACTION USING DERIVITIZATION AND GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
46
$39.20
OCT-04-02
E3386
THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN SURFACE WATER BY INDUCTIVELY COUPLED

PLASMA - ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES) USING ULTRASONIC
NEBULIZATION
40
$38.00
JUL-25-03
E3388
THE DETERMINATION OF N-NITROSAMINES IN WATER BY GAS

CHROMATOGRAPHY - HIGH RESOLUTION MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-HRMS)
63
$42.60
DEC-16-02
Page -12-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
E3389
THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES IN WATER BY HIGH

PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ULTRAVIOLET (HPLC-UV) DETECTION
36
E3391
THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN SURFACE WATER BY INDUCTIVELY

COUPLED PLASMA - MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-MS) USING AN INTERNAL
STANDARDIZATION PROCEDURE
39
E3397
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (C5 TO C50) IN

SOILS BY HEADSPACE GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION
(GC-FID) COMBINED WITH MICROWAVE SOLVENT EXTRACTION AND GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY-FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GC-FID)
E3398
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
$37.20
JUN-07-00
$37.80
NOV-18-03
39
$37.80
DEC-19-02
THE DETERMINATION OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL FOR THE

DECOMMISSIONING OF CONTAMINATED SITES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHYFLAME IONIZATION DETECTION (GC-FID) AND GRAVIMETRY
39
$37.80
DEC-20-02
E3399
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) IN AQUEOUS

MATRICES BY LIQUID/LIQUID MICROEXTRACTION (LLME) AND GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY - MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
38
$37.60
NOV-29-02
E3400
THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANOCHLORINES, CHLOROBENZENES, AROCLORS,

AND TOXAPHENES IN WATER, EFFLUENT AND WASTEWATER BY HEXANE
MICROEXTRACTION AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GCMS)
50
$40.00
DEC-02-02
E3401
THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANIC SOLVENT EXTRACTABLE MATTER USING

HEXANE BY GRAVIMETRY
13
$32.60
SEP-16-03
E3402
THE DETERMINATION OF METALS IN AIR PARTICULATES BY INDUCTIVELY

COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROMETRY (ICP-MS)
39
$37.80
SEP-06-01
E3404
THE DETERMINATION OF PESTICIDES IN VEGETATION, SOIL AND SWAB MATRICES

BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS CHROMATOGRAPHY (GC-MS) AND HIGH
PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ULTRAVIOLET VISIBLE PHOTODIODE
ARRAY DETECTION (HPLC-UV)
23
$34.60
MAY-29-00
E3406
THE DETERMINATION OF NITRILOTRIACETIC ACID (NTA) IN AQUEOUS SAMPLES

BY AUTOMATED ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC)
22
$34.40
JAN-09-03
E3407
MEMBRANE FILTRATION METHOD USING DC AGAR FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS

DETECTION AND ENUMERATION OF TOTAL COLIFORMS AND Escherichia Coli
25
$35.00
JUN-26-03
Page -13-
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
$34.20
JUL-02-03
$36.00
DEC-21-01
E3408
THE SPREAD PLATE METHOD FOR THE ENUMERATION OF AEROBIC

HETEROTROPHIC BACTERIA IN DRINKING WATER
21
E3409
THE DETERMINATION OF TRACE METALS IN AIR BY MOSSBAG COLLECTION AND

INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-MASS SPECTROMETRY (ICP-MS)
30
E3411
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONGENERS (PCBs) IN

FISH, CLAMS AND MUSSELS BY GAS LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY-ELECTRON
CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)
47
$39.40
JAN-15-03
E3412
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONGENERS (PCBs) IN

SOIL, SEDIMENT AND VEGETATION BY GAS/LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHYELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTION (GLC-ECD)
49
$39.80
JAN-15-03
E3414
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) CONGENERS,

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs), CHLOROBENZENES (CB) AND
ORGANOCHLORINES (OC) IN LARGE VOLUME, AMBIENT WATER SAMPLES BY
SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION (SPE) AND GC-MS
71
$44.20
DEC-20-02
E3415
THE DETERMINATION OF GLYPHOSATE AND AMINOMETHYLPHOSPHONIC ACID IN

WATER AND VEGETATION BY HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY
(HPLC)-ELECTROSPRAY IONIZATION MASS SPECTROMETRY (ESI-MS)
39
$37.80
DEC-06-02
E3417
THE DETERMINATION OF DIQUAT AND PARAQUAT IN WATER, SOIL AND

VEGETATION ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES BY HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID
CHROMATOGRAPHY (HPLC) PHOTODIODE ARRAY AND/OR ELECTROSPRAY MASS
SPECTROMETRY (MS)
35
$37.00
NOV-29-02
E3418
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS,

POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZOFURANS AND DIOXIN-LIKE POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (DLPBCs) IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES BY GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
81
$46.20
JAN-15-03
E3420
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (C5 TO C50) IN

WATER AND EFFLUENTS BY HEADSPACE GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-FLAME
IONIZATION DETECTION (GC-FID) COMBINED WITH LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTION
AND GC-FID
32
$36.40
DEC-20-02
Page -14-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
$36.80
DEC-20-02
E3421
THE DETERMINATION OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN WATER FOR THE

DECOMMISSIONING OF SITES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-FLAME IONIZATION
DETECTION (GC-FID) AND GRAVIMETRY
34
E3422
THE DETERMINATION OF MOLYBDATE REACTIVE SILICATES AND DISSOLVED

ORGANIC CARBON IN WATER AND PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY (DORSET)
33
$36.60
NOV-28-02
E3424
THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN IN SURFACE WATER AND

PRECIPITATION BY COLOURIMETRY (DORSET)
28
$35.60
OCT-05-01
E3425
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) IN SOIL

AND SEDIMENT BY ISOTOPE-DILUTION GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS
SPECTROMETRY (GC-MS)
60
$42.00
OCT-04-02
E3428
THE DETERMINATION OF FORMALDEHYDE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES BY

GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY[GC-MS]
35
$37.00
DEC-10-02
E3430
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYBROMINATED DIPHENYL ETHERS (PBDEs) IN

ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-HIGH RESOLUTION
MASS SPECTROMETRY (GC-HRMS)
32
$36.40
JAN-14-03
E3434
THE DETERMINATION OF BROMIDE IN SOURCE WATER BY ION

CHROMATOGRAPY/ELECTROCHEMICAL DETECTION AND TRACE LEVELS OF
BROMATE IN OZONATED DRINKING WATER WITH THE ADDITION OF POSTCOLUMN
REAGENT AND A UV/VISIBLE DETECTOR
24
$34.80
DEC-03-02
E3435
THE DETERMINATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS AND

TRIAZINE PESTICIDES IN WATER MATRICES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-TIME OF
FLIGHT-MASS SPECTROMETRY
43
$37.80
JAN-7-03
E3436
THE DETERMINATION OF PHENYL UREAS IN WATER AND LEACHATE BY HIGH

PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY AND MASS SPECTROMETRY-MASS
SPECTROMETRY (LC-MS-MS) ANALYSIS
34
$36.80
APR-22-03
E3437
THE DETERMINATION OF ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES IN WATER AND

LEACHATE BY HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY AND MASS
SPECTROMETRY-MASS SPECTROMETRY (LC-MS-MS) ANALYSIS
38
$37.60
APR-22-03
E3438
THE DETERMINATION OF CARBAMATES IN WATER AND LEACHATE BY HIGH

PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY AND MASS SPECTROMETRY-MASS
SPECTROMETRY (LC-MS-MS) ANALYSIS
36
$37.20
APR-22-03
Page -15-
LSB
METHOD
CODE
TITLE OF LSB METHOD
NO. OF
PAGES
INCLUDED IN
2002 LSB SCOPE
OF CAEAL
ACCREDITATION
COST
OF
METHOD
(GST & Shipping
Extra)
CURRENT
VERSION
DATE
E3449
THE DETERMINATION OF MOSQUITO LARVICIDE AND ADULTICIDE AND THE

SCREENING OF DECOMPOSITION BY-PRODUCTS OF METHOPRENE IN
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRICES USING MICRO-EXTRACTION AND GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY-TIME OF FLIGHT-MASS SPECTROMETRY
39
$37.80
DEC-05-03
E3450
THE DETERMINATION OF MICROCYSTINS AND NODULARIN IN WATER BY LIQUID

CHROMATOGRAPHY-(ELECTROSPRAY IONIZATION) TANDEM MASS
SPECTROMETRY [LC-(ESI)MS/MS]
27
$35.40
DEC-09-03
E9000
THE DETERMINATION OF FLASHPOINT AND PH FOR REGULATION 347
15
$33.00
DEC-17-02
E9002
THE PREPARATION OF LEACHATES USING THE TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC

LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)
31
$36.20
NOV-04-03
THE LSB QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL (2002)
__
$400.00
SEP-02
-----
Page -16-
ALTECH
Page 4-1
________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-2
________________________________________________________________________
4.2
DATA USED TO DEFINE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
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 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 nonconventional or emerging pollutants (e.g., pesticides, veterinary drugs, disinfection
byproducts and other organic contaminants including those listed under the CanadaOntario 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:
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.
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-3
________________________________________________________________________
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.
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 via a second phase survey.
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 teams
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-4
________________________________________________________________________
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).
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.
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 facilitys primary NAICS classification, which
was obtained from the 2003 Scotts Ontario Manufacturers Select database.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-5
________________________________________________________________________
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-6
________________________________________________________________________
treatment systems.
4.2.4
Available data on metals was limited to the meat and poultry processing subsectors.
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-7
________________________________________________________________________
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 plants
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, cutup 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

TKN
Barium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Phenols
Ammonia
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Molybdenum
Tin
Zinc
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-8
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.1: Main sources of contaminants in meat product manufacturing facilities.
Contaminant
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Source
Meat Processing: In the first processing stages up to carcass washing the BOD
concentration in the wastewater is mainly a result of blood not collected, solubilized
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
Solids (TSS)
Suspended solids are mainly due to the organic matter in the wastewater. The organic
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.
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.
Bacteria
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-9
________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-10
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.1: Slaughtering and poultry processing facilities annual average BOD
concentrations.
7000
Animal (Except Poultry)
Slaughtering
Poultry Processing
6000
BOD (mg/l)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
M1 M2
M3
M4 M5 M6
M7 M8 M9M10
M42
M43
M44
M45
M46
M47
M48
M49
M50 M51 M52M53M54
2003
2002
2001
2000
2000
2002
2002
2000
1999
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2000
2002
2000
1999
2001
2000
1999
2002
2002
2002
2002
2000
1999
2000
2000
2002
2001
2000
1999
1999
2000
1999
0
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)
Slaughtering
Poultry Processing
6000
SS (mg/l)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
M1 M2
M3
M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9M10
M42
M43
M44
M45
M46
M47
M48
M49
M50 M51 M52M53M54
2003
2002
2001
2000
2000
2002
2002
2000
1999
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2000
2002
2000
1999
2001
2000
1999
2002
2002
2002
2002
2000
1999
2000
2000
2002
2001
2000
1999
1999
2000
1999
0
M55

Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-11
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.3: Rendering and meat processing facilities annual average BOD
concentrations.
7000
Rendering and Meat Processing
6000
BOD (mg/l)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
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
0
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17 M18
M19
M20
M21
M22
M23
M24 M25 M26M27 M28 M29 M30
M31 M32 M33

M34M35M36
M37
M38
M39
M40M41

Annual average BOD
Figure 4.4: Rendering and meat processing facilities annual average TSS
concentrations.
7000
6000
SS (mg/l)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
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
0
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17 M18
M19
M20
M21
M22
M23
M24 M25 M26M27 M28 M29 M30
M31 M32 M33

M34M35M36
M37
M38
M39
M40M41

Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-12
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.5: Rendering, and meat and poultry processing facilities annual average pH.
[Note: (1) Animal Slaughtering]
(1)
Poultry Processing
7.5
7.0
pH
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
2000
2000
M6
M12
1999
2000
M14
1999
2000
M16
1999
2000
M18
1999
2000
M20
1999
2000
M27
1999
1999
M30
2000
M31
1999
M42
1999
2000
M49
2000
M54
2000
2001
2002
2003
M55
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-13
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.6: Rendering, and meat and poultry processing facilities annual average
phosphorus concentrations.
Poultry Processing

140.0
120.0
100.0
P (mg/l)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1999
M25
2002
2003
M40
2002
2003
M41
1999
2000
M42
1999
M45
1999
2000
M49
2000
M54
2000
2001
2002
2003
M55
Annual average phosphorus
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-14
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.2: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from meat and poultry
processing plants.
Contaminant
Sub-sector
BOD
Slaughtering
R&M
Poultry
Slaughtering
R&M
Poultry
Slaughtering
and R&M
Poultry
R&M
Poultry
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
TSS
pH
Phosphorus
FOG (M)
TKN
Ammonia
Phenols
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Number of
Annual
Average
Values
15
86
33
15
85
33
15
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
pH
922
999
1,194
643
709
947
6.9
40 1,610
160 2,503
180 5,749
48 2,950
96 2,915
56 6,203
6.7 7.3
8
5
10
5
3
4
1
2
1
1
4
4
2
4
3
2
2
3
2
4
pH
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
6.7
24.6
23.0
141.9
47.0
9.5
1.0
0.18
0.16
0.02
0.45
0.10
0.01
0.9
5.9 7.0
22.8 94.5
3.7 127.2
59.8 229.8
30.5 62.9
3.8 12.3
1.0
0.06 0.30
0.00 0.63
0.00 0.04
0.22 0.70
0.05 0.15
0.01
0.0 3.6
Footnote:
R&M = Rendering and meat processing
- Reported as non-detectable; method detection limit was not reported
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-15
________________________________________________________________________
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 F5 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 F5 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-16
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.3
Effluent Contaminant Concentrations, Direct Discharging Meat and

Poultry Processing Plants
Number of
Annual Average
Values
Unit
Average
Range
R&M
mg/l
6.73
2.68 - 11.71
Poultry
11
mg/l
4.82
1.58 - 10.00
R&M
mg/l
13.32
5.47 - 22.63
Poultry
11
mg/l
8.80
2.00 - 15.44
R&M
pH
7.34
7.14 - 7.78
Poultry
10
pH
7.72
7.47 - 8.03
R&M
mg/l
0.41
0.10 - 1.27
Poultry
11
mg/l
0.44
0.16 - 0.71
FOG (M)
All
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
mg/l
31.02
2.20 - 62.40
Nitrites
All
mg/l
8.63
7.21 - 10.05
Sulphides
All
mg/l
0.03
0.02 - 0.05
Contaminant
Sub-sector
BOD
TSS
pH
Phosphorus
Footnote:
Figure 4.7: Direct Discharging Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities Average
Annual BOD Concentrations
14
Meat Processing
Poultry Processing
12
BOD (mg/l)
10
0
1992
1993
MD1
1992
1993
1995
MD2
1997
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
MD3
1992
1993
1995
MD4
1996
1997
1992
MD5
Annual average BOD
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-17
________________________________________________________________________
Annual TSS Concentrations
25
Meat Processing
Poultry Processing
20
SS (mg/l)
15
10
0
1992
1993
1992
MD1
1993
1995
1997
1992
1993
MD2
1994
1995
1996
1992
1993
MD3
1995
1996
1997
MD4
1992
MD5

Annual average TSS
Annual pH
8.5
Meat Processing
Poultry Processing
8.0
pH
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
1992
1993
MD1
1992
1993
1995
MD2
1997
1992
1993
1994
1995
MD3
1996
1992
1993
1995
1996
1997
MD4

Annual average pH
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-18
________________________________________________________________________
Annual Phosphorus Concentrations
1.4
Meat Processing
Poultry Processing
1.2
1.0
P (mg/l)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1992
1993
MD1
1992
1993
1995
MD2
1997
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
MD3
1992
1993
1995
MD4
1996
1997
1992
MD5

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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-19
________________________________________________________________________
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
BOD
COD
TSS
Hexane
Extractables
TKN
Total
phosphorus
Oil and grease
Fecal coliform
bacteria
pH
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Cattle
USEPA
UNEP
2002
(a)
7,237
2,000
4,000
1,153
1,600
146
Pig
USEPA UNEP
2002
(a)
2,220
1,250
2,500
3,314
700
674
Chicken
USEPA Kiepper
2002
2003
1,662
760
665
mg/l
mg/l
306
35
180
27
229
72
150
25
54
12
39 195
8.1 38.0
mg/l
CFU/100
ml
pH
7.3x105
270
1.6x106
150
9.8x105
7.2
7.2
Footnote:
CFU = colony forming units
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-20
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.5: Concentration of contaminants in wastewater from mixed species
slaughtering and rendering facilities.
Parameter
Units
UNEP(a)
COD
TSS
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
FOG
pH
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
1,000 3,000
400 800
< 300
< 10
< 350
7 8.5
Poland
(Verheijen 1996)
648
Netherlands
(Verheijen 1996)
700
Table 4.6: Normalized average concentration of contaminants in wastewater from

cattle, pig and chicken slaughtering and rendering facilities (USEPA
2002).
Parameter
BOD
TSS
Hexane Extractables
TKN
Total phosphorus
Units
lb/1,000LWK
lb/1,000LWK
lb/1,000LWK
lb/1,000LWK
lb/1,000LWK
CFU/1,000 LWK
Cattle
23.55
3.75
0.48
1.00
0.11
1.1x1010
Pig
8.34
11.20
2.82
1.17
0.25
2.6x1010
Poultry
13.84
6.69
7.22
0.44
0.10
3.4x1010
Footnote:
LWK = Live weight killed
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-21
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.7: Normalized concentration of contaminants in wastewater from mixed
species meat slaughtering facilities (UNEP (a)).
Parameter
COD
BOD
Suspended solids
Total nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Organic nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Soluble phosphorus
Sodium
Oil and grease
Pollutant Load
kg/tonne LCW
kg/tonne HSCW
1
2
3
4
12 66
12 15
6 16
8 66
9 12
4 18
4 - 14
1 1.7
1-3
0.9 3.4
0.08 0.25
0.3 0.8
0.1 0.5
0.1 0.5
0.06 0.21
0.6 4.0
1.5 8
1.5 23
2 12
Footnote:
LCW = Live carcass weight; HSCW = Hot standard carcass weight
1)
2)
3)
4)
Reported 2000 survey data of US abattoirs

Reported 1992 survey data of US abattoirs
Reported 1995 survey data of Australian abattoirs
Reported 1998 survey data of Australian abattoirs
Table 4.8: Concentration of contaminants in wastewater from cattle, pig and

chicken meat processing facilities.
Parameter
BOD
COD
TSS
Hexane Extractables
TKN
Total phosphorus
Units
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
CFU/100 ml
Cattle
USEPA
2002
5,038
2,421
1,820
72
44
1.4x106
Pig
USEPA
2002
1,492
363
162
24
82
1.4x106
USEPA
2002
3,293
1,657
793
80
72
8.6x105
Poultry
Rausch &
Powell 1997
1,306
1,581
Kiepper
2003
28 292
7.7 130
Footnote:
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-22
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.9: Average concentration of contaminants in wastewater from mixed
species meat-processing facilities.
Parameter
BOD
COD
TKN
FOG
Unit
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
University of Georgia
1,800
1,600
60
1,600
Rausch & Powell 1997

1,433
2,746
Table 4.10: Normalized average concentration of contaminants in wastewater from

cattle, pig and chicken meat processing facilities (USEPA 2002).
Parameter
BOD
TSS
Hexane Extractables
TKN
Total phosphorus
Units
lb/1,000LWK
lb/1,000LWK
lb/1,000LWK
lb/1,000LWK
lb/1,000LWK
CFU/1,000 LWK
Cattle
14.97
7.28
5.65
0.21
0.12
1.8x1010
Pig
8.48
2.06
0.92
0.14
0.47
3.6x1010
Poultry
52.94
26.64
12.75
1.29
0.65
6.3x1010
Footnote:
LWK = Live weight killed
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-23
________________________________________________________________________
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
Rendering (3)
Further Processing (4)
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-24
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.12: Average wastewater flow rates for cattle, pig and chicken processing
facilities (USEPA, 2002(1)).
Sub-sector
Cattle
Pig
Chicken
Process
Flow
(MGD)(2)
First processing and rendering (3)

Further processing (4)
1.86
1.47
1.95
0.30
0.89
1.10
Flow per Unit

Production (1,000
lb/day)
3,942
4,044
3,639
435
880
573
Footnotes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Data Source: generated during USEPA site sampling visits

MGD = Million USgallons per day.
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.
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
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.

4.4.2
Water effluent data were obtained for 20 dairy product manufacturing facilities that
discharge to municipal sewers in Ontario. The municipalities monitored the following
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-25
________________________________________________________________________
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 companys 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-26
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.13: Main sources of contaminants in dairy product manufacturing facilities.
Contaminant
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
Source
Most of the waste material in dairy plant wastewater is organic
in nature, consisting of milk solids and organic components of
cleaners, sanitizers and lubricants.

(TSS)
Suspended solids in the wastewater are mainly organic

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 plants 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).
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-27
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.11: Annual average BOD concentrations for dairy product manufacturing
facilities.
Ice Cream and
Frozen Dessert
Cheese, Butter, and Dry and Condensed Products
Fluid Milk
12000
10000
BOD (mg/l)
8000
6000
4000
2000
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 D18
D19 D20
Dairy Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD
Figure 4.12: Annual average TSS concentrations for dairy product manufacturing
facilities.
Ice Cream and
Frozen Dessert
1400
Fluid Milk
1200
SS (mg/l)
1000
800
600
400
200
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 D18
D19 D20

Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-28
________________________________________________________________________
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
90.0
80.0
70.0
Phosphorus (mg/l)
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
D4
D7
D8
D9
D10
1999
2003
2002
2002
2001
2000
1999
2003
2003
2002
2001
2000
0.0
D12

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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-29
________________________________________________________________________
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
BOD (mg/l)
TSS (mg/l)
pH
Phosphorus (mg/l)
TKN (mg/l)
FOG(V) (mg/l)
FOG(M) (mg/l)
Chloride (mg/l)
Sub-Sector
Ice cream and

frozen dessert
Cheese
Fluid milk
All
Ice cream and
frozen dessert
Cheese
Fluid milk
All
All
All
All
Non-frozen
Non-frozen
Non-frozen
Number of
Facilities
Range
Median
Average
Number of
Annual
Average
Values
11
40 2,376
1,127
1,256
10
6
20
4
27
18
56
11
385 10,077
460 7,050
40 10,077
44 447
2,853
2,199
2,006
244
3,306
2,720
2,715
233
10
6
20
5
6
3
1
1
1
27
17
55
12
12
4
2
2
2
79 1,149
144 1,162
44 1,162
6.1 8.0
4.9 84.0
44.0 133.2
89.8 99.5
3.0 6.0
517 624
509
695
497
7.4
13.9
63.3
94.6
4.5
571
567
665
531
7.2
26.3
76.0
94.6
4.5
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-30
________________________________________________________________________
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-31
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.15: Effluent Contaminant Concentrations, Direct Discharging Dairy

Producers
Sub-sector
Number of Annual
Average Values
Unit
Average
Range
Cheese
mg/l
47.07
2.50 - 277
Fluid Milk
mg/l
139.61
4.57 - 638
All
14
mg/l
93.34
2.50 - 638
Cheese
mg/l
14.35
9.76 - 18.10
Fluid Milk
mg/l
200.56
10.73 - 899
All
14
mg/l
107.45
9.76 - 899
pH
All
pH
7.98
7.57 - 8.41
Phosphorus
All
mg/l
1.73
0.46 - 4.31
Ammonia
All
11
mg/l
3.97
0.38 - 14.80
Sulphides
All
mg/l
0.05
0.00 - 0.10
Contaminant
BOD
TSS
Figure 4.14: Direct Discharging Dairy Producers Average Annual BOD

Concentrations
700
Cheese
Fluid Milk
600
BOD (mg/l)
500
400
300
200
100
0
1992
1993
1994
DD1
1995
1992
1993
1994
1992
DD2
1993
1994
DD3
1995
1992
1993
1994
DD4

Annual average BOD
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-32
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.15: Direct Discharging Dairy Producers Average Annual TSS

Concentrations
1,000
Cheese
Fluid Milk
900
800
700
SS (mg/l)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
DD1
1992
1993
1994
1992
1993
DD2
1994
1995
1992
DD3
1993
1994
DD4

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
P (mg/l)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1992
1993
1994
1992
DD2
1993
1994
DD4
Annual average Phosphorus
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-33
________________________________________________________________________
4.4.4
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
Concentration
(kg/ton milk consumed)
Average
Range
(1)
(1)
6
0.2 71.5
Average (mg/l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
BOD
2,700 2,300
COD
7,000
TSS
2.0
0.06 10.8
2,000
1,500
FOG
700
Phosphorus
0.012
0.007 0.16
28
Ammonia
5.5
nitrogen
Total nitrogen
0.15
0.002 0.43
64
Chloride
483
pH and Temperature
pH
7.8
Temperature
24 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
Range (mg/l)
(5)
(2)
(5)
2,300
820
450
33
1,000 4,000
9 210
1.0 13.4
500 5,000
400 3,500
200 3,000
56
1.0 115
46 1,930
4.0 10.8
8 38 C
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-34
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.17: Wastewater from dairy processing facilities (Verheijen, 1996).
Type of Product
1971 USEPA study
Milk
Condensed milk
Butter
Milkpowder
Cottage cheese
1974 USEPA study
Milk (canned)
Condensed milk
Butter
Natural cheese
Cottage cheese
1990 Dutch study
Milk
Cheese
Butter/milkpowder
BOD
(kg/ton milk consumed)
Average
Range
BOD
(mg/l) (1)
Average
Range
4.2
7.6
0.85
2.2
34.0
0.20 7.8
0.20 13.3
0.02 4.6
1.30 71.2
1,750
3,167
354
917
14,167
83 3,250
83 5,541
8 1,917
542 29,667
0.02 1.13
0.17 1.48
0.19 1.91
0.30 4.04
1.30 42
8 471
70 617
79 796
125 1,683
542 17,500
0.9
0.3
0.2 4.0
375
125
83 1,667
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-35
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.18: Wastewater volumes from dairy processing plants (Verheijen, 1996).
Type of Product
USEPA 1971 study
Milk
Condensed milk
Butter
Milkpowder
Cottage cheese
USEPA 1974 study
Milk (canned)
Condensed milk
Butter
Natural cheese
Cottage cheese
1990 Dutch study
All dairy facilities
Wastewater Volume (kg/ton milk consumed)

Average
Range
3,250
2,100
800
3,700
6,000
100 5,400
1,000 3,000
1,500 5,900
800 12,400
320 1,870
800 7,290
800 6,550
200 5,850
830 12,540
4,000
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-36
________________________________________________________________________
4.5
BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING
4.5.1
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.

4.5.2
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.
.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-37
________________________________________________________________________
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.
(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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-38
________________________________________________________________________
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.
Soft Drink
Wineries and
Distilleries
Breweries
9000
8000
7000
BOD (mg/l)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
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
B8B9B10
B11
B12
B13B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28
Beverage Plant Label and Year
Annual average BOD
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-39
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.18: Annual average TSS concentrations for beverage manufacturing

facilities.
Soft Drink
Wineries and
Distilleries
Breweries
2500
2000
SS (mg/l)
1500
1000
500
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
B8B9B10
B11
B12
B13B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27
B28
Annual average SS
Figure 4.19: Annual average pH for beverage manufacturing facilities.
Soft Drink
Wineries and
Distilleries
Breweries
12.0
10.0
pH
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1999
B1
1999
2000
B5
1999
2000
B15
1999
2000
2000
B17
2001
B20
2003
1999
B22
1999
2000
B28
Annual average pH
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-40
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.20: Annual average total phosphorus for beverage manufacturing facilities.
Soft Drink
Breweries
Wineries
70.0
60.0
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
2002
2003
B14
1999
2002
B18
2003
B23
2002
2003
2002
B24
2003
2002
B25
2003
2002
B26
2003
B27
Figure 4.21: Annual average TKN for beverage manufacturing facilities.

Soft Drink
Wineries
35.0
30.0
TKN (mg/l)
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2002
B14
2002
2003
B23
2003
B24
2002
2003
B25
2002
2003
B26
2002
2003
B27

Annual average TKN
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-41
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.20: Contaminants monitored in beverage processing plants.
Contaminant
BOD
Sub-sector
Soft drink
Breweries
Wineries
TSS
Soft drink
Breweries
Wineries
pH
All
Phosphorus
All
TKN
All
Annual Average at One Brewery
Phenols
Brewery
Aluminum
Brewery
Barium
Brewery
Beryllium
Brewery
Cadmium
Brewery
Chromium
Brewery
Cobalt
Brewery
Copper
Brewery
Iron
Brewery
Lead
Brewery
Manganese
Brewery
Molybdenum
Brewery
Tin
Brewery
Vanadium
Brewery
Zinc
Brewery
4.5.3
Number of
Annual Average
Values
28
20
14
28
20
14
13
13
9
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
pH
mg/l
mg/l
1,826
2,244
1,190
151
737
194
7.6
7.8
11.2
608 4,200
820 8,267
213 2,400
23 667
137 1,909
27 618
6.5 9.7
1.2 62.7
1.3 31.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
0.0
0.294
0.034
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.004
0.397
1.01
0.022
0.117
0.01
0.002
0.001
0.349
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-42
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.21: Reported contaminant concentrations in the wastewater from beverage
processing plants.
Parameter
Unit
BOD
COD
TDS
4.5.4
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Subsector
Beverage
Breweries
Wineries
University of
Georgia
8,500
UNEP (b)
2,000 7,000
mg/l
Wineries
Environment
Canada, 1997b
2,080 6,850
average: 4,040
490 3,180
average: 1,100
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
Soft drink bottled water

Soft drink fruit juices
Soft drink carbonated (dilutables)
Soft drink carbonated (fruit juices)
Breweries
m3/m3 product
m3/m3 product
m3/m3 product
m3/m3 product
m3/m3 product
UK DTI &
DETR
0.8
1.5
1.4
3.6
Wineries
m3/m3 product
Environment
Canada 1997b
3.6 6.2
typical: 4.7
7.2 11.4
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-43
________________________________________________________________________
4.6
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRESERVING AND SPECIALTY FOOD

MANUFACTURING
4.6.1
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
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-44
________________________________________________________________________
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
BOD
TSS
pH
Phosphorus
Number of
Annual Average
Values
40
39
16
8
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
pH
mg/l
1,528
517
7.0
4.6
190 6,113
117 1,433
6.0 7.7
3.1 8.6
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-45
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.24 Main sources of wastewater contaminants in frozen food, and fruit and
vegetable processing facilities.
Contaminant
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
Source
BOD concentration in the wastewater is mainly a result of
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.

(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

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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-46
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.22: Annual average BOD concentrations for frozen food and fruit and
Canning, Pickling and Drying
Frozen Food Manufacturing

7000
6000
BOD (mg/l)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
F12
2002
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2001
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
2003
2002
2001
2000
2003
2002
2001
2000
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2002
2001
2000
1999
F13
Plant label and Year
Annual average BOD
Figure 4.23: Annual average TSS concentrations for frozen food and fruit and
Canning, Pickling and Drying
1600
1400
1200
SS (mg/l)
1000
800
600
400
200
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
F12
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2001
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
2003
2002
2001
2000
2003
2002
2001
2000
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2002
2001
2000
1999
F13
Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-47
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.24: Annual average pH for frozen food and fruit and vegetable processing
facilities.
Canning, Pickling
and Drying

9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
pH
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2000
2001
F1
1999
2000
F3
2000
2001
2002
2003
2000
2001
F5
2002
F6
2003
2000
F8
1999
2000
F10
2000
F13
Annual average pH
4.6.3
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-48
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.25: Contaminants in wastewater from the fruit and vegetable industry.
Sub-Sector
Fruit and vegetable

Fruit Lambert
Cherries
Fruit Royal Anne
Cherries
Fruit Pears
Vegetable Corn
Vegetable Beets
Vegetable Snap
beans
Parameter University of
Georgia
(mg/l)
BOD
TSS
BOD
TSS
BOD
TSS
BOD
TSS
BOD
BOD
BOD
TSS
500
1,100
UNEP (c)
(kg/tonne
product)
7.2 34
Environment
Canada (1996) (1)
(kg/ tonne
product)
10.8 (8.8 14)

0.54 (0.3 0.88)
7.8 (5.6 9.7)
0.43 (0.08 0.8)
14.8 (11.4 18.1)
1.4 (0.95 1.9)
13 (13 14)
32 (30 35)
1.8 (1.3 2.8)
1.3 (0.78 2.3)
Footnote:
1)
Average values with range in parenthesis.
4.6.4
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-49
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.26: Reported wastewater flow rates from fruit & vegetable processing plants.
Sub-sector
Fruit and vegetable
Fruit Lambert Cherries
Fruit Royal Anne Cherries
Fruit Pears
Vegetable Corn
Vegetable Beets
Vegetable Snap beans
Unit
m3/tonne product
m3/tonne product
m3/tonne product
m3/tonne product
m3/tonne product
m3/tonne product
m3/tonne product
UNEP (c)
3 23
Environment
Canada 1997 (c) (1)
3.8 (2.1 5.3)

6.3 (4.2 8.1)
11.1 (6.9 13.5)
5.5 (3.4 8.3)
6.9 (5.9 8.3)
10.4 (9.0 12.2)
Footnote:
1)
Average values with range in parenthesis.
4.7
GRAIN AND OILSEED MILLING
4.7.1
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
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:
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-50
________________________________________________________________________
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
Annual Average
Values
BOD
25
TSS
25
pH
7
Annual Average at One Facility
Phosphorus
1
Aluminum
1
Cadmium
2
Chromium
2
Cobalt
1
Copper
1
Iron
2
Lead
2
Manganese
1
Molybdenum
1
Nickel
2
Tin
1
Vanadium
1
Zinc
2
Footnote:
N/A: Not applicable
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
pH
1,029
622
7.5
82 5,813
2 2,660
7.0 8.1
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
64.3
0.26
N/A
N/A
0.01
0.284
0.65
N/A
0.077
0.025
N/A
ND
ND
0.39
N/A
N/A
ND 0.001
ND 0.002
N/A
0.180 0.387
0.45 0.85
ND 0.009
N/A
N/A
ND 0.01
N/A
N/A
0.36 0.42
ND: Not detected
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-51
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.25: Annual average BOD concentrations for grain and oilseed milling
facilities.
7000
6000
BOD (mg/l)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
G6
G11
2002
2000
2003
G9 G10
2002
G8
2001
G7
2000
2002
2002
G5
2002
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
G4
2002
G3
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
G2
2002
G1
2002
2002
2000
1999
G12 G13
Plant Label and Year

Annual average BOD
Figure 4.26: Annual average TSS concentrations for grain and oilseed milling
facilities.
3000
2500
SS (mg/l)
2000
1500
1000
500
G6
G11
2002
2000
2003
G9 G10
2002
G8
2001
G7
2000
2002
2002
G5
2002
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
1999
2000
G4
2002
G3
2002
2000
1999
2002
G2
2002
G1
2002
2000
1999
G12 G13

Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-52
________________________________________________________________________
4.7.3
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
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-53
________________________________________________________________________
4.8.2
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
Table 4.28: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from bakeries.
Contaminant
BOD
TSS
pH
Phosphorus
TKN
Number of Annual
Average Values
55
52
8
3
1
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
pH
mg/l
mg/l
1,399
921
6.9
35.3
280.4
20 4,480
30 2,630
6.7 8.4
10.0 63.1
N/A
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-54
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.27: Annual average BOD concentrations in effluent from bakeries.
Cookie, Cracker
and Pasta
Bread and Bakery Products

5000
4500
4000
3500
BOD (mg/l)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
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
BT14
BT15
BT16
BT17
BT18 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
and Pasta
Bread and Bakery Products

3000
2500
SS (mg/l)
2000
1500
1000
500
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
BT14
BT15
BT16
BT17
BT18 BT19
BT20
BT21
BT22BT23
Bakery Plant Label and Year
Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-55
________________________________________________________________________
4.8.3
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
BOD
COD
TSS
Unit
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Rausch and Powell

(1997)
3,200
7,000
4.9
OTHER FOOD MANUFACTURING
4.9.1
University of Georgia
2,000
4,000
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-56
________________________________________________________________________
pH, acidity and alkalinity

Temperature
Phosphorus
Nitrogen

4.9.2
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-57
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.30: Main sources of wastewater contaminants in other food manufacturing
facilities.
Contaminant
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)

(TSS)
FOG
pH
Temperature
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Source
BOD concentration in the wastewater is mainly a result of the
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most of the phosphorus in the wastewater originates from
cleaning agents.
and cleaning agents used.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-58
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.29: Annual average BOD concentrations in effluent from other food
processing facilities.
Coffee, Tea, Syrups
and Seasoning
Snack Food
All Other Food Manufacturing
8000
7000
6000
BOD (mg/l)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
O1 O2 O3
O4
O5 O6
O7
O8
O9
O10
O11O12O13O14
O15
O16
O17
O18
O19 O20
O21
O22
2002
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
1999
2002
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2002
2002
2001
2000
1999
2003
2002
2003
2002
2001
2002
2002
2002
1999
O32
Annual average BOD
Figure 4.30: Annual average TSS concentrations in effluent from other food
Coffee, Tea, Syrups
and Seasoning
Snack Food
All Other Food Manufacturing
20000
18000
16000
14000
SS (mg/l)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
O7
O8
O9
O10
O11O12O13O14
O15
O16
O17
O18
O19 O20
O21
O22
2002
2002
2001
1999
2000
2001
2002
2000
2002
1999
2002
1999
2002
2000
2001
1999
2000
2002
2002
1999
2000
2002
1999
1999
2000
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
2001
1999
2000
2001
2002
2000
2002
1999
O5 O6
2002
O4
2000
2001
2003
1999
2002
O1 O2 O3
2002
2003
2002
2001
2002
1999
2002
O32
Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-59
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.31: Contaminants monitored in the wastewater from other food
Contaminant
BOD
TSS
pH
Phosphorus
4.9.3
Number of
Annual Average
Values
51
50
14
2
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
pH
mg/l
1,878
1,561
6.8
5.45
166 7,543
89 18,709
5.7 8.1
4.49 6.40
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-60
________________________________________________________________________
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
BOD
TSS
pH
Phosphorus
Number of Annual
Average Values
30
30
6
2
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
pH
mg/l
4,082
597
6.8
21.15
177 26,185
47 2,153
5.9 7.2
20.10 22.20
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-61
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.31: Annual average BOD concentrations in effluent from sugar and
confectionary processing facilities.
Sugar
Chocolate
Non-Chocolate
30000
25000
BOD (mg/l)
20000
15000
10000
5000
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
SC8
SC9
2002
2001
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
SC10
Annual average BOD
Figure 4.32: Annual average TSS concentrations in effluent from sugar and
confectionary processing facilities.
Sugar
Chocolate
Non-Chocolate
2500
2000
SS (mg/l)
1500
1000
500
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
SC8
SC9
2002
2001
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
2002
2000
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
2000
1999
2002
2001
2000
1999
SC10
Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-62
________________________________________________________________________
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

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.
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-63
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.33: Annual average BOD concentrations in effluent from seafood
8000
7000
6000
BOD (mg/l)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
1999
2000
S1
2001
2002
1999
S2
2000
S3
1999
S4

Annual average BOD
Figure 4.34: Annual average TSS concentrations in effluent from seafood processing
facilities.
1400
1200
SS (mg/l)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
1999
2000
S1
2001
S2
2002
1999
2000
S3
1999
S4

Annual average SS
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-64
________________________________________________________________________
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
BOD
TSS
pH
Phosphorus
Phenols
Number of
Annual Average
Values
11
11
5
3
1
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
pH
mg/l
mg/l
2,387
737
6.1
16.2
0.83
60 6,698
30 1,305
4.0 7.0
2.1 44.2
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
Contaminant
BOD
TSS
pH
Ammonia
Oil and grease
Unit
mg/l
mg/l
pH
mg/l
mg/l
Average
718
427
6.5
23.7
36
Range
128 2,680
40 1,240
5.7 7.4
0.9 69.7
8 89
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-65
________________________________________________________________________
4.12
ANIMAL FOOD MANUFACTURING

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.
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
Contaminant
BOD
TSS
4.13
Number of
Annual Average
Values
6
6
Unit
Average
Range
mg/l
mg/l
1,111
623
212 1,961
140 - 932
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-66
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.36: Municipal by-law limits for contaminants in discharge to sanitary sewer
in City of Toronto and Region of Peel.
By-law limit
BOD
TSS
300 mg/l 350 mg/l
pH
6.0 11.5 (Toronto)
5.5 9.5 (Region of Peel)
Phosphorus
10 mg/l
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-67
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Meat products
Dairy products
Sub-Sector
Slaughtering
R&M
Poultry
Ice cream and
frozen desert
Cheese
Fluid milk
Soft drink
Breweries
Wineries
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Fruit and vegetable, and specialty food

Sugar and confectionary products
Seafood products
Footnote:
Annual Average Concentrations

from Municipal Data (mg/l)
Average
Range
922
40 1,610
999
160 2,503
1,194
180 5,749
1,256
40 2,376
3,306
2,720
1,826
2,244
1,190
1,528
1,029
1,399
1,878
4,082
2,387
1,111
375 10,077
460 7,050
608 4,200
820 8,267
213 2,400
190 6,113
82 5,813
20 4,480
166 7,543
177 26,185
60 6,698
212 1,961

from MOE Monitoring Data (mg/l)
Average
Range
6.7
2.7 11.7
4.8
1.6 10.0
47.0
140
2.5 277
4.6 638
Typical Reported
Concentrations
(mg/l)
1,250 7,237
1,492 5,038
1,306
125 29,667
83 3,250
8,500
8,500
8,500
500
700 4,100
2,000 3,200
6,000
500
128 2,680
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-68
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Meat products
Dairy products
Sub-Sector
Slaughtering
R&M
Poultry
Ice cream and
frozen desert
Cheese
Fluid milk
Soft drink
Breweries
Wineries
All
All
All
All
All
All
All

Seafood products
Footnote:

Average
Range
643
48 2,950
709
96 2,915
947
56 6,203
233
44 447
567
665
151
737
194
517
622
921
1,561
4,082
737
623
79 1,149
144 1,162
23 667
137 1,909
27 618
117 1,433
2 2,660
30 2,630
89 18,709
177 26,185
30 1,305
140 932

Average
Range
13.3
5.5 22.6
8.8
2.0 15.4
14.4
201
9.8 18.1
10.7 899
Typical Reported
Concentrations
(mg/l)
700 1,600
363 2,421
760
1,500 2,000
1,500 2,000
1,500 2,000
1,000
4,000
3,000
40 1,240
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-69
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Meat products
Sub-Sector
Slaughtering, R&M
Poultry
All
All
All
Dairy products
Fruit and vegetable, and specialty
food
All
All
All
All
Seafood products
All
Footnote:

Average
Range
6.9
6.7 7.3
6.7
5.9 7.0
7.2
6.1 8.0
7.6
6.5 9.7
7.0
6.0 7.7
7.5
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.1
7.0 8.1
6.7 8.4
5.7 8.1
5.9 7.2
4.0 7.0

Average
Range
7.3
7.1 7.8
7.7
7.5 8.0
8.0
7.6 8.4
Typical Reported
Concentrations
(mg/l)
7.2
4.0 10.8
5.7 7.4
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-70
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Meat products
Dairy products
Seafood products
Footnote:
R&M
Poultry
All
All
All
All
All
All
All

Average
Range
24.6
22.8 94.5
23.0
3.7 127.2
26.3
4.9 84.0
7.8
1.2 62.7
4.6
3.1 8.6
35.3
10.0 63.1
5.45
4.49 6.40
21.15
20.10 22.20
16.2
2.1 44.2

Average
Range
0.41
0.10 1.27
0.44
0.16 0.71
1.7
0.46 4.3
Typical Reported
Concentrations
(mg/l)
25 82
7.7 13
9 210
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 4-71
________________________________________________________________________
4.14
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.
DOE FRAP 1996-18.
Environment Canada. 1997a. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention
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 ByProducts 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
Final Report
ALTECH
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
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-1
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
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 noncompliance and enforcement actions are currently the primary (and perhaps the only)
drivers for food processors to implement BMPs.
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. Mechanisms for encouraging food processors to adopt BMPs are reviewed
in Section 6.0 of this report.
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
Page 5-2
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
facilitys 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-3
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-4
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.

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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-5
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

Pollution Prevention:
Preventing or minimizing
the amount of
contaminants entering
water system
Feed Water
Pollution Prevention:
Optimized water usage
Process
Contaminants
Wastewater Treatment:
Removing contaminants
Discharged Wastewater:
Improved water quality
Reduced water quantity
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-6
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
Operational and
housekeeping
changes
Improved scheduling. Sequential scheduling of products that use the

same line or equipment can reduce cleaning requirements.
Maximise the dedication of process equipment. This can reduce
equipment cleaning frequency and waste generation.
Train employees how to use water efficiently.
Shut water off during breaks.
Centralise the control of the water supplies. This will enable water supply
to be shut off during breaks.
Minimize the loss of product by minimizing spilling ingredients and
product on floors.
Place catch pans under potential overflows/leaks.
Use pre-clean and dry cleanup methods before wet cleaning. This
prevents adding additional waste to the wastewater stream.
Sweep up solid materials for use as by-products (if possible) instead of
washing it down the drain.
Reuse final rinse from cleaning operations for the initial rinse on the
following day.
Use the minimum amount of cleaning agents and detergents necessary to
comply with food safety requirements.
Cover non-process drains that should not be connected to wastewater
stream.
Fit drains with screens and/or traps to prevent solid materials from
entering the effluent system.
Skim grease traps regularly.
Ease of
Implementation
Moderate difficult
Moderate
Easy
Easy
Moderate - difficult
Easy
Easy
Moderate
Easy
Easy
Easy
Easy
Easy - moderate
Easy
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-7
Table 5-1: Wastewater pollution prevention BMPs for food processors.

Application
Technique
Install screens at strategic locations in the process to prevent solids from
entering the wastewater stream.
Inspect and execute preventative maintenance of potential discharge
areas.
Maintain tanks, equipment and pipes to prevent leakage.
Improve maintenance and operational programs to identify process
upsets, malfunctions and problems early in the process to minimize the
amount wastewater produced.
Include nozzle inspection in routine maintenance schedule. Wear of
spray nozzles increase the water flow rate.
Monitor liquid fill machines frequently.
Recycling/reuse
Process/
equipment
modification
Recover as much condensate as possible.

Do not allow water to run continuously unless necessary.
Avoid use of wastewater streams as a transport medium. Transfer solids
and particulate matter by mechanical means.
Review Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and other information
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.
Separate wastewater streams according to level and type of
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.
Eliminate once-through cooling water usage, by implementing recycling
or reuse practices where possible.
Use counter current wash procedures.
Install flow meters and monitor water usage.
Install automatic shut-off nozzles/valves on all water supplies when
feasible.
Install controls, like solenoid valves, to stop water flow when equipment
is not in operation and no water is required.
Replace traditional faucets with more efficient faucets.
Install flow control valves to regulate water flow in sprayers at conveyors
with variable speed.
Replace water based conveyors with mechanical conveyors.
Install spray nozzles on hoses and use high pressure rather than high
volume for cleaning surfaces.
Use automated cleaning-in-place (CIP) where feasible.
Install controls, like high level alarms, to prevent tanks from
overflowing.
Direct clean stormwater away from wastewater drains.
Use dry peeling methods.
Ease of
Implementation
Moderate
Easy
Moderate
Moderate
Easy
Easy moderate
Easy - moderate
Moderate-difficult
Easy-Moderate
Moderate
Easy moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Easy
Easy
Moderate
Easy moderate
Moderate
Easy - moderate
Difficult
Moderate
Moderate
Difficult
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-8
Table 5-2: Examples of pollution prevention BMPs used by meat & poultry processors
Process
Washing
Objective/
Pollutant Reduction
Wastewater reduction
Washing
Washing
Singeing
Scalding
Scalding
Bleeding
BOD, TSS
Evisceration
Evisceration
Processing
Processing
Processing
Processing
Processing
Treatment
optimisation
Processing
Carcass
Washing
Carcass
Washing
Carcass
Washing
Carcass
Washing
FOG, BOD, TSS

FOG, BOD, TSS
FOG, BOD, TSS
Coliforms
Best Management Practice

Reuse relative clean wastewater from cooling systems for washing
livestock if possible.
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.
Reuse final rinse water from paunch and casings washing for other
non-critical cleaning steps in the casings department
Reuse cooling water from the singeing process for other purposes in
the pig de-hairing area.
Boiler condensate that is not returned to the boiler can be used as
make-up water for the scalding process.
Use automated operated scalding chambers rather than scalding tanks
for de-hairing
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.
Install automated control with sensors to supply wash spray water to
viscera section only when required.
Set and maintain minimum water flow rates for viscera table wash
sprays.
Replace single-skinned knife sterilizers with more water efficient
sterilizers, e.g. water jacket sterilizer.
Use automated control systems to operate flow of water at knife
sterilisation and hand-wash stations.
Use dry dumping techniques for processing of cattle paunches and pig
stomachs instead of wet dumping techniques.
Separate high strength effluent streams, such as rendering effluent and
wastewater from paunch washing and treat them separately.
Use water sprays on splitting saws to remove bone dust and reduce the
water required fro carcass washing.
Install on/off controls for cooling water on breaking saws. This will
ensure water is only supplied when the saw is operated.
Use water sprays with pressure of less than 10 bar for carcass washing
to avoid removing fat from the surface.
Aim to use water with temperatures below 30C in carcass washing to
reduce fat removal from surface.
Use automated sensor control to regulate water supply for carcass
washing.
Use of air chillers for carcass cooling in poultry plants to reduce water
use by up to 2 litres per bird. This also reduces the incidence of
coliforms on the product and in the wastewater streams.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-9
Table 5-3: Examples of PP BMPs implemented in dairy product manufacturing plants.

Process
Cooling
Objective/
Pollutant Reduction
BOD, TSS, FOG
Processing
Processing
BOD, TSS, FOG
Processing
BOD, TSS, FOG
Processing
BOD, TSS, FOG

Ensure accurate temperature control of plate, tubular and surface
coolers to prevent freeze-on, which may result in loss of product.
Reuse water from reverse osmosis process, which is used to
concentrate whey, for example to wash equipment or purge lines
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.
Ensure cheese vats, vat processors, cooling tanks and other mixing
tanks are filled to level that will not cause spillage during agitation.
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
Processing
Cleaning
Cleaning
Objective/
Pollutant Reduction
BOD,
TSS,
wastewater reduction
Cleaning
Wastewater
reduction, ammonia,
phosphorus
Ammonia
Cleaning
Utilities
Cooling

Brewing: remove grain from tun with dry methods, like raking or
brushing.
Brewing: clean tun, copper and whirlpool with wash water from other
cleaning operations, but ensure that hygienic conditions are not
compromised.
Adjust tank washing cycles to reduce the water and detergent usage
according to the size of the tank.
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.
Use the bottle rinse water for crate washing.
Reuse the seal water from liquid ring vacuum pumps, for example in
bottle washing process.
Brewing: defrost cold radiators in conditioning tank rooms with
electricity instead of water sprays.
Final Report
ALTECH
5.2.3
Page 5-10
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-11
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.

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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-12

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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-13
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


Recycling/Reuse Opportunities to
Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Equipment and Process Redesign Actions
Final Report
ALTECH
5.3
WASTEWATER TREATMENT BMPS
5.3.1
Classification of Treatment Technologies
Page 5-14
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:
5.3.2
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.
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 Ministrys Guideline F-5
defines the normal level of treatment for wastewater discharges to surface water as
secondary, or equivalent. The Ministrys 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 facilitys operation and the receiving
water indicates that there is a water quality concern. The assessment and requirements are
based on the ministrys 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);
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-15
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 subsectors 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 sitespecific 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-16
Table 5-5: Ontario effluent criteria MOE Procedure F-5-1 (MOEE, 1994b)
Treatment Level and Processes
Effluent Design Objectives1

(mg/l)
BOD5
SECONDARY TREATMENT OR EQUIVALENT

Conventional Activated Sludge without TP 15
removal
Conventional Activated Sludge with TP removal 15
Conventional Stabilization without TP removal
20
Conventional Stabilization with TP removal
20
Extended Aeration without TP removal
15
Extended aeration with TP removal
15
Continuous Discharge Lagoon without TP 25
removal
Continuous Discharge Lagoon with TP removal
25
Seasonal Retention Lagoon without TP removal 25
Seasonal Lagoon with TP removal by batch 15
chemical dosage
Seasonal Lagoon with TP removal by continuous 25
chemical dosage
Physical-chemical Treatment
20
ADVANCED TREATMENT
Conventional Activated Sludge with TP removal 10
and filtration
Conventional Activated Sludge with nitrification 15
Extended Aeration with TP removal and 5
filtration
Footnotes:
1
2
3
4
Effluent
Guidelines2
(mg/l)
BOD5 TS
S
TS
S
TP
T A/N3
15
25
25
15
20
20
15
15
30
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
25
25
25
25
25
30
25
25
25
25
25
40
30
30
20
30
30
25
40
40
25
30
1.0
1
0.5
1.0
1.0
30
40
20
1.0
25
25
0.3
x4
x4
15
5
0.3
<1.0 5
1
x4
x4
x4
x4
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.
Criteria which the average annual effluent quality should not exceed.
T A/N = (NH3+NH4+)-N
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.
Expected warm weather effluent concentration.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-17
TERTIARY
TREATMENT
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
PRIMARY
TREATMENT
PRELIMINARY TECHNIQUES
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
from water to be treated
Removal of Solids
Screening
Flow equalization
Gravity separation
Chemical precipitation
Removal of Organic Material

Biological treatment
Lagoons
Removal of Specific Contaminants

Nutrient removal
Filtration
Disinfection
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-18
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 facilitys 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 facilitys 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-19
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 sitespecific conditions such as the incorporation of existing or used equipment.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-20
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
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-21
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-22
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-23
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-24
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-25
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-26
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
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 semicontinuous). 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 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-27
Table 5-6: Comparison of wastewater treatment processes.

Process
Target
Pollutant
Pollutant
Reduction
Principle of Operation
Preliminary Techniques
Diversion tanks
Accidental
Prevent material Store wastewater with
release of
from entering
accidentally released
material that
treatment plant.
material that may be
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
settleable
90% settleable
screens mesh size are
solids,
solids
prevented from passing
20 50% BOD;
through screen.
20 90% FOG
Flow equalization
Fluctuation in Uniform flow
Store wastewater to
flow rates and and waste
dampen fluctuation in
waste
composition.
hydraulic load and
composition.
waste composition
upstream of subsequent
treatment processes.
Gravity separation
TSS,
50-90% FOG
Due to gravitational
settleable
40% - 90% TSS, force solid particles
solids,
15% - 50% BOD sink to bottom of
BOD
clarifier/ tank. FOG
with lower density than
water floats on surface
of water.
Dissolved Air
TSS,
40% - 80% TSS
Fine air bubbles carry
Flotation
O&G
60% - 95%
solids to surface of
BOD
O&G
water where it is
scraped off. FOG with
15 70% BOD
(with chemical
lower density than
addition:
water floats on surface
80% - 93% TSS
of water.
85% 99%
O&G)
Ease of
Implementation
and Operation
Advantages
Easy to implement
and to operate.
Minimize downtime of
wastewater treatment
plant.
Space required for tanks.
CC: 20,000
OMC: 30,000
Relatively easy to
implement and to
operate.
Simple to operate.
Inexpensive to
implement and
operate.
Screen may clog up if not

well maintained.
CC: 70,000
OMC: 40,000
Easy to implement
and to operate.
Improve performance
of downstream
Reduce size and cost
of downstream
Simple to operate.
Space required for tanks.
CC: 20,000
OMC: 40,000
Require large surface area

with long retention time to
remove smaller particles.
CC: 230,000
OMC: 90,000
Relative short retention

time and smaller
surface area required.
Remove solid particles
with a wide range of
sizes.
Turbulent or large
fluctuation in flow rates can
reduce treatment efficiency
substantially.
CC: 350,000
OMC: 270,000
Relatively easy to
implement and to
operate.
Easy to moderately
difficult to
implement and
operate.
Disadvantages
Cost ($)
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-28

Process
Chemical addition
Target
Pollutant
TSS
Pollutant
Reduction
60% - 80% TSS
Solid particulates
coagulate or form
flocks due to chemical
bonds.
Ease of
Implementation
and Operation
Easy to moderately
difficult to
implement and
operate
Secondary Treatment Removal of Organic Material

Biological
BOD
70 95% BOD
treatment:
60 90% TSS
Anaerobic
85 98% FOG
treatment
Organic matter is
decomposed by
microbiological activity
Well known
technology.
Requires skill to
operate.
Anaerobic lagoons
BOD
Depth 3 - 5 m.
Well-known
technology.
Biological
Treatment: Aerobic
treatment (e.g.
activated sludge)
BOD
Organic matter is
decomposed by
microbiological activity
Well known
technology and
commonly used.
Requires skill to
operate.
Aerated lagoons
BOD
Oxygenated by
mechanical devices.
Depth up to 5m.
Well known
technology and
commonly used.
60 97% BOD
60 90% TSS
70 90% FOG
85 97% BOD
Less than 10
15 mg/l soluble
BOD in effluent
95 98% TSS
0 50%
Nitrogen
50 80% BOD
0 10%
Nitrogen
Advantages
Disadvantages
Require relatively small

footprint.
May limit use of sludge for

animal or agricultural use.
Efficiency is influenced by
fluctuation in feed water
quality and quantity
Treat water with high

BOD loads (> 10,000
mg/l).
Low energy
consumption
Produce methane gas
that may be used as
fuel.
Sensitive to toxic and

hydraulic shocks.
Sludge requires disposal.
Excessive levels of
phosphorus or ammonia
might occur.
Effluent requires aerobic
treatment.
Odor
Same as above for
Same as above for
biological treatment:
anaerobic treatment
anaerobic treatment
Effluent water quality BOD concentration in feed
high in terms of BOD.
< 2,000 mg/l
Sensitive to toxic and
hydraulic shocks.
Can treat high flow
rates and have a
Sludge requires disposal.
relatively small
Excessive levels of
footprint.
phosphorus or ammonia
might occur.
Odor
Low capital cost.
Same as above for
aerobic treatment.
Require relatively large
surface area.
Require energy for
aeration.
Cost ($)
CC: 125,000
OMC: 25,000
CC: 1,600,000
OMC: 125,000
CC: 180,000
OMC: 15,000
CC: 460,000
2,130,000
OMC: 175,000
CC: 200,000
567,000
OMC: 20,000
110,000
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-29

Process
Target
Pollutant
Pollutant
Reduction
Tertiary Treatment for Removal of Specific Contaminants

Nutrient removal
Nitrogen
Biological or
Phosphorus
physicochemical
treatment systems are
used.
Filtration
TSS
< 23 mg/l TSS in
Gravity or pressure is
Taste
effluent
used to filter liquid
Odour
< 98% BOD
through filter media.
Chemicals
Contaminants are
adsorbed onto carbon
in granulated
activated carbon
filter (GAC).
Disinfection (e.g.
Bacteria and
Methods of
chlorination)
other
disinfection include
pathogens
chlorination,
ozonation and UV
light.
Ease of
Implementation
and Operation
Advantages
Disadvantages
Cost ($)
Easy to moderately
difficult to implement
and operate
May reduce BOD and

TSS concentrations
Biological processes may be

sensitive to temperature and
load fluctuations.
CC: 125,000
OMC: 25,000
Easy to moderately
and operate
Reliable process.
Low space
requirement.
Buildup of emulsified oils.

Breakthrough of filter
media may occur.
CC: 60,000
OMC: 35,000
Handling of hazardous
chemicals.
CC: 25,000
OMC: 35,000
Easy to moderately
and operate
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
5.4
Page 5-30
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.
DOE FRAP 1996-18.
Environment Canada. 1997a. Fraser River Action Plan: Technical Pollution Prevention
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
ETBPB, 1999b. Reducing Water and Effluent Costs in Fish Processing. Environmental
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-31
ETBPB, 2000. Reducing Water and Effluent Costs in Red Meat Abattoirs. Environmental
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.
University of Georgia. An Assessment of the Recovery and Potential of Residuals and ByProducts 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 5-32
UNEP (b). Fact Sheet 5 Food Manufacturing Series. Working group for Cleaner
UNEP (c). Fact Sheet 3 Food Manufacturing Series. Working group for Cleaner
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-1
SECTION 6.0
MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE ADOPTION OF BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
6.1
INTRODUCTION
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
Page 6-2
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
6.2.4
Page 6-3
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 decisionmaker 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
6.3
Page 6-4
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-5
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-6
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-7
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 sectorspecific 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-8
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 walkthrough review would benefit smaller food companies that may not know where to start or
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-9
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-10
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.
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-11
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.
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

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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-12
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 costsavings 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-13
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.
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-14
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 meatprocessing 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.
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-15
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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-16
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.
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 sitespecific 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
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-17
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.
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-18
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-19
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 selfcertification 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 selfcertifications to evaluate the performance of individual facilities, sectors and the ERP as a
whole.
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
6.4
Page 6-20
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:

Alliance of Ontario Food Processors
Ontario Food Processors Association
Ontario Independent Meat Processors
Ontario Dairy Council
Association of Ontario Chicken Processors
Guelph Food Technology Centre
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.
Final Report
ALTECH
6.5
Page 6-21
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), EcoEfficiency 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.
Final Report
ALTECH
Page 6-22
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-B99-005, March 1999.
Final Report

A Review of Wastewater Management and Best Practices For Dischargers in The Food Processing Sector

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Review of Wastewater Management and Best Practices For Dischargers in The Food Processing Sector

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Review of Wastewater Management and Best

Practices for Dischargers in the Food Processing

Altech Environmental Consulting Ltd.

OVERVIEW OF THE CANADIAN FOOD AND MANUFACTURING SECTOR....................... 1-1

1.8.11 Netherlands .......................................................................................................................... 1-43

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS .................................................... 3-1

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL COSTS ..................................................................................... 3-25

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.10.1 Contaminants in Wastewater................................................................................................ 4-59

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 5-1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.3.7 Human Resource Assistance ................................................................................................ 6-16

Accelerated Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Technologies

Integrated Environmental Target Plan

Toxicity Leaching Characteristic Procedure

Present an overview of the food processing industry in terms of its operations,

Compile information available on Ontario food processors that discharge wastewater

Develop a list of wastewater parameters that may be used to characterize food

Summarize the characteristics of wastewater discharges from the various sub-sectors

submission of regular compliance and monitoring reports to the approval agency.

Prior to October 2003, Alberta Environment used Codes of Practice to regulate

The new Environmental Management Act (EMA) enacted in British Columbia in

The industry-led Agricultural Adaptation Council (AAC) is a non-profit coalition

to reduce energy and water usage, and improve wastewater management

The Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) Processing Based

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

Facilities that have obtained Cs of A for process wastewater treatment under

Facilities that manage wastewater discharge by lagoon and spray irrigation

Copies of some facility-specific Cs of A and annual monitoring reports were requested

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

A total of 65 food-processing facilities were identified as being direct dischargers of

and phosphorus). Residual chlorine and disinfection byproducts may be present in

Table ES-1: Proposed Wastewater Characterization Parameters for Direct

Meat and poultry processing.

Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat, poultry and dairy processors).

Chlorine-based disinfection used (meat, poultry & dairy processors).

Meat and poultry products processing.

Section 4: Characterization of Food Processor Wastewater

Animal food manufacturing

Grain and oilseed milling

Sanitary sewer monitoring databases maintained by Ontario municipalities;

Determining the potential for the presence of other non-conventional parameters

For facilities selected for baseline characterization, additional detailed

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

Discharge of pollutants in final effluent (kg/day)

The main types of pollution prevention BMPs are:

Operational and Housekeeping Changes: Theses practices include procedural

Process and Equipment Modifications: These are generally associated with

Figure ES-1: Continuous Improvement Cycle for Implementing BMPs

Develop Water Balance

Identify Sources of Water Contamination

Identify and Implement

Update Water Balance

Identify and Implement

Update Water Balance

Identify and Implement

Update Water Balance

Diversion and Retention Tanks

Figure ES-2: Classification of Wastewater Treatment Processes

Removal of Organic Material

Removal of Specific Contaminants

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