EPA 440/1-73/021
          DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
   PROPOSED  EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
   AND  NEW  SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                   FOR THE
       DAIRY  PRODUCT  PROCESSING
               POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   JANUARY 1974

-------
                 Publication Notice

This is a development document for proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and new source performance standards.  As such, this
report is subject to changes resulting from comments received
during the period of public comments of the proposed regulations
This document in its final form will be published at the time
the regulations for this industry are promulgated.

-------
                DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

                        for

         EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

                        and

         NEW  SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

                      for the

            DAIRY PRODUCTS PROCESSING

               POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
                 Russell E. Train
                  Administrator

                 Robert L. Sansom
Assistant Administrator for Air & Water Programs

                    Allen Cywin
      Director,  Effluent Guidelines  Division

                   Richard Gregg
                  Project Officer

                   January, 1974

          Effluent Guidelines Division
        Office of Air and Water Programs
 United States Environmental Protection. Agency
             Washington, D.C.   20460
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        fogion 5,Ubrary(Pi-i2J)
        W West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Ftoar
        Chicago. II  60604-3590

-------
i~"V1^7TT' f
il\ v iiv,

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section                                                          Page

   I        Conclusions 	     1
                Size and Nature of the Industry	     1
                Industry Categorization 	     1
                Pollutants and Contaminants 	     2
                Control and Treatment of Waste Water  	     2

  II        Recommendations 	     3
                BOD_5	     3
                Suspended Solids  	     4
                pH	     4
                Method of Application 	     4
                Multi-product Plants  	     5
                Time Factor for Enforcement of the Guidelines .     5

 III        Introduction  	     7
                Purpose and Authority 	     7
                Summary of Methods  	     8
                Basic Sources of Waste Load Data	     9
                General Description of the Industry 	    11

  IV        Industry Categorization 	    33
                Introduction  	    33
                Raw Materials Input	    33
                Processes Employed  	    33
                Wastes Discharge	    34
                Finished Products Manufactured  	    34
                Conclusion	    35

   V        Waste Characterization  	    37
                Sources of Waste	    37
                Nature of Dairy Plant Wastes  	    38
                Variability of Dairy Wastes 	    41
                Waste Load Units	    41
                BOD	    45
                COD	    45
                Suspended Solids  	    47
                pH	    50
                Temperature	    50
                Phosphorus	    50
                Nitrogen	    51
                Chloride	    51
                Waste Water Volume	    51
                Polluting Effects 	    54

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
  VI
 VII
VIII
Pollutant Parameters 	    55
    BODj[	    55
    COD	    55
    Suspended Solids 	    56
    pH	    57
    Temperature	    57
    Phosphorus	    59
    Nitrogen	    59
    Chloride	    59

Control and Treatment Technology 	    61
    In-Plant Control Concepts  	    61
    Plant Management Improvement	    61
    Waste Monitoring	    62
    Engineering Improvements for In-Plant Waste
      Control	    63
    Waste Management Through Equipment Improvements   63
    Waste Management Through Systems Improvements     66
    Waste^Management Through Proper Plant Layout
      and Equipment Selection  	    68
    Waste Reduction Possible Through Improvement
      of Plant Management and Plant Engineering   .    70
    End-of-Pipe Waste Treatment Technology ....    79
    Design Characteristics 	    82
    Problems, Limitations and Reliability  ....    85
    Treatment of Whey	    85
    Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Systems   90
    Management of Dairy Waste Treatment System  .  .    90
    Tertiary Treatment 	    95
    Pretreatment of Dairy Waste Discharged to
      Municipal Sanitary Sewers  	    99
    Performance of Dairy Waste Treatment Systems  .   100

Cost, Energy and Non-Water Quality Aspects ....   107
    Cost of In-plant Central	   107
    Cost of End-of-Pipe Treatment	   112
    Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative
      End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies  	   121
    Non-Water Quality Aspects of Dairy Waste
      Treatment	   122
    Energy Requirements   	   126
                                     vi

-------
                         TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (Cont'd)
 Section                                                           Page

   IX         Effluent  Reduction Attainable  Through  the
             Application  of  the Best Practicable  Control
             Technology Currently  Available 	    127
                 Introduction  	    127
                 Effluent Reduction Attainable  Through  the
                  Application of  the  Rest  Practicable  Control
                  Technology Currently  Available 	    128
                 Identification of Best  Practicable Control
                  Technology	    130
                 Rationale for Selection of Best  Practicable
                  Control Technology  Currently Available  .  .  .    130

   X         Effluent  Reduction Attainable  Through  the  Application
             of  the  Best  Available Control  Technology Economically
             Achievable	    133
                 Introduction  	    133
                 Effluent Reduction Attainable  Through  the
                  Application of  the  Best  Available Control
                  Technology Economically  Achievable  	    134
                 Identification of Best  Available Control
                  Technology Economically  Achievable  	    136
                 Rational for Selection  of  Best Available Control
                  Technology Economically  Achievable  	    137

   XI         New Source Performance Standards  	    139
                 Introduction  	    139
                 Effluent Reduction Attainable  in New Sources  .    140

 XII         Acknowledgements  	    141

XIII         References	    143

 XIV         Glossary	    155
                                     vii

-------
                               TABLES

Number

 1    Effluent Limitation Guidelines for BCD	   3
 2    Standard Industrial Classification of the Dairy
        Industry	12
 3    Utilization of Milk by Processing Plants  	  15
 4    Number of Dairy Plants and Average Production 	  16
 5    Production of Major Dairy Products, 1963 and 1970	16
 6    Employment in the Dairy Industry	17
 7    Proposed Subcategorization for the Dairy Products Industry.  36
 8    Cornposition of Camion Dairy Products Processing Materials .  39
 9    Estimated Contribution of Wasted Materials to the BOD5_ Load
        of Dairy Waste Water. (Fluid Milk Plant)  	40
10    Summary of Calculated, Literature Reported and Identified
        Plant Raw Waste BOD5_ Data	46
11    Sunmary of Literature Reported and Identified Plant Source
        BOD5_:COD Ratios for Raw Dairy Effluents	48
12    Summary of Identified Plant Source Raw Suspended Solids
        Data	49
13    Summary of Literature Reported and Identified Plant Source
        Raw Waste Water Volume Data	52
13A   Summary of Literature Reported and Identified Plant Source
        Raw Waste Water Volume Data (FPS Units)	53
14    Summary of pH, Temperature, and Concentrations of Nitrogen,
        Phosphorus, and Chloride Ions — Literature Reported
        and Identified Plant Sources	58
15    Effect of Engineering Improvement of Equipment, Processes
        and Systems on Waste Reduction	75
16    Recamended Design Parameters for Biological Treatment
        of Dairy Wastes	83
17    Advantages and Disadvantages of Treatment Systems Utilized
        in the Dairy Industry	91
18    Typical BCD and Suspended Solids Concentrations of
        Dairy Effluents	96
19    Effect of Milk Lipids on the Efficiency of Biological
        Oxidation of Milk Wastes	101
20    Performance of Dairy Wastes Water Treatment Plants  . . . .103
21    General Comparison of Tertiary Treatment Systems Efficiency 104
22    Plant Performance Data for the Tertiary Treatment Plant at
        South Tahoe, California 	 105
23    Estimated Cost of Engineering Improvements of Equipment
        and Systems to Reduce Waste	108
24    Tertiary Treatment Systems Cost 	 120
25    Biological System Cost Comparisions as Applied in the
        Chemical Industry 	 121
26    Incremental BCD5_ Removal and Cost Efficiency of Secondary,
        Tertiary, and Recycle Treatment Systems - 50,000 Pounds
        Per Day Milk Equivalent Processed 	 123
                                   ix

-------
27    Incremental BOD5_ Removal and Cost Efficiency of Secondary,
        Tertiary, and Recycle Treatment Systems - 250,000 Pounds
        Per Day Milk Equivalent Processed 	 124
28    Incremental BCD5_ Removal and Cost Efficiency of Secondary,
        Tertiary, and Recycle Treatment Systems - 750,000 Pounds
        Per Day Milk Equivalent Processed	125
29    BOD5_ Reduction Attainable Through the Application of Best
        Practicable Control Technology Currently Available  ... 129
30    BCD5_ Reduction Attainable Through the Application of Best
        Available Control Technology Economically Achievable  .  . 135

-------
                               FIGURES

Number

 1    Receiving Station - Basic Process 	  21
 2    Fluid Milk - Basic Process  	  22
 3    Cultured Products - Basic Process 	  23
 4    Butter - Basic Process  	  24
 5    Natural and Processed Cheese - Basic Process  	  25
 6    Cottage Cheese - Basic Process  	  26
 7    Ice Cream - Basic Process 	  27
 8    Condensed Milk - Basic Process  	  28
 9    Dry Milk - Basic Process	29
10    Condensed Whey - Basic Process	30
11    Dry Whey - Basic Process  	  31
12    Hourly Variations in ppm BCD5_, COD and
        Waste Water for a Dairy Plant	42
13    Variation in Waste Strentgh of Frozen Products Drain for
        Consecutive Sampling Days in One Month	43
14    Waste Coefficients for a Fluid Milk Operation Normal
        Operation (#BCD/1000# Milk Processed, Gal. Waste
        Water/1000# Milk Processed  	  73
15    Waste Coefficients After Installation of Engineering Advances
        in a Fluid Milk Operation (#BCD/1000# Milk Processed, Gal.
        Waste Water/1000# Milk Processed) 	  74
16    Fat Losses as a Function of Time During Start-up and
        Shut-down of a 60,000 Pound/Hour HTST Pasteurizer ....  80
17    Recommended Treatment Systems for Dairy Waste Water ....  83
18    Tertiary Treatment of Secondary Effluent for Complete
        Recycle	98
19    Capital Cost  (August, 1971)  Activated Sludge Systems
        (For Dairy Wastewater)  	113
20    Capital Cost  (August, 1971)  Trickling Filter Systems
        (For Dairy Wastewater)  	114
21    Capital Cost  (August, 1971)  Aerated lagoon  (For
        Dairy Wastewater)	115
22    Operating Costs  (August, 1971) Activated Sludge System,
        Trickling Filter System, and Aerated Lagoon (For
        Dairy Wastewater)	116
23    Operating Costs  (August, 1971) Activated Sludge, Trickling
        Filter and Aerated Lagoon Systems (For Dairy
        Wastewater)	117
                                    xi

-------
                                  SECTION I

                                CONCLUSIONS

Size and Nature of the Industry

The basic function of the dairy  products  processing  industry  is  the
manufacture of foods based on milk or milk products.  However, a limited
number  of nonmilk products such as fruit juices  are processed  in some
plants.

There are over 5,000 plants in the dairy products industry  located  all
over  the United states.  Plants range in size from a few thousand kilo-
grams to over 1 million kilograms of milk received per day.

There are about 20 different basic types of products manufactured by the
industry.  A substantial number of plants  in  the  industry  engage  in
multi-product  manufacturing,  and product mix varies broadly among such
plants.
For the purpose of  establishing  effluent  limitations  guidelines  and
standards  of  performance  the dairy products industry can be logically
subcategorized in relation to type of product  manufactured.   Available
inf ormaticn  permits  a  meaningful segmentation into the following sub-
categories at this time:

     Receiving stations
     Fluid products
     Cultured products
     Butter
     Cottage cheese
     Natural cheese
     Ice cream
     Ice cream mix
     Condensed milk
     Dry milk
     Condensed whey
     Dry whey

Factors such as size and age of plants, minor  variations  in  processes
employed,  and  geographical location generally do not have an effect on
plant waste  loads  that  would  justify  additional  subcategorization.
However,  a  measurable  distinction  between  receiving  stations  that
receive milk in cans and those that receive milk in bulk can be made  at
this  time.   Similar  distinction can be made for natural cheese plants
receiving less than 75,000 Ib milk/day and those receiving  over  75,000
Ib milk/day.  This is reflected in the recommended guidelines.

-------
The most significant pollutants contained in dairy products plant wastes
are  organic  materials  which  exert  a  biochemical  oxygen demand and
suspended solids.   Raw waste waters from  all  plants  in  the  industry
contain  quantities  of  these  pollutants that are excessive for direct
discharge without appreciable reduction.   The  pH  of  many  individual
waste streams within a plant are outside the acceptable range, but there
is  generally  a  tendency  for neutralization with co-mingling of waste
streams.  However, adjustment of pH is easily accomplished and the final
discharge (s) from a plant should be kept within an acceptable range.

Additional  contaminants  found   in   dairy   plant   wastes   include:
phosphorus,  nitrogen,  chlorides,  and  heat.   In general, control and
treatment of the primary pollutants (organics and suspended solids)  will
hold these lesser pollutants to satisfactory levels.  In isolated  cases
where  these pollutants may be critical they should be handled on a case
by case basis.


A major contributor to dairy waste BOD5 is dairy  fat,  which  is  being
treated successfully biologically.  This is in contrast to mineral based
oil  which  inhibits  the  respiration  of microorganisms.  The standard
hexane soluble FOG (fats, oils, and grease) test used presently does not
differentiate between mineral oil and dairy fat.  Separate standards and
tests should be developed for these two parameters.

Cgntrol_and_Treatment_gf_Waste_Water

In-plant controls, including management  and  engineering  improvements,
that are readily available and economically achievable can substantially
reduce  waste loads in the dairy industry.  In many cases these controls
can produce a net economic return through by-product recovery or reduced
cost of waste treatment.

Conventional end-of-pipe treatment technology is capable of achieving  a
high degree of reduction when applied to the raw wastes of dairy plants.
Attainment  of  zero  discharge   by  complete  recycle of waste waters,
through a technical possibility through employment of  reverse  osmosis,
carbon filtration and other advanced treatment technique, is  beyond the
realm  of  economic  feasibility  for  most  if  not  all  plants in the
industry.

-------
                                 SECTION II

                                RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that effluent limitation guidelines and  standards  of
performance   for   new  sources  in  the  dairy  products  industry  be
established for BOD5 suspended solids,  and  pH.   These  standards  are
recommended  cnly for dairy plants discharging to navigable waters.  For
dairies discharging to sanitary  systems,  municipalities  should  adopt
other standards that reflect their own particular requirements

EOD5

Recommended effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
for BODS are set forth in Table 1.
                                Table 1
                 Effluent Limitation Guidelines for BOD
                                   Effluent Limitations Guidelines
   Subcategory (1)

Receiving Station
   Cans
   Bulk
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Ery Whey
                    Level_I  (3)
                                        (4) Leyel_III  (5)
     Notes:
(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
                       020
                       012
                       060
                       080
                       081
                       U56
                      ,028
                       240
                       060
                       040
                       060
                       040
                     0.060
                               0,
                               0.
                               0.
                               0,
                               0,
                               0.
                               0,
                               0,
                               0.
                               0.
                               0,
                               0.
                               0.
006
003
008
011
013
107
006
035
008
008
011
008
011
 ,006
 ,003
 ,008
  011
  013
 ,107
 ,006
 ,035
  008
  008
 ,011
  008
0.011
See Table II for definition of products included  in
each subcategory.
See calculation of BOD5 below for derivation of
values for BOD5 received.
Best practicable control technology currently available.
Best available technology economically achievable.
Standards of performance for new sources.
Table I standards for BPCTCA generally reflect
average raw waste loads with a 96% BOD5 reduction applied.
For BATEA and SPNS standards, a 98% BOD5

-------
                  reduction was applied to lower raw waste values.
                  Although conventional treatment units are
                  available to reduce raw waste BOD^ concentrations
                  by 96%, the recommended EPCTCA standards can also
                  be achieved by further in-plant BOD5 reduction
                  followed by a treatment system performing less
                  than 96% BOD5 reduction.  The same case applies to
                  BATEA and SPNS.
Suspended^Solidg
Recommended effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
for  suspended solids are, for corresponding subcategories and levels of
technology, numerically the same as for BOD5 but expressed in  kilograms
suspended solids per 100 kilograms BOD^ received.
It  is  recommended  that the pH of any final discharge { s)  be within the
range of 6.0-9.0.

Methgd_gf^_A]3£licatign

Calculation of BODS Received.

It is recommended that in applying  the  guidelines  and  standards  the
waste  load  of  a  particular  plant  be determined and compared to the
guidelines  and  standards.   In  doing  so,  it  is   imperative   that
consistency  be  maintained  in  regard  to the basis on which the waste
loads are developed.

To maintain consistency the calculation of the BOD5 received (going into
processes in the case of multi-product plants) must be done on the  fol-
lowing basis:

     1.   All dairy raw materials (milk and/or milk products)  and
         other materials (e.g. sugar)  must be considered.

     2.   The EOD5 input must be computed by applying factors of 1.031,
         0.890 and 0.691 to inputs of proteins, fats and carbohydrates
         respectively. Organic acids  (such as lactic acid)  when
         present in appreciable quantities should be assigned the
         same factor as carbohydrates.  The composition of raw
         materials may be obtained from the U.S. Department of
         Agriculture Handbook No. 8, Composition of Foods and
         ether reliable sources.  Compositions of some common
         raw materials are given in Table 8.

-------
Multi-Product_Plants

The  guidelines and standards set forth in Table 1 apply only to single-
product plants.  It is  recommended  that  limitations  for  any  multi-
product  plant  be  derived  from  Table  1  on  the basis of a weighted
average, i.e. ,  weighting  the  single-product  guideline  by  the  BODj>
processed in the manufacturing line fcr each product. That is:


     Multi-product Limitation  =

        Single Product Guideline    x  _BOD5_processed Ikg^or^lb.^
        (kg/100 kg or lb/100 Ib)            ~       100

Time Factor for
Enfgrcement_of__the_Guidelines

The proposed effluent limitations and performance standards are based on
thirty-day  averages.   For purposes of enforcement and determination of
violations, daily maximums of three to five times the thirty-day average
should apply.
Because  of  the  wide  hourly   and   daily   fluctuations   of   waste
concentrations  and  waste  water  flows in the dairy products industry,
waste loads should be  measured  on  the  basis  of  daily  proportional
composite sampling.

-------
                              SECTION III

                              INTRODUCTION
Section  301  (b)   of the Act requires the achievement by not later than
July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations  for  point  sources,  other  than
publicly  owned  treatment  works, which are based on the application of
the best practicable control technology currently available  as  defined
by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304 (b) of the Act.  Section 301
(b)  also  requires  the  achievement by not later than July 1, 1983, of
effluent limitations  for  point  sources,  other  than  publicly  owned
treatment  works,   which  are  based  on  the  application  of  the best
available  technology  economically  achievable  which  will  result  in
reasonable  further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the
discharge  of  all  pollutants,  as  determined  in   accordance    with
regulations  issued  by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304  (b) of
the Act.  Section  306 of the Act requires the achievement by new sources
of a Federal standard of performance providing for the  control  of  the
discharge  of  pollutants which reflects the greatest degree of effluent
reduction which the Administrator determines to  be  achievable  through
the  application of the best available demonstrated control technology,,
processes, operating methods, or other  alternatives.   including  where
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.

Section  304 (b)  of the Act requires the Administrator to publish within
one year of enactment of the Act, regulations providing  guidelines  for
effluent  limitations  setting  forth  the  degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the  application  of  the  best  practicable  control
technology  currently  available  and  the  degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of  the  best  control  measures  and
practices   economically   achievable  including  treatment  techniques,
process  and  procedure  innovations,  operation   methods   and   other
alternatives.   The  regulations  proposed  herein  set  forth  effluent
limitations guidelines pursuant to Section 304 (b)  of the  Act  for  the
dairy products processing industry.

Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator,  within one year after
a  category  of  sources  is  included  in  a list published pursuant to
Section 306  (1)  (A)  of  the  Act  to  propose  regulations  establishing
Federal   standards   of   performances  for  new  sources  within  such
categories.  The Administrator published  in  the  Federal  Register  of
January  16,  1973  (38  F.R.  1624) ,  a  list  of 27 source categories.
Publication of the list constituted announcement of the  Administrator's
intention  of  establishing, under Section 306, standards of performance
applicable to new  sources within the dairy industry which  was  included
within the list published January 16, 1973.

-------
Summary  of  Methods  Used  for  Development of the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards of Performance

The  effluent  limitations  guidelines  and  standards  of   performance
proposed  herein  were  developed  in  the  following manner.   The dairy
products processing industry was  first  analyzed  for  the  purpose  of
determining  whether  separate limitations and standards are appropriate
for different segments within the industry.   Such  analysis  was  based
upon   raw   material  used,  product  produced,   manufacturing  process
employed, and other factors.  The raw  waste  characteristics  for  each
subcategory  were then identified.   This included an analyses of (1) the
source and volume of water used in  the process employed and the  sources
of  waste  and  waste  waters  in  the  plant;  and (2)  the constituents
(including thermal)  of all waste waters including toxic constituents and
other constituents which result in  taste, odor, and color  in  water  or
aquatic  organisms.    The  constituents  of waste waters which should be
subject to effluent limitations guidelines and standards of  performance
were identified.

The  full  range  of  control and treatment technologies existing within
each subcategory was identified.  This included an identifaciton of each
distinct control and treatment technology, including both  in-plant  and
end-of-prccess  technolgies,  which  are  existent  or  capable of being
designed for each subcategory.  It  also included  an  identification  in
terms  of  the  amount  of  constituents   (including  thermal)  and  the
chemical, physical,  and biological  characteristics of pollutants, of the
effluent level resulting from the application of each of  the  treatment
and  control technologies.  The problems, limitations and reliability of
each treatment and  control technology and the  required  implementation
time   were   also  identified.   In  addition,  the  non-water  quality
environmental impact, such as the effects of  the  application  of  such
technologies  upon other technology and the required implementation time
were also identified.  in addition, the non-water quality  environmental
impact, such as the effects of the  application of such technologies upon
other   pollution  problems,  including  air,  solid  waste,  noise  and
radiation were also idenitified.  The energy requirements of each of the
control and treatment technologies  were identified as well as  the  cost
of the application of such technologies.

The  information,  as  outline  above,  was  then  evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology constituted  the  "best  practicable
control  technology  currently  available,"  "best available technology,
processed, operating methods, or other  alternatives."   In  identifying
such  technologies,  various factors were considered.  These included the
total cost of application of technology  in  relation  to  the  effluent
reduction  benefits  to  be  achieved  from such application, the age of
equipment and facilities involved,  the process employed, the engineering
aspects of the  application of  various  types  of  control  techniques,
process  changes,  non-water  quality  environmental  impact   (including
energy requirements) and other factors.

-------
The data for identification and analyses were derived from a  number  of
sources.   These  sources  included  EPA research information, published
literature, a  voluntary  questionaire  issued  by  the  Dairy  Industry
Committee, qualified technical consultation, and on-site waste sampling,
visits,  and  interviews  at dairy food processing plants throughout the
United States.  All references used in  developing  the  guidelines  for
effluent  limitations  and  standards  of  performance  for  new sources
reported herein are included in Section XIV of this document.

Basic_Sources_of_Waste_Load_Data_

Prior Research

At the outset of  this  study,  it  was  recognized  that  most  of  the
information  en  dairy  food  plant wastes available as of 1971 had been
collected and reviewed in two studies prepared for EPA:

1.  "Study of Wastes and Effluent Requirements of the  Dairy  Industry,"
July 1971, by A.T. Kearney, Inc., for  the Water Quality Office, EPA.

2.   "Dairy  Food  Plant  Wastes  and Waste  Treatment Practices, "March
1971, by Department of Dairy Technology, The Ohio State University,  for
the Office of Research and Monitoring, EPA.

The  purpose of the 1971 Kearney study was to establish an informational
background and recommend preliminary effluent limitation guidelines  for
the   dairy  industry.  The Ohio State University study was a "state-of-
the-art" report that set forth in great detail practically all available
technical knowledge on dairy products processing.  Dr. W. James  Harper,
the  lead  investigator for the Ohio State University study, served as a
consultant to A. T. Kearny for the preparation of  its  report  for  the
Water Quality Office, and essentially the same data base was utilized in
both studies.

Sources of Data For This Study

Although  many  of  the  key  factors  affecting  waste  loads  had been
identified in the aforementioned reports and other technical literature,
it was recognized that an expanded and refined  data  and  informational
base  was  needed  to  meet  requirements associated with development of
effluent  limitations  guidelines  for  the  dairy  products   industry.
Furthermore,  it  is  imperative  that  all data used for development of
guidelines be of a "verifiable" nature (i.e., the result of  testing  in
identified  plants  that  could be available for verification of data if
necessary), and much of the data in  the  technical  literature  is  not
identified  as  to specific source.  A concerted effort was devoted to a
program to develop new and verifiable data that would supplement or even
supplant the data available in the technical literature.

-------
The body cf  quantitative data on wastes available  for  development  of
effluent  limitations  guidelines that resulted from this program was an
aggregate cf portions obtained from the following sources;

    1.   In-plant sampling of waste streams  at  selected  dairy  plants
undertaken  by independent certified laboratories under the direction of
A.T. Kearney and with the assistance of dairy plant managements.
    2.   In-plant sampling at selected plants  performed  by  the  dairy
companies utilizing contractors or company technical personnel, and with
quality  control assured by direction and observation of A.T. Kearney or
EPA.
    3.   Data obtained from State and   Municipal  agencies  (e.g.,  the
Metropolitan  Sanitary District of Greater Chicago)  which have monitored
the waste of selected dairy plants for regulatory purposes.
    4.   Eata supplied by  dairy  companies  which  are  the  result  of
sampling programs conducted by the companies since the time of Kearney's
1971 study.
    5.   Plant waste  survey  data  developed  by  independent  research
organizations  (e.g..  North Carolina Sate University)  at selected dairy
operations in the last two years.

    6.   Eata furnished by the dairy industry to Kearney and  Ohio  Stae
University  during  the  1971 studies for EPA in coded Form, but through
company cooperation now identified as  to  specific  plant  source  with
pertinent operational parameters furnished.

Quality of the Data

Because  of the high variability of dairy plant wastes in hydraulic load
and strength, both during a day and from day to day,  it  is  recognized
that  a composite made up of samples taken at hourly intervals or over a
few days may yield values that depart  considerably  from  true  average
loads.  However,  the variance that may exist because of low frequency of
sampling or insufficient number of days in the sampling period decreases
at  the  number  of  data  points   (one-day composites)  in the data base
increases.

While the approximately 150 plants included in the verifiable data  base
constitute  only  3%  of  the  total  number  of plants within the dairy
products industry, it should be noted that the data  base  is  the  most
extensive  one of its nature compiled to date.  The numb€>r of individual
product manufacturing lines represented in  aggregate  is  much  greater
than   the  number  of  plants,  since many of the facilities are multi-
product plants.  Moreover, two additional factors  should  be  borne  in
mind.   The  major  thrusts  in  developing  the data base were directed
toward  obtaining  information  on  exemplary  operations  and  securing
representation of the range of size, age and other variables encountered
in plants manufacturing each type of finished product.
                             10

-------
Several  control  measures  were  imposed  on  -the  sampling  program to
maintain the quality of the waste  load  data.   All  analyses  employed
approved  standard methods conducted under acceptable laboratory quality
control.  Flow-weighted composite sampling was used in  all  but  a  few
cases, with the time interval between taking all aliquots ranging from 2
to  60  minutes.   Exceptions  were  made  only  when information from a
particular  plant  was  highly  desirable  and  installation  of   flow-
proportioned  composite  sampling  equipment was not possible.  Constant
volume sampling at set intervals was accepted in some cases  when  there
was  indication that variation of flow was within the limits of error of
many field-flew measurement devices.

The number of days in any one sampling period at a plant ranged  from  1
to  10  days,  with  the  vast majority of the cases entailing 3 or more
days.   In a number of cases the data on  plants that  was  furnished  by
the companies covered a long-term monitoring program.

General Description of the Industry

Production Classification

The   industrial   category  covered  by  this  document  comprises  all
manufacturing   establishments   included   in    Standard    Industrial
Classification  (SIC)   Group  No.  202  ("Dairy  Products"),  and  "milk
receiving stations primarily engaged in the assembly and  reshipment  of
bulk  milk  for the use of manufacturing or processing plants"  (included
in SIC Industry No. 5043).

The common characteristic of all plants covered by  this  definition  is
that  milk  or  milk by-products, including whey and buttermilk, are the
sole or principal raw materiasl employed in the production processes.  A
comprehensive  list  of  the  types  of  products  manufactured  by  the
industry,  as  classified by the Office of Statistical Standards, appear
in Table 2.
In  recent  years,  many  establishments  classified  within  the  dairy
industry have also engaged in manufacturing other than products based on
milk  or  irilk  by-products.    Such  is the case of fluid milk plants in
which filling lines are also utilized for processing fruit juices, fruit
drinks and other flavored beverages.  The guidelines developed  in  this
study  are  not  intended to cover processes where other than milk-based
products are involved.

Effluent limitations for those cases involving  non-dairy  products  are
more  logically  handled  by  application  of  guidelines  developed for
appropriate industries  (e.g., beverages or fruits)  or on  an  individual
basis  with consideration given to the BOD5 of the raw materials and the
                               11

-------
                            TAELE_2

                 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION
        	Q£_THE_DAIRY_INDUSTRY	
         (AS EEFINED BY THE OFFICE OF STATISTICAL STANDARDS)

Group        Industry

202                         PAIRY_PROEyCTS

                            This group includes establishments primarily
                            engaged in;  (1)  manufacturing creamery
                            butter;natural cheese;  condensed and
                            evaporated milk;  ice cream and frozen
                            desserts;  and special dairy products, such
                            as processed cheese and malted milk: and
                            (2)  processing (pasteurizing homogenizing,
                            vitaminizing,  bottling  fluid milk and cream
                            retail for wholesale or retail distribution.
                            Independently operated  milk receiving
                            stations primarily engaged in the
                            assembly and reshipment of bulk milk for
                            the use of manufacturing or processing
                            plants are included in  Industry 5043.*

              2021           Cr eame ry__ Eutte r

                           Establishments primarily engaged in
                           manufacturing creamery butter.


                                  Anhydrous milkfat
                                  Butter,  creamery  and whey


202             2022             _Cheesex_Natural_and_Processed

                                  Establishments primarily engaged in
                                  manufacturing all types of natural
                                  cheese (except cottage cheese—
                                  Industry 2026), processed cheese,
                                  cheese foods, and cheese spreads.

                                     Cheese,  all types and varieties
                                        except cottage cheese
                                     Cheese,  natural
                                     Cheese,  processed
                                     Cheese spreads, pastes, and
                                        cheeselike  preparations
                                     Processed cheese
                                12

-------
                                     Sandwich spreads


                2023             Cgndensedjand_EvaEprated Milk

                                Establishments primarily engaged in
                                manufacturing condensed and evaporated
                                milk and related products, including ice
                                cream mix and ice milk mix made for sale
                                as such and dry milk products.

                                    Baby formula, fresh, processed and
                                       bottled
                                    Buttermilk; concentrated, condensed,
                                       dried, evaporated, and powdered
                                       Casein, dry and wet
                                       Cream; dried, powdered, and canned
                                       Dry milk products; whole milk;
                                       nonfat miIk;buttermilk; whey and
                                       cream
                                       Ice milk mix, unfroze; made in
                                         condensed and evaporated milk
                                          plants
                                       Lactose, edible
                                       Malted milk
                                       Milk; concentrated, condensed,
                                         dried evaporated and powdered
                                       Milk, whole; canned
                                       Skim milk: concentrated, dried,
                                         and powdered
                                       Sugar of milk
                                       Whey: concentrated, condensed,
                                         dried evaporated, and powdered


202          2024            lce_Cream_and_Frozen_r Desserts

                             Establishments primarily engaged in
                             manufacturing ice cream and other
                             frozen desserts.

                                  Custard, frozen
                                  Ice cream: bulk, packaged,  molded,
                                    on sticks, etc.
                                  Ice milk: bulk, packaged, molded,
                                    on sticks, etc.
                                  Ices and sherberts
                                  Mellorine
                                  Mellorine-type products
                                  Parfait
                                  13

-------
                    Sherberts and ices
                    Spumoni
2026         Fluid Milk
             Establishments primarily engaged in
             processing (pasteurizing, homgenizing
             vitaminizing bottling)  and distributing
             fluid milk and cream,  and related products.

                          Buttermilk, cultured
                          Cheese,  cottage
                          Chocolate milk
                          Cottage  cheese, including pot,
                            bakers',  and farmers'  cheese
                          Cream, aerated
                          Cream, bottled
                          Cream, plastic
                          Cream, sour
                          Kumyss
                          Milk, acidophilus
                          Milk, bottled
                          Milk  processing (pasteurizing,
                            homogenizing, vitaminizing,
                            bottling)  and distribution:
                            with or without manufacture of
                            dairy  products
                          Milk  products,  made from fresh
                            milk
                          Route salemen for dairies
                          Whipped  cream
                          Yoghurt
                          Zoolak
                14

-------
less of materials that  is  consistent  with  levels  of  treatment  and
control established for the dairy products industry.

Number of Plants and Volume Processed

In  1970,  there  existed approximately 5,350 diary plants in the United
States, which processed about 51 billion kg of milk, or 96% of the  milk
produced  at  the  farm.   The  utilization of milk to manufacture major
types cf products was as given in Table 3.


                                TABIE_3

     Utilization of Milk by Processing Plants (1970)
                                        Percent of
 Use                                  Total Milk Produced


Fluid Products                               15.1
Butter                                       22.2
Natural Cheese                               17.0
Ice Cream and other Frozen Products          11.4
Evaporated Milk                               2,8
Cottage Cheese                                1.0
Cry Milk                                    	t5	

                                            100.0

The dairy industry comprises plants that receive  anywhere  from  a  few
thousand to over 1 million kg of milk and milk by-products per day.  The
plants are located throught the country, with regional concentrations in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Iowa and California.

Trends

Significant  trends  in  the U.S. dairy industry which bear on the waste
disposal problem include: (a) a marked decrease in the number of  plants
and   increased  production  per  plant   (b)   changes  in  the  relative
production of variouse types of dairy foods,  (c)   increasing  automation
of  processing  and  handling facilities, and (d) changes in location of
the plants.

Plants and Production

Over the past 25 years, dairy  food  processing  plants  in  the  United
States  have been decreasing in number and increasing in size.  The main
reasons for this trend are economic and technolgical including unit cost
reductions attainable by processing larger volumes, and improvements  in
transportation,storage  facilities  and  product shelf-life, which allow
the products to be handled over longer distances and longer periods.
                              15

-------
The change in number of plants and  processsing  capacity   in   the  past
decade is reflected in Table 4 below.


                                TABLE_4

             Number of Dairy Plants and Average Production

                                         Average Annual  Production
                                                Per  Plant
                                         Millign_kg __ (Ib) ___ of Product
                                  1970     1963       1970

Fluid Products 8     4,619       2,824     5.6  (12.3) 9.7  (21.3)
  Cottage Cheese
Putter               1,320         619     0.5  (1.1)  0.7  (1.5)
Cheese               1,283         963     0.5  (1.1)  1.0  (2.2)
Evaporated 8
  Cry irilk             281         257     18.0  (39.6)19.1  (42.0
Ice Cream 8
  Frozen Dessert     1^.081         68J     3...0  _(6._6l_ 6^7 JliUll
                     8,584       5,352

Table  5  reflects  the  trends in  production of  dairy  products.   While
production of butter and condensed products has been on  the decline, the
production of natural cheese,  cottage  cheese,  ice  cream,  and  fluid
products has been increasing:

                                TAELE_5

           Production of Major Dairy Products,  1963 and  1970

                                  Total Production
Type of Product                Mil.ligr^s_of _Kd.logramsJPoui^dsj_

                                                            Percent
                             II6. 3 _            1^70         Change

Butter                        636  (1,399)       500 (1,050)   -21%
Condensed and Dry Products  5,050  (11,110)    4,910 (10,802)   -3%
Cheese                        730  ( 1,606)    1,000 ( 2,200)   37%
ice Cream 8 Frozen Desserts 4,050  ( 8,910)    4,590 (10,098)   13%
Cottage Cheese                410  (   902)      450 (    990)   11%
Fluid Products             25^550  (56,110)  27X050 (59,510)    6%
                           36,416           36,500

It  is  important  to  note  that  those   sectors   of the  dairy products
industry that are experiencing the highest rates of growth   (ice  cream,
                              16

-------
frozen deserts, and cottage cheese) are also those which have been shown
to produce proportionally the largest waste.

Because  it  is  produced in such large volumes and is relatively low in
solids content, whey has  long  posed  a  utilization  problem  for  the
industry.   The  problem  has increased as plants have become larger and
more distant from farming areas where whey can be used directly as feed.
Cottage cheese whey represents the more serious problem because its acid
nature limits its utilization as feed or food.

It is estimated that  between  30%  to  50%  of  the  whey  produced  is
currently  discarded as waste, seme of which goes to municipal treatment
plants.  Because of its microbial  inhibiting  effect,  unless  whey  is
diluted  with  other  wastes,  it  can  potentially  shock the receiving
treatment system.

Plant Automation
As plants have increased in size there has been a tendency to  mechanize
and automate irany processing and handling operations.  This is reflected
by the decreasing employment in the industry as shown in Table 6..


                              TABLE_6_

                 Employment in the Dairy Industry

                                                         Employment
                              (Thousands)               per million kkg.
Ty_p)e_of_Plant               Tot a 1_ Employment          P£2^u£§d_ Annually

                              1963     J.970             1963     1970

Butter                        12.0      7.2             18.7     14.3
Cheese                        17.9     21.1             24.6     20.9
Condensed & Dry
   Products                   12.2     10.7              2.4      2.2
Ice Cream 8 Frozen
   Desserts                   29.1     22.4              7.3      4.8
Fluid Products &
 Cottage cheese              185.0    140.7              7.0      5.1

The  principal  technoligical developments that are being widely applied
throughout the industry and which have significance in relation to waste
loads include:

1.  Receiving milk in tank trucks, with automated rinsing  and  cleaning
of the tanks at the plant.

2.   Remote-controlled, continous-flow processing of milk at rates up to
45,000 kilograms per hours,  with automatic standardizing of fat content.
                            17

-------
3.  Use of cleaned-in-place (CIP)  systems  that  do  not  require  daily
dismantling of the equipment and utilize contolled amounts of detergents
and sanitizing chemicals.

4.  High speed, automatic filling and packaging operations

5.   Automated  materials  handling  by  means  of conveyors, casers and
stackers

Although automation can theoretically  provide  for  lower  waste  loads
through  in-plant  waste  control engineering, at the present time other
factors have greater influence in the waste loads, as discussed later in
this report.


Plant Location

As dairy plants have increased in size, the trend has  been  to  receive
milk  from  and  distribute  products to larger areas.  As a result, the
location cf a plant has  becoire  independent  of  the  immediate  market
place.   Quite  often,  the  prevailing factor has been to select a site
with  covenient  access  to  major  highway  system  covering  the  area
serviced,  usually at some distance from the larger urban centers.

The problem of waste disposal has frequently been given little attention
in  selecting  the location of large new plants.  A number of facilities
with waste loads up to  3,500  kg  BOD5/day  have  been  constructed  in
suburban  areas of cities of under 50,000 population.  Where such plants
utilize the municipal sewage treatment  facility  they  may  become  the
largest contributor to the municipal system, imposing on it the problems
that are typically associated with dairy wastes, such as highly variable
hydraulic  and  BOD5  loads  and  the  risk  of shock-leads when whey is
discharged without equalization.

Processing Operations

A great variety of operations are  encountered  in  the  dairy  products
industry,  but  in  oversimplication  they  can be considered a chain of
operations involving receiving and storing of raw materials,  processing
of  raw  materials  into  finished  products,  packaging  and storing of
finished product, and  a  group  of  ancillary  operations   (e.g.,  heat
transfer  and  cleaning)  only  indirectly  involved  in  processing  of
materials.

Facilities for receiving and storing raw materials are fairly consistent
throughout the industry with few if any major  modifications  associated
with  changes  of  raw materials.  Basically they consist of a receiving
area where bulk carriers can be  attached  to  flexible  lines  or  cans
dumped  intc  hoppers,  fixed lines and pumps for transfer of materials,
and large refrigerated tanks for  storage.   Wastes  arise  from  leaks,
                               18

-------
spills  and removal of adhering materials during cleaning and sanitizing
of equipment.  Under normal  operations,  and  with  good  housekeeping,
receiving and storing raw materials is not a major source of waste lead.

It  is  in  the  area of processing raw materials into finished products
that the greatest  variety  is  found,  since  processes  and  equipment
utilized are determined by raw material inputs and the finished products
manufactured.    However,   the  initial  operations  of  clarification,
separation and pasteurization are common tc most plants and products.

Clarification (removal of suspended matter)  and separation  (removal  of
cream,  or  for  whole  milk  standrdization  to 3.5% butterfat content)
generally are accomplished by using large centrifuges of special design.
In some older installations clarification and separation are carried out
in separate units that must be disassembled for cleaning and sanitizing,
and for sludge removal in the case of  clarification.   In  most  plants
clarification  and  separation  are  accomplished  by a single unit that
automatically discharges the sludge and can  be  cleaned  and  sanitized
without disassembly (cleaned in place or CIP).

Following  clarification and separation, those materials to be subjected
tc further processing within the plant are pasteurized.   Pasteurization
is  accomplished  in  a  few  elder plants by heating the material for a
fairly long period of time in  a  vat   (vat  pasteurization).    In  most
plants  pasteurization is accomplished by passing the material through a
unit where it is first rapidly heated and then rapidly cooled by contact
with heated and cooled plates or tubes  (high temperature short  time  or
HTST pasteurization).

After   the  initial  operations  mentioned  above,  the  processes  and
equipment employed become highly  dependent  on  product.   Examples  of
equipment  encountered  are;  tanks  and vats for mixing ingredients and
culturing products, homogenizers (enclosed high-pressure  spray  units),
evaporators  and  various  driers  for  removal  of  water,  churns  and
freezers.  The processes employed for manufacture  of  various  products
are  indicated  in  Figure 1 through 11.  The Finished products are then
packaged, cased and sent to storage for subsequent shipment.

The product fill lines employed  in  the  dairy  products  industry  are
typical  liquids  and  solids packing units, much like those employed in
many industries, with only minor modifications  to  adapt  them  to  the
products  and  containers  of  the industry.  Storage is in refrigerated
rooms with a range of temperaturs from below zero to above freezing.

The product manfacture and packaging areas of  a  plant  are  the  major
sources  of  wastes.  These wastes result from spills and leaks, wasting
of by-products  (e.g., whey from cheese making), purging of lines  during
product  change  in such as freezers and fillers, product washing  (e.g.,
curd washing for cheese)   and  removal  of  adhering  materials   during
cleaning  and sanitizing of equipment.  Wastes from storage and shipping
                             19

-------
result frcir rupture of containers  due  to  mishandling  and  should  be
irinimal.

It  should  be  noted that most plants are multi-product facilities, and
thus the process chain for a product may differ from the single  product
chain  indicated  in  Figures 1 through 11.  Frequently in multi-product
plants a  single  unit  such  as  a  pasteurizer  may  be  utilized  for
processing  more than one product.   This represents considerable savings
in capital outlay as process  equipment  being  of  special  design  and
constructed of stainless steel, is quite expensive.
                               20

-------
                       FIGURE 1
                                         RECEIVING STATION
                        Basic Process
(Alternate
 Recycling)
                        1.  Receiving
 -1
   I
•H
                        2.  Cooling
                        3.  Storage Tanks


                                	'	I
   |	'	

               "I
h--
I
k-
I
k-
I
I
I
                                                    —®
                        4.  Shipping
                 I	i
                                  	©

                                h-	@
                                       Legend
                                  CS - Cleaning and Sanitizing  Solutions
                                  WW - Wash Water (cold or hot)
                                  CW = Cooling Water
                                  EF = Effluent to drain
                          21

-------
                                    FIGURE   2
                                   FLUID MILK
                    Basic  Process
                  1.   Receiving
                  2 .   Storage Tanks
           1	_L	
	L_J
                  3.  Clarification/
                     Standardization
(Alternative
 Recycle)
                           	!	I
                  4.  Pasteurization
                   5.  Homo gem zation
             K- ©
                   6.  Deodorization
                                       r-®
                   7 .  Storage Tsnk
                                       [—€)
                                       i	
                   8.  Packaging
           L.
                                             Bottle Washing
                   9.  Storage
                                              Case Washing
                  10.  Shipping
                                                  Legend
                                   J
                   CS - Cleaning and  Sanitizing  Solutions
                   WW - Wash Water (cold or hot)
                   CW - Cooling Water
                   ST - Steam
                   EF - Effluent to drain
                                     22

-------
                          FIGURE   3
          CULTURED PRODUCTS
            Basic .Process
-^ — f EF y
-^ 	 (EF J— ^


Recycling
1
1
1
	 1
1
1
L
1 . Receiving

H 	 ( rs )
^
2 Storage


H
1
H 	 1 ww )
_|


3 . Separat ion


r
I ,
i
i *
n
i
L -S^y -I
X-— X

4. Milk
Past
i
' 7. Cult

<
^ Cream
Storage


i •
eurizatlon
5 . Cream
Pasteunzat ion
|
uring



8. Cooling
1



Legend:


CS -  Cleaning and Sanitizing Solution
WW -  Wash Water (cold or hot)
CW -  Cooling Water
ST -  Steam
EF •  Effluent to drain
L.
            9.  Packaging
           10.  Shipping
                                                                                 0
-J.
               23

-------
 FIGURE  4
By-Product s
BUTTER

Basic Process

r • " •

~-0— 1

1 . Receiving


•?. Storage Tanks


r~ ~1



Skim Milk *


)••— — (ww)
J


3. Clarification
i

4 . Separation

Alternate

5. Cooling
Recycling
1

6 . Storage Tank*:

r

— a
— ©
[•• 	 (ww)
1
1
1
1


7 Pasteurization
,



8. Storage Tanks

r~

Bjtterm, Ik * ' 1 '



1
CS - Cleaning and Sanitizing Solution
WW - Wash Water (cold or hot)
CW - Cooling Water
ST - Steam
EF - Effluent to drain
9. Churr




A sterna 1 1 ve
l
i


ing


n
i 	 1
\ 13 . Continuous 1
i Buttermaking !

L 1 . Removal from
Churn


12. Packaging


K— ©
— ©

I
_j

L4. fold
Storage


24
T57 Shipping



24

-------
                                 FIGURE 5
By-Products
                           NATURAL AND PROCESSED CHEESE
                            Basic Process
                            1.   Receiving
    Excess
    Cream
 L.

 I"
1
^
 L.
                            2.  Storage Tanks       i
3.   Clarification/
    Separation
           Recycling

           I    	     I
 .   Pasteurization
Sweet Whey
5.   Cheese
    Manufacture
                            6.   Press ing in
                            	Hoops	
                            7.  Drying
                                Curing
                            12.  Packaging
                            L3.  Cold Storage
                                9.   Process  Cheese
                                     Preparation
                                                           10.  Blending
                                                           11.  Pasteurization
                                                                and Cooling
                                                                               .J
                                                           Legend
                          CS - Cleaning and Sanitizing Solution
                          WW - Wash Water ( cold  or hot)
                          CU - Cooling Water
                          ST - Steam
                          EF - Effluent to drain
                                Shipping
                               25

-------
                              FIGURE  6
                              COTTAGE CHEESE
 By-Products
                            Basic Process
                     I"
Cream
Acid Whey
Alternate
Recycling
 I	

 I	^
                           1.   Receiving
                           2.  Storage
                     r~
                    -L.
                                    	'	l
                           3.  Separating
                     i—
             	i
                           4.  Pasteurization
                                             .j
                                             •~l
                           5.  Cottage Cheese
                               Manufacture
                           6.  Cheese
                               Dressing
                            7 .  Packaging
                     l	'	i	!	I
                            8.   Storage
                                                             -©
                                                        Legend
                            9.   Shipping
                                                   CS - Cleaning and  Sanitiziiig Solution
                                                   WW - Wash Water  (cold or hot)
                                                   CW - Cooling Water
                                                   ST - Steam
                                                   EF - Effluent to drain
                              26

-------
     FIGURE  7

-1
           	i
       i
 L-——I——,-
   I" """'-	1
 27

-------
                           FIGURE  8
                           Basic Process
            ~l
                          1    H c c i?1 v i nj*
                              Storage Tfti ks
               L.
               r~
                          5   I'asteur i zaC i on
Alternat,
kecvclint;
|
         ____ |
Condensate
I
                              fonlm.
                                                       t-—(3
                              Storage Tanks
               L_
                              Pack at; i ne,
                                                        Legend
                              Shipping
                                                    CS   ricanln? and Sanitizing Solution
                                                    WW - ' a^h Water (cold or hot)
                                                    CU -   n I i ne; Water
                                                    b T • stt am
                                                    EF - Effluent to drain
                              28

-------
                       FIGURE  9
                            DRY  MILK
                      Basic Process
                      1.  Receiving .
                      2.  Storage Tanks
                      3 .  Clan f icat ion
                      4,  Separation
                                                      ^	(wvJ)
                       5.  Past curizatinn
(Alternate
 ::.--i
                       9 .   I nstant i? i 'lu
                      10.
                      11.   Storage
                                                            Lc ee ncl
                      1 ? .   Shi ppiny,
CS - Cleamni; and Sanitizing
WW - Wa^h Wafer  'cold or hot)
CW - Cooli nt* Water
1T ^ cteam
EF = Effluent to drain

-------
                                FIGURE  10
                         CONDENSED WHEY
                             Basic Process
                          1.  Receiving
                          1,  Storage

               I	'	

               I
Alternate
Re^ycHrig

I



Condensate
I	*•
1
               L.
             3.   Pasteurization
             4.   Condensing
                           5.  Cooling and
                              Storage
                           6.   Packaging
                           7.  Storage
                           8.   Shipping
                                           Legend
                                                      CS = Cleaning and Sanitizing,  Solution
                                                      WW - Wash Water (cold or hot)
                                                      CW - Cooling Water
                                                      ST - Steam
                                                      EF - Effluent to drain
                                          30

-------
      FIGURE  11
DRY WHEY
Basic Process
r
1 	
i 	

1. Receiving
i
	 —
2. Storage


Rec_yc_Ung_ 	 ["
1 /^!\ 1
*— — 
-------
                               SECTION IV

                        INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION

                              Introduction

In  developing  the  effluent  limitations  guidelines  and standards of
performance, a judgement must be made as to whether the  dairy  products
industry  should  be treated as a single entity or divided into subcate-
gories for the application of these guidelines and standards.  The  irost
cursory  examination,  especially  if  augmented  by  even minimal data,
indicates the inadvisability of attempting to  apply  a  single  set  of
guidelines and standards to segments of an industry displaying such wide
variation  in raw material input, processes employed, end products manu-
factured, and levels of waste generation.  The problem then becomes  one
of  developing  a logical subcategorization that will facilitate orderly
development of effluent limitations and standards, taking  into  account
the  affect  cf factors such as raw materials input, processes employed,
finished products manufactured,  wastes  discharged,  age  and  size  of
plants, and other factors.
Raw  materials  for  dairy products processing typically consist of milk
and milk products (cream, condensed or dried milk and whey, etc.).  Non-
dairy ingredients (sugar, fruits, flavors, nuts, and fruit  juices)  are
utilized  in  certain  manufactured products such as ice cream, flavored
milk, frozen desserts, yogurt, and others.

A raw material may be involved in manufacture of a  number  of  finished
products; for example, cream may serve as a raw material for such varied
finished  products  as  fluid  milk  and  cream,  butter, ice cream, and
cultured products.  Moreover, considerable variation is  encountered  in
the - raw  materials  employed in manufacture of a single product such as
ice cream.  Hence, raw materials input is poorly adapted  to  use  as  a
single  criterion  for subcategorization, as it would require a separate
subcategory for most individual plants.

Processes Employed

The processes employed in the dairy products  industry  can  be  divided
into two groups, those essentially common to the entire industry such as
receiving,  storage, transfer, separation, pasteurization and packaging,
and these employed in more limited segments  of  the  industry  such  as
churning, flavoring, culturing, and freezing.

In attempting to base subcategorizatior primarily or solely on processes
employed  several problems are encountered.  The physical setup of dairy
products plants is seldom if ever such that it is  possible  to  isolate
the  waste  discharge  from  a single process and thus generate the data
                                33

-------
base  necessary  for  development  of  valid  effluent  limitations  and
standards applicable tc processes.   In addition, subcategorization based
on process alone fails to account for the differences in potential waste
generation  that  result  frcnri  application  of  a common process  (e.g.,
pasteurization) to a variety of materials such as milk, cream, ice cream
mix, and whey.

Wastes _D i s c h a r cje d

Pollutants contained in the wastes  discharged by dairy  products  plants
represent materials lost through direct processing of raw materials into
finished  products  and  materials   lost from ancillary operations.  The
former group consists of milk, milk products and  non-dairy  ingredients
(sugar,  fruits,  nuts,  etc.), while the latter consist of cleaners and
sanitizers used in cleaning equipment, lubricants  (primarily  soap  and
silicone-fcased)  used  in  certain  handling equipments, and sanitary and
domestic sewage from toilets, washrooms and kitchens.

These wastes with the possible  minor  exceptions  of  some  lubricants,
cleaners, sanitizers, and concentrated wheys (especially acid wheys from
production  of  cottage  cheese),  are  readily  degradable  in  typical
biological  treatment  systems.   Any  refractive  materials  that   are
represented  are generally present  in such low concentrations as to pose
no taste and odor problems.

Since  there  are  no  clear   cut    differences   (other   than   their
concentrations)   in   wastes   discharged  by  dairy  products  plants,
subcategorization based on  wastes   dicharged  would  be  arbitrary  and
questionable.

Fini§hed_Prcducts_ManuJactured

The  finished  products  manufactured  in  dairy products plants are the
results of application of specific  sets of processes to selected  groups
of  raw materials; hence, waste discharges associated with production of
specific finished products reflect  all variations  attributable  to  raw
materials,   direct   production  processes,  and  associated  ancillary
operations.  Therefore, a subcategorization based on  finished  products
has  been  adopted.   The  subcategories  proposed  and their associated
finished products are given in Table 7.  Multiple-product plants  should
be treated as weighted composites of the subcategories.


One  would  expect  age  and size of plant, modifications of process and
other miscellaneous factors tc affect the raw waste loads  generated  by
plants,  especially  for those manufacturing the same finished products,
but in general, no such correlation is borne out by  the  data  compiled
during  the  course  of  this  study.   In fact, tests in several of the
newer, highly-automated plants of large size yielded higher than average
waste loads for their subcategories.  Apparently  any  minor  variations
                                34

-------
attributable  to  age  and  size of plant are overshadowed by variations
cause by "quality of management  (housekeeping,  maintenance,  personnel
attituted,   etc)    raw   materials  input  and  process  modifications.
Refinement  of  guidelines  for  size  and  age   must   await   greater
standarizaticn  of  intangibles  such  as management which should result
from implementation of guidelines.

The exceptions to the foregoing that  were  noted  and  documented  fall
within  the  subcategories  cf  receiving  stations  and  natural cheese
plants, the least complex operations in the industry and ones  in  which
variation  cf  intangibles  is  minimal.   Here  the  data  indicates  a
consistent difference in the waste loads generated by stations receiving
milk in cans versus those receiving milk in bulk and large versus  sirall
cheese  plants.   This  has been recognized in the guidelines by further
subdividing  these   sufccategories   and   setting   separate   effluent
limitations  for receipt of milk in cans and receipt of irilk in bulk and
for large and small natural cheese plants.
Cn the basis of the preceeding discussion it can be concluded that,  for
the   purpose   of  establishing  effluent  limitations  guidelines  and
standards cf  performance  for  new  sources,  the  dairy  industry  can
logically  be  subcategorized  on  the  basis  of  the  type of products
manufactured.

Subcategorization can be meaningful only to  the  extent  that  a  valid
basis  (such  as  quantitive  data  or  clearly  identifiable  technical
considerations)  exist for developing a sound guideline or  standard  for
each  category defined.  On the basis of existing data and knowledge, it
is proposed that the dairy industry be subcategorized  as  indicated  in
Table 7.

The  typical  manufacturing processes for the products that characterize
the proposed subcategories are illustrated in Figures 1 through 11.

The proposed subcategories represent single-product plants.  Because  of
the  large  number  of  product  combinations manufactured by individual
plants in the industry and their  varying  proportions  in  relation  to
total  plant  production,  further  subcategorization  for multi-product
plants is impractical.  Rather,  it  is  proposed  that  guidelines  and
standards for multi-product plants be applied on the basis of a weighted
average of the guidelines for the corresponding single product processes
(plants) ,  using  the  total EOD input for each manufacturing product as
the weighting factor.
                               35

-------
                            TABLE 7

    Proposed Subcateggrization for the Dairy Products^Industry^
    _Name_cf_Subcategory__
          Products Included
Receiving Station

Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Eutter
Natural and Processed Cheese
Cottage Cheese

Ice cream. Frozen Desserts,
Novelties and ether Dairy
Desserts
Ice Cream Mix


Condensed Milk



Dry Milk


Condensed Whey


Dry Whey
Raw Milk

Market milk (ranging from 3.5%
to fat-free),  flavored milk
(chocolate and other)  and cream
(of various fat concentrations,
plain and whipped) .

Cultured skim milk ("cultured
buttermilk")  yoghurt,  sour cream,
cultured cream cheese and dips
of various types.

Churned and continuous-process
tutter.

All types of cheese
foods except cottage cheese.

Cottage cheese and cultured cream che

Ice cream, ice milk, sherbert,
water ices, stick confections,
frozen novelty products, frozen
frozen mellorine, puddings, other
dairy-based desserts.

Fluid mix for ice cream and other
frozen products.

Condensed whole milk,  condensed
milk,skim milk, sweetened condensed
milk and condensed buttermilk.

Dry whole milk, dry skim milk, and
dry buttermilk.

Condensed sweet whey and condensed
acid whey.

Dry sweet whey and dry acid whey.
                                 36

-------
                               SECTION V

                         WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

Sources of Waste

The main sources of waste in dairy plants are the following:

    1.   The washing and cleaning  out  of  product  remaining  in  tank
         trucks,  cans,  piping,  tanks,  and  other equipment performed
         routinely after every processing cycle.

    2.   Spillage produced by  leaks,  overflow,  freezing-on,  boiling-
         cver, equipment malfunction, or careless handling.

    3.   Processing losses, including:

         (a)  Sludge discharges from CIP clarifiers;
         (b)  Product wasted during HTST pasteurizer start-up,
              shut-down, and product change-over;
         (c)  Evaporator entrainment;
         (d)  Discharges from bottle and case washers;
         (e)  Splashing and container breakage in automatic
              packaging equipment, and;
         (f)  Product change-ever in filling machines.

    <4.   Wastage of spoiled products, returned products, or  by-products
         such as whey.

    5.   Detergents  and  other  compounds  used  in  the  washing   and
         sanitizing solutions that are discharged as waste.

    6.   Entrainment of lubricants frcm conveyors,  stackers  and  ether
         equipment in the waste water from cleaning operations.

    7.   Routine  operation  cf  toilets,  washrooirs,   and   restaurant
         facilities at the plant.

    8.   Viaste constituents that may be contained in the raw water which
         ultimately goes to waste.

The first  five  sources  listed  relate  to  the  product  handled  and
contribute the greatest amount of waste.
                            37

-------
                      Wastes

Materials Wasted

Materials  that  are  discharged to the waste streams in practically all
dairy plants include:

    1.   Milk and milk products received as raw materials.
    2.   Milk products handled in the process and end products
         manufactured.
    3.   Lubricants  (primarily soap and silicone based)  used
         in certain handling equipment.
    4.   Sanitary and domestic sewage from toilets, washrooms
         and kitchens.

Other products that may be wasted include:

    1.   Non-dairy ingredients (such as sugar,  fruits,   flavors,  nuts,
         and  fruit  juices)   utilized  in certain manufactured products
         (including ice cream, flavored milk, frozen desserts,  yoghurt,
         and others).
    2.   Milk by-products that  are  deliberately  waste,  significantly
         whey, and sometimes, buttermilk.
    3.   Returned products that are wasted.

Uncontaminated water frcm coolers,  refrigeration  systems,  evaporators
and  other  equipment which does not come  in contact with the product is
not considered waste.  Such  water  is  recycled  in  many  plants.   If
wasted, it increases the volume of the effluent and has  an effect on the
size  of  the  piping  and  treatment  system needed for disposal.  Poof
drainage will have the same effect unless   discharged  through  separate
drains.

Sanitary  sewage from plant employees and  domestic sewage from washrooms
and kitchens is usually disposed of separately from the  process  wastes,
and represents a very minor part of the load.

The  effect  en  the  waste  load of the raw water used  by the plant has
often been overlooked.  Raw water can be drawn from wells or a municipal
system and may be contributing substantially to the  waste  load  unless
periodic ccntrol of its quality indicates  otherwise.

Composition of Wastes

The  principle organic constituents in the milk products are the natural
milk solids, namely  fat,  lactose  and  protein.   Sugar  is  added  in
significant  quantities  to ice cream and  has an important effect in the
waste leads of plants producing that product.  The  average  composition
of selected milk, milk products and other  selected materials is shown in
Table 8.
                            38

-------
O
o
o
to
                                                                                              in •-(
                                                                                              ceo
  i-- moo cs 1-1 iH CM MtNOfi ro 1-1
6 CiH **O Omin OCNOOCN i-HOrHr^ COCOO r^-OO I^-O O OOrH OOOC^ OrH

0 C fr«
CJ -rl
CO
IM CO
O CO
0
C 0
O M
•H PL,
4J
•H CO
CO 4J
0 0
a 3
6 ti
0 0
CJ H
•H
Pv 0)
M -4J
p PL* oo o ro *j" 
-------
Cleaning  products  used  in dairy plants include alkalis  (caustic scda,
soda ash)  and acids (muriatic, sulfuric, phosphoric, acetic, and others)
in combination with surfactants, phosphates,  and  calcium  sequestering
compounds.  BOD5 is contributed by acids and surfactants in the cleaning
product.   However, the amounts of cleaning products used are relatively
small and highly diluted.

Sanitizers utilized in  dairy  facilities  include  chlorine  compounds,
iodine  compounds,  quaternary  ammonium  compounds,  and  in some cases
acids.  Their significance in relation to  dairy  wastes  has  not  been
fully  evaluated, but it is believed that their contribution to the EOD_5
load is quite small.

Most lubricants used in the dairy industry are coaps or silicones.  They
are employed  principally  in  casers,  stackers  and  conveyors.   Soap
lubricants  contain  EOC5  and  are more widely used than silicone based
lubricants.

The organic substances in dair^ waste waters are  contributed  primarily
by  the  irilk  and milk products wasted, and to a much lesser degree, by
cleaning products, sanitizing compounds, lubricants, and domestic sewage
that are discharged to the waste stream.  The importance of each  source
of organic matter in dairy waste waters is illustrated in Table 7.

                                Table 9
         Estimated Contribution of Wasted Materials to the EOCji
            Lead of Dairy Waste Water.  (Fluid Milk Plant).
                          kg EOD5/kkg
                          (lb/1000 Ib)
                          Milk Eqivalent
                             Processed
Milk, milk products, and
  ether editle materials

Cleaning products

Sanitizers


Lubricants
Employee wastes (Sani-
tary and domestic)
      3. 0

      0. 1

Undetermined, but
probably very small

Undetermined, but
probably small


      0...1

      3. 2
Percent


  94%

   3
                                                  100%
                             40

-------
The  inorganic  constituents  of dairy waste waters have been given much
less attention as sources of pollution than the  organic  wastes  simply
because  the  products  manufactured  are  edible materials which do not
contain hazardous quantities  of  inorganic  substances.   However,  the
nonedible materials used in the process, do contain inorganic substances
which  by  themselves, or added to those of milk products and raw water,
potentially pose  a  pollution  problem.   Such  inorganic  constituents
include  phosphates   (used  as def locculants and emulsifiers in cleaning
compounds) , chlorine  (used in detergents and  sanitizing  products)  and
nitrogen (contained in wetting agents and sanitizers) .

Variability of Dairy Wastes

A  significant  characteristic  of  the waste streams of practically all
dairy plants is the marked fluctuations in flow,  strength,  temperature
and   other   characteristics.    Wide  variations  of  such  parameters
frequently occur  within  minutes  during  the  day,  depending  on  the
processing  and  cleaning operations that are taking place in the plant.
Furthermore,  there  are  usually   substantial   daily   and   seasonal
fluctuations depending on the types of products manufactured, production
schedules,  maintenance  operations,  and other factors.  Typical hourly
variations in flow, BOC5 and COD of a plant manufacturing cottage cheese
is illustrated in Figure 12.  Figure 13 illustrates daily variations  in
BOD5  strength  of  the  waste from the frozen products drain of another
dairy plant.

It is important to recognize the highly variable nature  of  the  wastes
when  a  sampling  program  is  undertaken in a dairy plant.  Unless the
daily samples are a composite of subsamples taken at frequent  intervals
and   proportioned   in  accordance  with  flow,  results  could  depart
considerably from the true average values.   Furthermore,  the  sampling
period  should ideally cover enough days at various times of the year to
reduce the effect of the daily and seasonal variations.

           Units
Waste loads have frequently been reported in terms of  concentration  or
"strength"  of  a given parameter in the waste stream, such as parts per
million (ppm)  or milligrams  per  liter  (mg/1) .   Although  a  unit  of
concentration can be significant as a loading factor for waste treatment
systems and for water quality analysis, it is not meaningful for control
purposes  because  any  amount  of  water added to the waste stream will
result in a lower concentration, while the volume of polluting  material
discharged remains unchanged.  For pollution control purposes, the total
weight  of  pollutant  discharged in a unit of time is a more meaningful
factor.

Researchers have long recognized a  direct  relationship  in  the  dairy
industry between the total weight of pollutant discharged and the weight
cr volume of material processed.  Waste loads of different plants can be
                               41

-------
                      FIGURE 12
                                                            -i  29
  12    2
MIDNIGHT
8
10    12    2
    NOON

   TIME
10    12
 Hourly variations in ppm BOD5, COD and waste water
 fora dairy plant
                      42

-------

                                                                 oo
                                                                 c
                                                           $    I
                                                                 (a

                                                                 V
                                                           I   *
                                                                 3
                                                                 U
                                                                 ID
                                                                 u)

                                                                 O
                                                                 U
                                                                T3
                                                                «>
                                                                tJ
                                                                3
                                                                •o

                                                                2
                                                                a
                                                                N
                                                                O
                                                                t,
                                                                QO
                                                                c
                                                                   
-------
meaningfully  compared on the basis of a unit load,  such as kg (Ib)  cf a
given waste parameter per kkg (1000 Ib)  of raw material or product.

Up until this time,  it has been the accepted  practice  to  characterize
the  raw  wastes  of dairy plants in relation to the number of pounds of
milk or "milk equivalent" received or processed.   During this  study  it
was   found   that  the  "milk  equivalent"  concept  has  been  defined
differently by various sources, has often been  applied  inconsistently,
and has at least been confusing to many people that  have used waste  load
data for research, management, cr control purposes.

Some  of  the inconsistencies between definitions cr applications of the
milk equivalent concept are a result cf arbitrary decisions that must be
made in its definition, including the following:

    1.    The milk equivalent of a milk product can be referred either to
         raw rrilk as received from the farms,  or to  "whole  milk"  as
         standardized for sale in the market.

    2.    Paw milk varies in composition, and  therefore  a  conventional
         sclids  content  must be agreed upon if the definition is to be
         consistent.

    3.    The milk equivalent can be defined in terms of the  fat  solids
         the ncn fat solids or the total solids of the whole milk and of
         the product in question.

    4.    Milk products to which other than milk solids have  been  added
         (such  as  ice  cream  or  sweetened  condensed  milk)   further
         complicate the definition of a milk equivalent based  on  total
         sclids as opposed to fat or non fat milk solids.

Because  cf  this  situation,  it  is proposed that  the unit waste leads
defining the  effluent  limitation  guidelines  (significantly  BOD)  be
expressed  in  terms  of the total BOC5 input contained in the dairy raw
materials utilized in the production processes.  This approach  has   the
following advantages:

    1.    The  many  arbitrary  decisions  involved  in  establishing   a
         definition of the "milk equivalent" concept are eliminated.

    2.    The EOD5 content (in Ib BOD5 per Ib of  raw  material)   of   any
         given   daily  raw  material  can  be  determined  by  standard
         laboratory analysis.  Values for most of the typical dairy   raw
         materials have been published and are reasonably consistent.

Accordingly,  the  waste  load  data  presented  in  the report have  teen
Accordingly,  tne  waste  ioaa  aata  presented  in tne report nave
expressed in cr converted to units relating to the quantity of  BOD5
the  raw materials received or processed.
                                                                      in
                            44

-------
To  maintain  consistency  in  the  application  the waste load data and
guidelines set forth in this report it is essential that the  procedures
set  forth in this repcrt be adopted as standards to calculate the waste
load of any particular plant.  For  simplicity,  only  the  process  raw
materials  are  considered  in  the computations; it must be remembered,
however, that EOD5 can also be contributed by   lubricants,  detergents,
sanitizers, and in some cases, sanitary sewage.
Available  data  indicates that the daily average EOD5 strength of dairy
plant wastes varies over a bread range, from as low as 40 mg/1 to higher
than 10,000 mg/1, with the great majority of plants falling within 1,000
to 4,000 mg/1.  A summary of available raw waste BODJ  data  appears  in
Table 10.

In  expressing  BOD5 less per EOD5 received (processed)  it is convenient
and useful to express the unit load as kg (Ib)  BOD5 of  waste  discharge
per 100 kg (Ib)  received processed for two reasons.

    1.    kg BOD5/100 kg (lb/100 Ib) can be read  directly  as  per  cent
         EOD5  loss,  i.e.,  for  ice cream plants the mean loss is 14.8
         kg/Too kg  (14.8 lb/100 Ib) or directly, 14.8 percent.

    2.    kg BOD5/100 kg BOD5   (Ib  BOD5/100  Ib  BOD)   is  equal  to  kg
         EOCjj/1000  milk equivalent when the raw material is whole milk,
         since the BODJ of whole milk is  approximately  10  percent  by
         weight.

Mean  unit  EOE5 loads for plants range from 0.41 kg/100 kg BOD5 or 0.41
kg/1000 kg M.E., (0.41 lb/100 Ib BOD5 or 0.41 Ib pr 1000  Ib  M.E.)  for
receiving  stations to 16.8 kg/100 kg BOD5 or 14.6 kg/1000 kg M.E. (16.8
lb/100 Ib EOD5 or 14.6 lb/1000 Ib M.E.) for cottage cheese  plants.   In
general,  the  relative  magnitudes  of the mean unit BOD5 loads for the
various subcategories are as would  be  expected  when  considering  the
viscosity  and  BOD5  content  of  the  product  and  the  nature of the
processes.

COD

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)  is the amount of equivalent oxygen required
for oxidation of the organic solids in an effluent,  measured  by  using
chemical  oxidizing agents under certain specified conditions instead of
using microorganisms as in the BOD test.  It can be  used  alternatively
to BOD5 as a measure of the strength of the waste water.  The advantages
of  the  COD  test  over  the  BOD5  is  that  it  can be completed in a
relatively short time and there is generally a lesser chance  for  error
in performing the test.
                              45

-------










en
cu
CJ
LI
^
0
en
jj
c:
ro
rH
CLi

T3
H a
3
4J uM
ca a
w O
01 «
4-1
•H 01
rJ -U
U
* co
-o &
HI
4J 3
cd CO
rH &i
3
O
rH
«
QJ

W-l
0

c?





•o
00 >
l/*V^£ -r
o 01
OO O
P3O 01
rH 06
OC
i^ ^ i^
01 O
ao
PH

T3
^: ai
rH |>
-H -H
i; 01
o
LO bO 01
o ^ ai
o
03 O 4J
0 C
ooo 01
X -rH
rH CO
>
rl 'rl
01 3
a o
u
C
CC
Q

vO r-~- -H o o LH
-J-rH CM CO \£>
ca -t I-H CN co inr--
z;| oo co o o^>





01
w
c
CO
Cd


CO 01
4-1 C
h e -H
HI CO 4J
J3 rH IH
§BJ o
Q
55 MH 01
OQS

O
O ^D rO vO
r- rH O •
• o>
Or- O rH
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O O 
•rt *rl
£ 01
CJ
in ao oi
Q X ai
too -u
o c
apo cu
% *i~i
i-H Ct
>
V4 'r
01 r
a D
u
c
CO
E
ooo o ^o O O O O
O *—< I-H ro ro CTI
O O O —< O rH


CO M
4-1 C
1H C -rl
01 CO 4J
jOl-l rl
§O, 0
Q
Z MH 01
o ai




|-^ rH VO | I-H UO rH r-
rH rH CsJ




rH
'-"a
m^ 01
QrH >
O -^ "H
pa Z 01
o
&C 00 01
^ -^ Q5

HIO C
4J O 01
CO "rH
l— I rH CO
3 >
U iH -rl
3 rH CU 3
g ro a a
§ U UJ




CN
CO
f-^. p-l . ,_^ CT\ r^-~ rH
 CO
vo r^
i i i
v£j m
CM "O
CM O





in tn i




O rH
O^ CN
CN rH



r- ^O
CO CN

1 1
vD O
^D ro
O O






O CO
rH











•<]- ^O
rH VO
CN 1 rH






                                                                                                  co ro 
                                                                                                  o> oo O CN
                                                                          O

                                                                          O
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                        -J
c
01
3
rH
UH
L4H
w
1
•o
c
CO

CO
HI
                                                                                                                                           3
                                                                                                                                          4-1
                                                                                                                                          C/5
                                                                                                                                           a.
                                                                                                                                           o
                                                               46

-------
There  is  disagreement, however, on the accuracy and relative merits of
each test in determining the oxygen demand  of  a  dairy  effluent.   In
spite  of  being  more   cumbersom,  and  inherently providing a greater
chance of error, the ECD5 test has been much more  widely  used  in  the
past.   The  results  of  the  BOD5  test  have  been  regarded  as more
significant, because it was considered to more nearly parallel  what  is
actually  taking  place  in natural waters.  Many dairy companies in the
United States have reportedly attempted to use the  COD  test  but  have
discontinued  the  practice  because  of  the  wide variation in EOE:COD
ratios measured.

More recently, the need for the COD test as a supplement the  BOD5  test
has been recognized, and many investigations consider it a better method
for assessing the strengths of dairy effluents.

A  summary  of BOD:COB data appears in Table 11.  Significant variations
of the ratio are evident; the overall range of the EOD:COD ratio for raw
effluents reported from all sources is  0.07  to  1.03.   The  mean  for
identified  plants  is  0.57.   This  figure can be used as a conversion
factor.

          Sclids

The concentrations of suspended solids in raw dairy  plant  wastes  vary
widely  among  the  different  dairy operations.  The greatest number of
plants have suspended solids concentrations in the 400 mg/1 to 2000 mg/1
range.

The data on the suspended solids content of  raw  wastes  of  identified
plant  sources  are  summarized  in Table 12.  The mean suspended solids
loads range from a low of 0.03 kg/100 kg BCD5 (0.03  kg/1,000  kg  M.E.)
for milk receiving stations to a high of 3.50 kg/100 kg EOD5 1.78 kg/kkg
M.E.)  for  ice  cream  plants.   Data  were not available for dry milk,
cultured products, cottage cheese, and can receiving stations operations
as single product categories.  The suspended solids  would  be  composed
primarily  of  coagulated milk, fine particles of cheese curd and pieces
of fruits and nuts from ice cream operations.

In all but two cases the suspended solids  content  of  raw  wastes  was
lower  than the BOD5 value.  Further, there did seem to be a significant
correlation between the suspended solids content of raw wastes  and  the
type  of  plant  operation.   This  fact  is supported by an analysis of
suspended solids to BOD5 ratios for identified plant source  data.    The
values of the suspended solids - BOD5 ratio were found to be distributed
about  a mean of 0.415 with a standard deviation of 0.32.  This yields a
coefficient of variance of 77 percent.   With 3 highest and lowest values
eliminated frcm the sample, the mean and standard deviation become 0.368
and 0.155 respectively, giving a correlation of variance of 42  percent.
Further, a regression analysis of the data the suspended solids and EOD5
                           47

-------
                     £  Oi
                     3:0
                                          m r-


                                          O O
                                                            o           o
                                                             •-O LTl U~l


                                                             O O O
                        E D-  O

                        Z; ^  01
                           0 06
•H  JS
•^  Ll
*J  T-*
c  « i
^ U  G U
                                                                                                                           U U  O
                                                                                                                        —i  a u  a>  i
                                                                                                                      J -^  L, Li  1*  Li
                                                                                                                      3 j:  3 3  3  OJ
                                                 330-flOOOL.OL,
                                                                                                             3 r-  O 3 >>-• -* —•  •
                                                                                                             TDU^l-333
                                                                                                             , U i-< fl Q U U U C
                                                                                                             3  i    i  Z  i   (   i   i

                                                                                                             ,  OOCCU 60 OC at  W  •
                                                                                                                                                        e


                                                                                                                                                     J U
                                                                                                       >U  3OO3OOO  O  O-^OUQZC
                                                                                                       ^iOUUCQOOLJUU2:i   I   I   I
                                                                                                        j^iiiiiilii     ULiLiLiI
                                                                                                       ]^^T3-OT3-a-O-aT3T)T3  >\OI 01 O  0>  I

                                                                                      33333
; 3 3 3 3  3  3  3

  U. U.
                                                                                                                                     3  O *j *j *J *-» j
                                                                                                                                     —     3333;
33     ^

TO     O
                                                                                                            48

-------

o
CJ
s-
o
-U
c
v „ Q
•r-H
CJ -r-J
b £
^ ^ 'j
.-j • — i
u .-
r— J '
•rj — J
O (, ;
O ','
1 — i ;;___
O CO
t:



5
• — ( cu
O r.P >
_ ^
"3 r-l &,
F ^
C.O p '-
3 pa a-;
CO
1— 1  r:
3 oj " ' "
l/J D. C
« w
AJ c^
Ll C -H
oj o u
XI i— l Li
5 D
O Cii
iJ
c
0.
U-i


SS 5 SS°S Sc? 5 2^25 SSS 5S S 5S5S^
O r-l O OroOO OO CM i-^-JOi— l i— 1 fl O i~l i— 1 c*1 O •— It— 1 1— ' O
vOr~-vDOO O U~l r- 1 i— 1 r-l !-l r-l r^ CMr-l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**£> ^f >^> r^ co r^* vo r-i v^ O co
CO r- 1 -tf rH f"">OSf^ UOO UO LTlCSvJ'r^vXJ
O r-l O Or-lOO OO CM r-l r-l O r-l rH CN O i-l r-l CM O rH r-l r-l O
0
\Oh~vOOOOvOvO OO O i—l-d-
cOcMr^<)-r^Lri . o O\ OCO
CO O CM r-l O O i— 1 i— 1 VO CM t— 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1
COOCOr^-COOsO i— 1 CO OCM
r-I^CMr^rHi-ICM CM CO OOOJ
OOOOOOO O O OO
1 r-l U~l | r- 1 1 LT> O ' — 'CMICOCM 1*^1 1 1 r-l r-4 CM l— I 1 1 I— 1 CO i— 1 f-l»— llrHI 1 1 l— 1 r— 1 CO 1— 1 CO
1 — 1
•o
01
Ll
3 X.
*-> ErH CO
r-l >, tO -r4 ' U
3 oj OJ 2; E w
o x: LI re x
l S O • «U Li
01 01 ID Li Q O
oo w >-, o) c u i oj
to- OJUOQ E ^ £»:>>
*~~-v iJ-U 01QMUOJ XtOr-l 10)
}2^ *JG EXIIIIO oioj-fi XT3 x:
1 — ' O O "O CO t— 3 .X "O "O "O r-l X> Li 2 OJ OJ O) 3
•^^^ WXXU3CJ!OZ3330) XOIOJLiOIU-U
OJ-r-l.r^ .r-lt) Ll UAJiJJJ L,0)U.*!Q XI >M-I C
CC'J) OJ2:S3'-.r^ r-lrH4J JjiQXir-lr-CI ULl3O
OOU x: -)30-ULi3333 r-iioi---n3 QUO
•^ •-> U UEETJlUrHtflQUOUCQ^-r^Jd^SO1— 'III
4J.J^'j:3 OCJ ^ >i C/J T3 COtOO)'OII52llll| r-l 2^ r-l r- * r-^ Li C3DOJO)
OH3fT3A-'"O X[/) Xr-i 0* 4-IOJO) rHO>OJLiO)0)0)IO)0)0)0)OI •«-! *i-l CO-»-l .3 Li(/3C/)(/l
•awuo3L! ii D 22 S 3to3 i 01 -* •— > *—>

or;as,-i:u.cjoacjZ'-ir-icjQUQ 2:u.u
-------
data  pairs  resulted  in  the following relationship with a correlation
coefficient of 0.92.  Suspended solids = 0.529 BOD5 - 152.2.

This relationship between suspended solids and BOD5 seems to  hold  ever
the  range of BOD5 normally found in raw dairy plant wastes, i.e., 1,000
mg/1 to 4,000 mg/1.  Using the above equation and the  lower  and  upper
limits  of  range  of  1,000 mg/1, and 4000 mg/1 suspended solids - EOD5
ratios of 0.38 and 0.49 respectively are found.

Despite the relatively constant ratio of suspended  solids  to  BOD5  of
about .40 for the dairy industry as an aggregate, there is some evidence
that the ratio may be somewhat higher for cottage cheese,, ice cream, and
drying  operations  where  large  amounts  of fines could potentially be
wasted.  Substantiation of this hypothesis must await further  data  and
analysis.

ES

The  pH  cf  dairy wastes of a total of 33 identified plcints varies from
4.0 to 10.8 with an authentic mean of 7.8.  The  main  factor  affecting
the  pH  of  dairy  plant wastes is the types and amount of cleaning and
sanitizing compounds discharged to waste at the plant.

Temperature

Values reported by 12 identified plants for temperatures  of  raw  dairy
wastes  vary from 8° to 38°C  (46°F to 100°F)  with a mean of 24°C  (76°F) .
In general the temperature of the waste water will be affected primarily
by the degree of hot water conservation, the temperature of the cleaning
solutions, the relative volume of cleaning solution in the waste  water.
Higher   temperatures   can   be  expected  in  plants  with  condensing
operations, when the ccndensate is wasted.
Phosphorus concentrations (as FOjf)  of dairy waste waters reported by  29
identified plants range from 9 mg/1 to 210 mg/1, with a mean of 48 mg/1.

Part  of  the  phosphorus  contained in dairy waste water comes from the
milk or milk products that are wasted.  Waste water containing  1%  milk
would  contain  about  12  mg/1  of  phosphorus  (3) .   The  bulk of the
phosphorus, however, is contributed  by  the  wasted  detergents,  which
typically  contain significant amounts of phosphorus.  The wide range of
concentraticns reported reflect varying practices in detergent usage and
recycling cf cleaning solutions.

Nitrogejj
                             50

-------
Ammonia nitrogen in the  waste  water  of  9  identified  plants  varied
between 1.0 rng/1 and 13.4 mg/1, with a mean of 5.5 mg/1 .  Total nitrogen
in 10 plants ranged from 1.0 rrg/1 to 115 mg/1, with a mean of 64 mg/1.

Milk  alone  would  contribute about 55 mg/1 of nitrogen at a 1%  (10,000
mg/1) concentration in the waste water.  Quaternary  ammonium  compounds
used  for  sanitizing  and  certain  detergents can be another source of
nitrogen in the waste water.

Chloride

Six identified plants reported chloride concentrations ranging  from  46
mg/1  to  1,930  mg/1;   the mean was 483 mg/1.  The principal sources of
chloride in the waste stream may  include  brine  used  in  refrigerator
systems  and  chlorine  based  sanitizers.   Milk  and milk products are
responsible fcr part of the load; at a 1%  concentration  in  the  waste
water, milk wculd contribute 10 mg/1 of chloride.

      Wat er_ Volume
Waste water volume data are shown in Tables 13  (in metric units) and 13A
 (in English units) .

Waste  water flow for identified plants covers a very broad range from a
mean of 542 1/kkg  milk equivalent  (65  gal  per  1,000  Ib,  M.E.)  for
receiving  stations  to a mean of over 9,000 1/kkg milk equivalent  (ever
 1,000 gal pr 1,000 Ib M.E.) for certain multiproduct plants.  It  should
be  noted  that  waste  water  flow does not necessarily represent total
water consumed, because many plants recycle condenser and cooling  water
and/or use water as a necessary ingredient in the product.
                  peterm_il3;i23 2^i£Y E§§^§ Loads
Prior  research  has  shown  that  a major controlling factor of the raw
waste leads of dairy plants is the degree of  knowledge,  attitude,  and
effort  displayed  by  management  towards  implementing  waste  control
measures  in  the  plant.   This  conclusion  was  reaffirmed   by   the
investigations carried out in this study.

Good  waste management is manifested in such things an adequate training
of employees, well defined job  description,  close  plant  supervision,
good  housekeeping,  proper  maintenance, careful production scheduling,
finding suitable uses or disposal methods for whey and returned products
other than discharge to drain, salvaging products that can be reused  in
the  process  or sold as feed, and establishing explicit waste reduction
programs with defined  targets  and  responsibilities.   Improvement  in
those  areas  generally  will  not  require inordinate sums of money nor
complex technologies to be implemented.  In  fact,  most  waste  control
measures  of the type indicated will have an economic return as a result
of saving product that is otherwise wasted.
                              51

-------













CO
01
CJ
Li
3
in

4J
C
CD
i — I
Oi

T3
01
-H
<4H
4) 4J
U
v<
3
o

4J
c
to
Pi

•a «
(U 4-»
•^ s
MH P
Tj (11
C B
01 3
TJ i-l
r-l 0
»•*
T3
C r4
a tu
4_(
•o a
a) T
w r*

M V
O 4-1
a. n
11 O
M 3
s i
M Q
3 (t
flj
j_,
4)
4J
rJ
*4-(
O

&
i

C
01
T3
1 — 1















00
^ TD
01 CU
4J O >
cn o -H
CO rH 0)
3 o
Ll 01
co 0) c£
01 L/
U Li Q
•H OJ O
rJ 4J oq
ro
3

C| ^OCM^O i cn t^f^-oo
qj CM o LO 
4-1 -H H
to 2 01
3 0
M 01
0) -^ O4
4J
cn O 4-i
coo C
3 o oi
CO rH CD
M >
0) Li -H
*J OJ 3
•H a o
J w
c
ro
a>
S
\O CM O 1 rH | r-. m rH
CM 
0^
C
cu
ai




co r-. a^
\D o cn
oo LO o>O
rH CO OM^-
i i i i i i i i :
r- 
fcj -H tH
flJ -C 
01 i-i -H
-J QJ 3
- a a
~i UJ
c
CO
OJ
^O en r-~ i CM O LO r~- i
r~~ oo r- o  '•n
LO O>  O — * LO LO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•O CO  — ' ^D I O Ln O r^ |
•—< -H fsj


 CT> CM  r~-.
O OO C3> O
f r
-
O*\ r- O~> cn
-<  — i
cn co CM oo
cn -00
"CM " ••
CO rH r-l r--
1 1 1 1
O 

en LO
CM r-- i i






cn i ^D v£>
ON r-. o
r-H V£> rH
i — i i— t r--.



LO ^
m ™~i
rH Cn
CM en
i i i i
LO rH
r^ LO
LO r--






0 1 00 r-H
1 — 1


                             OO rH CN O
                             r-~ ^O O rH

                             U3 00 O CO


                             co co CN CN
                                                 oo
                                                 00
^O CO GO OO
r-» OMMCN
                                                                en  co
                              co
                              to    C'
                              to     o en
I 0
rH
CM
en -H
CO CM
r^ o^
ON rH LO CM 1
rH LO CO O
v£> CO ^OCO
1 •
H













x— v^— \
cn j^
C (— i
to 3
O co
. 	 '+ 	 .

C C co
O O 4H
•rl -H CJ
4-J
CJ
3
-o
o
Ll
0-
01

of
c
• r4
t/1
<
4J 4H tO 3 0)0) JUi X
COC04JTJ COCO X rH CU
4-» 4n cj o cuo) -H-H jr.
c« c/) 3 LI oicu 22 3
-o d, j: jz
ooooo cj cj E E TJ -a
C C Li TJ CO CO 0) .* 0) X
•r4 •-! 0- 0) OlrHOlOlCflrHlflOl
> > LiLiOOtOLiLiC'^C-C
•r4.HT!30ICOLiCJCJCU20l3
01 OJ 'rl 4-1 4H 4-1 3 "O TJ
OIOJrH33OCOCJCjOLi OLi
asoiu.cjcacjZ'-H'-'CjQcja


















CO
4J
u
3
•a
o
Li
a.
• r4
rH
3
CO
•o
CU V
00 Li L,
co 3 01
4J 4J U
4_l rH 4J
033
O cj CQ
4J
rH
3
t_)
1
0)
00
CO •
U TJ
4J C
0 O
CJ CJ
01 1 1
tn X X
01 -H -H
oi 2 Z
£
cj 6 £T3
to 10 01
-H 01 OJ Li
tO Li Li 3
Li O CJ 4J
3 rH
u CU CU 3
<0 CJ CJ CJ
Z 1-1 rH 1
III-*
T! TJ "O TJ TJ TJ — <
333
j. U. U.

3332
U. U. U.






a
t/>
01
OJ
E £•
•o co cj
OJ OJ
01 Ll Ll rH
u 3 U ffl
•H 4-1 Li
3 -H 0) 3
-) 3 CJ 4J
1 CJ rH CO
Tl 1 1 Z
OJ CU CU 1
Ll 00 60 Li
3 CO 10 0)
3 O O 3
CJ CJ CJ CO
I I I I
TJ -3 T3 T)
3333
U. U. U. U.

6 rH
X CO •*
01 01 2
£ Li
3 u •
T>
X U C
I- U O
a M cj
1 1 1
.* TJ TJ T>
rH 01 O! 01
•H Li Li Li
2333
U 4J 4-1
XrH ^ rH
L, 3 3 3
a cj cj cj

01 cu cu cu


e
CO
0)
Li
CJ

OJ
CJ

Li
0)
4-1
4J
3
CQ
i
01
OJj SO 00 00 60
CO co CO CO co
o o o o
CJ CJ CJ CJ
TJ T> TJ Tl
3333
U. U. U. U.

O -,H
cj :c
•a >
3 £3
u.








e
X 10
01 01
JC Li
3 0) cj
CO
X 01 0)
LI eu cj
J«: O f t-i
rH 1 CJ 1
j; -TH j: j«:
rH 2 -" •- ^
•H -H CD *H
^^^^
X C X4J X



X
Li
Q
(
^
rH
•H
2
X
Li
Ji Q

•r( TJ
2 0)
Li
• 3
T3 4J
C rH
0 3
Li O Li CO Ll CJ CJ
a cj Q z a i i
1 1 1 1 1
Li Ll Ll Ll Li
cu cu u u eu
33333

01 01
60 60
CO 10
O O
CJ CJ

CO
4-1
C/I


CJ
01
OH X
1 01
XT! X
oi 0) oi 3
CO f. U
eu5 3 •
01 u -a
JT XrH C
CJ Lx 3 o
Q CJ CJ
.— i 1 1 1
to 0) 01 01
Ll CO CO CO
•O 3 cu eu 0)
—4 4J 01 01 01
3 co f. JZ JZ
rH Z CJ CJ CJ
U. 1
| Q) rH rH r-l
X 60 CTJ flj rt]
CU tB Li Li Li
JZ 4J 3 3 3
O to CD co
U Z Z Z

52

-------



























o
o
lJ
3
O
C/3
1-1
C
co
PH W
u
CJ C
•H £J
u-l
-H CO
4-1 r-t
C r-«
CJ ^
M CO
4J
*O tO
C O
B
0)
•0 K
0 3
4J ^i
l-< O
O >
P-,
CJ (-.
o c
AJ 0)
nj 4.*

(U O
•LJ £i
•H
03
u-j p4
0

>»
<3
|
3
W






































CD
CV
U
l~J
D
O
00

4J
c
to
r— 1
CM

T!
O
U-4
.r-l
C
0)
TJ
t— 1










CO
01
o
rl
o

*
u
c
c3
r-l
CM
•u
CJ
4J
O
p.
o

CJ
^
•~
w

CJ
4-1
,J





























CJ
4J
co tn TJ
3 ^ 0)
t. >
4J O 0)
tn C-. cj
to 0)
30«
o
U) r— 1 I/
C 0
O I- O
r-l 0) PM
r-1 O.
CO
O



TJ
V O
£^.S
OM z; o
CJ
cfl IM y) 0)
c cj TJ sd
G 4-1 CJ
r-l 3 0 C
to ex, tu
CJ 0) -^
4J O CO
y) O >
CO O "i
3 - 2
r— 1 CJ
w

u)
u
rl C
0) CO
^ n r— i
g CX,
Z Uj
O

TJ
.i CD
CJ -rl —1
as: CD
CJ
yj l-i ui CD
S 0) TJ OS
O 4J C
— * to 3 i->
--< 3 o c
,-3 CH 0)
O Cj r— 1
i-i O CO
in O >
to o — i
3 • 3
r-l CT



C/J
{ 1
VJ C
0) to
.Q r-l
P fX
z. ^
0



























c
ra
01
£






CJ
iOf
C
CO
ai






C
TO
0)





01
w
c
C3
oi




or
c
£
o
a
V
OS

C
CO
o




,
5




61
c
rH
•U
U
O
0)
Qi













4J
C
p-^

*-l
c

OJ
~- '





CMTivoii-*ir-»Oi-..Omo'^-"O i-< >j i i i •— .^.toooi i m ~>OOCCJ>CM \OO-J  »— 1 CO GOi-OOOQO

» „
r-4 •-*


O i^O OO

rM^o.
f— 1 CNI !— * ,-< <— * -^





(^IJ^^I^IOQ^QL^P^,-..^^ | 	 ,j.. . r— lr*-OOOi li/~l-fO -t-CMrM^Di lO -fLn-fOOCM
O> vO ^-D O^ ^.D C-O LO OT) r— * H rsj n . 1 •* ~-4 •* r^. O r-^ Z-^ -—J (*"> i r*~\ n*^ -.f^ i/^ r^ fY~i r^

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
c— 'CM -^iCOiOOOr~*OOLO ^- \D LO 00*^
r— t ^-| r-t ^J-





LO fM^
rH ^  ^oo roo CM O
LO '00 -O v£> O -CM  ' ' t " t t t i i i i i i i i i I I i i i I i I I i i i i i I i f
^ fi O O <]" c**) O OO O^ C^ CT\ O ^ O O O
*sDr-l\CiOCNO^CMi— (OO V-OO^ O*\^D O LO
r~< <— ' r^H r—4 r-~4 V.JO r— i








^C)rH^..jiOLOor-iv3-oomm OICO^HI i i i CM o «— < i i i 1^01 lO^r— 11 i irHi i
r-l r-t CNI ^ ^ ^



-o
CJ
M
3 _v
AJ p I-I CO
^ >, 03 .^* I -M '
E^ a. at 2: e co gP
JI lj (^ !-*%t —j
i 3 u • ai IM 'a.
4) O TJ U Q CJ E"
CO- 01 Li u O E .* ai:^'0
/- -^-s *-*T3 CjQr-IOOl XtOr^ ICU
VI ^ UC E-^IIICJ (IJUJ.H >,TJ £. ^
C-M OO TJnJOJCTJT.J-O.-J J^LiSOiOlOSJy
CO 3 (J tj D D rH CJ 01 OJ 1 3 O1 U -^ X- ^* (—
^^^- wxx U3p_)toz;333oi .xojcu -M o UTJ •*

CC^! 0)2:2:3-10)3 >^-l -1 r-l U J«:QJ=.-lrMl (J-M30 °P
OO*- .C r-,3cji-i--.3333 — .ICJI--ITJ QUO.;;
.^-r-i cj uEET3iOr-icoQc_,c_)c_ja3jc:'»-i_;^ tfi TJ COrOOITJiiS^iiili f— (5^»-Hr-<— ^ Ll C30)OO) .M
O<0to^irr l^M XrM 01 tJ 01 01 -HOIOlUCJOIOlCDDDOlOl —1 -rt CO •-.i . 3 ^vjj-in ^

l-MC£O UUEG"D TJ o*-i— i4J4JOIll3--*-i4J4-iuu*-'UiJr-ilJoljc3^,tji_!'-.2UOU \f
r-*-H-rN01a)CJCJC)OCOaicOUUU.
cl/X 1) 4) —I J-> «J u 3 "D TJ "J -i — i •-< -n -H -H -^ -n — i —I -n .-, ._ i -_ i .^ -^ L, 4J 4J 4J 4J 4-J 4J 4J j^ 4J 3 3 rJ *"

U)i--U.c30:102--c5QUQ Z U. U. U. U. u. U. U. U, U. U. U. U. U. U u. M n m BB M U 0 UZZ^ 2
< CQ
53

-------
The other principal factors determining the raw  waste  load,  including
EOD^  of  the inputs and products,  viscosity of materials, and processes
employed have been discussed elsewhere in the report.

Polluting
It has been generally  recognized  that  the  most  serious  polluticnal
problem  caused  by  dairy  wastes  is  the  depletion  of: oxygen of the
receiving water.   This comes about as a result of the  decomposition  of
the  organic substances contained in the wastes.  Organic substances are
decomposed naturally by  bacteria  and  other  organisms  which  consume
dissolved  oxygen  in  the  process.   When  the  water does not contain
sufficient dissolved oxygen, the life of aquatic flora and fauna in  the
water body is endangered.
                                 54

-------
                               SECTION VI

                          POLLUTANT PARAMETERS

Vvaste water Parameters of Potential
PollutionaInsignificance

    On  the  basis  of all evidence reviewed, it has been concluded that
the waste water parameters of potential pollutional significance include
EOD, COD, suspended solids, pH, temperature, phosphorus in the  form  of
phosphates,  nitrogen  in  various  forms   (e.g.,  ammonia  nitrogen  and
nitrate nitrogen), and chlorides.  The significance of these  parameters
and  the  rationale  for  selection or rejection of each as a factor  for
which an effluent guideline should be established are discussed below.

BOD

    The majority of waste  material  in  dairy  plant  waste  waters  is
organic  in  nature, consisting of milk solids and organic components of
cleaners, sanitizers and lubricants.  The major  pollutional  effect  of
such  organics  is  depletion of the dissolved in receiving waters.   The
potential of a waste for exerting this effect  most  commonly  has  been
measured  in  terms  of  BOD, the laboratory analysis which most closely
parallels phenomena occurring in receiving waters.

    The BOC5 concentration of raw waste waters  in  the  dairy  products
processing  industry  typically ranges from 1,000 mg/1 to 4,000 mg/1  and
the total daily loads within the industry have been  observed  to  range
from  8.2  kg/day   (18.0  Ib)  to  3,045  kg/day  (6,699  Ib).   This is
equivalent to raw waste discharge for municipalities of  100  to  40,000
population.   Such  concentrations  of BOD5 are considered excessive  for
direct discharge to receiving waters, and unless the receiving waterbody
is a large, well-mixed lake or stream, the upper segment of the range of
loads poses  a  hazard  to  aquatic  wildlife  as  a  result  of  oxygen
depletion.

    The  ECCjS  level of dairy wastes can be reduced by in-plant controls
and end-of-pipe treatment (including disposal on  land)   that  are  well
demonstrated  and  readily  available.   Therefore,  effluent limitations
guidelines for this parameter are justifiable and recommended for  point
source  discharges  for  each  subcategory  within  the  dairy  products
industry.

COD

    In theory, the Chemical Oxygen Demand test (an analytical  procedure
employing   refluxing   with   strong  oxidizing  agents)   measures  all
oxidizable organic materials, both non-biodegradable and  biodegradable,
in  a  waste water.   It thus has an advantage, when conpared to the ECD^
test, of measuring the refractive organics which, may cause  toxicity  or
                               55

-------
taste  and  odor  problems.    An  additional  advantage  (especially for
employment as an operational waste management tool)  is that COD  can  be
determined  in  a  relatively  short period of time,  at most a matter of
several hcurs not days, and  thus is a measure of current operations, not
these of days past as is true for BOD.   Conversely,  COD  has  two  major
disadvantages.   It  does not  closely  parallel phenomena in receiving
waters  and  it  does  not  distinguish  between  non-biodegradable  and
biodegradable  materials. Thus, it does not indicate the potential that
a waste water may have for causing  an  oxygen  depletion  in  receiving
waters.

    Data compiled during the course of this study indicate a COD to EOD5
ratio  of  approximately  2:1  for  raw  wastes and  4:1 for biologically
treated (e.g., activated sludge) wastes.  Both of these ratios are faily
close to these noted for typical municipal wastes and  do  not  indicate
wastes abnormally high in refractive organics.

    The  decision  of whether or not to include COC  as a parameter to be
controlled under effluent guidelines should be based on the  answers  to
two  guesticns.   What  is the significance of the materials measured by
CCD and net by other parameters, and what are the facts associated  with
treatment fcr removal cf COD?

    Historically   there   is  little  or  no  information  to  indicate
environmental problems associated with an  inherent   toxicity  of  dairy
plant  wastes,  the impacts  on aguatic life having been mediated through
oxygen depletion attributable to biodegradable organics.  Similarly, the
limited taste and odor problems  have  been  associated  primarily  with
intermediate  products  resulting  from biological breakdown (especially
under anaerobic conditions)  of the degradable  organic  constituents  of
irilk.

Dairy   prcduct   plants  that   can  establish  reasonably  consistent
correlation between COD and  BOD5 could, in the  future,  substitute  COD
for  BOD.   This  is  especially true for small isolated operations that
could  not  afford  Total Organic  Carbon  or   Total   Oxygen   Demand
determinations at some later date.

Syspended^Solids

    Suspended  solids  in waste  water  have  an  adverse affect on the
turbidity of the receiving waters.  This is particularly  noticible  for
waste water from dairy products due to the color of  the solids and their
extreme  opacity.  An additional effect of suspended solids in quiescent
waters is the build-up of deposits on the botton.   This  is  especially
objectionable when the suspended solids are primarily organic materials,
as  is  the case in dairy wastes.  The resulting sludge beds may exert a
heavy oxygen  demand  on  the  overlying  waters, and  under  anaerobic
conditions  their  decomposition  produces  intermediate products  (e.g.,
                              56

-------
hydrogen sulfide)  which cause odor problems and  are  toxic  to  aquatic
life.

    Dairy  products  waste  waters typically contain up to 2,000 mg/1 of
suspended solids,  most of which are organic  particulates  derived  from
the  irilk  and  other  materials  processed.  The level of solids in raw
waste waters can be reduced by good in-plant control and  with  adequate
end-of-pipe  biological  treatment  and  clarification can be reduced to
acceptable concentrations  in  final  discharge  waste  waters.   It  is
recommended,  therefore,  that  suspended  solids  be  included  in  the
parameters to be controlled under effluent guidelines and standards.

ES

    pH outside of an acceptable range may exert  adverse  effect  either
through  direct  impact  of  the pH or through their role of influencing
other factors such as solubility of heavy metals.  Among  the  potential
adverse effects of abnormal pH are direct lethal or sub-lethal impact on
aquatic life, enhancement of the toxicity of other substances, increased
corrosiveness  of  municipal  and  industrial  water supplies, increased
costs for water supply treatment, increased staining problems associated
with greater solubility of substances such as iron  and  manganese,  and
rendering  water unfit for some processes such as canning or bottling of
certain foods and beverages.

    Though a number of individual waste streams within a dairy  products
plant  may  exhibit undersirably high or low pH, the available data show
that the combined discharge from dairy plant  generally  fall  with  the
acceptable   range.   However,  monitoring  and  adjustment  of  pH  are
relatively simple and inexpensive,  so  there  is  no  real  reason  for
discharge cf waste water that is outside the acceptable range of pH.

    In  view cf the many potential adverse effects of abnormally high or
low pH, and the ease of measurement and control, it is recommended  that
pH be included in the parameters for effluent guidelines and standards.
    Available  data  (Table  14)  indicates that temperature of raw waste
waters range between 8°C (46°F)  and 38°C  (100°F) , with 90 percent of the
discharges ranging between 15°C (59°F)  and 29°C (85°F) .   These  values,
coupled with volumes of discharge in the industry, indicate that neither
temperature  nor  total  heat  discharge  constitute  serious  problems.
Furthermore, there will be a tendency for the waste waters  to  approach
ambient  temperature  as they pass through the treatment facilities that
must be installed for point source discharges to meet BOE5  limitations.
Thus,  temperature  has  not  been included in the parameters subject to
guidelines and standards.

Phosphorus
                               57

-------











M
25
W
O P
O 25
pi <;
H
25 W
H
0 0

CO W
o
M W
H pi
P§ H
gpl
H H
U H
25 M
•rf O i-l
"^r C_> I
1
y IM
s 1
i" •> H
l~ w
Pi w
5 p
r 1 i i

O
H
orus
_r"!
CL
CO
o

EM
r-4
B
•^
O
CM

CO
cO
r-l
CO
OJ
T!
*!-!
5-1
O
r-4

O
O &
O O
CD
V4
4J
CO
^
cu
o-
e!
cu
H
•x
H
s




EC
ex
                    58

-------
    Phosphorus is of environmental concern because of the role it  plays
in  eutropbication,  the  threshold  concentration  for  stimulation  of
excessive algal growth generally being considered as approximately  0.01
mg/1 to 0.25 mg/1.

    Phosphorus  concentrations in raw waste waters in the diary industry
have been fcund to range from 12 mg/1 to 210 mg/1  with  a  mean  of  49
mg/1.   With the reduction of phosphorus concentrations that result from
implementation of adequate in-plant control, and the  further  reduction
that  accompanies  biological  treatment   (approximately  1 part per 100
parts of ECE^ removed), the  phosphorus  levels  associated  with  point
source  discharges  in  the  industry  will  be consistent with those in
discharges  from  municipal  secondary   treatment   plants.    Effluent
guidelines  and  standards  for  phosphorus  are not recommended at this
time.

Nitrogen

    Nitrogen is another element  whose  major  cause  for  environmental
concern  stems  from  its  role in excessive algal growth.  In addition,
very high levels of nitrogen are undesirable in water supplies  and  are
toxic to aquatic life especially when present in the form of ammonia.

    Nitrogen  is  present in dairy waste waters primarily as protein and
ammonia nitrogen.  Based  on  very  limited  data  (Table  14),  ammonia
nitrogen  concentrations  have  been found to vary from 1.0 mg/1 to 13.2
mg/1 and average 5.4 mg/1.  As is the case  for  phosphorus,  reductions
attained  through in-plant controls and biological treatment required to
meet  limitations  for  other  parameters  will   result   in   nitrogen
concentrations in point source discharges that are consistent with those
found in discharges from municipal secondary treatment plants.  Effluent
limitations  for  nitrogen  are  not  recommended for application to the
dairy products industry at the present time.

Chloride

    Excessive concentrations of chloride interfere with  use  of  waters
for  municipal  supplies  by  imparting  a  salty  taste, for industrial
supplies by increasing corrosion, for irrigation through  phytotoxicity,
and  for  propagation  of  freshwater  aquatic  life  (if  levels are in
thousands of mg/1 and variable)  through disturbance of osmotic balance.

    Very limited data (Table 14)  show that  chloride  concentrations  in
raw  waste  waters  range between 46 mg/1 and 1,930 mg/1 and average 482
mg/1.  If one eliminates the very high value  of  1,930  mg/1,  possibly
attributable  to leakage of brine from refrigeration lines, the chlcride
concentrations are well below limits for any use other  than  irrigation
of  the  most  sensitive  plants.  Chloride is a conservative pollutant,
i.e., it is not subject to significant reduction in biological treatment
                              59

-------
systems.   Appreciable  reduction  of  chloride  would  require  advanced
treatment such as reverse osmosis or ion exchange.

    In  view  of  the relatively low levels of chlorides encountered and
the difficulty and of their removal, effluent guidelines  and  standards
are not recommended for chlorides.
                               60

-------
                              SECTION VII

                    CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

In-Plant_Ccntrcl_Cgncepts

The  in-plant  control  of  water  resources and waste discharges in all
types of  dairy  food  plants  involve  two  separate  but  interrelated
concepts:

         1.    Improving   management   of  water  resources  and  waste
materials.

         2.  Engineering improvements to plant,  equipment,  processses,
and ancillary systems.

li§Qt_Mana2ement_Improvement

Management is one key to the control of water resources and waste within
any  given  dairy  plant.   Management  must  be  dedicated to the task,
develop positive action programs, and follow through in  all  cases;  it
must  clearly understand the relative role of engineering and management
supervision ir plant losses.

The best modern engineering design and equipment  cannot  alone  provide
for the ccntrcl of water resources and waste within a dairy plant.  This
fact  was  clearly  evident  again  during this study.  A new (six-month
old),  high-capacity,  highly  automated  multi-product   dairy   plant,
incorporating many advanced waste reduction systems, was found to have a
EOD5  level in its waste water of more than 10 kg/kkg (10 lb/1000 Ib)  of
irilk equivalent processed.  This unexpected and excesssive  waste  could
be  related  directly to lack cf management control of the situation and
poor operating practices.

Management ccntrol of  water  resources  and  waste  discharges  ideally
involves all cf the following:

         - Development by management of an understanding of the need for
waste  control,  the  economic  benefits  to  be accrued, and a complete
understanding of the factors involved in water and waste control.

         -Utilization of a continuing  educational  program  for  super-
visors and plant personnel.

             Assignment  of  waste  management  control  to  a  specific
individual in the management  system,  and  establishment  of  a  "waste
control committee."

            Development of job descriptions for all personnel to clearly
delineate individual responsibilities.
                             61

-------
         - Installation and use of a waste monitoring system to evaluate
progress.

         - Utilization of an equipment maintenance program  to  minimize
all product losses.
            Utilization  of  a  product and process scheduling system to
optimize equipment utiliztion, minimize distractions of  personnel,  and
assist in waking supervision of the operation possible.

            Utilization of a planned quality control program to minimize
waste.

         - Development of alternative uses for a wasted products.

         - Improvement of processes, equipment and systems as rapidly as
economically feasible.

         - Provide an environment to permit supervisors  to  effectively
supervise waste mangement.

Waste_Menitcring

The  collection  of  continuous  information concerning waster usage and
waste water discharge is essential to the development of any  water  and
waste  control  program  in a dairy plant.  Much of the excess water and
high solids waste discharges to sewer result from lack of information to
plant personnel, supervisors and management.  In many  instances,  large
quantities  of potentially recoverable milk solids are discharged to the
drain without the knowledge of mangement.  Accounting  systems  utilized
to  account  for  fat  and  solids  within  a diary plant are frequently
inaccurate because  of  many  inherent  errors  in  sampling,  analysis,
measurement  of product, and package filling.  The installation of water
meters and of a waste monitoring system has generally resulted in  econ-
omic  recovery  of  lost milk solids.  Recovery is usually sufficient to
pay for costs of the monitoring equipment within a short time.

Water meters may be be installed en  water  lines  going  to  all  major
operating  departments  in  order  to  provide  water  use  data for the
different irajcr operations in the plant.  Such knowledge can be used  to
develop  specific  water  conservation  programs  in  a more intelligent
manner.  Seme plants have found it advantageous to put in  water  meters
to  each  irajcr  process  to  provide  even  more information and to fix
responsibility for excessive water use.

Waste monitoring  equipment   generally  should  be  installed  at  each
outfall  from  the  plant.   Wherever possible in older plants, multiple
outfalls should be combined to a common discharge point amd  a  sampling
manhole  installed  in this location.  Where sampling manholes are being
installed for the first time in old or new locations,  attention  should
                               62

-------
be  given  to  insuring  that there is easy and convenient access to the
sampling pcint.

Monitoring equipment generally would include,  a weir  to  measure  flow
volume  and  a continuous sampling device.  Two types of samplers may be
utilized:  (a)  a  proportional  flow,  composite  sampler  such  as  the
Trebler,  cr   (b)  a  time-activated  sampler  that  can  provide hourly
individual samples.  For plant control purposes the latter  can  provide
the  waste  control  supervisor  and  and employees with  a visual daily
picture  of  the  wastes  from  the  plant  even  without  sampling  the
turbidity,  color,  presence  of  free  fat,  or sediment.  Such a daily
evaluation can readily point cut problem areas.  In the case of the time
sampler it is necessary to utilize flow data to make up a  flow  propor-
tioned composite sample for analysis.
Many  equipment,  process,  and  systems improvements can be made within
dairy food plants to provide for better control of water usage and waste
discharges.  In many cases significant engineering changes can  be  made
in existing plants at a minimal expense.  The application of engineering
improvements must be considered in relationship to their effect on water
and  waste  discharges  and  also  on  the basis of economic cost of the
changes.  Many engineering improvements should be  considered  as  "cost
recovery"  expenditures,  since  they may provide a basis for reclaiming
resources with a real economic value and eliminating the double  charges
that are involved in treating these resources as wastes.

New  plants  or  extensive remodeling of existing plants provide an even
greater opportunity to "engineer" water  and  waste  reduction  systems.
Incorporation of advanced engineering into new plants provides the means
for the greatest reduction in waste loads at the most economical cost.

Existing Plants

         - Equipment improvements

         - Process improvements

         - System improvements

New Plants or Expandsion of Existing Plants

         - Plant layout and equipment selection


5i§§i§ Maggement Through Equipment Improvements^

Waste  management  control  can  be  strengthened  by upgrading existing
equipment  in  plant  operations.   These  can  be  divided  into:    (a)
                             61

-------
improvements  that  have  been  recommended for many years and (b)  these
that are new and not widely used or evaluated.

Standard Equipment Improvement Recommendations

         1.  Put automatic shut-off valves on all water  hoses  so  that
they cannct run when not in use.

         2.   Cover  all  drains  with  wire  screens  to  prevent solid
materials such as nuts, fruits, cheese curd form going down the drain.

         3.  Mark all hand operated  valves  in  the  plant,  especially
multiport  valves,  to identify open, closed and directed flow positions
to minimize errors in valve operation by personnel.

         4.  Identify all utility lines.

         5.  Install suitable liquid level controls with automatic  pump
stops  at  all  points  where overflow is likely to occur (filler bowls,
silo tanks, process vats, etc.).  In very  small  plants,,  liquid  level
detectors and an alarm bell may be used.

         6.    Provide   adequate   temperature   controls  on  coolers,
especially glycol coolers, to prevent freezing-on  of  the  product  and
subsequent  product  loss.   In  some  instance  high-temperature  limit
controls may be installed to prevent excessive burn-on of milk which not
only  increase  solids  losses  but  also  increase  deeming   compound
requirements.

         7.   All  CIP  lines  should  be  checked for adequate support.
Lines should be rigidly  supported  to  eliminate  leakage  of  fittings
caused  by  excessive line vibrations.  All lines should be pitched to a.
given drain pcint.

         8.  Where can  receiving  is  practiced  in  small  plants,  an
adequate  drip  saver  should  be  provided  between can dumping and can
washing.  This should be equipped with the spray nozzle to rinse the can
with 100 ml (3-4 oz) of water.  A  two  minute  drain  period  should  be
utilized before washing.

         9.   All  piping  around  storage tanks and process areas where
pipelines are taken down for cleaning should be identified to  eliminate
misassembly and damage to parts and subsequent leaking of product.

         10.  Provide proper drip shields on surface coolers and fillers
so that no spilled product can reach the floor.

         11.   All  external  tube  chest evaporators should be designed
with a tangential inlet from the tube chest to  the  evaporating  space.
                              64

-------
All  ceil  or  clandria  evaporators  should  be equipped with efficient
entrainment separators.

         12.  "Splash discs" on  top  of  the  evaporators  can  prevent
entrainmert losses through improper pan operation.

         13.   Evaporators  and  condensers should be equipped, wherever
possible, with full barcmetic leg to eliminate sucking water back to the
condenser in case of pump or power failure.

New Concepts  For Consideration In Equipment Improvement

         1.  Install drip shields on  ice  cream  filling  equipment  to
collect  frozen  product  during  filling  machine jams.  Such equipment
would have to be specially designed and built at the present time.

         2.  Install a  system  for  collecting  novelties  from  frozen
dessert  ncvelty  machines  and  packaging  units.   At the present time
numerous types of failures, especially on stick novelty machines,  cause
defective  novelties  to be washed down the drain.  Such defects include
tad sticks, nc  sticks,  poor  stick  clamping,  overfilling,  and  poor
release.   The  "defective  product  collection system" would have to be
specially designed and custom built at the present time.

         3.  Since recent surveys have shown that case washers  may  use
up  to  109?  of  the  total  water  normally  utilized  in a total plant
operation, automatic shut-off valves on the water  to  the  case  washer
should  be  installed so that the case washer sprays would shut-off when
the forward line of the feeder was filled.  Many cases  are  exposed  to
long  term  sprays because of relatively low rate of stacking and use of
washed cases in many operations.  Another  alternative  to  be  shut-off
valve would be an integrated timer coupled to a trip switch in which the
trip  switch  would activate the washer sprays which would automatically
shut-down after a specified washing cycle.


         4.  Install a product recovery can system, attached to  a  pump
and piped to a product recovery tank.  Such a system should be installed
near  filling  machines,  (including  ice cream)  to provide a system for
placing the product from damaged cartons or non-spoiled product  return.
Such product could be sold for animal feed.

         5.   Develop  a  "non-leak" portable unit for receiving damaged
product containers.  Currently used package containers  are  not  liquid
tight  and generally leak products onto the floor.  This is particularly
undersiable fcr high solids products materials such as ice cream.

         6.  Install an electrical interlock between the CIP power  cut-
on  switch and the switch for manual air blow down, so that the CIP pump
                               65

-------
cannot be turned on until after the blow down system has purged the line
cf product.

         7.  Equip filling machines  for  most  fluid  products  with  a
product-capture  system  to ccllect products at time of change over from
one product tc another.  Most fillers have a product by-pass valve.   An
air-acutated by-pass valve interlocked with a low level contrcl could be
piped  to the filler product recovery system or the container collecting
the product from drip shields; so designed that when the product in  the
filler  bcwl  reaches the minimal low level the product by-pass  systems
would open, the product would drain,  followed  by  a  series  of  short
flushing  rinses.  Filler bowls could be equipped with small scale spray
devices for this purpose.  The entire system could be operating  through
a  sequence  timer.   All  the  components  of such a system are readily
available hut the system would have to be designed and  built  for  each
particular filler at the present time.

         8.   In  the  future,  there is a need to give attention tc the
design of equipment such as fillers and ice  cream  freezers  to  permit
them to be fully CIP cleaned.
In  the context of this report a "system" is a combination of operations
involving a multiplicity of different units of equipment and  integrated
to  a common purpose which may involve one or more of the unit processes
of the dairy plant.  Such systems can be  categorized  into:  (a)   those
that  have been put in use in at least one or more dairy plants, and  (b)
those that have not yet been utilized but  are  technolgically  feasible
and for which component equipment parts now exist.

(a) Waste Control Systems Now In Use:

Systems  which  are  currently  in  use  that  have  a  direct impact on
decreasing dairy plant wastes include the following:

            CIP cleaning systems

            HTST product recovery systems
            (for fluid products and ice cream)

            Air blow down

            Product rinse recovery systems

            Automatic processes

         1.  CIP - The management of cleaning systems for  dairy  plants
has  signifcance  to waste discharges in three respects: (a)  the amount
of milk solids discharged to drain through rinsing operations,  (b)   the
                              66

-------
concentration of detergents in the final waste water, and (c)  the aircunt
of  milk  solids  discharged  to  drain  as  the  result of the cleaning
cpertion itself.  The cleaning of all dairy equipment, whether  done  by
irechnaical  fcrce  or  hand  cleaning,  involves  four steps:  pre-rinse,
cleaning, postrinse, and sanitizing.

Wherever possible, circualtion cleaning  procedures  are  replacing  the
hand-cleaning  operations  primarily because of their greater efficiency
and concomitant result in improving  product  quality.   Since  cleaning
compounds  have  been shown to be deleterious to the microflora of dairy
waste treatment systems, all cleaning systems should take  into  account
both water utilization and cleaning compound utilization.

In  small  plants  where hand-cleaning cannot be economically avoided, a
system should be developed to  pre-package  the  cleaning  compounds  in
amounts just sufficient to do each different type of cleaning job in the
plant.  This will avoid the tendency of plant personnel to use much more
cleaning  compound  than necessary.  A wash vat for hand cleaning should
be provided that has direct connection to the plant hot water system and
incorporates a thermostatically controlled heater to maintain  the  tank
temperature  at  or  around 50c°c  (120°F).  High-pressure spray cleaning
units should be used for hand cleaning  of  storage  tanks  and  process
vessels tc improve efficiency and reduce cleaning compound usage.

Cleaning  compounds  should be selected for a specific type of operation
and the different types of compounds kept  at  a  minimum  to  eliminate
confusion, loss of materials, and utilization of improper substances.

Small  parts such as filler parts, homogenizer parts and separator parts
from those machines needing tc be hand-cleaned should be  cleaned  in  a
well-designed   COP   (cleaned-out-of-place)   circulation  tank  cleaner
equipped with a self-contained  pump  and  a  thermostically  controlled
heating system.

For  maximum  efficiency, minimum utilization of cleaning compounds, and
maximum potential use of rinse recovery systems, as much  of  the  plant
equipment  as  possible  should  be  CIP.   Two types of CIP systems are
currently in use in the dairy industry:

         -Single-use: the cleaning compound is  added  to  the  cleaning
         solution  and  discharged  to  drain  after  a  single cleaning
         opeation.

         -  Multiple-use:  the cleaning compound is  circulated  through
         the  equipment  to be clened and returned to a central cleaning
         tank for reutilization.   The cleaning compound concentration is
         maintained at a desired level  either  by  "recharging"  or  by
         using  contactivity  measurements  and  automatic  addition  of
         detergent as required.
                               67

-------
There is a conflict within industry as to which method is best from  the
viewpoint   of  cleaning  compound  (detergent)   and  water  usage.   In
principle it would  appear  that  the  reutilizaticn  of  the  detergent
solution  should be the most economical in respect to water and cleaning
compound requirements.  Under actual practice this has not  always  teen
the  case  and  in some instance the highest water and cleaning compound
utilization has been in plants equipped with  mutiple-use  CIP  systems.
On  the  average,  single-use  systems  use  less  cleaning compound and
slightly mere water than multiple or reuse systems.

Automation of a CIP system provides for maximum potential waste control,
both in respect to product loss and detergent utilization.,  An automated
CIP system is composed of necessary supply lines, return  lines,  remote
operated valves, flow control pumping system, temperature control system
and centralized control unit to operate the system.

These  systems  have  to  be  designed  with  safety  in rnind as well as
efficiency.  A major problem in most current designs is  Inadequate  air
capacity  to  completely  clear the lines of product and dependency upon
plant personnel to make sure that they are used prior to  initiation  of
the CIP cleaning operation.

    2.   Product  Rinse  Recovery - The automated CIP system and product
recovery system for the HTST pasteurizer can also be expanded to include
rinse recovery for all product lines and receiving operations.

    3.  Post Rinse Utilization System  -  Final  rinses  and  sanitation
water  may  be  diverted to a holding tank for utilization in prerinsing
and wash water make-up for single use CIP application.

    14.  Automated Continuous Processing - Fluid  products,, including  ice
cream   mix,   can  be  prepared  in  a  continuous,  sequential  manner
eliminating the need for special processing vats for  various  products,
eliminating  the  need  to  make a change-over in water between products
that are being pasteurized.   Such systms are curently in  use  for  milk
products and could be developed for ice cream operations.

(b)  New Viaste Control Concepts

A  number  of  new  waste control systems  using existing components and
electrical and electonic control systems may be developed in the  future
tc further reduce waste loads in diary plants.

Waste^Mangement_Thrgugh_ProBer_Plant_IaYOut_and_Eguir)inent_ Selection

Proper  layout  and installation of equipment designed to minimize waste
are important factors to achieve low waste and low water consumption  in
new or expanded plants.

(a)  Plant Layout
                                68

-------
Whereas the principles involved apply to all dairy food plants, they are
most  critical for large ones.  The pcint is approaching when 80% of the
dairy products will be produced in less than 30% of the  plants.   Thus,
irajcr  waste  discharges  will  be associated with a relatively few very
large plants.  For   such  operations,  attention  to  plant  layout  is
essential.

Some  majcr  features  in  plant  design which will minimize waste leads
include:

          1.  The use of a minimum number of storage tanks.  A
reduction in the number of tanks reduces the number of fittings,
valves, pipe length, and also reduces the amount of wash water
and cleaning scluticn required.  Also, the loss due to  product
adhering tc the sidewalls to tanks is minimized by using fewer
and larger tanks.

          2.  Locating equipment in a flow pattern so as to
reduce the amcunt of piping required.  Fewer pipes mean
fewer fittings, fewer pumps and fewer places for leakage.

          3.  Segregation of waste discharge lines on a
departmental basis.  Viaste discharge lines should be designed
so that the wastes from each major plant area can be identified
and, ideally, diverted independently of other waste discharges.
This would permit identification of problems and later application
of advanced technology to divert from the sewer all excessive
discharges - such as accidental spills.

         4.  Storage tanks should be elevated and provide for
gravity flew to processing and filling equipment.  This
allows for irore complete drainage of tanks and piping, and
reduces pumping requirements.

         5.  Space for expansion should be provided in each
departmental areas.  This will permit  an orderly expansion
without having to install tanks and equipment at remote points
from existing equipment.  Only the equipment needed for current
production  (or production for the next three years) should be
installed at the time of building the plant.  This eliminates
the tendency to operate a number of different pieces of
related equipment under-capacity to "jusitify" their presence
in the plant.  Such surplus equipment, especially pasteurizers,
tends to increase waste loads and require additional maintenance
attention.

         6.  Hand-cleaned tanks should be designed to be high
enough frcm the floor to permit draining and rinsing.

(b)  Equipment Selection
                              69

-------
In new or  remodeled  plants,  attention  must  also  be  given  to  the
selection  of  equipment,  processes and systems to minimize water usage
and waste discharge.  The following  considerations  are  applicable  to
these  concepts  and may be beneficial to overall plant efficiencies and
operations.

         1.  Evaluation of equipment for ease  of  cleaning.   Equipment
should  be  designed to elimate dead space, to permit complete draining,
and be adaptable to CIP  (clean in place) .  Use of 3A-approved  equipment
is  to  be  encouraged, since these cleanability factors are included in
the approval process.

         2.  Use CIP air"- actuated  sanitary  valves  in  place  of  plug
valves.   They  fall  shut  in case of actuator failure, reduce leaks In
piping systems, are not taken down for cleaning  and  therefore  receive
less  damage  and  require less maintenance.   Such valves are the key to
other desirable waste management features such as automated CIP systems,
automated process  control, rinse recovery  systems,  and  air  blowdown
systems.

         3.   Welded  lines  should  be used wherever possible to reduce
leaks by eliminating joints and fittings.

         4.  For pipes that must be disconnected, use CIP fittings  that
are designed not to leak and require minimum maintenance.

         5.   CIP  systems should be used wherever possible.  In all new
installations, these should be automated to eliminate human  errors,  to
control  the  use  of cleaning compounds and waters, to improve cleaning
efficiencies and to provide basic systems for use in future  engineering
proceesses for waste control.

         6.   Install  a central hot water system.  Do not use steam "T"
mixers" they waste up to 50% more water than a  central  heating  system
for hot water.

         7.   Evaluate  all  available  processes  and systems for waste
mangement concepts.


                         Through Improvement  of_  Plant  Management  and
Assessment  of  the  extent  to which in-plant controls can reduce dairy
plant wastes is difficult,  because  of  the  many  different  types  of
plants, the variability of management, and the lack of an absolute model
on  which  to  base  judgement.   Eased on limited data, it would appear
probable  with current management,  equipment, processes and systems that
have been utilized anywhere in the  industry,  the  best  that  could  be
                             70

-------
achieved  in  most  plants  would be a water discharge of 830 1/kkg  (100
gal/ 1,0000 Ib) of milk equivalent processed, and a  EOD5_  discharge  of
0.5  kg/kkg   (0.5 lb/100lb) of milk equivalent processed.  This would be
equivalent  to  a  EOE5  waste  strength  minimum  of  600  mg/1.    The
achievement  cf  such  levels  have  been  demonstrated   only  in a few
instances in the industry and in all cases these have  been  in  single-
product plants not involving ice cream and cottage cheese.

Vvaste Reduction Possible Through Management

The  extent  tc  which  management  can reduce water consumption and and
waste loads would depend upon a number  of  factors  that  do  not  lend
themselves  tc  objective  evaluation,  such  as  the initial quality of
management, the current water and waste loads in the operation, and  the
type  and  effiency  of  implementation  of  control programs within the
plant.   No absolute values can be ascertained.  Nor is  it  possible  to
assign  individual water and waste discharge savings to specific aspects
of the plant management improvement program;  rather,  the  problem  can
only  be  locked  at  subjectively  in  the  context  of its whole.  The
consensus among  those  who  have  studied  dairy  plant  waste  control
recently  (Harper,  Zall,  and Carawan)  is that under most circumstances
mangement improvement generally can result in a reduction equivalent  to
50% of current load.

Although  there  are  exceptions,  there has been a general relationship
found between waste water volume and EOD5 concentrations in dairy  plant
waste  waters.   For  most plant operations the waste discharge could be
reduced tc a rate of 1,660 I/ kkg (200 gal/1000 Ib)  of  milk  equivalent
processed  and  2.4 kg BOD5_.  The reductions achievable represent a real
economic  return  to  the  operation.    Each  kilogram  of  BOD5   saved
represents a savings of up to 10 cents on treatment cost and 70 cents in
cost  value  of  raw  milk.  (Grade A milk at a farm price of $7 per 100
Ib.)  For a 227,000 kg/day (500,000 Ib)  milk plant,  this would represent
a potential return of $400/day or $120,000/year (based on 300 processing
days) .

Waste  Reduction Through Engineering

Assignment of values to water and waste reduction through engineering is
very difficult because of the mutiplicty of variable  factors  that  are
involved.    The values arrived at in this report are based on subjective
judgment.   It is assumed  that  an  overall  reduction  of  about  2  kg
BOD5/kkg  cf  milk  equivalent processed is achievable in a well^managed
plant  through  the  application  of  presently   available   equipment,
processes   and  systems.    The  values  used  as  a   base  line for unit
operations are the "standard manufacturing process;  waste loads based on
"good management," reported in the 1971  Kearney report.    it  should  be
recognized  that  these  values were obtained on relatively limited data
and may net be generally achievable in the dairy industry as a whole  at
the present time.
                               71

-------
An example of what can be achieved through application of engineering is
shown in Figures 14  and 15.   Figure 14 shows the waste load for a fluid
milk  operation  under  normal  practices  of relatively good mangement.
Figure 15 shows the values for unit operations and the plant  after  the
following engineering changes:

        Installation of drip shields en all fillers.

        A central water heating system with shut-off valves on all hoses

        A product recovery for the HTST operation for start-up, change-
        over, and shut-down.

        Air blown down of lines.

        A rinse recovery system.

     -  Collection of CIP separator sludge as solid waste?.

        Utilization of all returns for hog feed.

        Utilization of a water-tight container for all daimaged packaged
        products.

The  reductions  achieved  would   appear  to  be  as  great  as could be
conceivably possible under any currently available engineering equipment
process or systems.

The estimated reduction of waste  water volume and EOD5 concentration for
the various engineering aspects cited in this report are  summarized  in
Table  15  along  with  the  various suggested improvements in equipment
processes and systems.  In seme cases it is not possible to  estimate  a
potential  waste  reduction in value.  In many instances the systems are
being installed  to  eliminate  dependence  upon  pecple  and  therefore
savings  relate to management aspects of the plant operation.  As in the
case of waste control through  management  improvement,  the  extent  of
decrease  in overall waste leads  would depend to a large extent upon the
current utiliztion of recommended equipment processing systems.  It must
be emphasized that the incorporation of engineering improvements without
concomitant management control can and has resulted in water  and  waste
discharges  that  are  in  excess  of those of the dairy plant with less
modern equipment but planned management waste control.

The data in Table  15 must be considered as engineering judgement  values
subject  tc  confirmation  through  additional  analyses  that  are  not
available at the present time.

In a well-operated dairy plant  one  of  the  most  visible  sources  of
organic  waste  is  the start-up and shut-down of the pasteurizing unit.
In this rspect, the utilization of  a  product  recovery  system  merits
                               72

-------


QJ ^-v
M
4-1 co O
en 5-j i— i
CO O -H
P-< 4-> CO .,
CO s'


H
CO
H
' '




QJ
3 W) O
CO co i— I
Pd 5-1 -H
O CO
1 i ^*

O
•1-1
4-)
CO o'
S-l ^-
0)
a
CO
Jj

X- *
C C,
CO r
H 5-
E-
15


0
• "0
-H PQ
bfi^ bC
CN C
O • -H
CN O -—I
I— 1
fa


-H O
t) PQ



1 — I (-J
cz
Q D
. «»O I-,
N ^-i P3 D
CO QJ
W)=fe bO
CN CO
Jo- u
•^ CN O O
CO
_T— \ 1 	 1 OO
~T T bo •
-J-4- CN 0
/° 1
D
0 °
I ^
D
3 .-1
C 0)
— O en
•i-l en
4-1 QJ
CO O
5-1 O
• Q OJ 5-1
i— i o D-. ex
co PQ O
bO ^
^ ' — i < — i
O en to -H
1-1 ' eJ§
Q 00
O & O
—l PQ O
CO C •— i
bD uS *H 5-(
•H i— 1 O ~Cf • CO 4-)
D^COPQ CNO4 5-lCO
QJ hO QJ g
C > — l ' — I co O QJ
"I O 4J 4J
H i— i co
2 ?
I—)
Tj CO
•i-l bO
P
i — i
OJ
co en
Qen
• "O ^ QJ
.— i W O O
co mo
.— i en D-
OJ • 4J
0 C ^
QJ i— 1
u !S
\4r*0
C1JO
O O
O --i
Qj"o
4J CD
3 C CD en P3
-") O ^"^ co =H=
•^ -i-i en 13s-'
4J C i— 1
D 5-i co
-\ 5-1 QJ CN •
:r 4J pi •— i O
D en
1 Q
3
73

-------
    cu
4-1  bO O
CO  CO rH
CO  5-1 -H
P-I  o co
I—I
 CO
             s
                               Mm
                                 ,—1
                              o   •
                              o-o
    o
                               CO
                                  o
                                  O
                                  PQ
 g  co  O
 CO  5H rH
Ptf  0-H
    4J CO
   CO
4J
CO
5-i
CU
a
cu
CO
                                 LT>
                              O O
                                •a
                               rH O
                               co PQ
                              OO
                                 • o
                                 I
                                  o
                C  O]
                CO
                      O
                              rH O
                               co pa
                     O

                     o
                                                                          00
                                                                          i-l O
                                                                           CO Q
                                                                           bOO
                                                                             PQ
                                                                          00
                                                                            •=fr
                                                                          CN in
                                                                          O   •
                                                                          i-l O
                                                                           CO
                                                                          4-J
                                                                           O
                                                                          H
                cu
                bO
                co
                5-1
                O
                4-1
                CO
                                                   r-l
                                                   u
  • Q
rH O
 CO PQ
 bO

CN]  O
                                                      D
                                                                              CO
                                                                                 ^M—
                                                                              CO
                                                                              •HO
                                                                                 O
                                                                              co i— i
                                                                                          o
                                                                                          d
                                                                                          CO
                                                                                          >
                                                                                  CD
                                                                                  01
                                                                              b£)4-i
                                                                              fl  co
                                                                             •H  qj
                                                                              ^  £
                                                                              cu
                                                                              0)   •
                                                                              C M
                                                                             •H  CO
                                                                              bO  00
                                                                              C
                                                                                          M-l  0)
                                                                                           O  cn
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                           C  cu
                                                                                           O  CJ
                                                                                          •H  O
                                                                              cO  i-1
                                                                              4-)  -H
                                                                              CO  g
                                                                              c
                                                                             MO
                                                                                 O
                                                                              M  O
                                                                              0)  rH
                                                                              4-)\
                                                                             M-l  Q
                                                                             <0
                                                                                          cu
                                                                                         •H C
                                                                                          CJ O
                                                                                         •H -H
                                                                                         M-l 4-1
                                                                                         M-l CO /-s
                                                                                          CU 5-1 tJ
                                                                                          O CU  0)
                                                                                         O (O, CO
                                                                                             O  co
                                                                                          0)     CD
                                                                                         4J ^  O
                                                                                          CO rH  O
                                                                                          CO -H  5-J
                                                                                         EE S  a
                                       74

-------
                                Table 15
                  Effect of Enqineering Improvement of
          Equipment, Processes and Systems on Waste Reduction
Engineering
Improvement

Eguijoment

Cone-type silo
    Tank

Water Shut Off
     Valves
Estimated Waste Reduction Potential
Water                        EOD
    760 1  (200 gal.)    73 kg  (160 Ib)

Up to 50% of water
used
Drain Screens
None
Crip, Saver
Filler Drip
  Shield
Interlock
  Control
None

Require water
for operation
Variable; water
saved equivalent
to about 10 1/1
about 10 1  (10 gal/
gal)  cf product
Variable
Not estimable
waste represents
spillage in most
cases

0.3 kg per 38  liter
can (0.8 Ib/ 10 gal.
1.5 kg per 38 liter
can (3.2 lb/10 gal.
can) for heavy cream
Variable - can save
up to 0.25 kg BOD5/
kkg  (0.25 lb/1000 Ib)
of milk packaged; 1.0 kg
BOD5/kkg (1.0 lb/1000 Ib)
of cream packaged.  In
cases of poor management
and maintenance,
reduction could be
2 to 3 times these
values.
Not calulable.  Loss
without control would
be caused only by
employee error. Such
error could result in
discharge of 1 kg BOD5
per kkg (1 lb/1000 Ib)
of milk processed, or
4 kg EOD5 per kkg
                              75

-------
                                               (U lb/1000 Ib) of
                                               heavy cream processed.
Engineering
Improvement

Eguip_ment

Ice Cream Filler
  Drip Shields
Estimated Waste Reduction Potential
Water                           POD
Novelty Collection
   System
Product Recovery
   Can System
"Non-Leak"
  Portable Damaged
  Package Unit
Curd Saving
  Unit
Variable - up to
20 1 per
liter (20 gal/gal)
ice cream saved
Variable - up
to 1,900 liters
500 gallons)  of
water to wash
frozen novelties
down the drain
Variable; should
save 8.3 1  (2.2 gal)
of water per kkg
(2200 Ib) of milk
processed
Variable
Variable. At 6,800
1/hr, a one-minute
spill is equivalent
to 113 1 (30 gal)
of ice cream, 57 ka
(125.a Ib)  of ice
cream, or 23 kg
(50.6 Ib) of BOD5
Variable - reduction
in loss depends on
efficiency of machine
On an average machine
savings should average
5-10 kg (11-22 Ib)
BOD/day.
Variable:  Depends
on machine jams.
On an average
operation, should
save 0.1 kg
EOD5 per kkg  (0. 1
lb/1000 Ib) milk
processed.
Variable; Depends on
machine  jams.  Should
save 0.1 kg BOD5 per kkg
(0.1 lb/1000 Ib)
of milk  processed
                      Not calculable  at
                      present time.
                             76

-------
Filler-Product
  Recovery System
Engineering
Improvement

EguijDment

Case Washer
  Control
HTST Recovery
  System
Product Rinse
  Recovery
Post Rinse
Utilization
                           Variable: probably
                           save 0.05 kg/kkg
                           BOD5 (0.05 lb/1000 Ib)
                           processed.
Estimated Waste Reduction Potential
Water                         BOD
Sy_stgms

CIP Systems -
  Re-use Type

CIP Systems -
  Single Use
Automated Continous
  Processing
Should reduce water
used about 170 1/kkg
(20 gal/1000 Ib)
milk packaged
10% over single use
None  (10% less
cleaning compound
under average use)
Save 300 liters  (80
gal) water on each
product change over
6 change overs=
(1800 1 480 gal)
600 1  (160 gal)
water/day
About 2 liters
of water/kg  (1 qt/
Ib) milk recovered
Approximately 5%
None
20% over hand-cleaning
20% over hand-cleaning
Save 0.6 kg BOD5/kkg
(0.6 lb/1000 Ib)
milk processed
for each product
change over. Change over =
910 kg/2 min x 6 =
5,460 kg (or 2002 lb/2 min x
6 = 12,011 Ib)  = 3.3 kg  (7.26 Ib)
BOD5 saved per day.
0.6 kg/kkg
(0.6 lb/100 Ib)
processed
                                                           milk
0.15 kg BOD/kkg  (0.15 lb/1000 Ib)
milk processed
None
                             77

-------
(5,000 gallon       of water volume
tanks, valves,      of plant
pipes 8 controller)

Air Blowdcwn     0.1 kg water/kkg               0.2 kg BOD/kkg
                 (0.1 lb/1000 Ib)               (0.2 lb/1000  Ib)
                 of milk processed              of milk  processed

Engineering                     Estimated Waste Reduction Potential
Improvement                     Water                         BOD
Ice Cream Ferun
   System               2 1/1  (2gal/gal)        Variable; in most
                        ice cream saved         operations, saving
                        (spilled ice cream      in BOD5_ should average
                        is rinsed to drain)     245 kg  (540 Ib) BOD5/day.
                             78

-------
particular mention in terms of potential waste savings.  Figure 16 shows
the  fat losses and product loss as a function of time during the start-
up and shut-down of a 27,300 kg/hour  (60,000 Ib/hour)  high  temperature
short-time  pasteurizer.   To go from complete water to complete milk or
from complete milk to complete water  generally  requires  approximately
two  minutes  with  the  discharge of approximately 910 kg (2,000 Ib) of
product and water  every time the unit is  started,  stopped,or  changed
over in water between products.  The utilization of the product recovery
system  for HIST units can result in a 75% reduction in product going to
drain.

End-of-Pi£e_Waste_Treatment_Technolo5_y

The discussion that follows covers the technologies that can be  applied
to raw waste from dairy manufacturing operations to further reduce waste
leads  prior  to  discharge  to  lakes or streams.  The subjects covered
include current treatment  practices  in  the  industry,  the  range  of
technologies  available,  problems  associated  with  treatment of dairy
wastes, and the waste reductions achievable with treatment.

Current Practices

Dairy  wastes  are   generally   amenable   to   biological   breakdown.
Consequently, the standard practice to reduce oxygen demanding materials
in  dairy waste water has been to use secondary or biolcgical treatment.
Tertiary treatment practices in the dairy industry  -  sand  filtration,
carbon adsorption, or other methods - are almost nil.  Systems currently
used to treat dairy waste water include:

Activated Sludge

In activated sludge systems the waste water is brought into contact with
microorganisms in a aeration chamber where thorough mixing and provision
of  the  oxygen required by the concentrated population of organisms are
accomplished by use of aerators.   Aerations chambers are  designed  with
sufficient  capacity  to  provide  a theoretical retention time that may
vary with the concentration of the waste but is generally on  the  order
of  36  hours.   The  discharge  from  the  aeration chamber passes to a
clarifier where -the microorganisms are allowed to  settle  as  a  sludge
under  quiescent  conditions.    Most  of  the  sludge is returned to the
aeration chamber to maintain the  desired concentration of organisms  and
the   remainder   is  wasted,   generally  as  a  solid  waste  following
dewatering.  The  supernatant  liquid  may  be  discharged  as  a  final
effluent or subjected to additional treatment such as "polishing" (e.g.,
filtration) or chlorination.

Trickling Filters

In  trickling  filters  the  waste  water  is  sprayed uniformly  on the
surface of a filter composed of rock, slag or plastic media,  and  as  it
                           79

-------
—   C\J
              c

             JE

             LU
                   M-J
                    O

                    c
                    3
                    O
                    w

                   "d
                    C
                     cx
                     p
                     I
                    W)
                    C
                    •H
                        0)
                     0)  N
     0)
<-H -U
 O  en
     CO
 c  a
 o
••-< E-I
 4-1 CO
 u H


U-l  S-i
     p
 CO  O
    s:

 CO ^
     C
 en  p
 cu  o
 en  CL

 O O
•-I O
    o
 4-1   •>
 CO O

-------
trickles  through  the  filter  the  organic matter is broken down ty an
encrusting biological slime.  Conventional rock or slag beds are 1.8  to
2.4  meters  (6  to  8 feet) deep.  Plastic filters are built taller and
occupy less area.  As the waste passes through the filter  some  of  the
slime sloughs and is carried away, thus allowing continued exposure of a
surface  of  active young biota and preventing clogging of the filter by
excessive slime growth.   Sloughed slime generally is settled,  dewatered
and  disposed  of  as a solid waste.  In the operation of most trickling
filters a major portion (up to 95 percent) of the filtrate  is  recycled
to  increase  efficiency  of  organic  waste  removal  and assure proper
wetting of the filter.

Aerated Lagoons

Aerated lagoons are similar in principle  to  activated  sludge  systems
except  that  there  is  generally  nc  return  of  sludge.   Hence, the
microbial population in the aerated basin  is  less  than  in  activated
sludge  tanks and retention of waste water must be longer to attain high
BOD5 reduction.  A settling lagoon usually follows the aerated lagoon to
allow settling of suspended solids.  Mixing intensities are usually  not
as  great  as  in  activated  sludge tanks.  This results in a suspended
solids blanket covering  the  aerated  and  settling  lagoons  which  is
further  attacked  by  aerobic and anaerobic bacteria.  Periodically the
sludge blanket has to be dredged out.  A clarifier may be  used  between
the  first  and second stage lagoons with the settled sludge returned to
the first stage.  This both reduces the sludge to be  dredged  from  the
second  stage and improves the effiency of the first stage by increasing
the density of microorganisms.

Stabilization Ponds

Stabilization ponds are holding lagoons, 0.6 to 1.5m  (2 to 5 ft.)   deep,
where  organic  matter is bicdegraded by aerobic and anaerobic bacteria.
Algae utilize sun rays and C02 released by bacteria  to  produce  oxygen
which in return allows aerobic bacteria to breakdown the organic matter.
In  lower  layers,  facultative or anaerobic bacteria further biodegrade
the sludge blanket.

Disposal Cn Land

Disposal on land of  waste  waters  is  an  alternative  which  deserves
careful  consideration  by small operations with a rural location.  Land
reguirements are relatively large, but  capital  costs  and  operational
costs are low.   Typical procedures are:

    1.   Spray Irrigation - This consists of pumping and discharging the
         wastes over a large land area through system of pipes and spray
         nozzles.  The wastes should be sprayed over grasses or crops to
         avoid erosion of the soil by the impact of the water  droplets.
         Successful  application  depends  on  the soil characteristic -
                            81

-------
         coarse, open-type soils are preferred to clay-type soils -  the
         hydraulic  load, and EOD5 concentration.  A rate of application
         of 56 cu m/ha per day (6,000  gal/ac  per  day)   is  considered
         typical.

    2.   Ridge and Furrow Irrigation - The disposal of dairy  wastes  by
         ridge and furrow irrigation has been successfully used by small
         plants with limited volume of wastes.  The furrows are 30 to 90
         centimeters  (1 to 3 ft)  deep, and 30 to 90 centimeters  (1 to 3
         ft)  wide, spaced 0.9 to 4.6 m (3 to 15 ft)  apart.  Distribution
         tc the furrows is usually from a header ditch.   Gates are  used
         tc  control  the  liquid  depth in the furrow.   To prevent soil
         erosion and failure of the banks, a good cover of grass must be
         maintained.  Odors can be expected in warm weather, and in cold
         weather the ground will not accept the  same  volume  of  flow.
         The  need to remove the sludge which accumulates in the ditches
         is  an  additional  problem  which  does  not  exist  in  spray
         irrigation.
    3.   Irrigation by Truck - The use of tank trucks  for  hauling  and
         disposing  of  wastes on land is a satisfactory method for many
         dairy food plants.  However,  the  cost  of  hauling  generally
         limits  the  use of this method to very small plants.  Disposal
         on the land may be done by driving the tank  truck  across  the
         field  and spraying from the rear, or by discharging to shallow
         furrcws spaced a reasonable distance apart.

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion has been practiced in small dairies through the  use
of  septic  tanks.   In the absence of air, anaerobic bacteria breakdown
organic matter  into  acids  then  into  methane  and  CO2.   Usually  a
reduction period of over three days is required.

Combined Systems

Waste  treatment plants combining the features of some of the biological
systems described in the preceding paragraphs have been  constructed  in
some   dairy  plants  in  an  attempt  to  assure  high  BOD5  reduction
efficiencies at all times.  Examples and possibilities of  such  systems
include:   An  activitated  sludge system followed by an aerated lagoon;
trickling filter followed by activated sludge system;  activated  sludge
system followed by sand filtration.

Eegign Characteristics

Figure  17  is  a  schematic flow diagram of activated sludge, trickling
filter and aerated lagoons systems which should perform  satisfactorily.
Table  16 lists the recommended design parameters for the three types of
biological treatment systems.  Systems constructed  in  accordance  with
                             82

-------
                            FIGURE 17

                  RECOMMENDED TREATMENT SYSTEMS
                       FOR DAIRY WAstEWATER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
TRICKLING FILTER  SYSTEM
 AERATED LAGOON SYSTEM

u«
W»trvjter
A*r«t*4 [,i|o0n
(.9kg BOD/JScu •)
(2 Ibi.tOO/IOOOfi J)


Settllnc



Contact
kiln

                                               |(flu
                          83

-------
i ^






z
o
o
o
3

o
u
H

S

«.£

















w
rJ

TRICKLING


00 •
:^fi

CN 4-J
• UJ
r<^
0
U-l 0
o o

00 rH
•H .
TJ en
to -0
O r-l
rH
CN

Q

ca g

TJ O
cu o
•H rH
l— 1
a n
ex cu
--C Q-






cn
tance;
en
rO
3
en
ao
c
•H
4-1
S
I-H
UH
UH
O
r— (
O
6
i-H
— U)
QJ DC

X O u
x x; co
o a v-<
to
u 00,
c x; ••
cu a 2
•H . .
u "o a
•H CO
UH co CO

a c 3
en cu O
dC, 	 i
W O OJ
0 >-i -Q
UH .LJ
.,-1 ij_i
>, C C -H ^H
i-H O
a-H 4J c LH
aw c o ••
D -^ QJ -^ O
CO 0) -rH 4J O
CL lH .H ,-H
IH to 4J T3
•H TH 3 *O UH
< -O 2 03 0

O
CO Csl
•a -a •— '
W CO —i
OJ O O fO
UH rH (0 fl
UH
3 u u O
XI C C 0
OJ 0) rH
O bO > -x.
-u (H 0) bO
QJ IH ^
C 4J CL
O 0) (N
•r-l 13 O fl

Twelve -hour equaliza
fluctuating BOD5 and
Diffused air supply
fermentation.
Applied BOD5 load of
lb./l,000 ft.3).
c^j n

OJ
w
(U
OJ •
 -IJ
E T) CTJ
-H c 3
T3 (fl OJ
Qj 4J
ui .>« tn
OJ CO
0 • x: 3
4J « 3
-o e
C -H UH O
.H ,-H o IH
co O UH
c3 W C
JD O >H
T3 -H OJ
&C  a)
. B QJ .c
CM rJ
s_^ o a, w
« 4J -D
W CO C >s
OJ Cfl Cfl r- 1
4J rH C-
cu a c a
B O3
..H 4J 'H tO
AJ C 4J
C ai nj n
(11 rH rH -(H
O Hj -r4 tfl
> u
O"> -H C T5
D cu 0)
o cr > w
u QJ 3
MUH
vo i-t OJ UH
o a—i
UH O Q
Os^ L*
to a
OJ cu
M XI 3 60/^s
•r-< CJ D C m
(fl C rH —i W
•Jr-t 00
j£ CO GO •
8 m O I-H
• OrH 3
pel c*^ 4J cj UH
•*
r- nj
c a
QJ 1
u c
C ---I
o
U rC
C-C
OJ D
u o
to IH
.D x;
3 u

^. E
r-l 3
•^ E

c
U-4 -H
o E

C eo
o
•H O
4-1 4J
CJ
3 C
TJ O
QJ —1
& 4J





4J
C
CU
3
rH
UH
UJ
01
TJ
0)
4-1
10
0)
IJ
4J
UH
o
eu
rH
CJ
>s
CJ
01
r-l
s-s
o
o
rH
m

u
C
CU
3
r-l
U-l
U-l


r-H
CO
C
•^
UJ

UH
0

C
O
•H
4J
co
rH C
O -rl
IH M
4J O
C rH
O -C
0 0
c
o
,f4
TJ
TJ
to •
rH
CO ••
z^.
O O
jS 0
tirH
CO
OUH
JC 0
a.
o
TJ -H
Nutrient nitrogen an
if below BOD:N:P rat
V-J






























UH

*fj rH
c to
to >
4J 0
C 01
0 IJ
•H
«8
eg ej>
N Pl>
•H
rH CO
CO rJ
3 — <
tr to
Steam injection of e
temperature drop imp
^






























gions.
cu
r<


O
o
d
IH
0)
4J
rH
UH
Winter enclosure of
00






























rJ
CD
4.J
en
:t

JH
eo
:>
CU
en
eu
(U
Jd
IJ
TJ
13
IT!
Segregation of whey
from wastewater.
^






























o
4J
C
O
•iH .
4J rH
eg o
rJ IJ
4J 4J
C C
01 0
U O
c
O 4J
0 C
eg
eu -J
4-1 Q.
W 1
Reduction of milk wa
a minimum through in
o
r-l






























4J
C
01
>
OJ
CL
O
4-1
OI
4-1
rJ
•iH
UH

Continuous dosing of
drying up of slime.
1—4
1-4




































J
C
HI
3
rH
UJ
UH
eu

Chlorination of fina
CN
rH









1.










CJ
y
_3
W

D
H
p*.

H
U











to
Or
c
CO
4-1
yj

3
CO
60


4->
§
Removal of fl
I-H







,
CO
TJ T>
V-i eg — i
cu O u
UJ rH eO
UH
3 4H 4-J
_o c c
01 cu
O 00 >
4J iJ OJ
01 Wi
C 4J CX
o oi
•rj TJ O
CO TJ
N C >\
•rJ CO rH
rH CL
to mo.
3 O 3
crO ui
Twelve-hour <
fluctuating 1
Diffused air
fermentation
eN




CO
3
O


*G


oi
TJ

O
H
a
o
4J

r*
C
to
4J

01
oo
-i
Activated sli
retention.
ft
en
00 TJ

i— 1
-a m o
01 « en
4J O
CO - TJ
IH UJ CU
CU O TJ
CO C
00 CU
01 c a
_c -J en
4-1 T) 3
SCO
•rll-H rl
O
C E 3
O 3 tT
4J -H rH
CO X
rH tg TJ
3 E cu
a. x
O CO -rJ

en "H oi
B tg rH
tn 4J .rl
Micro-organii
tank to main
BOD/Kg volat
•j-
4-1
UH

O
o
o
rH


00
^/

^
01
a

CO
cu
4J
01
T)
CJ OJ
3 a.
o a
CO
o
\D m
UH O
0 CO
rH T)
a c
a 3
3 0
en a,
>j IH
•-J OJ
< a.
m




c
o
•rl
4J

TJ
TJ
CO •
rH
en ••
3 in

00
£0
a-j
en
O UH
r. o
a
o
TJ "J
C 4J
eg eg
IH
c
cu Oj
00"
o z
Nutrient nit
if below BOD
•£>












e



4J
C
CU
CU
IH
a
0
4-1

eo
IH
cu
UH
eu
•a
UJ
o
eu
en
3
-
rH
eg
TJ ">
01 O
4-1 a
co E
iH V.
01
eg a
o
TJ OJ
c
to en
rJ
C -rl
O eg
•H a
u e
eg -in
N
•-< O.
rH O
10 rl
3TJ
tr
cu eu
IH
UJ 3
O 4J
cZ
O eu
Steam inject
tanks if tern
efficiency.
00
g
IH
14-1

IH
01
4->
re
3

jC
eo

-------
the  suggested  design  characteristics should result in year-round EOD5
reductions above 90 percent.
It is recognized that  biological  waste  treatment  facilities  do  not
operate  at  constant  efficiencies.   Very  wide variations of the ECD5
reduction efficiencies from day to day and throughout the  year  can  be
expected   frcm   any   individual   system.    Factors   such  as  EOD5
concentration,  type  of  waste,  flow,   temperature,   and   inorganic
constituents  of  the effluent may affect the rate cf treatment of dairy
wastes by living organisms,  but  the  interaction  of  and  correlation
between  such factors is not fully understood.  Available data show that
it is possible to achieve BOD5 reduction efficiencies greater  than  99%
part  of  the  time  with  almost  any  of the types of biological waste
treatment that are available.  However, due to high variability  of  the
composition  of  dairy  effluents these same treatment systems can  have
EOD5 reduction efficiencies as low as 30% during other  times,  such  as
after  sudden,  highly concentrated leads are discharged or other causes
if severe upset occurs.

To obtain consistent  high  BOD5  removal,  it  is  essential  to  allow
microorganisms  to  bicdegrade  organic matter under favorable operating
conditions.  These include  properly  designed  and  operated  treatment
systems  tc  prevent shock loads and to allow microorganisms to function
under  well  balanced  conditions;  addition  of  nutrients  if  absent;
exclusion  cf  whey and cheese washes; in-plant reduction of waste water
BOD5 to a minimum; and maintaining favorable temperature levels  and  pH
when ever possible.

Research  indicates  that percent EOD5 removal decreases with increasing
EOB5 influent concentration.  In  one  experiment,  the  BOD5  reduction
efficiency  of  an  activated sludge system decreased significantly when
influent BOD5 concentration increased  beyond  2,000  mg/1.   High  EOD5
loading  (in  excess  of  2000 mg/1) decreased the concentration of gram
negative organisms and encouraged the development of a  microflora  that
apparently  could not utilize animo acids as a nitrogen source, but only
inorganic nitrogen, such as ammonia nitrogen.   Under  these  conditions
the efficiency of the system decreased.

Detergents  at  concentrations  above 15 mg/1 begin to inhibit microbial
respiration, with anionic detergents showing relatively less  inhibitory
effects than non-ionic and cat ionic surfactants.

Treatment_cf_Whey_

Whey constitutes the most difficult problem facing the dairy industry in
respect  tc meeting effluent guidelines in two respects:  (a)  the supply
of whey generally exceeds its market potential at the present  time  and
(b)  whey  is  difficult  to  threat  by  any  of  the common biological
                             85

-------
treatment irethods.  Generalization about whey handling and treatment can
easily be rrisinterpreted.  In no other instances is the fact more  clear
than  with  whey  that each individual circumstance must be evaluated in
light of the particular situation existing at the particular plant.  The
type of whey, accessibility tc an  existing  whey  processing  facility,
volume  of  whey  produced,  location of the plant, and the type of farm
operations contingent to the processing facility are among  the  few  of
the  factors  which  must  be  taken  into  consideration in determining
disposition cf whey for a particular plant situation.

If whey is to be processed further for feed or food, a major  factor  in
the  handling  of  such  whey  is  to prevent the development of further
acidity in the product after  manufacture.   This  is  true  of  cottage
cheese  whey  was well as sweet whey.  It is a well recognized fact that
the development of acidity in the product  increases  the  diffiucly  of
drying  the  product.   This effects is particularly well illustrated by
the recent article by Pallansch (Proceedings Whey  Products  Conference,
1972)  shewing  the temperature at which sticking occurred as a function
of lactic acid content.   Cottage  cheese  whey,  which  has  long  teen
recognized  to  be  more  difficult  to  dry  than  rennet whey, becomes
impossible tc dry at pH below U.2 in most equipment.

Prevention of development  of  acidity  and  outgrowth  of  undersirable
spoilage  cr  potential  pathogens requires that whey be cooled to about
UO°F and maintained at this temperature until processed.   Whereas  this
can  generally  be achieved in most plants where processing is conducted
in the same plant as the whey is  produced,  lack  of  adequate  cooling
equipment  in  many small plants will require a considerable expenditure
on the part of these plants tc cool the whey.  This becomes particularly
a problem in respect to the shipment of whey over long distances both in
respect to preceding and in recooling at the point of receipt.  Another
problem related to this general area is a  lack  of  a  really  adequate
procedure  for  concentrating the product at the point of manufacture in
an economical  manner.   Membrane  processing  procedures  are  fine  in
principle  and  are approaching possible application.  There remains the
problem of sanitation that still is a limiting  factor  for  almost  all
current  membrane  processing  systems now on the market.  In almost all
cases further improvement in sanitation design is going to  be  required
to  make  these  pieces of equipment fully adequate for concentration of
whey that is going to be subsequently used for food or  feed.   This  is
especially true in respect ot possible fluid uses.

Whey  for  food use must be considered in an identical manner as Grade A
milk from a micrological viewpoint, and  cannot  be  handled  as  a  by-
product.   It  is  particularly a point for food use that whey be cooled
and  maintained  at  40°  from  the  time  of  manufacture  until  final
processing to avoid the outgrowth of undesirable organisms.  Alterations
in  the  product  due  to  residual  proteases  from the coagulant might
develop  into  further  acidity,  and  potential  development  of   food
poisoning organisms.
                         86

-------
From  a  processing  point of view there are a number of procedures that
are potentially available to the whey manfacturers.   However,  at  this
point  in  time  the only really proven method of processing whey is its
concentration and drying for fcod or feed use.  The market potential for
whey is tied very closely to the availability and  price  of  skim  milk
powder on the commercial market.  Several large scale whey drying plants
have had tc either shut down or to convert from food grade to feed grade
powder as a result of increased importation of milk powder.

Alternatives in the Dispostion of Whey

The  following  are some of the more common methods of disposing of whey
at the present time:
               return to farmers  suEEiYiQS  £*}§.  milk  as  feedj_   This
    approach  is limited to very small plants whose suppliers are in the
    immediate locality  of  the  plant  and  are  engaged  in  livestock
    feeding.   Whey  generally  can  be  fed  at  levels  of  up  to 50%
    substitution without creating  scours  or  other  problems  even  in
    ruminant  animals.   Frequently  lack  of acceptability of whey as a
    feed tc ruminants creates problems.
    2-  §EI§Y iEri3§ticrK  Where feasible the best method  of  treatment
    of  whey  is  through  spray irrigation.  Because of the low loading
    required for adequate spray irrigation, the approach is  limited  to
    plants  that  are  located  in  rural  areas  with adequate land and
    generally limited to  relatively  small  plants.   Plants  producing
    cottage  cheese  whey  in  excess  of  100,000 Ib who previously had
    utilized this method of disposal have been forced to desist from the
    use of spray irrigation in such states  at  Vermon,  New  York,  and
    Ohio.   The  freezing of the ground surface in northern climates and
    the  run-cff in thawing has been a major  reason  for  closing  down
    large scale spray irrigation systems in the northern states.
                  to municipal treatment sy_stems^  For plants located in
    large municipalities, where the contribution of EOD5  to  the  total
    plant  load  is  low  (less  than 10%)  joint treatment is a feasible
    method cf treatment without interference with the efficiency of  the
    municipal  system,  provided  that  shock  loading  is avoided.  The
    installation of equalization tanks  is  generally  required  by  the
    municipality.    In  a  few  instances it has been found desirable to
    cool the whey to prevent further acid production to  facilitate  its
    biological oxidation.

    5.    Concentrating  and dryjLngj,  At the present time this appears to
    be  the most feasible procedure for the utilization of whey as a food
    or  feed.  In 1971 in the State of Wisconsin about 90% of  all  sweet
    whey  was  handled  in  this  manner.   Problems  associated are the
    frequent necessity to haul  non-concentrated  whey  long  distances,
                           87

-------
lack  cf  an  adequate  market  for  the finished product, and large
capital expenditure for the concentrating and drying equipment.

6-  !i§£££2£li^iY§i§i  Tne electrodialysis process provides a product
of high quality for special  pharmaceutical  applications,  but  the
process  is well covered by proprietory patent and the direct market
is limited.

7.  Ultraf_iltration and reverse osmosis^ While  potentially  a  very
promising  development, especially for the recovery of a potentially
marketable  protein  product,  current  commercialization  of   this
process  to  its  full  potential  is  dependent  upon more complete
development of  sanitary  membrane  processing  equipment  as  cited
earlier.   New  developments  in  sanitation and cleaning procedures
plus development of operations  that  operate  under  lower  fouling
conditions  lends  possible  promise  for  commercialization  in the
immediate future.  At the present time it is much easier to sanitize
ultrafiltration than reverse osmosis equipment.

8.  Concentration and Plating for f_eed application^  The utilization
of filir evaporators originally  developed  by  the  cirtus  industry
followed by plating of the concentrate on bran or citrus pulp may be
a  relatively  low  cost  potential  in  development  of an improved
quality feed stuff.  The competitive  position  of  such  a  product
depends  upon  the  future  economic  situation  in the feed grains,
especially corn and soybeans.

9.  Protein concentrates^  In addition to  ultrafiltration,  various
procedures  for  the  preparation  of  protein concentrate including
polyphcsphate percipitation, iron  product  precipitation,  CMC  co-
precipitation  and  gel  filtration  are all potential methods which
remain unproven as viable commercial entities at the  present  time.
The   full   commercialization   of   these  procedures  awaits  the
development of a better market for the protein product.  The  market
for  protein  product  is  ironically  limited  at  the present time
because of inadequacies in economics  of  procedures  for  providing
high   quality   protein.    The   greatest  potential  application,
fortification of soft drinks,  requires  large  quantities  of  whey
protein  that  cannot be supplied at present.  Therefore, soft drink
manufacturers  hesitate  to  enter  the  field,  whey   manfacturers
hesitate  to  develop  the processes, so that at the present tiire we
have somewhat of a standoff in this area.

10.  lerjnentation froducts^  The utilization of whey as a media  for
the  production  of yeast cells as a feed and potential food product
is under commercialization at the present time.  At this point there
are nc data indicating the relative economics  of  this  process  in
respect tc drying.  The major use for the end product at the current
time  is  feed,  and  again  the  market  potential depends upon the
comparative costs  of  other  feed  supplements  and  feed  products
                         88

-------
    including corn and soybeans.   The spent liquor from the fermentation
    does  constitute  a  potentially  difficult  disposal problem at the
    present time.   We have inadequate information in this area.

    11.  Lactose modification^   Numerous  investigators  are  currently
    studying  the  possibility of hydrolyzing lactose in whey by soluble
    and by immobilized enzymes.  The overall development of  this  field
    is at least several years behind that of membrane processing and its
    success  also  will  depend  upon the solving of microbiological and
    sanitation aspects of the process.  In addition  drying  of  lactose
    modified  whey  becomes  more  difficult  because  of  the increased
    colligative property of the product and increased stickiness at  the
    same acidity.

    12.   Lactose^   A limited market for lactose is the major factor in
    the full utilization of this material at  the  present  time.   Much
    research  is  being  done but a clear solution to the problem is not
    yet in sight.   A solution to the the lactose utilization problem  is
    of  major concern.  Even processes that recover valuable products in
    the fcrm cf whey protein result in residuals containing 80% as  much
    BOD5  as  the  original  whey  because of the lactose.  Methylation,
    phosphcrylaticn, polymerization are laboratory possibilities at  the
    present  time.   However,  until  the  market  is  developed for the
    finished product, commercialization of such technologies appears  to
    be improbable and at the best uncertain.

Problems Associated With the Biological Oxidation of Wheyj.

Lagoons,  trickling  filters, and activated sludge systems are all upset
by the incorporation of whey into the waste water.

Dairy  plants  manufacturing  whey  that  operate  their  own  treatment
facilities  have  recognized for a long time the desirability of keeping
whey out cf the treatment system.  The  reason  for  problems  with  the
biological  oxidation  of  whey  has been given as a BOD:N ratio that is
undersirable and that whey is deficient in nitrogen.  The  BOD:N  ratio,
however,  is  near  to 20:1, a value considered to be satisfactory.  Two
recent studies in the  Ohio  State  University  laboratories  have  some
possible bearing on the problem of whey treatment.

    1.   High  BOD5  loading  (in excess of 2000 mg/1 BOD)  decreases the
    concentration  of  gram  negative  organisms  and   encourages   the
    development  of.  a  microflora that cannot utilize amino acides as a
    nitrogen source.  The micrcflora that exist under high EOD5  loading
    can  use  only  inorganic nitrogen, such as ammonia nitrogen.  Under
    these conditions the efficiency of the system decreases.

    2.  The constituents present in the highest  concentration  in  milk
    wastes  is  lactose, and nearly all of the lactose ( 80%)  in milk is
    present in whey.  The first step in the degradation of lactose is:
                               89

-------
               lactase

      lactcse - > glucose          +      galactose

During the manufacture of cheese, a  small  amount  of  the  lactose  is
degraded  to  glucose and galactose.  Glucose is readily utilized by the
bacteria tc product  lactic  acid,  but  galactose  is  not  as  readily
degraded.   Studies  in  the Ohio State University laboratory have shown
that  whey  contains  about  0.05*  glucose  and  0.3-0.45%   galactose.
Galactose  is  about  20 times more effective as an inhibitor of lactase
than lactcse is as a substrate.  Galactose at a  concentration  of  O.U%
will  inhibit  lactase by more than 50%.  At the same time there is some
evidence, which needs further confirmation, that  galactose  also  stops
the organisms in the biomass from producing any more lactase enzyme.

Studies   are  needed  under  commercial  conditions  to  confirm  these
findings.

If substantiated, methods could be developed to materially increase  the
efficiency  cf  biological  treatment  of . dairy  wastes  and permit the
development of procedures to treat whey.

Studies are in progress under  the  auspices  of  the  National  Science
Foundation to determine if lactase treatment of milk wastes will improve
their  treatability.   Laboratory studies have been completed under this
grant to prove that the  addition  of  gram  negative  organisms  to  an
activated sludge treatment system permits removal of up to 98% BOD5 at a
EOD5  loading  of  3000 mg/1.  (Only about 80% reduction was possible in
the absence of the organisms.)  The organisms must be added on a regular
basis, since they cannot compete with the gram positive organisms in the
system.  (A field study has shewn that a  treatment  system  for  a  one
million  pound  milk-cottage cheese plant was materially improved by the
bi-weekly addition of gram negative organisms.  The EOD5  reduction  was
increased  frcm  85  to  96%;  sludge  age  was decreased; sludge volume
decreased by 40%; and the mixed liquor VSS were increased from  1500  to
5000 mg/1.

Adyajit age s_AiQd_Cisadvantages_Oj_Various_SY stems

The  relative  advantages, disadvantages and problems of the waste water
treatment irethods utilized in the dairy industry are summarized in Table
17.

Management^Cf
If biological treatment systems are to operate satifactorily, they  must
not  only  be  adequately  designed,  but  must  also  be operated under
qualified supervision and maintenance.  Following are  some  key  points
that should be observed to help maintain a high level of performance.
                              90

-------
 o  e
   •H
 U
 01 T3
 to  u
 ra  N
 *J -H  x
 C rH  I?
 tO t-t  U
 >  u  
<

an t ag e s
"O


in
H
S
•n

1
Advan
Advantages

tages
ft
Advantages
1 S
V, ft
So.
• o
0 0
0 0
s a p re treatment
hock loads, to pro-
e a tmen t s y s t ems
pital cost.
crating cost.
udge disposal
pervision
ii ;iiiii
3?£ XiSraS
^ a
c u
* S)X.-H
V W O S 3
C 0 M 0 13
B r-l -H Q. 8
4) H V- M M
u a 41 "o -a >,
Sw 3
33 U
O O 0 O O *«
<*ri -JZ1" 0
0
u u •
paw c
fc B.* ft
6 0 41 U J=
in >i in «
•0 U9 .1
no *j Si
1 — 1 C W 0 .O
0 4i n u O
Isi 8sv
"is 3*3*
in in -J LJ 3 -o
. *j M 41 a a> — c

«*
1 :
CO JJ
0 *J
-< c
3 C u) •
•o S - u.
t M ~" £ H
§£ §"[».' "c
b • i« . 3
50 o o « c
O -" -J -J *« <
^ c
1 -
X, U
lss §
IP 1
O O W in n V)
O O O 41 41 <
Good BOD reduction.
Good operating flexibility.
Good resistance to shock
loads when properly de-
signed,
Minlmim load requirements.
^ E
3 •-•
•IT C -Q
*-> o «a
ui u -a ft
o c ;> -^
u r« u O>4-l . jtf HI
T] -^ Ul 4-1 00
in oo t* M C C 3
a x a: w E u w
W 0 >,
3 **•' >*i
—( 3 u «
w O O w
O 4> 41 n-Q
""S-0 .Og
si ^zg-^u
w « y tj ^ o •
Q c/i :> S N w X a,
§•0
41 41
U -^ OC-C T3
gnu oc <-* 4i • C W
^.o o ^ w wS c
"S w a S. 'u'e w £ 41 u
u -2 -i e V i « i- 6C -j
-4T3 CO wC= -OB
o- « . e 5 a.** s u F-
41 -^
LI u in • 4J c M)-^ U £ i 4J ^H IB
in "c u i- 0 i T3 ncS S) § aS « i • C •
Si "l^g S'ico ^S^c^ ^-|J
SO Ml 41 >  a. C
•Q 41 O •
Q J S ft. 4J
••S ' S'
J5 M* ., j'|g
5 sll^'ll '^"l
SI ^ • • — *> e o b w £ -o
M _i . U ij( D W>QX
3 gla.3g»ac» -H C "° 3 •* ? *

,-Jfl
» OT) A •»*
•-I U*4 <| 0 »
• « « 0 H
" St^^S
a. ItMf* o
7 uu y * b>
n u c a 5 wo
tl -5 9X 0
M -- « U 01 M 0. 41 •
4J -^CLlWO-HCO
1 M I) £ w 41 •? >M a.
                                                                  91

-------
(a)  Suggestions Applicable To All Biological Systems

    1.    Exclude all whey frcm the treatment system and the   first  wash
         water from cottage cheese.

    2.    If  it is impossible to exclude whey from the treatment   system,
         a   retention  tank  should  be provided so that the  whey can  be
         metered into  the treatment system over a  24-hour  period.    In
         this case it  would be necessary to make sure that the pH of the
         whey  does  not fall below 6.0.  Normally, this would require a
         neutralization process.

    3.    It  would be beneficial to provide pre-aeration  for  all  dairy
         feed plant wastes.

    4.    A retention tank of sufficient size should be provided to  hold
         the waste  water from one processing day to equalize hydraulic
         and EOD5 loading.  Such an equalizing tank might well  be  pre-
         aerated.

    5.    The treatment facility should be under the  direct   supervision
         of  a properly trained employee.  He should have sufficient time
         and sufficient training to keep the system in a total operating
         condition.    It should be recognized that in the operation of a
         dairy food treatment plant there are two  types  of  variations
         that  cause   operating  problems.   The  first of these  are the
         short  term   surges  from  accidental  spillages  that   can   be
         disastrous  to a treatment facility if not checked immediately.
         In  the  hands of  a  skilled  operator,  immediate  corrective
         measures  can be taken.  The second type is much more difficult
         to  control and relates to the very slow acclimatization  of the
         biological microflora to dairy food plant wastes.  This  appears
         to  take  a   minimum  of  about  30 days so that changes in the
         composition of  the  waste  may  not  show  up  in   changes   in
         operating  characteristics of the treatment system for 30  to  60
         days.

    6.    The operating personnel should keep daily records and operate a
        .routine daily testing  procedure  which  should  include  as   a
         minimum;   influent and effluent pH, influent and effluent BOD,
         influent and  effluent suspended solids, calculation  of BOD5 and
         hydraulic loading, and a log of observations on  the operation
         of  the treatment facility.

    7.    The dairy food plant should be operated in such a manner as   to
         minimuze hydraulic and BOD5 shock loading.

    8.    Any accidental spillage in  the  dairy  food  plant  should   be
         immediately   indicated  to  the  engineer  in  charge   of the
         treatment facility.  This is particularly critical if there   is
                             92

-------
         inadequate    equalization    capacity   ahead   of   the   treatment
         facility.

    9.    All  equipment should  te  kept in  good  operating condition.

    10.   Final  treatment  effluent may need  to  be  chlorinated and  checked
         fcr  coliform  organisms.

    11.   In the development  stages  of planning a  new  treatment  facility
         or an  expanded treatment facility,  lab or  pilot  scale  operation
         of   the  design  type  should  be made for  at least 60 days in  the
         intended  loading and  process region.

(b)  Recommendations  in Respect to Spray Irrigation

    1.    Spray  irrigation is generally not   practical in  dairy   plants
         processing  over 100,000  pounds of milk per day or discharging
         over 0.5  pounds  of  BOC5  per  thousand  pounds  of milk processed.

    2.    Regular inspection  of the  soil  should  be   made to  evaluate
         organic  matter   and   microbial  cell build-up in the  soil that
         could  lead  to "clogging".

    3.    The  land  used for spraying should  be  rotated to  minimize over-
         loading of  the soil.

    4.    Regular inspection  of the  spray  devices  should be  made   to
         eliminate  clogging  and uneven  soil  distribution over the land
         surface.

    5.    A drain  area should be  located on  the   low  side  of   the
         irrigation  field and the  run-off  checked  on a regular basis to
         determine the efficiency of  the  operation.  If   the  irrigation
         field   is  adjacent to a stream, then regular monitoring of  the
         stream should be made to insure  adequate operation, since it is
         insufficient  to  assume that  spray  irrigation is  100% effective.

(c)  Suggestions Concerning Oxidation  Ponds

    1.    Aerated lagoons  have  limited application in   areas where they
         are  frozen  for a period  of time  during the winter.

    2.    Normal loading of aerated  lagoons  is  2 pounds of BOD5  per   day
         per  1000  ft3  for  ponds  with a 30-day  retention time.  This
         level  of  loading  appears  to   provide  an   optimum   ratio   of
         micrcbial and algal balance  in the ponds.

    3.    Diffusers should be regularly inspected  to insure that   inlets
         are  not clogged.
                              93

-------
    4.    Dissolved  oxygen  should  be  measured  regularly  in the first  and
         second  aeration  ponds and  correlated  to the loading and to the
         air input  to  the  lagoon.

(d)  Suggestions in  Respect to  Trickling  Filter  Systems

    1.    The system should be  loaded between   17   and   20  Ib  BODjj  per
         thousand cu ft with a recirculation  ratio of from 8  to 10.

    2.    In  northern   climates,   the filter  should   be  enclosed   or
         otherwise  protected for  year-round operation.

    3.    The flow to the filter should run for  24 hours out of every 24-
         hour day.

    4.    All debris and solids should be prefiltered.

    5.    Inspection of the distribution  system  of the filter   should  be
         made   regularly   to  insure a uniform  distribution  of  the
         influent.

    6.    Pre-aeration  is useful in the treatment  of wastes by  trickling
         filter  procedures.   Where  blowers are used, they should have a
         capacity of 0.5 cu ft/gal of raw waste treated.

    7.    Filters should be inspected regularly  for ponding.   If  ponding
         occurs, it  may   be  desirable to  decrease hydraulic flow and
         flush the  filter  with high  pressure  hoses.

(e)  Suggestions with Relationship to the  Operation   of  an  Activated
    Sludge  Treatment System

    1.    The operator  should have dissolved oxygen data available in the
         pre-aeration  and  assimilation tanks.   It would be desirable  to
         have  the   measuring  equipment integrated into the  oxygenating
         equipment   to  serve  as a controlling  device.   Frequently,
         problems  in   respect to  dairy food  plant  activiated sludge
         treatment  systems result from lack of  close attention to trends
         in the system,  and operation is always in reaction  to  changes
         that  have already taken place.  In  the  case of Type-2 (stable)
         foam,  the  operator frequently will cut the air  level  back  to
         decrease  the  foam   only  to   have  the  treatment   system  go
         anaerobic.  Abrupt changes  in aeration are to  be  avoided  to
         prevent sharp changes in operating characteristics.   One of the
         most  difficult  factors to control  in dairy food  plant waste
         activated  sludge  systems is proper aeration.

    2.    The operator  should make regular inspection   of  the  aerating
         devices to make sure  that there is no  clogging of the inlets.
                             94

-------
    3.   There should be intentional sludge wastage, especially  in  the
         case of extended aeration type activated sludge treatment.  The
         amount   of   wastage   may   be   varied  depending  upon  the
         characteristics  of  the  sludge.   One  of  the  most  serious
         problems  in dairy food plant activated sludge treatment is the
         pcor characteristics of the sludge  formed.   The  reasons  for
         poor  sludge  characteristics  relate  in  part to the chemical
         nature of the waste, the  microbial  flora  and  the  operating
         characteristics.   The  problem is highly complex and step-wise
         procedures for control or correction of the  problem  have  not
         yet teen developed.

    *».   The loading of the treatment plant should be in  the  range  of
         0.2  to  0.5  Ib  BOD/lb mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
         (MLVSS), and in the range of 35 to 50 Ib EOE5 per  thousand  cu
         ft.

Tertiary^Treatment

Even  at  EOD5  reduction  efficiency  above  90%,  biological treatment
systems  will  generally  discharge  BOD5  and   suspended   solids   at
concentrations  above  20 mg/1  (see Table 18).  For further reduction of
EOE, suspended solids, and other parameters, tertiary treatment  systems
may  have  to  be  added  after the biological systems.  To achieve zero
discharge, systems such as reverse osmosis and ion exchange  would  have
to  be used to reduce inorganic and organic solids that are not affected
by the biological process.

The following is a  brief  description  of  various  tertiary  treatment
systems  that  could  have  application  in aiming at total recycling of
dairy waste water.

Sand Filtration involves the passage of water through a  packed  bed  of
sand  on gravel where the suspended solids are removed from the water by
filling the bed interstices.  When the  pressure  drop  across  the  bed
reaches  a  partial  limiting value, the bed is taken out of service and
backwashed to release entrapped suspended particles.  To increase solids
and colloidal removal, chemicals are added ahead of the sand filter.

Activated Carbon Adsorption is a process wherein trace organics  present
in  waste  water  are  adsorbed physically into the pores of the carbon.
After the surface is saturated, the granular carbon is  regenerated  for
reuse  by thermal combustion.  The organics are oxidized and released as
gases off the surface pores.  Activated carbon adsorption is  ideal  for
removal of refractory organics and color from biological effluent.

Lime  Precipitation  Clarification process is primarily used for removal
of soluble phosphates by precipitating the phosphate with the calcium of
lime to produce insoluable calcium phosphate.   It may be postulated that
orthophosphates   are   precipitated   as   calcium    phosphate,    and
                             95

-------



































oo
r-i

w
rJ
n
-*- | ^sj u-\ ^y^
ON oo oo r^



CM v£) fO r- 1 ON
• • • • •
^Q ^0 r^» vo « 	 i
ON ONON ON ON



ON OO ^O O
CM 1 O -vf OO
1



Csl 
r-
r>H
»
r-l


















|J)
M
ITJ
IM
|J)
•1














96

-------
pclyphcsphates  are  removed  primarily  by  adsorption on calcium floe.
Lime is added usually as a slurry (10^-15% solution), rapidly  mixed  by
flocculating  paddles  to  enhance the size of the floe, then allowed to
settle  as  sludge.   Besides  precipitation  of   soluble   phosphates,
suspended  solids and collodial materials are also removed, resulting in
a reduction of BOD, COC and other associated matter.

With treated sewage waste having a phosphorus content of 2  to  8  mg/1,
lime  dosages  of  approximately  200  to  500  mg/1,  as  CaO,  reduced
phosphorus content to about 0.5 mg/1.

Ion-Exchange operates on the principle of exchanging specific anions and
cations in the waste water with nonpollutant  ions  on  the  resin  bed.
After  exhaustion, the resin is regenerated for reuse by passing through
it a solution having the ion removed by waste  water.   Ion-exchange  is
used  primarily  for  recovery  of  valuable  constituents and to reduce
specific inorganic salt concentration.

Eeverse Osmosis process is based on the principle of applying a pressure
greater than the osmotic pressure level to force water solvents  through
a  suitable membrane.  Under these conditions, water with a small amount
of dissolved solids passes through the membrane.  Since reverse  osmosis
removes  organic  matter,  viruses,   and  bacteria, and lowers dissolved
inorganic solids levels, application of this  process  for  total  water
recycles has very attractive prospects.

Ammonia  Air  Stripping involves spraying waste water down a column with
enforced air blowing upwards.  The air strips  the  relatively  volatile
ammonia from the water.  Ammonia air stripping works more efficiently at
high pH levels and during hot weather conditions.

Recycling System

Figure  18  gives a schematic diagram of a teriary treatment system that
could be used for  treatment  of  secondary  waste  water  for  complete
recycle.

For recycling of treated waste water, ammonia has no effect on steel but
is  extremely  corrosive  to  copper  in the presence of a few parts per
billion of oxygen.  Ammonia air-stripping and ion-exchange are presently
viewed as the most promising processes  for  removing  ammonia  nitrogen
from water.

Besides the secondary biological sludge, excess sludge from the tertiary
systems—specifically  the  lime  precipitation  clarification process--
viould have to be disposed of.  Sludge from sand  filtering  backwash  is
recycled back to biological system.   Organic particles, entrapped in the
activated  carbon  pores,  are  combusted  in  the  carbon  regenerating
hearths.
                               97

-------
oo
K
C
H
fa
w
o
o
w
CO
o

H
       H


       PS
       W
       H
W

U

O
       w
       H
       W
                                                     o
                                                     01
                                                                                       c
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       •H
                                                                                       4-1
                                                                                       «
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       •H
                                                                                       m
                                                                                       •rH
                                                                                       5-t
                                                                                       oj
                                                                                       r-t
                                                                                       O

                                                                                       C
                                                                                       O  toO
                                                                                       •H  C
                                                                                       4-1 -H
                                                                                       CT5  G.
                                                                                       4.)  a c
                                                                                       •H .H  O
                                                                                       Cb  }-l -H
                                                                                       •r-l 4J  4J
                                                                                       O CO  Cfl
                                                                                       a;     C
                                                                                       >-J  Cfl  O
                                                                                       P-i -i-l JD
                                                                                           C  S-i
                                                                                           O  cfl
                                                                                              a
                                                                                OJ
                                                                                e
        C
 C W  O
 O -H JD
•rH CD  J-l
4J O  CO

 M CO
4J O T3
i-(     0)
•r-l 0)  4J
fa w  cO
    M  >
T3 (U M-l
 C >  4J
 CO CU  O
C0pii<
                                                                                II   II  II
                                                                                O W U
                                                                                tJ < Pd
                                                                                          fa O
                                                                                                        CJ
                                                                    98

-------
Pretreatment of Dairy Viaste Discharged
	To_Munici£al_Sanitar^_Sewers	

General

Eairy waste water, in contrast to many other  industrial  waste  waters,
does  not  contain quantities of readily settleable suspended solids and
is generally near neutral.  Hence, primary treatment practices  such  as
sedimentation  and  neutralization  have no necessary application in the
case of dairy waste water.  Equalization is  recommended  for  activated
sludge  and   trickling  filter  systems;  however,  dairy  waste  loads
discharged to municpal treatment plants will be equalized in  the  sewer
lines  if  the  dairy  waste  water  does  not  constitute  a very large
proportion of the load on the municipal plant.

The best approach to reduce the load on municipal plants  and  excessive
surcharges  is  good  in-plant  control  to reduce BODJ5 and recycling of
cooling water.

However, if sanitary districts impose ordinances which can be  met  only
through scrre degree of pretreatment, the following treatment methods are
suggested:

                      1.  Anaerobic digestion.

                      2.  High-rate trickling filters and activated
                          sludge systems.

                      3.  Stabilization ponds.

                      4.  Aerated ponds

                      5.  Chemical treatment

Anaerobic  digestion could be applicable to small plants discharging low
volume waste.  High-rate trickling filters and activated sludge  systems
require  high  capital  outlay  and  have  appreciable  operating costs.
Stabilization ponds and aerated ponds require considerable land and will
usually be impractical for dairy  plants  located  in  cites.   Chemical
treatment  will  require  a  high  capital  outlay and an extremely high
operating  costs,   especially  with  sludge  disposal.   In  regard   to
efficiency, anaeorbic digestion and stabilization ponds will attain less
EOD5  reduction.   However they could eliminate appreciable BOD5 at very
long retention periods.

If the dairy waste is a significant part of the total load being treated
by a municipal plant, it is necessary that whey be segregated  to  avoid
the risk cf upsetting the system.

Hexane Solubles
                               99

-------
Seme  municipalities  across the country are imposing tight restrictions
on hexane soluble fats, oils and grease.  Waste containing mineral  cils
discharged  by  the  cherrical  and  petrochemical  industries  and other
sources inhibit the respiration  of  microorganisms.    However,  fat  in
dairy   waste   water  does  not  exhibit  such  an  inhibitory  effect.
Appreciable quantities of  dairy  fat  are  being  treated  successfully
biologically  with  no  noticeable  effects on microorganisms (see Table
19).

Although large quantities of floating fats and grease could  potentially
clog  or  stick  to the walls of sewer lines, dairy fat does not contain
inhibitory substances or toxic heavy metals that could upset a municipal
treatment system.  Sanitary districts should  recognize  the  difference
between  the potential detrimental effects of mineral-based versus milk-
based fats, oils and grease in applying their ordinances.  A  test  that
distinguishes betwee i those sources of fatty matter should be developed,
since  mineral oil and dairy fat are both solubilized in the hexane test
currently used for control purposes.
Biological Treatment

Performance data for dairy treatment systems are presented in Table  20.
Two groups of data are shown:   One from identified plant sources and the
other froir literature sources.

Activated  sludge,  trickling   filter,  and  aerated  lagoon data from a
limited number of identified plants indicated average BOD5  removals  of
97.3%,  94. 0*  and  96.2%  respectively.   Those treatment plants are, in
general, well designed, well managed facilities, or "exemplary"  plants.
The  overall average performance of these facilities is a BOD5 reduction
of 96. 1%.  The overall average  BOD5 reduction of 97 literature  reported
plants  is 91.9%.  Four identified combined systems show an average EODJ5
reduction cf 95.7%.

Table 20 excludes all  EOD5  reduction  values  below  70%,  which  were
reported in Kearnery's 1971 Dairy report.  A system for refine treatment
functioning  below  70% BOD5. reduction has been considered underdesigned
or ill-managed and does not reflect its actual capabilities.   Anaerobic
digestion  has  a  much  lower  efficiency (30.5% BOD5 reduction frcm two
data sources) but is a good preliminary buffering stage, especially  for
low  volume  waste to be treated by activated sludge or trickling filter-
systems.  Stabilization ponds  also represent a good preliminay buffering
stage prior to activated sludge or trickling filter systems when land is
available.

One data source for sand filtration shewed average reductions  of  81.0%
for  BOD  and  95.5%  for suspended solids.   Sand filtration removes not
                               100

-------


















fjL|
O

^H y}
U H
2! H
W W
H<"1^
^4^
M
ft, £4
En rJ
W M
s
K En
HO

2 23
00
M
W H
Q ^
M Q
pLj }— {
M ^
JO

rJ <
M O
o
En O
O rj
O
ow
W
En
W



























4J
d
CU
4-J 3

En 4-1
4-1
U

i)
d
0)
0 3

PQ4-I
4-1
U


d
4-> O
d-H
d) 4J
Of \
VJ
CU *O
PLI 0)
fv]


4J
d
CU
4J 3

En 4-4
d
H


4J
d
CU
Q 3
Ol
T— 1
d




CU
4J

(0
>
4-1
0
CU
a
H
























r-4
^•^
fat
g





,_(
-^
M
E






Q
0

4-1
O




i— 1
-^
M
E






r-|
~~>.
E[






4J
d
jj

CO
CU
H
i






•
bt
UU
Jg

CO
4J

3
•o
o
M










i— (






if)
ro








O
00
^^




^O
ON

•H
U
<


"
•o*
d
o
o

«
•
U

o

M
*^
r—l
•fU
S







i-l






O
CO








LO
1^
ON




O
LT>
CO







O
O
CN
1-4





O

bO
co

•o

*
CU
<










•
a

u^ O CN








OOOO
ON vO 00 00
ON ON ON ON




or^oo
vO 00 lO^t
to r--^-
T-I








o
00
ON




iO
i-l
«^-







f>.
CN
00










CU
bO

r-l
CO





















[f
•r-l
CO
O
i-l

Q
O
PQ

*d
co

d
o
•H
4-1
CO
J_l
CU
a
0

4-1
o
CU
a
>-,
jj

d
o
-o
cu
CO
CO
,0

CO
T— I
CU

CU
>-4
a
3
•H
d
•H
B
CO
co

CU B^2
4-1 O
CO r-4
3-H
u >>
_j ij
Ctf Cg
0 >

co S>->
SI .
r-l CO
CO CO 4J
r> CU CO
3 *O
•U r-l CU
CO CO O rl
En> Z 4-i
3
* CO
r-4
o
• • £^

4-1 S
O O
a 2

























































CO T-I
Q) *T-|
CU S r4
Si CU
0*0 *O B
CU CO O CU
bO d Q* rl
CO CU U
4J -Q ,ii
4J d<-l CU
O O'i-l CJ
O CJ B'H


• •
• ••
«« p, .
• « • CJ
* *O •vli
CJ dr^ CU
• O «H O
0 0 S'H
101

-------
only suspended solids but also associated EOD,  COD,  turbidity,  color,
bacteria and ether matter.

Tertiary Treatment

Table  21  gives  a  general  comparison  of  tertiary treatment systems
efficiency to remove specific pollution parameters.

Table 22 gives some further insight  of  the  efficiencies  of  tertiary
treatment  systems.   It  shows  reductions  produced  after  passage of
biological effluent through sand filtration and activated carbon at  the
South  Tahce,  California,  treatment  plant.   The  effluent  from  the
conventional  activated  sludge  process  is  treated  with   alum   and
pclyelectrclyte prior to its passage through a multi-media sand filter.
                                102

-------
                               Table20

Type of
Treatment
Activated
Sludge
Trickling
Filters
Aerated
lagoons
Average
Performance
Data
Plant
of Dairy Waste water Treatment Plants
from Literature
Sources (133)
Number Percent BOD5 Reduction
of Plant Averaqe Range

63
32

2


92.9 74-99.6
90.5 70-99.8

84^.5 70-98.0
21*2
Data from Verifiable
Plant Sources
Number Percent BOD5
of Plant Average

3 97.3
2 94.0

4 96.2
26-1

Reduction
Range
96.6-98.7
93.0-95.0

95.2-97.3

Stabilization
Ponds
Combined
Systems
Anerobic
Digestion
Sand
Filtration
1

None

None

None
95.0

— —

^ «»

- -
None

4 95.7

2 30.5

1 81.0
—

91.9-99.6

19.8-41.3

81.0
(of  Secondary Effluent)
                              103

-------
•M    .H
 c  }-i  a
 O-H  a
  cn
         •X
cu co























I-l
w
rJ
PP
H




















/—. CO -H
J>-l
O
z
M
M
U
r-l
fa
U

C/3
J>2
W
H

fc
p^
H
§
EH
 B
^ CU CO
PdO

CU
w
CJ
C (0
0X1
M O
X
u
c
o
C-H
O W
iQ O
}-l J-l
CO O
CJ CO
Xi

CO
j_i
4J
r-4 C
•r4 O
fa *"~l
4-)
TD
C!
CO
W
I
, i
•rt
a
•H
0 C
(U O
P-i 4J
CO
d) 4->
E

               *
               -Jc
                                           «
                                                                             u
                                                                             5)
                                                                             O
                                                                             a


                                                                            TD
                                                                             C
                                                                             §
                                                                                   c1
                                                                                   r-l

                                                                                   «4-4


                                                                                   H
                                       $





















4J
C

1-1
u
X
u


















Jj
o
o
On

o
1 1
•W
T3 lj
0 -3
O CO
O fa
W)
0)

CO
1— 1
CO
u
'a
J8
u

U-l
o

c
0
•H
4J
,.j
•n
Tl
•a
(0

c
o
T3
0)
CO
£
>,
<0
*§
o
u
at
C/5
<4-l
O
CO
•o
•I-l
r-l
O
W5

TJ
0)
i-4
O
0)
03
•r-l
a
i-i
CO
4J
O
H
                                  d
                                  CU
                                  oo
                                  o
a
o
PQ
                     co
                                        CO
 O
 a
 CO
 o


CXi
                                               en   r-i
                                              £    O
                                              2    u
                                                              Q)
                                                              4J
                                                              O
                                        104

-------
C
0
f) jj
n d
4-1 CO 0)
dU P
CO rH
r^ T3 4-1
PH CU 4-1
4J W
C co
odd

4-J !-l 3
CO O r-l
E r-l O
m r) f 1
rHO





m
•
rH O

r4 r4
(U v£) CU
TJ r-l vD T3
d i id
IZ) CO r-l JiO



CJ
0)
pj
ir\
V-4 rO «LJ
H


H
S3
5
PH
1
S
p
r-l i
^j_| r"™l
Hci

^H
pi
2  e
•r4 CO
4J rH

<*





o
o *>o o
n
^ vO M
1 1 II
O O O
O O vO
.
4J
•H
i-H
m ^ ^ 1?
rQ n ^^^ CU
d N-x M 4J
co a -H
a -o ^, _4
CU d "^>-
rO CO d W
GOG
d cu ,0 ^-^
 d O "O
X ^ «H O
r-l H X d CO
CO CU O cO
04-1 M "O





in in
• •
000
• 1
Mr-lCNJ
0) 1 O
TJ r-4.O
d • •
n3 O O







o o 
• . .
ro r-l CN
i i i
in r-l r-l
• • •
OO-H





ON
•
OOCN
r^ i
1 1 r-l
o in •
n CN r-l











0
in m
r-l COr4
4J -^ 14
•H WV™"^ CU
§6 M 4J
s-' CU O
*~s 4J CO

>>CUr-l





CN CO
• CO CO
CN 0) CO
r-l CU
r4 r4 r-l
von

d'o'o
^D U O









0

1 0
r-l r-l O





O
0
o
•>J-J ^J
0 000

rQ'so








0
0
o
A
0
o
co «e vj
** oO O
in *t™f *o
i— 1 33 O










s~\
i-l
S

0/-s
O CO
r^ 4J
	 •!-)
• e
          I  4J r^ 4J 0)   	
  CJ  B  8 'H Ctj .f-( O,^  CO    -i-l
  QN-' d)r-l*Jr^ CO  V4  QCO.
  •H    Jj     O
  pq    O    H
 O  J-l
    O
 OT3
00
105

-------
                              SECTION VIII

               CQSTxENERGY_AND_NON^WATER_gUALITY_ASPECTS_

Cost_of_In-P1ant_Contro1

An  accurate  assessment  of  the  costs  of in-plant improvement is not
possible tecause of the following:

         - bread variation in types and sizes of plants

         - geographical differences in plant location

         - difference among plants in respect to their current
           implementation of necessary management and
           engineering improvements

        - management limitations

However,  an  estimate  of  costs  is  provided  in  this  section   for
engineering  improvement  areas.  These values should be used as general
guidelines only; they could vary substantially in individual situations.

For the saire reasons indicated abover it is not possible to relate costs
incurred for in-plant control to specific reduction benefits  achievable
(as  estimated  in  Section  VII)  on  an industry or subcategroy basis.
However, many of the in-plant improvements that have been  suggested  in
this  report as means to achieve the effluent limitation guidelines have
been successfully implemented in a number of plants at  a  net  economic
return  as  a  result  of  product saved.  It may be reasonably assumed,
therefore that the in-plant controls necessary to achieve the  suggested
effluent  guidelines  in  many  plants will  cost little or no more than
economic return they will achieve.  Exceptional cases in all probability
will involve the economic disposal of whey in plants  producing  cottage
or natural cheese.

Cost of Equipment, Process and Systems Improvements

The  costs  involved in making the engineering improvements suggested in
Section VII are equally  difficult  to  ascertain  with  precision,  and
certainly  will change with plant location, with size and type of plant,
and with the supplier of the equipment.  Estimated values are  based  on
figures  obtained  from  various  major  manufacturers  of  dairy  plant
equipment, and are presented in Table 23.  They should be considered  as
guidelines values; the cost in individual situations could be as much as
2Q% higher than the quoted figures.
                                107

-------
                                Table 23
        ESTIMATED COST OF ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS OF  EQUIPMENT,
                      ANE SYSTEMS TO REDUCE WASTE.

          Item                      ynii_Qost_          Total  Cost for a
                                                        230,000 kg/day
                                                         (500,00 Ib/day)
                                                        	dairy__p_lant	

Standard_Ecjui]:n!ent

Automatic Water
Shut-Off Valves              $15-25                     $300
                              valve

Erain Screens                $ 12                       $150

(Note:  Not recommended by equipment suppliers, because they plup-up
too easily.  New design needed for drain.  Quick estimate of non-fouling
drain system viould be $150/drain) .

Liquid Level Control         $300/probe                 $6,000 (min)

Temperature Controller       $1,000                     $2,000

CIP Line Support             $330/100m                   (Included  in line
                             ($100/100 ft.)             installation cost
                                                        of  $2500/valve)

Erip Saver  (can
dumping)                      $150                        (Not applicable)


Evaporator Improvement       Included today in basic cost of equipment


Filler Dripshield            $50-250                    $1,500
(Cost depends on size
and type of filler)

(Drip shield Ncte:  These items would have to be specially  designed and
may cause redesign in filter.)

Evaporator Improvement       Included today in basic cost of equipment

New_EguiErrent_Concepts

Ice Cream Filler             $1,000                     $3,000
                          108

-------
          Item
       e_23  (con'-t)

       Unit cost
 Total Cost fcr a
 230,000 kg/day
 (500,00 Ib/day
 	dairy__p_lant	
Novelty Collection System
Case Washer
Water Control

Product Recovery Can
System (including 20
gallon container, piping,
fittings, and controls)

"Non-leak" Damaged Package
Unit; complete with pump
valve, level controller,
spray device.

Interlock control between
CIP and air blow down

Filler Product Recovery
System

CIP Fittings
and
Controls
Equipment manufacturers cannot
estimate cost at this time.  Would
require special design.
$  550
$2,000/unit
$2,500
$  700


$2,700
$  25-30/
   fitting
$ 300-500/
   control
 $  550
 $6,000
 $7,500
 $U,200


 $10^800
Improvement^of_SYStems__based_gn ExistingmComponents
CIP System
- Revised type
$10,000/
   unit
$30,000
                            109

-------
                                Table_23   (con't)
                                    Unit Cost
CIP System
-Single-Use type
BTST Receiving System

Air Blow Down System
Non-Lubricated

Air Compression

Air Blow Ecwn Unit
(filler, valve, etc.)

Product Rinse Recovery

Post Rinse Utilization

Automated Continuous
Processing
$15,000
   unit

$10,000

$ 5,000
$ 6,000
$ 300/unit


$10,000

$ 7,500

$10,500
Agplicaticn^gf ,Ngw Systems Concepts

High Solids
Recovery System, including
2 valves
50,000 gal tank and
turbidity inter controls

Ice Cream Recovery
System, including
250 gal tank and
2 valves/unit with piping & fitting
                           Total Cost for a
                           230,000 kg/day
                           i[500,00 Ib/day)
                           	dairy._plant	
$ 30,000


$ 20,000

$  7,800
$ 10,000

$  7,500

$ 10,500
                           $104,000
Other new systems
                           $ 13,000

Cost not determinable at present time
                         110

-------
          Item
Standard 190,000 1
(50,000 gal)
Silo tank

Cone shaped 190,000 1
(50,000 gal)
Silo tank

Standard 78,000 1
(20,000 gal)
Silo Pasteurizer Surge Tank

Standard 78rOOO 1
(20,000 gal)
Silo Pasteurizer Surge
Tank

Welded pipelines, fittings,
controls, installation;
    4 products only --
    30 valves
    Full product line—
    150 Valves

Drain Segregation
Air Actuated Valves
Central Hot Water
   Table_23   (con't)

       Unit Cost
$50,000
$60,000
$20,000
$2U,000

$ 2,500 x No.
of air-acutated
valves
Increase in Con-
struction cost
estimated at $.25/
square ft. include
manholes for each
department and drain
junction.

$700-800/valve
$330-820/100m
($100-250/100 ft.)

$3,000-10,000
Total Cost for a
230,000 kg/day
(500,00 Ib/day)
$100,000
$120,000
$100,000
$120,000



$ 75,000

$375,000


$ 50,000
$  7,500
                          111

-------
Cost_of_End-Of-Pi2§_Treatment

Eiolcgical Treatment

A  summary  of  the  estimated  capital  costs  and  operating costs for
activated sludge, trickling filter and aerated lagoon sysstems are  shown
in  Figures 19 through 23.  The data are based on 1971 costs.  Operating
costs  include  power,  chlorine,  materials  and  supplies,  laboratory
supplies,  sludge  hauling, maintenance, direct labor, and generally 10-
year straight-line depreciation.

Cost estimates for biological waste treatment systems are based on model
plants covering various discharge conditions representative of the dairy
industry.  Specifically, raw waste BOC5 concentration of 500 mg/1,  1000
rng/1,  1500  mg/1  and 2000 mg/1 were selected, each at a flow volume of
187 cu m/day, 375 cu m/day, 935 cu m/day, 1872  cu  in/day   (50,000  gpd,
100,000  gpd,  250,000  gpd  and  500,000 gpd).  Cost analysis for waste
water volumes of 187 cu m/day   (50,000  gpd)  and  less  were  based  on
treatment  by  means  of  package  plants.  Package activated sludge was
considered although packed towers could be as efficient.

Substantial savings could  be  realized  through  use  of  prefabricated
plants  for  low  volume discharge.  Although field-instituted treatment
systems cost more  even  at  larger  capacities,  they  would  generally
provide  greater  operational  flexibility,  greater resistance to shock
loads and flow surges, better expansion possibilities and higher average
treatment  efficiencies.   Cost  estimates  assume  plants  designed  in
accordance with the parameters specified in Table 16, Section VII.

Capital  ccst  estimates for aerated lagoons for the four BOD cases--500
mg/1, 1000,mg/1, 1500 mg/1 and  2000  mg/1  —  were  almost  identical.
Therefore, one case is indicated, namely 2000 mg/1 EOD5 at 187 cu m/day,
375  cu  m/day,  935  cu  m/day, 1872 cu m/day (50,000~gpd, 100,000 gpd,
250,000 gpd and 500,000 pgd) .  Also operating  cost  estimates  for  the
four  BOD5  concentrations  were almost identical and only the operating
cost for the model lagoons receiving 2,000 mg/1 BOD5 is indicated.  Fig.
22 shows operating costs including 10-year straight  line  depreciation.
Fig. 23 shews operating costs excluding depreciation.

Irrigation

Investment  and  costs  were  developed  for three levels of waste water
discharge: 10, 40 and 80 thousand gallons  per  operating  day.   It  is
assumed  that  the maximum daily discharge per acre is 20,000 gallons or
150 pounds EOC5.  Although these  levels  may  be  considered  high,  no
problems  should  be encountered if the soil is a gravel, sand, or sandy
loam.  During the winter months, it may be necessary to reduce the waste
water-BOD application per acre, particularly in the Lake  States  region
where many plants are located.
                            112

-------
                               FIGURE 19

                        CAPITAL COST (AUGUST, 1971)

             ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEMS (FOR DAIRY WASTEWATER)
                      FLOW (375 cu m/day)(100,000 GPD.)
                                                               5  8  7  S  O 1O
Includes:  Raw wastewater pumping, half-day equalization with diffused air,
aeration basin (36 hours) with diffused air supply system, settling, chlori-
nation feed system, chlorination contact basin, sludge recycle, aerobic sludge
digestion, sludge holding tank, sand-bed drying with enclosure and fans,
under-drain sand-bed pumping, laboratory, garage and shop facilities,
yardwork, engineering and land.  Package treatment system does not
include sand beds, laboratory, garage and land cost.


                              113

-------
                                FIGURE 20


                       CAPITAL  COST  (AUGUST,  1971)

             TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM (FOR DAIRY WASTEWATER)
                                                                  e 7  e  a 10
                      FLOW (375 cu m/day)(100,000 GPD.)
Includes:  Raw wastewater pumping, half-day equalization with diffused air,
trickling filter, settling chlorination feed system, chlorination contact
basin, recirculation pumping, sludge pumping, sludge holding tank, sand bed
drying with enclosure and fans, garage and facility, yardwork, engineering
and land.
                                  114

-------
                                FIGURE 21


                        CAPITAL COST (AUGUST, 1971)

                   AERATED LAGOON (FOR DAIRY WASTEWATER)
                                                                  e -7  e a 10
                      FLOW (375 cu m/day)(100,000 GPD.)
Includes:  Raw wastewater pumping, aeration lagoon with high-speed floating
surface aerators, concrete embankment protection, settling basin, chlori-
nation contact basin, engineering and land.
                              115

-------
                               FIGURE 22

                      OPERATING COSTS (AUGUST,  1971)

             ACTIVATED SLUDGE  SYSTEM, TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM,
                            AND AERATED LAGOON.
             	(FOR DAIRY WASTEWATER)	
                                                                  e 7  a  a 10
                      FLOW (375 cu m/day)(100,000 GPD)


(Includes 10-year straight-line depreciation.)
Package treatment system does not include sludge sand beds, laboratory
and shop facilities.
                                    116

-------
                           FIGURE 23

                OPERATING  COSTS  (AUGUST  1971)

              ACTIVATED  SLUDGE, TRICKLING FILTER
                  AND AERATED  LAGOON SYSTEMS
                     (FOR DAIRY WASTEWATER)
                 .•4   .5  .6  .7 .e ja \p

                 FLOW  (375  cu m/day)  (100,000 GPD)
                                                           s  s  7 a e 10
(Excluding Depreciation  or Amortization.)
Package treatment system does not include sand beds,
laboratory and shop facilities.
                          117

-------
Other assumptions are (1)  minimum in-plant changes tc reduce waste water
or  BOD  discharge,   (2)   waste water and BOD discharge coefficients per
1,000 pounds cf M.E.  are those used in the DPRA study (phase  II,   table
V-1), (3)  and all plants operate 250 days a year.

Spray  irrigation  is  more expensive to operate than a ridge and  furrow
system that dees not require pumping.  Spray irrigation  investment  for
processing  plants discharging 10,000 GPD is $2,500-2,750,  40,000  GFE is
$4,200-$5,200 and 80,000 GPD is $7,000-$8,000.   If  whey  is  discharged
with  the  cheese  plant waste water, the investments are $3,250,  $7,200
and $13,000 respectively  because  of  the  need  for  additional   land.
Annual  tctal  operating costs are $1,550 for the  10,000 GPD, $2,850 for
the 40,000 GPC, and $4,600 for the 80,000 GPD of waste  discharge.   For
the  cheese  plants  discharging  whey  with the waste water, the  annual
total cost are  $1,600,   $3,100,  and  $5,200  respectively.   About  70
percent of these costs are variable and the remainder fixed.

Cn  a  per  1,000  pounds  M.E. basis, the costs differ depending  on the
product manufactured.  For evaporated milk, ice cream, and fluid plants,
the cost decreases from 30 cents per 1,000 pounds  of M.E. throughput  to
14  cents  for  the 40,000 GPC discharge and 11 cents for the 80,000 GPE
discharge.  Butter-powder plant costs per  1,000  pounds  M.E.  decrease
with increasing plant size and are 20, 10 and 8 cents respectively.  The
cost  of  cheese  plants  without  whey in the effluent are 14, 6, and 5
cents per 1,000 pounds of M.E., but  the  cost  for  the  cheese  plants
discharging 10,000 gallons of waste water including whey is 70 cents, 35
cents for the 40,000 GPD and 29 cents for the 80,000 GPD.

The  ridge  and  furrow  costs  are  lower  and  the  economies  of size
encountered fcr  spray  irrigation  are  not  evident.   Investment  for
ditching  and  tiling land, the land itself and ditching to the disposal
site for 10,000 GPD is $1,600  (one-half  acre)   for  fluid,  ice  cream,
evaporated  irilk  and  cheese  without whey discharge plants, $3,200 for
butter plants and  $6,400  for  cheese  plants  discharging  whey.   The
investments  for  the  40,000  and 80,000 GPD discharge are respectively
four and eight times the investment figures for the 10,000  GPD  plants.
Annual operating costs (total) are assumed to be 20 percent of the tctal
investment.   This  may  be considered high but these systems do require
more attention than  they  generally  receive  to   keep  them  operating
properly at all times.

On  a  per  1,000  pounds  of M.E. basis, the cost is 7 cents for  fluid,
evaporated irilk and ice cream plants regardless of the size.   The  cost
is  8  cents  per 1,000 pounds M.E. for butter-powder, 3 cents per 1,000
pounds M.E.  for cheese plants without whey discharge, and 55 cents  per
1,000  pounds  M.E.  for cheese plants with all whey in the effluent.  In
any case, the cost per pound of finished product is very small.


Tertiary Treatment
                            118

-------
For further reduction cf BOD, suspended solids,  phosphorus,  and  ether
parameters  which  biological  systems cannot remove, tertiary treatment
systems wculd have to be used.

The capital and operating costs for such tertiary systems are  given  in
Table   24.    The   operating  costs  include  ten-year  straight  line
depreciation costs.  The total capital and operating cost represent  the
costs  required  for  treatment  of  secondary  waste water for use in a
complete recycle process.

Economic Considerations

Today many -waste water treatment plants of approximately the  same  EOD-
remcval  capacity  vary  as  much  as  five  fold  in  installed capital
investment.  If due consideration is not given to economic evaluation of
various  construction  and  equipment  choices,  an  excessive   capital
investment  and  high operating expense usually result.   The engineer is
faced with defining the problem,  determining  the  possible  solutions,
economically  evaluating  the  alternatives  and choosing the individual
systems that, when combinded, will yield the most economical waste water
treatment process.  Both capital investment and operating cost  must  be
considered  carefully  since  it  is sometimes more economical to invest
more capital initially in order to realize a  reduced  yearly  operating
cost.

Of the three biological systems, that provide refined treatment, namely,
activated  sludge,  trickling  filters  and aerated lagoons, the aerated
lagoon system provides the most economical approach.  Investment can  be
minimized  by providing weatherproof equipment rather than buildings for
equipment protection.  Where buildings are required, prefabricated steel
structures set on concrete slabs are economically used.
                              119

-------
Lime precipitation
  clarification

Ammonia air stripping

Pecartonation

Sand filtration

Reverse osmosis

Activated carfccn

     Total
Tgble 24
Tertiary Treatment Sy£
Estimated Cagital Cost

0. 1

on
49
pping 53
28
28
111
139
4C8
Estimated Operatinq Cost*

C. 1

on
17.8
pping 16.1
10.9
19.9
70.7
5J^_8
194. 2

stems Cost
jQ971 Cost].
Flow Jmgd)
0.5
_{$ 1COO}_
80
94
39
79
467
347
1X106
J1971 Cost}.
Flow _{mgd)_
0.5
J(Z/1j_COO gal).
9.1
8.9
4.5
15.9
50.5
34^8
123.7




1.0

120
125
49
125
858
528_
1X805


1.0

7.8
6.2
3.5
13. 6
42.6
29^6
103.3
Lime precipitation
  clarification

Ammonia air stripping

Recarbonaticn

Sand filtration

Reverse osmosis

Activated carbon

   Total

*Includes 10-year depreciation cost
                            120

-------
Plant  layout  should  always  receive  careful  consideration.   Simple
equipment  rearrangement  can  save  many  feet  of  expensive  pipe and
electrical conductors as well as reducing the distances plant  operators
must  travel.   Maintenance  costs  are  reduced by providing equipment-
removal devices such as monorails to aid  in  moving  large  motors  and
speed  reducers  to  shcp areas for maintenance.  When designing pumping
stations  and  piping  systems,  an  investigation  should  be  made  to
determine  whether the use of small pipe, which creates large headlosses
but which is low in capital investment, is justified  over  the  reverse
situation.   Often  a  larger capital investment is justified because of
Icwer operating costs.

Table 25 depicts the relative costs of the  three  biological  treatment
systems  as  practices in the chemical industry based on consistent unit
land and construction ccsts fcr each process.

Plant discharging less than 375 cu m/day (100,000 GPD)  should  consider
using  package  treatment systems.  Such treatment systems chould result
in capital and operating costs savings.

                                Table_25

                  Biological System Cost Comparisions
                  As Applied in the Chemical Industry

                     Cost Ratio (relative to 1.0 as
                          _lowest_cost_SYStem]__
Land requirement
Capital Investment
Operating Ccst
  Manpower
  Maintenance
  Chemical Usage
  Fewer
  Sludge Cispcsal
Activated
Sludge
1.0
1.8-2.5
Trickling
Filter
1.0-1. a
1.8-5.5
Aerated
Lagoons
2.0-100
1.0
2.5-5.5
6.0-12.0
1.2 +
40-100
50-150
2.2-5.0
4.0-8.0
1. 1 +
1.0
50-150
1 .0
1 .0
1.0
50-300
1 .0
      and  Deduction  Benefits  of   Alternate   End-of-Pip_e   Treatment
Technologies

Incremental  EOD5  removal  and  costs of treatment are compared for all
subcategories and three plant sizes  23,  135,  and  340  kkg   (50,000,
250,000 and 750,000 Ib) milk equivalent processed per day in Tables 26,
                            121

-------
27 and 28 respectively.

Three treatment alternatives are considered in each case:

           1.  Activated sludge

           2.  Activated sludge and sand filtration

           3. vComplete recycling

The  estimates  are  based  on  BOD5  loads (achievable through in-plant
control)  and current average  waste  water  volume  discharges  in  each
sutcategrcy  (See  Table 13, Section V).  Since a degree of reduction in
water  consumption  can  be  expected   when   in-plant   controls   are
implemented,  the cost estimates are pessimistic.  The cost per pound of
BOD5 remove for greater reduction (e.g.  96 percent to meet the  proposed
guidelines)  by  activated  sludge will  not differ materially from those
for 90 percent reduction in Table 26-28  and would  eliminate  costs  for
additional treatment such as sand filtration.

Non;Water_£ualitv_Aspjects_of
DairY_Waste_Treatment

The  main  ncn-water  polluticnal  problem  associated with treatment of
dairy wastes is the disposal of sludge  from  the  biological  oxidation
systems.    Varying amounts of sludge are produced by the different types
of biological systems.  Activated sludge systems and  trickling  filters
produce sludge that needs to be handled  almost daily.

Viaste  sludge  from activated sludge systems generally contains about 1%
solids.  The amount of sludge produced  ranges  between  0.05  to  O.Ska
solids  per kg BOD5 removed.  For extended aeration systems about 0.1 kg
solids will be produced per kg BOD5 removed.

Sludge frcrr trickling filters consists of slime sloughed off the  filter
bed.   This  sludge settles faster than  activated sludge and compacts at
solids concentrations greater than 1%  solids.   The  amount  of  sludge
generated will be less than that produced by activated sludge systems.

Aerobic  and  anaerobic  digestion  of  sludge  generated from activated
sludge systems is recommended to render  it innocuous,  thicken  it,  and
improve  its  dewatering characteristics.  Sludge thickening can preceed
digestion to  improve  the  digestion  ope-rations.   Digested  activated
sludge  and  thickened  trickling filter sludges can be vacuum-filtered,
centrifuged cr dried on sand beds to increase their solids  content  for
better "handleability" before final disposal.
                            122

-------
                                    -, O,   ,->   ^0   r"-   O    O    IO*r--oCOOO
                        .^   *.£	


                        i  (''L:..  U
                               -
                                                          -T   O   ol   O   O
                                     i n   o    j   —i    —   o   cr   o
                                    C  -»   i—ir-j   a    T  c   co   u
                                  C^-  J   O   f
                                  rv~-  c	
                                  O OC-   —(   ,-.   ^-OOOOOO—'

                                    OQl—'•-JlAU^r-jO
                                    3d   —   O
VO
CN
                             u   -a
                             

                                                          O   O   C?

                                                          0^0
                                                          O   O   O
                                   fs
                                   I"T3 ^-»   ur
                                    C  X   fN   -^
                                    32
                                                          O   O   O   u-»   O    "^
                                                          O   vj   O   ""^   >/^    r~-
                                    CCOO«^OoCO
                                   ps
                                   £••
                                    O«Q»H«rti/>O>^Q
                                    -H -O   O    •*   *   -*   O   M   O
                                                                        2    S
                                           ">    M   -g   £
                                           or   M   0
                                           1?   C    L-   T3
                                   i    J        II       5
                                   O    tJ    C    fi   "*J       T!
                                             ^   >(   V   ^    H    >\

                                   (VlWl-UC^PfC
                                   •ouuufcjcCS
                                   k>    3             —       X)

                                   o^uu^rcr
                                                      123

-------
                                     o  t  o
            _   .
            sr [o  a;
            D cb   '
            o ^
                              o o  o
•s
                                124

-------
                                          ^  f-M   
-------
    The  energy  required  to  comply  with  the effluent guidelines and
standard cf  performance  is  largely  that  for  pumping  and  aeration
associated   with   treatment   facilities.    The  energy  requirements
associated with in-plant control are so negligible as  to  be  virtually
undetectafcle  in  the  ever  all  power  consumption  in  dairy products
processing plants.

    Based en biological treatment  (e.g.,   extended  aeration)   for  the
portion  cf  the industry that constitutees point source discharges, and
including operation of treatment  facilities  presently  in  place,  the
power  demand  to  meet  the 1977 limitations is estimated to be 145,000
kwh/day.  An additional 3100 kwh/day would be  required  for  compliance
with 1983 limitations.  Depending on the size of the plant, a new source
would require 79 to 380 kw/mgd (1896 to 9120 kwh/mgd)  discharged.  These
estimates  may  be  reduced  if  a  number  of  plants opt for treatment
practices with lower power requirements such as irrigation.
                              126

-------
                               SECTION IX

             EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
        OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
                         (LEVEL I EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES)


                              Introduction

The effluent limitations which must be achieved  July  I,  1977  are  to
specify   the  degree  of  effluent  reduction  attainable  through  the
application  cf  the  "Eest  Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently
Available",  The  Environmental  Protection  Agency has defined the best
practicable control technology currently available as follows.

Eest Practicable Control Technology  Currently  Available  is  generally
based  upon  the  average  of the best existing performance by plants of
various sizes, ages and unit processes within  the  industrial  category
and/or  subcategory.   This  average  is not based upon a broad range of
plants within the dairy products processing  industry,  but  based  upon
performance levels achieved by exemplary plants.

Consideration must also be given to:

     1.  The total cost of application of technology in relation
         to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from
         such application;

     2.  the size and age of equipment and facilities involved;

     3.  the processes employed;

     4.  the engineering aspects of the application of various types
         of control techniques;

     5.  process changes;

     6.  non-water quality environmental impact (including
         erergy requirements.

Also, Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available emphasizes
treatment  facilities at the end of a manufacturing process but includes
the contrcl technologies within the process itself when the  latter  are
considered to be normal practice within an industry.

A further consideration is the degree of economic and engineering relia-
bility  which  must  be  established for the technology to be "currently
available."  As a result of demonstration  projects,   pilot  plants  and
general  use,  there  must  exist  a  high  degree  of confidence in the
                             127

-------
engineering and economic practicability of the technology at the time of
commencement of construction or installation of the control facilities."

Effluent Reduction Attainable
   Through The Application Of
   The Best Practicable Control
EOD

Eased upon the information contained in Sections. Ill through Section  IX
of  this  report it has been estimated that the degree of EOD5 reduction
attainable through the  application  of  the  best  practicable  control
technology  currently  available  in  each  industry  subcategory  is as
indicated in Table 29.  The ECD5 loads under "Final Ff fluent",  are  the
suggested EOD5 effluent limitation guidelines to be met by July 1, 1977.

The  derivation of the final effluent BOD5 limits are evident from Table
29.  Although the final effluent loads were derived by assuming the  use
of  a  biological  treatment  system  to obtain 96% reduction of the raw
waste load reflecting good in-plant control,  it  is  not  implied  that
plants  must  necessarily   duplicate  the raw waste loads and treatment
efficiency.  It is possible that a number  of  plants  may  achieve  the
indicated  final  effluent  waste  loads  though  a biological treatment
system operating  at  an  average  efficiency  of  less  than  96%  EOD_5
reduction,  but  receiving  lower raw waste loads or operating in tandem
with a polishing operation such as sand  filtration.   In  addition,  an
entirely  different  approach  such as disposal by controlled irrigation
may be employed.

Suspended Solids

Findings of this study indicate  a  92%  correlation  between  suspended
solids  and  EODJ  in  dairy  waste  water, with a mean of 40% suspended
solids to ECD5 rates.

End-of-pipe controls in existing dairy plants are designed primarily  to
reduce  BOC5  .   An overall biological reduction efficiency of 96% ( or
possibly 90% through biological  treatment  and  60%  further  reduction
through  sand filtration)  has been selected for this paramater.  A plant
that meets the guidelines, will probably  have  a  biological  treatment
system  operating  at  close  to  96%  efficiency.   A biological system
operating at  that  efficiency  for  EOD^  will  perform  at  about  90%
reduction  efficiency for suspended solids.  Therefore, if the raw waste
load for suspended solids is equal to 40% of the BOD5 load, and the end-
of-pipe reduction is 96% for EOD5 and  90%  for  suspended  solids,  the
final effluent loads for suspended solids will have a 1:1 ratio with the
ECD5  loads,  i.e.,  they  will be numerically the same as those for BOD
shown in Table 29.  The situation described above represents the highest
suspended solids loads that would result, i.e., when the final  effluent
                             128

-------


















































cr>
CN

OJ
•H
J3
CO
H


































































C
O
•H
4-1
<0
O
•H
rH
CX
CX


CU
,c
4-1

r^
M
3
O
rH
£

cu
rH
^o
cfl
C
•H
Cfl
4-1
4J
<

a
0
•H
4-1
O
3
13
£

m|
o
o
pq









































^^
M
rH
CU

QJ
( j[
S.X

0)
t-(
tr>
cfl
rH
•H
Cfl
>


>
rH
4-1
C
CU
)-l
^4
3
U

>
ex
o
rH
0
c
£1
O
CU
H

rH
O
)-i
4-1
c
o
U

cu
rH
J3
_,
CU


^1
3
D
W

oo







C
0
•H
4-1
CJ
3
13
cu
Pi







}-i
cu


CU rH
rH O
.0. W
Cfl 4J
> C
0) O
•H U
.c
O 4-1
< §
XI rH
^d P^
0 1
rJ £
M
cu
4J ,£
ca ex
rt 3
IS 0
M
J£
PS


pt

m|
O
O
pq

oo
^








^H
cu
ex







un
0
0
pq

00


0
rH


•
w

jy|

60
A5

o
0
0
M
rH








J«
00
2
o
V-i
£







m|
a
o
pq

00
^2

O
o
rH






•
W
*
»
•H
CU
U
£

O CN O O rH
CN rH VO OO 00
O O O O O
* • • • •
O 0 0 0 0








13
CU
>
•H
CU
CJ
01
Pi


O CN O O CN
CN rH vD 00 r^
O 0 0 0 0
O O O O O










4J
C

0
4-1
cfl
CU
H




B-5
vO ^«O v^ vO vD
O^ O^ O^ O^ O\









13
CU
>
•H
CU
a
cu
Pi
,_(


m co m o rH
• • * • •
O O rH osi OJ











x-^

CU
>
•H
cu
u
HI
pq
i
^^^
m co m o oo
* • • • •
O O H CN O




• •
C CO
O 4-1
•H O
4J CO 3
Cfl 4J 13
4J O O
>
rH
O
ex
0)
4-1
CO
O
f>
3

CO 3 H
*O PH
00 O
C rH 13
•H PH CU
> CO X MM
•H C rH TJ 3 CU
CU CO 3 -H 4-1 4J
O U PQ 3 rH 4J
CU rH 3 3
Pi PL, 0 W
~
CO
4-1
U
3
•a
o

PH

00 vO O T3 O O O
CN in -
CO
rH
•H
Cfl

CO

T3
CU
4-1
•H
r-~ O O 0 O in -d"
^H
O CO CO r-l rH rH O

T3
cu
CO
ca
cu
o
0
M CU A! >,
PH CO X rH CU
CU -H -H .C
T3 CU S S 3
C cu f:
cfl CO O 0 0 T3 T3
CU cO cfl CU ^ Q)
rH 0) CU CU CU CO iH CO
CO J^ OOM M C -H a
MO COUU CUS CU
3 4J T3 T3
4J 4-1 0) CU C f^ C
CO O O O O M O
!Z U M M U Q C_>

C
O

rrj
CU
CO
Cfl
|/">

0
vO CU
0 4-1
cfl
0 0
•H
4-J
CO
cu

c
cfl

CO
•H

**sf T3
CN cu
O 4-1
o o
-H
13
c
•H

cu
}-,
3
M
•H
14H

CU
,C
4-1
vO
cr\ ••>
M
O
M)
cu
4-1
Cfl
a
o
3
CO

CO
m -H

iH 4-1

rH
0


CU
rH
o
cfl
rH
•H
Cfl
>
Cfl

CU
VO M
CO
O
cfl
4J
cfl
•a

4-1
c
cO
rH
a.

o

^^
>> rH
CU s^

^e ••
CU
>-. 4J
rH O
n 2
CO
pj
o
iH
4J
cfl
^H
CU
p.
o

K^
(U
^

•r-l

4J
CO
O
rH

4J
O
3
""O
o





•
4-1
O
3
•a
o
rH
Pu

01
4-1

UH
O

4-1
C
CU
4-1
c
o
a
a-ini

4H
O

cu
0
3
rH
O
>

CU
fj
4-J

M
CO
CO
CU
a
o
^4
O.

cu
,c
4-1

c
•H

CU

CO
CO


M-H
O
CO
cu
o
r-l
3
O
CO

(U
4J

>4H
O

CO
•H
CO
J>^
rH
CO
C
cfl

c
cfl









Q
o
PQ

Tj
c
CO

^
4-1
•H
CO
0
a
CO
•H
>
O
4-1

4-1
C
ai
0
4-J
CO
3
•>—)
•a
cfl

T3
c
CO

ft
CO
CO
CU
o
0

a,

00
C
•H
>-l
3
4-1
O
CO
MH
3
C
cfl
0

CU

4J

C
•H









129

-------
ECD5  loads  are  met  through  biological  treatment  alone.  When sand
filtration is added to meet the BOD5 limits,  the suspended solids  loads
will  be  numerically  lower  than  the  BOD5  loads.   Therefore, it is
suggested that  effluent limitation guidelines for suspended  solids  be
the same values suggested for BOD5, but expressed in kg suspended solids
per 100 kg EOD5 received.

Identification of Best Practicable Control Technology

The  suggested   raw  waste  loads  and  end-of-pipe waste reduction are
currently being achieved by  a  number  of  "exemplary"  plants  in  the
industry.   Other plants can acheive them by implementing seme or all of
the following waste control measures:

(a)  In-Plant Control

1.   Establishment  of  a  plant  management  improvement  program,   as
described  in  detail  in  Section  VII.   Such  a  plan  would cover an
educational program, fcr management and employees, installation of waste
monitoring equipment, improvement of plant maintenance,  improvement  of
production  scheduling  practices,  quality control improvement, finding
alternate uses for products currently wasted to drain,  and  improvement
in housekeeping and product handling practices.

Specific  attention  should  be given to recovery and use of whey rather
than discharge to the treatment system.

2.  Improving plant equipment as described specifically under  "Standard
Equipment  Improvement  Recommendations", items 1 through 13, in Section
VII.

(b)  End-cf-Pipe Contrcl

1.  Installation of a biological  treatment  system   (activated  sludge,
trickling  filter,  or aerated lagoon) , designed generally in accordance
with the suggested parameters set forth in  Section  VIII  and  operated
under careful management.

2.   Installation  of  a  biological  treatment  system  followed  by  a
polishing step  (e.g., sand filtration).

3.  Where land is available, irrigating the  water  water  by  spray  or
ridge and furrow, if this can be done economically and satisfactorily.
          For Selection Of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available

Keeping  in  mind  the definition of best practicable control technology
currently available, the data  contained  in  Table  29  were  developed
utilizing the following basic methodology:
                             130

-------
 (a)  Paw ECE5 Load Achievable
     Through In-Plant Control

     1.  foaste characterization data for identified plants were analyzed
         in context with an evaluation of present management practices
         and  the engineered waste control improvement available at some
         of those plants.

     2.  Waste load data for identified plants were compared with these
         from the literature and with calculated values for complete
         plants  (based upon "Standard Manufacturing Processes", as
         defined in the 1971 Kearney report).

     3.  Waste load data for single-product plants were tested against
         those of multi-product plants, using the following relation:

     EOD5 lead of multi-product plant  (kg/100 kg) =
     BQD5_load_of_single^p_roduct	(kq/100_kg)-_x_BOD5_p_rocessed
                      Total EOD5 Received (kg)


4.  Final values were selected, based on the results of the
preceeding analyses.

 (b)  EOD_ Peduction Achievable Through
End-Of-Pipe Control


Reported efficiencies of biological treatment systems in nine identified
plants   (including  activated  sludge,  trickling  filters  and  aerated
lagoons) average 96.1% BCD5  (See Table 20).  Those treatment plants, as
a whole, approach the highest average level of BOD5 reduction  that  can
be  achieved  with  a  well  designed, well managed biological treatment
system.
                             131

-------
                               SECTION X

EFFLUENT PEDUCTION  ATTAINABLE  THROUGH  THE  APPLICATION  OF  THE  EEST
AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The  effluent  limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1983 are to
specify  the  degree  of  effluent  reduction  attainable  through   the
application  cf  the  "Best  Available  Control  Technology Economically
Achievable" The Environmental Protection Agency has defined  this  level
of in the following terms:

"This  level  of  technology  is  not  based upon an average of the best
performances within an industrial category, but is to be  determined  by
identifying the very best control and treatment technology employed by a
specific point source whin the industrial category or subcategory; where
a  technology  is  readily  transferable from one industry or process to
another, such technology may be identified as  applicable.   A  specific
finding  irust  be  made  as  to the availability of control measures and
practices to eliminate the discharge cf pollutants, taking into  account
the cost cf such elimination, and:

     1.  the age of equipment and facilities involved;

     2.  the process employed;

     3.  the engineering aspects of the application of various
         types of control techniques;

     4.  process changes;

     5.  ccst of achieving the effluent reduction resulting
         from application of technology;

     6.  non-water quality environmental impact (including
         energy requirements) .

In  contrast  to  the  best  practicable  control  technology  currently
available, the best available control technology economically achievable
assesses the availability in all cases of in-process controls as well as
control or additional treatment techniques employed  at  the  end  of  a
production  process.    In-process control options available which should
be considered in establishing control and treatment technology  include,
but need net be limited to, the following:

          1.  Alternative Water Uses

          2.  Water Conservation
                           133

-------
          3.  Waste Stream Segregation

          4.  Water Reuse

          5.  Cascading Water Uses
       *
          6.  Ey-Product Recovery

          7.  Reuse of Waste Water Constituent

          8.  Waste Treatment

          9.  Good Housekeeping

         10.  Preventive Maintenance

         11.  Quality Control (raw material,  product,  effluent)

         12.  Monitoring and Alarm Systems


Those plant processes and control technologies which at the pilot plant,
semi-works,   or  other  level,   have  demonstrated  both  technological
performances and economic viability at a level sufficient to  reasonably
justify  investing  in  such  facilities  may be considered in assessing
technology.  Best available technology control  economically  achievable
is  the  highest  degree of control technology that has been achieved or
has been demonstrated to be capable of being  designed  for  plant  scale
operation  up  to  and including "no discharge" of pollutants.  Although
economic factors are considered in this development, the costs for  this
level  of  control  is  intended  to  be  the top-of-the-line of current
technology subject to limitations imposed by   economic  and  engineering
feasibility.   However,  it  may be characterized by some technical risk
with respect to performance and with  respect  to  certainty  of  costs.
Therefore,   attainment   of   this   technology  may  necessitate  some
industrially sponsored development work prior to its application.
         Eduction  Attainable  Through  the  Ap_p_lication  of  the  Ee§t
Available Control Technology l£onomicallY Achievable

EOD5

Eased  on  the information contained in Section VII and the data base of
this report, it has been estimated that the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application  of  the  best  available  technology
economically  achievable in each industry subcategory is as indicated in
Table 30.  The BOD5 loads  under  "Final  Effluent"  are  the  suggested
monthly  average  effluent  limitations  guidelines to be met by July 1,
1983.
                             134

-------
        o
        rr
        ro
T3 O  2
 i-t 1-hO
 O
 O rtTJ
 CD 3" M
 to rt>  (B
 CO     3
-   to  rr
    O
 ED C  O.
 3 i-l  ft>
 O. O  rr
    ro  ai
 ft) co
 a.     ft)
<-" O  ri
 c i-h (D
 CO
 n S  ft)
 3 ft)  <
 ft) CO  ft)
 3 rt  p.
 rt ro  M
        CU
 MI H- a"
 o 3  M
 <  3- rh
 i-1' ro  o
 CO      1-1
 o  73
 O  H  IT-
 CO  o  3"
 H- n  I--
 rt  n>  co
x  co
    co  en
 ft)  -   C
 3      cr
 CL rt  O
    3- cu
 W ro  rt
        (B
 O
 O
    O  O
 03--
 3  n
 rr     rr
 m  O  3"
 3  i-h (t)
 rr
    •O  i-h
 O  r-i  H-
 I-h O 09
    ac
 rr C  M
 3- O  ft)
TJ I-1 3
 I-t O  CL
 O CO  H-
 art  o
 C     ft)
 O h" rt
 rt 3  ro
        CL
    75
    ro  (-••
    *<  co

    o  ft)
    -a  3
    ro
    i-i  ro
    ft)  co
    rr  rt
    H- h1*
    O  3
    3  ft)
    CO  rt
        ro
    H"
    3
        rr
    rt  0)
    3- en
    ro  ro
        a

    cu  o
    3  3
    c
    I-h ft)
    ft)  3
    O
    rt  ft)
    C  3
    i-l  ft)
D
i-(
v;

s:

n>
*<


























o
to












o

•^J










^D
ON











ON
O









O

O
O
Ln









O

O
I-1
I— '


n
o
3
CL
rt)
3
CO
fl>
CL

5*
3^
m
v;




















o
t-o












O

Ln










VD
ON











ON
O









O

O
O
LO









O
•
O
O
00


o
I-i
V!

3
M-
I—1
?r


























o
^j












o

^j










VO
ON











ON
O









O

O
I—'
M









O

O
1-'
M


O
o
3
a
ro
3
CO
rt>
CL

2
H-
f— '
?r




















o
Ln












o

Ln










^o
ON











ON
O









O

O
O
00









O

O
o
00


M M
O 0
ro n>

n o
i-i n
ro ro
CU CU
3 3

g
H-
X
















r
h1-
3
i-1'
rt
ro i-1
CL
M
CL
CD
rt
ft)

ft)
<
ft)
H-
M
CD
rr
I—1 N>
ro
r-O
CD
fl
ro

H'
3
O
O
3
O
I—1
c: vo
CO ON
h"
<
ro
•* •

cu
CO
CO
C
3
ro
ON
CO O
CU
g
ro

<
cu
i—1
ro
CO

03 O
CO
0
Hi M
O OO
M

-
**J
I—1
C
M*
CL

"0
>-f O
O
CL O
C OJ
O Ln
rt
CO
0 Z Cd n *1 70
o CD c c i-1 ro
rt rt rr M c c» O o
rt c rt rr p-rjcuro
Cu i-i rt) C CLhJ3H-
erg DJ i-i i-i ?r en <
ro >-• ro 13 i-1-
CL i-i 3
n ft> o CN
3"3 TJ CL
ro CL i-s c w
ro o o rt
CO T3 CL rt CU
ro i-i C co rt
O O H-
O rt O
ro co 3
CO
co
ro
CL
n
3-
ro
ro
co
ro








w
c
rr
o
Q)
rt
ro
ro
o
n
<















-P- O O O O O O
^J -P- U) ~J Ln M -P-
/^**
h-1
- — '


i—1
-* ?s
^3 ocro
ro o
now
ro o
I-1- 7T O
< CWLn
ro
CL s;"a
• ro
M i-i
•







ON O O O O O O

^J 4> 00 ^J Ln ro -P-
^*,
t-'


>->?*
yo ootj
ro o
O D3
ro x o
p-cro o
< Ln
ro cd
CL OT3
o ro
Ln hj

H yo
3"cu
i-( «
o
C S
ro cu
3" co
rt
M ro
3
i f
T3 0
f— ' CU
ft) CL
3
rt >
O
n 3"
O h"
3 ro
rr <
M ft)
0 rr
i—1 1—1
ro







^O V£3 V^N \^J 1,^) ^0 v^)
ON ON ON ON ON ON 0s-
~^



H W PO
M H- H ro
ro o 3" CL
cu M i-i c
rt o O O
3 cm c rt
ro H'tro H-
3 0 3" O
rt cu 3
1 — '







ON ON O^ ON ON ON ON
O O O O O O O




Tl pO
h- H ro
i-' D" CL
rt W i-i c
1-1 Q) O O
cu 3 c rt
rr CLCW p-
H- 3" O
0 3
3





O O O O O O 0

o o o o o o o
^J O O I-1 O O O
Ul ON Ui h- ' OO U> ON




i — i
- X
JO OCW
ro o
now
ro o
M- 7T O
< 00 Ln
ro
0. ^T3
• ro
M i-l
•





O O O O O O O

M O O O O O O
O O I-1 I-1 O O O
^J ON W I-1 OO OJ ON


I-1 ??
?d ocro
ro o
O CO
ro JT o
h-C» O
< Ln
ro w
CL OT)
a ro
Ln n



O
l-h
CO
ro
CO
rr

>ca
< O
ft) D
H'Ln
M
0) pO
rr ro
I-1 CL
ro C
0
H rr
ro H-
o o
3" 3
3
O >
— ' rt
O rt
t} CU
•< H'
3
tn ft>
o rr
O I—1
3 ro
3 rt
h" 3"
n i-i
U O
I-1 C
1— '00
•< 3"

>• rt
0 3"
3" ro
-i.
ro >
< T)
ft) T3
cr i—1
1 — ' H-
ro n
ft)
• — N rt
t"1 (-••
ro o
< 3
ro
i — >
-H
M
' — '


*Tl
h1-
3
ft)
I—1

M
l-h
l-h
H~*
c
ro
3
rt



























































H
D)
cr
M
ro
10
^^















































                                                                 135

-------
Suspended Sclids

Eased on the same analyses  and  rationale  described  under  "Suspended
Solids"  in Section IX of this report, it is suggested that the effluent
limitation guidelines for suspended solids be numerically  the  same  as
the   EOD^  guidelines   (Table 30) , but expressed in kg suspended solids
per 100 kg EOD5 received.

I^entificaticn  of  Best  Available  Control   Ischnology   l22D2IDi££!llY
Achievable

The  suggested  raw  waste  loads  and  end-of-pipe  waste reduction are
currently teing achieved by a few "exemplary" plants  in  the  industry.
Other  plants  can  achieve  them  by  implementing  some;  or all of the
following waste control measures:

(a)  In-Plant Control

1,   Establishment  of  a  plant  management  improvement  program,   as
described   in  Section  VII.   Such  a  plan would cover an educational
program for management and employees, installation of  waste  monitoring
equipment,  improvement  of plant maintenance, improvement of production
scheduling practices, quality  control  improvement,  finding  alternate
uses  for products currently wasted to drain, and improvement in product
handling practices.

2.  Improving plant equipment as described specifically under  "Standard
Equipment  Improvement  Recommendations", items 1 through 13, in Section
VII.

3.  Improving plant  equipment  as  described  specifically  under  "New
Concepts fcr Equipment Improvement" items 1 to 4, in Section VII.

4.   Applying  process  improvements,  as  described  specifically under
"Waste Management Through Process Improvements", items (a) through   (h),
in Section VII.

5.   Implementing  systeirs improvements, as described specifically under
"Waste Management Through Systems Improvements", items (1),  (2)  and   (3)
of "Waste Control Systems now in use", in Section VII.

(b)  End-Of-Pipe Control

1.   Installation  of  a  biological treatment system (activated sludge,
trickling filter, or aerated lagoon)  designed  generally  in  accordance
with  the  suggested  parameters set forth in Section VIII, and operated
under good managmement.

2.  Installation of a sand filter or ether polishing steps  of  adequate
capacity
                              136

-------
3.   Where  land  is  available,  irrigating the waste water by spray or
ridge and furrow, if this can te done economically and satisfactorily.

H§iiPH§i§  ^2£  §§i§£iiP.D   °f   Best   Available   Control   Technglocjy
EcgnoriicallY Achievable

Keeping  in  mind  the  pertinent  definition  of   technology, the data
contained in Table 30  were  developed  utilizing  the  following  basis
methodology:

(a)   Raw ECD5 Load Achievable Through
     In-Plant Control

Essentially  the  same  as  described  in  Section  IX  for Level L, but
slightly reduce considering:
(1)  the performance of the best among the better plants in each sufccate-
gory, and (2)  the application of new engineering improvements not widely
used in the industry.

(b)   BOD5 Feducticn Achievable
     Through End-of-Pipe Control

A EOD5 reduction efficiency of 96% was selected for biological  systems,
based  on  the  performance  data of nine identified plants contained in
Table 20.  This is followed by  a  polishing  operation  to  attain  the
specified percent of waste reduction.
                            137

-------
                               SECTION XI

                    NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

IStroducti.cn

    In  addition  to  guidelines reflecting the best practicable control
technology currently available and the best available control technology
economically achievable, applicable to existing point source  discharges
July  1,  1977  and  July  1,  1983  respectively,  the Act require that
performance standards be established for "new sources."  The  term  "new
source"  is  defined in the Act to mean "any source, the construction of
which  is  commenced  after  the  publication  of  proposed  regulations
prescribing a standard of performance."

    The  Environmental  Protection  Agency  has  defined the appropriate
technology in the following terms:  "The technology shall  be  evaluated
by adding to the consideration underlying the identification of the best
available  control technology economically achievable a determination of
what higher levels of pollution control are available through the use of
improved production processes and/or  treatment  techniques.   Thus,  in
addition  to  considering  the  best in-plant and end-of-process control
technology, the technology is to be based upon an analysis  of  how  the
level  of  effluent  may  be  reduced by changing the production process
itself.  Alternative processes, operating methods or other  alternatives
must  be considered.  However, the end result of the analysis will be to
identify effluent standards which reflect levels of  control  achievable
through  the  use  of  improved  production processes as well as control
technology, rather than prescribing a  particular  type  of  process  or
technology  which  must be employed.  A further determination which must
be made for the technology is whether a standard permitting no discharge
of pollutants is practicable."

    At least the following factors should be considered with respect  to
production   processes  which  are  to  be  analyzed  in  assessing  the
technology:

    1.  the type of process employed and process changes

    2.  operating methods

    3.  batch as opposed to continuous operations

    H.  use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw
        materials

    5.  use of dry rather than wet processes (including
        substitution of recoverable solvents for water)

    6.  recovery of pollutants as by-products
                             139

-------
Effluent_Feduction_Attai.nable_in_New_ Sources

    Because of the large number of specific improvements  in  management
practices  and design of equipment,  processes and systems that have some
potential of development for application  in  new  sources,  it  is  not
possible  to  determine, within reasonable accuracy,  the potential waste
reduction achievable in such cases.   However, the implementation of many
or all of the in-plant and end-of-pipe controls described in Section VII
should enable new sources to achieve the waste load  discharges  defined
in Section X.

    The  short  lead  time  for  application  of  new source performance
standards  (less than a year versus approximately  4  and  10  years  for
other  guidelines)   affords  little  opportunity  to  engage in extensive
development and testing of new  procedures.   The  single  justification
that could be made for more restrictive limitations for new sources than
for  existing sources would be one of relative economics of installation
in new plants versus modification in existing plants.  There is no  data
to   indicate  that  economics  of  new  technology  in  dairy  products
processing is significantly weighted in favor of new  plants.

    The attainment of zero discharge of pollutants does not appear to be
feasible fcr dairy product plants other than those with  suitable  land
readily  available  for  irrigation.  Serious problems of sanitation are
associated with  complete  recycle  of  waste  waters  and  the  expense
associated  with the complex treatment system that would permit complete
recycle (see Figure 18 and Tables 26 through 28)  are  excessive.

    In view of the  foregoing,  it  is  recommended  that  the  effluent
limitations  for  new  sources  be  the same as those for best available
control technology economically achievable found in Section X.
                              140

-------
                              Section XII

                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    The  Environmental  Protection  Agency  wishes  to  acknowledge  the
contributions to this project by A. T. Kearney, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
Messrs.  David  Asper, David Dajani and Ronald L. Orchard, ably assisted
by their consultant Dr.  W.  James  Harper  of  Ohio  State  University,
conducted  the  technical  study and drafted the initial report on which
this document is based.  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Greenberg  served  as  Project
Officer.

    Appreciation  is  extended  to  the many people and companies in the
dairy  products  processing  industry  who   cooperated   in   providing
information  and  data  and in making a number of their plants available
for inspection and sampling.  Special recognition is due the Task  Force
on Environmental Problems of the Dairy Industry Committee for their role
in  facilitating  contact  with representative segements of the industry
and many other contributions.

    Indebtedness to those in the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  who
assisted  in the project from inception of the study through preparation
and  review  cf  the  report  is  acknowledged.   Especially   deserving
recognition are:  Max Cochrane, Ernst Hall, Frances Hansborough, Gilbert
Jackson,  Fay  McDevitt,  Ronald  McSwinney,  Acquanetta  McNeal, Walter
Muller, Judith Nelson, John Riley, Jaye Swanson, and George Webster.
                               141

-------
                              SECTION XIII

                               REFERENCES
1.  Standard_Industrial_Classif ication_Manual.  Executive
    Office of the President, Eureau of the Budget,  1967.

2.  Dai£Y_|f fluents .  Report of the Dairy Effluents  Sub-
    committee of the Milk and Milk Products Technical
    Advisory Committee; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
    and Focd, Scottish Home and Health Department; Her
    Majesty's Stationery Office, London,  1969.
                     Wa s tes_and_Wa st e_Trea tment_Pr acti c es .
    A "State-cf-the-Art" Study by W. James Harper and J. L.
    Blaisdell for the Water Quality Office of the Environ-
    ment Protection Agency, 1971.

4.  lDdustrial_Wastes_-_pairy._Indu_strY.  H. A. Trebler and
    H. G. Harding, Ind. Eng. Chem. 39: 608, 1947.

5.  Manual_fgr_Milk_Plant_Operators.  Milk Industry  Founda-
    tion, ~1967.

6.  Dis_2Osal_and_Treatment_of_pairy_Waste_Waters.  G. Walzholz,
    International Dairy Federation Annual Bulletin  (2) 1-57  1964.

7.  Ef f luent^Treatment_and_Disposal.  M. Muers. Dairy Industry
    (England) 33  (11) 747-751. 1968.

8.  The_Ccntrc2_of_Dairv_Ef fluent.  L. Royal. Milk Industry
    "(England) 55: (4) 36-41. ~1964.

9 .  Recent __peyelofmentj in the Design of Small MjlkJHaste
    Disp,gs§l_Plants.  J. P. Hcrton and H. S. Trebler.
    Proc7 8th Ind. "waste Conf., Purdue Univ., 32-45, 1953.

10.  The Disposal of Wastes from Milk Products Plants .
     E. F. Eldridge, Mich. Engng. Exp. Sta., Bull. 272, 1936.

11.  ProEcrticnalSampling^gf_Dairy_Waste Water.  H.M.J. Scheltinga,
     Pollution figures related to production. 17th Int. Dairy
     Congr., E/F: 767-771.  1966.

12.  Multistage_Plastic_5ledia_Treatment_Plants.  P.N.J. Chipperfield,
     M. W. Askew, and J. H. Benton.  Proc. 25th Ind. Waste Conf.,
     Purdue Univ., 1-32.  1970.

13.  P£§ctical_Aspects_of_pairY_Waste_Treatment. C.W. Watson, Jr.
                           143

-------
     Proc. 15th Ind. Waste Conf.r Purdue Univ., 81-89.   1960.

14.   Dairy_Vvaste_Treatment.  p. R. Kountz, J. Milk Fd. Technol.,
15.   §oine_Considerations_on_Waste_Waters_f rom_Dairies_and
     l^e i r_Puri f ica t ion .  F. Cantinieaux, Bull. mens. Cent.
     Beige Etude Docuin. Eaux, No. 24, 103-109.  1954.

16.   Air^Cif f usion_in_the_Treatment_of Industrial Wasteg .
     G.  E. Hauer, Proc. 9th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue lUniv.,
     60-63.  1954.

17,   Milk_Waste_Treatment_bY_Activated_Slud3e.  P. M. Thayer,
     Wat. Sewage Wks.T 100: (ij 34.  1953?
18.   £§view_o f _Ca se^_Jn vol vinc[_D ai ry_Ef f luent_f or_the_Pe riod
     Q£tgt6rJt2l?67_;_Cctober_J968.~ H. Werner and E.~K? Lytken
     Bilag. til 28. arsberetning, 47-54.  1968.

1 9 .   Trickling Filters Successfully Treat Milk^Wastes .
     P. E. Morgan and E. R. Baumann, Proc. Amer. Soc.
     Civ. Engrs., 83:SA4, Pap. No. 1336, 1-35.  1957.

20.   Dairy Wasteg Disposal by Ridge and Furrow Irrigation^
     F.H. Schraufnagel.  Proc. 12th Ind. Waste Conf.,
     Purdue Univ., 28-49.  1957.

21.   Waste_Treatment_Faci.lities_of the Belle Center
     CreamerY_and_Chee_se_Com]3any_.  D. G. Neill. Proc. 4th
     Ind. Waste ConfT, Purdue Univ., 45-53.  1948.

22.   Milk_ Was te^Treatment bym Aeration.  F. J. McKee.
     Sewage Ind. Wastes7~22::l041-"l046.  1950.

23.   Spray Irrigation_ofjDairy_Wastes.  G. W. Lawton,
     G. Breska, L. E. Engelbert, G. A. Rohlich and
     N. Forges.  Sewage In'd. Wastes 31:923-933.  1959.

24.   Milk_ Flant_Waste_ Eispos al .  W. E. Standeven.  39th
     Ann, Fept., N.Y. State Assn. Milk and Food San., III.
     1965.
25 .   Food Dehydratign^Wastes ._ ___ A study_of wastes
     dehydratign_of_skirn_niilkr_raw_and^ferrnentgd_whgYr
     potatoes^ beet s^_rutabagas^_and_ hominy.  F. E.  DeMartini,
     W. A. Moore, and G. E. Terhoeven.  Publ. Hlth.  Pep. ,
     Wash., Suppl. No. 191, 1-40.   1946.
26.  pigECsal^cf JFggd_Prgces sing ^Wastes_by_Spr ay  Irrigation^
     N. K~ San~born.  Sewage~Ind. WastesT  25:1034-1043."  1953.
                            144

-------
27 .   The_0ccur rence_o f _Tuber cule_Bac i lli_ in_Drain_Wate r
     of_Slaughter_Housest_Dair_iesi_and_Rendering_Plants
     M. J. Christiansen and A. Jepsen.  Maanedsky,
     Dyrlceg., 57: (6) 173-193.  1945.

28.   The_Ccst_cf_Milk_Waste-Treatment.  P.  E. Morgan.
     Am. Milk Fev. ,   19: (6)30, 827 847 86 and  101-102.
     1957.
29.  ^§th c d_s_and_Re sul t s_of _Acti vated_Slud3e_Tr eatment
     £f_I2tes.  S. D. Montagna.  Surveyor,  97:117.
     1940."

30.  Aerat icn_of _Milk_Wastes .  W. A. Hasfurther  and
     C.W. Klassen.  Proc. 5th Ind. Waste Conf . ,
     Purdue Univ., 72, 424-430.   1949.

3 1 .  Scii]e_ExEeriences_in__the_Dis£osal_gf _Milk_Wastes_.
     D.K. Silvester.  J.""soc7 Dairy Technol. 7~12 :228-231 .
     1959.

32.  Two-thousand^Town^Treats^TwentY-thousand^Waste^
     O. E. Grewis and C. A. Burkett.  Wat. Wastes  Engng.,
     3: (6) 54-57.  1966.

33.  Wat§£_£2lIii±i2G_bY_IiSDish_Dai.ries.  M. Sarkka,
     J. Nordlund, M. Pankakoski,  and M. Heikonen.
     18th Int. Dairy Congr. , I-E, A. 1.2 11. 1970.

3 4 .  Progerties_of _ Waste_Water s_ f rom_ Eutter_Factor i es
     SDd_S£2£e_sses_for_Their_Purif ication.  S. S.  Gauchman.
     Vodos. Sanit.~Tekh7, 15:(1)507  1940.

35 •  A_Stud^_of_Milk_Waste_Treatirient.  B. F. Hatch and
     J. H. Eass.  13th Annual Report, Ohio Conf. on
     Sewage Treatment, 50-91.  1939.

36.  Anal Y sis_of _Wa ste^Wa ter s_f r om_Dairy_and_Chee se_
     Plants_on_the_Basis_of_Existinc[_I.i terature.
     w7 schweizer.  Molkereizeitung, 9:254 and
     256-257.  1968.
37.  D ai ry_Wa ste_Di spo sa l_by_ S£ r ay_I r r iga t ion .
     F. J. McFee.  Sewage Ind. Wastes, 29: (2) 157-164.
     1954.

38.  Inve s t igati ons_on_I rr iga tion_wi t h_Da i ry_ Wa s te
     Water.  K. Wallgren, H. Leesment, and F. Magnusson.
     Meddn. Svenska Mejeriern.  Riksf oren. ,  85: 20.   1967.
                            145

-------
39.  The_Froblem_of_Waste_Dis£osal.  An analysis of systems
     used ty selected dairy plants.  M. E. Anderson and
     H. A. Morris,  Mfd.  Milk Prod. J., 57:(8)8-10, 12,
     (9)30-32, (10) 12-13.  1966.

40.  How_can_Plant_Lgsses_be_Determined?  c. E. Bloodgood
     and R. A. Canham. Proc.  3rd Ind. Waste conf.,
     Purdue Univ., 293-309.  1947.

41.  MilkTVjastes^in_Sevjage_Sludge Digestion_Tanks.
     D. P. Eackmeyer.  Proc.  5th Ind. Waste Conf.,
     Purdue Univ., 411-417.  1949.

42.  Milk_Waste_Treatment_gn_an_Experimental_Trick1ing
      Filter,  E. F.  Gloyna.   Water Sewage Works. J., 97:
     (11)  473-478.  1950.

43.  The_2uantity__and_Com22§ition_cf_pairY_Waste_Water
     at_a_Eairy_£lant.  T. Bergman, F. Magnusson and
     A. Berglof.   Meddn Svenska Mejeriern. Riksforen, 86.
     1966.

44.  Glucose_Dissagpearance_in_Biglogical_Treatment_Systems.
     J. S. Jeris and R. R. Cardenas.  Appl. Microbiol.,
     14:(6)857-864.   1966.

45.  Monitoring Waste Cjscharge: _a_Ijew Tgol^f or^ Plant
     Management.   R.  R. Zall,  Dissertation, Cornell Univ.,
     1968.

4 6.  Dairy^Factgry__Eff1uent_Treatment_by_a_Trickling_FiIter.
     J. S.^Fraser. Aust. J. Dairy Technol., 23: (2)104-106."
     1968.

47.  DairY_Vvaste-Saving_and_Treatment_Guide.  Dairy Sanitation
     Engineers Committee of the Pennsylvania Association of
     Milk Dealers, Inc. in cccperation with Pennsylvania
     Sanitary Water Board,  1948.

48.  Industrial Waste Guide tg_the_Milk_Processing_Industry.
     U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
     Public Health Service Publication No. 298, 1959.

49.  An_Intergretatign of thg EOD5^Test in_ Terms of Endogenous
     Respiration of Bacteria.  S.R. Hoover, N. Porges and
     L. Jasewicz.  Sewage Ind. Wastes, 25:(10) 1163-1173.
     1953.

50.  Contributions to thg Problem of Waste_Waters_in_the
     Milk_Industry.   H. Schulz-Falkenhain.  Molk.-u. Kas.-Ztg.
                              146

-------
     6:1060-1062, 1116-1117,  1588-1590,  1610-1611,  and
     1671-1672.  1955.

51.  ^aste_Control_in_the_Dair^_Plants.  G. Walzholz.
     17th Irrt, Dairy Cong., E/F:785-792.   1966.

52.  EiAiA_.E_._Test_ Installation.  J. H.  Rensink
     Half jaarl. Tijdschr. belg. stud, document.
     Centre, Wat. , No. 12, 44-46.   1963.

5 3 .  Experiments on the Biological Treatment^gf Dairy
           .  W. Furhoff. Voin Wasser, 28:430.  1961.
54.  OxY2§n_UEtake_of_Facotry__Ef fluents.  K. Christensen.
     18th Int. Dairy Cong., I-E, A. 1.2,  14.

55 .  Methgds_f gr_Estimating_the Strength_gf Dairy^Ef fluents.
     D. J. Reynolds, 17th Int. Dairy Congress,  5:773-780.
     1966.

56.  Ef f luent_Problems_in_pairY_ Factories.  G.  Walholz, A.
     Lembke, J. Gronau, H. Koster, and H. Schmidt.  Keiler
     milkcvv. Fcrsch Ber., 20:  (5)  415-532.  1968.

57.  How_can_Plant_Losses_Be_Determined?  D.E. Eloodgood and
    R.  A. Canham. Proc. 3rd Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.
     293-309.  1947.
58.  The_Ccst_of _Clean_Wateri_Volume_ II I_-_Industr ial_Wa ste
     Pr of i le_Ng_.__ 9 :__ Da ir ies .  U.S. Department of the Interior,
     Federal Water Pollution Ccntrol Administration, 1967.

59 .  Industrial Wa§te_Rgcoyery by^Dgsalination_Technigues.
     U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Saline
     Water.  Research and Development Progress Report
     No. 581, October 1970.

60.  ^§ste_Prevention_in_the_pairy_Indu^trY.  Report of
     the Waste Disposal Task Committee of the Dairy
     Industry Committee, February, 1950.
                   Di s£gsal_of _pairY_Waste_Waterj^_A_Reviewi
    W.J. Fisher.  Review Acticle No. 147, Dairy Science
     Abstract (England) 30  (11) 567-577.  1968.

62.  Byj3rcducts_f rom_Milk.  B.H. Webb and E. C. Whittier
     The AVI Publishing Company, 1970.

63 .  Water Use^and^Conseryation inmFgc-d_Processing_Plants.
     B.  A. Twigg, Journal of Milk and Food Technology,
                          147

-------
     July 1967, 222-223.

78 .   Operation of a_Milk-wastes_Trgatinent_Plant Employing. a_
     Trick ling_Filter .  J. W. Rugaber.  Sewage Ind. wastes,
     23: (llj~1425-1428.  1951.

79 .   Some Experiences_in_thej-Dispgsal of ^MilJ5 pastes .
     DTK.  Silvester. J. Soc. "airy Technology, 12:228-231,  1959.
80.  ££§E§£§*i°Q_2f_Wastes_f or_Biolggical_Filtersi   F.L.  Smith
     and Agneberg. Publ.~Wks., N.Y., 94: (10) 170,  172,  174.   1963.

81 .  Treatment of Milk Washings by Addition  of Coagulants^
     Sedinientation_f__and_Biological__F;iltration.   P. A. Southgate.
     Dairy Inds., 13: (3) 235-240.  1948.

82.  Dairy Waste^Dispgsaj..  H.A. Trebler and E.G. Harding
     Chem. Engng. Prog., 43: (5)255.  1947.

83 •  Treatnient_Qf Dairy Ef f luent^hy the_Ferrobian-£grcolating
     Method.  G. Walzholz, H.  Quest, A. Lembke and  H.J.  Fehlhaber.
     J. Mclkereizeitung, Hild. , 13: (1 4) 395-398.   1959.

8U.  New_pevelO2n}ents_in_Treatment_of_Milk_Wastes.  L.  F.  Waarick
     Fd. Inds., 12: (9) 46-48 and 99.  1940.

85 .  Treatment of _Waste_Waters_ from Milk_ Products^ Factories.
     A. B. Viheatland.  Waste Treatment, Pergamon  Press.  411-428.
     1960.

86.  Hiah_£at€_Filters_Treat_Creamery_Wastes.  M. A. Wilson
     Sewage Wks. Engng., 17:309.  1946.

87.  Treatment_of^Milk Wastes.  N. D. Woolings,  Munic.  Util.,
     90: (11) 50, 52,   54,  (12)25-28, 30, 32,  and  44-45.   1952.

88 •  Fundanientals of _the_Cgntrcl and^Treatment of Dairy Mast e^
     H. A. Trebler and H. G. Harding. Sewage Ind. Wastes
     27:1369-1382.  1955.

89.  Ef fluent _Treatmen t_P^ant .  Anonymous. Wat.  and Wat. Engng.,
     71:140.  1967.

90 .  The Bcle of_Contact^Stabilization_in_the_Treatment. of
     Industrial_Waste_Water and Sewagej^a Progress  Report.

91.  Dairy__Waste_Waters_and_Their_Aerobic_Treatment.   S. Bunesova
     and M. Dvorak. Vod.~Hospod. , 18:466-467.  1968.

9 2 .  Some Ccnsideratigns^gn_WagtemWaters_f rgrn_pairieg  and  Their
                            148

-------
                    F. Cantineaux.  Bull. mens. Cent. Beige
     Etude Cocum. Eaux. No. 24, 103-109.  1954.

93 .   An_Industrial_Vvaste^Guide_tojthe_Milk_Processing_Industry.
     Dairy Industry Committee, Sub-Committee on Dairy Waste
     Disposal.  Publ. Hlth. Engng. Astr. , 32: (9) 22-23.   1952.

9 4 .   Ef f ect_gf _Industri al_Wa ste_on_Municipal_Sewage_Tr eatmen t .
     E. F. Eldridge. Munic. Sanit. , 10:491.   1939.

9 5 .   Mi lk_Vva s t e_Trea tm en t_by_the_Mal 1 ory_Proce ss . __ Wat erwor k s
                     E. F. Eldridge.  88. ( 10) 457-462.   1941.
96.  Estiniaticn_gf_Colif orm_Bacteria_gn_pairy__Wastes. J. Gillar
     and D. Stelcova." Sb. Praci~vyzk. Ust. Mlek. ,  118-129.
     1963.

97 .  Experiment s_on_the_Biolcgical_Treatinent^pf_pairY_Wastes^
     W.Furhoff. Vom Wasser 28:430, 1961.

98.  BOD5_Shpck_Load.  G. Gault. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed.,
     32:903.  1960.

99.  Cairy_ Industry .  H. G. Harding. Ind. Engng.  Chem. ,
     44:487-491.  1952.

100.  Aer a t icn_of _Mi 1 k_ Wa s te s .  W. A. Hasfurther  and C.W. Klassen.
      Proc. 5th Ind. Waste~Conf . , Purdue Univ. 72,  424-430.   1949.

101.  Sue c e s s f ul_Tr ea t men t_o f _Da i ry_ Wa s te_by_ Aer at i on .
      G. E. Hauer.  Sewage Ind.  Wastes7~24:"l271-1 277.   1952.

102.  Satisfactory^gurif icaticn^of Dairy Wastes by  the Actiyated
       §i^3§_M§ilJ2d.  A. Kannemeyer.  Molk. -u Kas. -tg.,  9: (7)
      187-190.  1958.

103.  Dairy_Waste_Treatinent_Pilot_Plant.  R. P. Kountz.  Proc.  8th
      Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ. 7 382-386.  1953.

104. _ Performance of a_Igw7pressure Aeration_Tank_f gr_Bigchemical
      Clarif ication_of_Dairv_Waste_Waters.  E.G.  Mishukov.
      Chem. Abstr.7 62:12,889.  1965. ~

105.  Methgds_and_Result s_ of ^Activated SludgejTreatmentp£_Dairy
      Wastes.. S.D. Montagna. Surveyor. 97:117.
      1940.

106.  Treatment_of^Milk Trade_Wagte Watgr by thg^ Activated- sludge
      Process. K. Muller. Veroff, Inst. Siedungwasserwirt-
      schaft. Hanover, No. 15, 35-143.
                           149

-------
107. _Was t e_TreatjTient_Facili ties_of _the_Be lle_Center_CreamerY_
     _S2d_Qheese_Com£anY .  D.G. Neill.  Proceed.  4th  ind.
      Waste Ccnf., Purdue Univ., 45-53. 1948.

108.  Wast e_Treatment .  A. Pasveer.  Proceedings  of the  2nd
      Symposium on Treatment of Waste Waters,  Univ. of Durham,
      117.  1959.

109.  Plant_f cr_Bioloc[ ica l_Purif icati on_of _Ef f luent_in_a_Cen tr a 1
      Dairy.." u- Paul. Wass. Luft Betr. ,  13: (3) 89-92.  19^9.

110.  T£eatnient_of_pairi_Waste_by_Aeration.  R. M. Power.
      Sanitlk, 3: (4) 2-3.  1955.

Ill .  Demonstration g^A^A^D. Purif ica tign^ Plant for^ Waste
      Water s__at_Nutricia_Ltd_rx_Zoetermeeri_Alg^_Zuivelbi
      J. H. A. Schaafsma.  50:306-309,  and 330-332.   1957.

112.  The_Tr eatment_of _Wa ste_Wat er s_a t_a_Condensed_Mi lk_Plan t .
      L.F. Echua.  Wasserwirtschaf t, Stuttg. ,  56:370-372.   1966.

113.  Nonz5i233iJQ2_l2§H!zsaf e_ Aerator s_Lick_Cheese - wast e_Pr ob lem .
      K. L. Schulze.  Fd. Engng., 26: (9) 51-53.   1954.
114.   Proci_An_i_Soc.__Civ_.__En3rs. ,  K. L.  Schulze.   81:   SA4,
      Pap. No. 847. 1955.

115.   Activated_Slud3e_Treatment_of_Milk_Wastes.   P.M.  Thayer.
      Sewage Ind. Wastes, 23 : (12) 1 537-1539.   1951.
116.   T£§a tjTient_of_pa iry_ Wa s t e_Water s_by_t he_Agt ivat ed_ Sludge
      M§thcd_with_Large_Bubble_Action_Aeration.  P. Thorn.  17th Int.
      Dairy Congr., E.F:709-714. 1966.

117.   Mode 1 Exper imgn t s f or t hg_ Pu ri f ica t ion _o f Da i ry^ Ef f 1 uen t §
      BY_Aeration.  I. Tookos.  Elelm. Ipar,  19: (12)  367-~371.  1965.
118.   Practical_Asgect^_of_DaijrY_Waste_Treatment. C.W.  Watson.
      Proc. 15th Ind. Waste Ccnf., Purdue Univ., 81-89.   1960.

119.   Pur i f_ ication_of _DairY_Waste_in_an_Activated- sludge_J? lant
      at_the_Rue_Co-o£erative_DairY.  H. Werner Beretn.
      St. Fcrsc-Ksmejeri, 173:  1-22.  1969.

120.   Actj. vat ed- si udge_Tr eat ment_o f _Some_O rganic_Wa st es .
      A. E~ Wheatland.  Proc. 22 Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue  Univ.,
      983-1008.  1967.

121.   The_treatment_o f _Ef f luents_f rom_the_Milk_Indu stry .
      A.E. Wheatland. Chemy Ind. 37:  1547-1551.  1967.
                           150

-------
122.  AB_£ii§s_of_Actiyated_Sludc[e_TYEes.   w.  O.  Pipes.   Report
      en Grant No. WP-00588-04  FWPCA,  USDI ,  Civil Engineering
      Department.  Northwestern University,  Evanston,  Illinois.
      1968.

123.  .Dairy faaste_Dj.sp_osal_ System.   H.  G.  Harding.  Amer.  Dairy
      Fev. ,""31:32.   1968.

124.  Di sjgc sal_o f _High_Organic_Con tent_ Wa s te s_gn_Land .
      R. H.~Scott. J. Wat. Poll. Cont.  Fed., 34:932-950.   1962.
125.  Th^_Cey elgpjnen tx_Evalu at ion_and_Content_of _a_Pil gt_Prggram
      In Dairy Utiliza
                ^  W. S. Arbuckle and  L.  F.  Blanton.   Cooperative
      Extension Service and Department of Dairy  Science,
      University of Maryland, 1-53.   1968.

126.  Indu st r ial_Wa s t e_ Stabi \ i za t ign_Pond s_in_the_Uni t ed_S t a t es .
      R. Pcrges.  J. Wat. Poll. Cont.  Fed.;  35:"(4)456.  1963.

127.  Waste_Treatment_bY_Stabilization_Ponds.  C.  E. Carl.
      Pufcl. HlthT Engng. Abstr. , 4l7(10}35.~  1961.

128.  Sewa3e_stabilizatign_Pgnds_in_the_pakgtas.   Joint  report
      by North and south Dakota State  Departments  of Health,
      and U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
      Public Health Service.  1957.

129,  Sewage_Lao[ggn^_in_the_PcckY_Mguntains.  D. P. Green
      Journal of Milk and Food Technology.   October, 1960.

130.  Aerated_Lac[ggnj_Treat_Minnesgta_Tgwn^s_Wastes.   J. B. Neighbor
      Civil Engineering - ASCE.  December 1970.

131.  Ef f ect_cf_WheY_Wastes_gn_Stabilizatign_Pgnds.  T.  E. Maloney,
      H. F. Ludwig, J.A. Harmon and L. McClintock.  J. Wat. Poll.
      Cont. Fed., 32:1283-1299.  1960.

132.  Mgnitcrinc[_Mi lk_Plant_Waste_Ef f luent_^_A_New_Tggl_fgr
      Plant Man
      Pi§2t_M^Q§3§E§D;i •   F.R- Zall and W.  K. Jordan.   Journal
      of Milk and Food Technology, June,  1969.

133.  Stud_Y_g J_Waste s_and_ Ef J luent_Reguirement s_g^_ t he
      Dai ry.Indus try •,   A. T. Kearney, Inc., Chicago,  Illinois.
      May,  1971.

134.  The_Treatment_gf_DairY_Plant_Wa^tes. Prepared for the
                          151

-------
      Environmental Protection Agencies, Madison, Wisconsin,
      March,  1973 Technology Transfer Seminar.  Compiled by
      K.  S.  Watson, Kraftco Corp.

135.   Ef f e ct_of _ Sel ec ted_Fact crs_on_ the_Re s^orat ion_and
      £§££ 2iS§Q2§_2£_§_^2^§i_5^i£Y_^£iiYSi^_Sludge_ System.
      J.  V.  Chambers, The Ohio State University.  Disser-
      tation,  1972.

136.   E§tiirating_Cost^_and_Man£Ower_Reguirements_f or
      Conventional, Waste watgr^Treatmgnt Facilities .
      W.  L.  Patterson, R. F. Banker, Black & Veatch
      Consulting Engineers.  October, 1971.

137.   Cost_and_Perf ormance_Est imates_ f or_Tert iary
      w2§£§_^i§£_!!§^£iQ3_P£2£§JL§§s«  Robert Smith,
      Walter F. McMichael.  Robert A. Taft Water Research
      Center.   Report No.  TWRC-9.  Federal Water Pollution

138.   Cost of  Conventional and Advanced Treatment of
      w§§te_waters.  Robert Smith. Federal Water Pollution
      Control  Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio.
      July,  1968.

139.   Waste_Water_Reclamation_in_a_Clcsed_Sy^tem.  F. Besir.
      Water &  Sewage Works, 213 -  219, July, 1971.

140.   E§Y§£5§_Q^n!2si.s_for_Munici2al_VJater_Sup_plY.  O. Peters
      Shields. Water 6 Sewage Works, 64 - 70.  January, 1972.

141.   Industrial_Waste_Disp_osal.  R. D. Ross, Edt. Van
      Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York,  1968.

142.   Che mica l_Treatment_of_ Sewage_and_ Indus tri a 1_ Wastes .
      Dr. William A. Parsons.  National Lime Association,,
      Washington, B.C.  1965.

143.   Jndustrial_Pgllution_Control_Handbogk^  H. F. Lund,
      Edt. McGraw-Hill Book Cc., New York,  1971.
144.
      V.  M. Roach.  General Filter Company, Ames, Iowa.
      Bulletin No.  6703R1.  June, 1968.
145.  _ Upgr adi ng_Da iry__ Produc t ion_Fac i li t ie s_ t o_Con t rgl
      Pollution. Prepared for the Environmental Protection
      Agencies, Madison, Wisconsin, March, 1973,
      Technology Transfer Design Seminar.  Prepared by
      R.  F. Zall and W. K. Jordan, Cornell University.

146.   Watgr^and_Waste_water_Management_in_ Daily, Processing
                            152

-------
      P.  E.  Carawan, V. A. Jones and A. P. Hansen, Department
      cf  Feed Science, North Carolina State University.
      December, 1972.

147.   Theoriej^andjPractices_gf_Industrial_Waste_Treatinent
      Nelson I. Nemetow.  Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.
      Reading, Massachusetts.  1963.

148.   CheinistrY_for_SanitarY_Engineers.  Clair N. Sawyer,
      Perry  L. McCarby.  McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,
      1967.
149.   P£Ocedural_Manua l_f or_Eval ua tinc[_the_Per f orrnan ce_of
      w§ste_water_Treatment_Plants.  Environmental Protection
      Agency, Washington, D.C. Contract No. 68-01-0107.
                            153

-------
                              SECTION XIV

                                GLOSSARY
Demand
Oxidation
Churned
Buttermilk
Demand
Chlorine Contact
 (Or five-day BOD5) .  Is the amount of
oxygen consumed by microorganisms to
assimilate organics in waste water over
a five day period at 20° C.  BOD5 is
expressed in mg/1  (or ppm)  and is the
most common yardstick at present to
measure pollutional strength in water.

The process whereby living organisms
in the presence of oxygen convert
the organic matter contained in waste-
water into a more stable or a mineral
form.

Byproduct resulting from the churning
of cream into butter.  It is largely
defatted cream and its typical com-
position is 91% water.  4.5% lactose,
3.4% nitrogenous matter, 0.7%ash
and 0.4% fat.  Churned or "true"
buttermilk is distinguished from cul-
tured buttermilk, which is a ferment-
ation product of skim milk.  The latter
is sold in the retail market and re-
ferred to simply as "buttermilk".

Is the amount of oxygen provided by
potassium dichromate for the oxidation
of organics present in waste water.  The
test is carried out in a heated flask
over a two hour period.  One of the
chief limitations of the COD test is
its inability to differentiate between
biologically oxidizable and biologically
inert organic matter.  Its major advan-
tage is the short time required for
evaluation when compared with the
five-day BOD test period.   COD is ex-
pressed in mg.l or ppm.

A detention basin where chlorine is
diffused through the treated effluent
which is held a required time to provide
the necessary disinfection.
                            155

-------
Condensed
Cultured Products
Effluent
Ratio
The term "condensed" as used in
this report, applies to any liquid
product which has been concentrated
through removal of some of the water
it normally contains, resulting in
a product which is still in the
liquid or semi-liquid state.  When
applied to milk, the term "condensed"
is used interchangeably with "evap-
oprate" to designate milk which has
been concentrated milk.  Commercially,
however, the term "evaporate milk"
is commonly used to define unsweetened
concentrated milk.

Fermentation-type dairy products
manufactured by innoculating different
forms of milk with a bacterial culture
This designation includes yogurt,
cultured buttermilk, sour cream, and
cultured cream cheese, among other
products.

Waste containing water discharged
from a plant.  Used synonymously
with "waste water" in this report.

An auto oxidation of cellular material
that takes plance in the absence of
assimilable organic material to fur-
nish energy required for the replace-
ment of worn-out components of proto-
plasm.

An aeration tank loading parameter.
Food may be expressed in pounds of
suspended solids, COD, or BOD5 added
per day to the aeration tank, and
microorganisms may be expressed as
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)
or mized liquor volatile suspended
solids (MLVSS)  in the aeration tank.
The flow (volume per unit time)  applied
to the surface area of the clari-
fication or biological recictor units
(where applicable) .
                              156

-------
Hydraulic
Loading
Influent
Ice Cream
MilJL. Equivalent
  M.E.
The flow (volume per unit time)
applied to the surface area of
the clarification or biological
reactor units (where applicable),

Waste water or other liquid - raw
or partially treated; flowing into
a reservoir, basin, treatment pro-
cess or treatment plant.

Applied in a general sense, this
term refers to any milk-based
product sold as frozen food.
Food regulatory agencies define
ice-cream in terms of composition,
to distinguish the product from
other frozen dessert-type products
containing less milk-fat or none at
all, such as sherbert, water ices
and mellorine.

Quantity of milk (in pounds) to
produce one pound of product.  A
milk equivalent can be expressed
in terms of fat solids, non-fat
solids or total solids, and in
relation to standard whole milk
or milk as received from  the farm:
the many definitions possible
through the above alternatives
has resulted in confusion and
inconsistent application of the
The most widely used milk equiva-
lents are those given by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
Statistical Bulletin No. 362
"Conversion Factors and Weights
and Measures for Agricultural
Commodies and Their Products."

A mixture of activated sludge and
waste water undergoing activated
sludge treatment in the aeration
tank.

A means of expressing the degree of
acidity or basicity of a solution,
defined as the logarithm of the
reciprocal of the hydrogen ion
concentration in gram equivalent per
                             157

-------
Raw Milk
Raw Waste Load
Rate
Skim Milk
liter of solution.  Thus at normal
temperature a neutral solution such
as pure distilled water has a pH of
about 7, a tenth-normal solution of
hydrochloric acid has a pH near 1
and a normal solution of strong
alkali such as sodium hydroxide
has a pH of nearly m.

  Milk as received from the farm or
  of standardized composition that
  has not been pasteurized.

  Numerical value of any waste
  parameter that defines the
  characteristics of a plant
  effluent as it leaves the plant,
  before it is treated in any way.

  The rate of return of part of the
  effluent from a treatment process
  to the incoming flow.

  A sewer intended to carry waste
  water from home, businesses, and
  industries. Storm water runoff
  sometimes is coll€?cted and trans-
  ported in a separate system of pipe

  In common usage, skim milk
   (also designated non-fat,
  defatted, or "fat-free" milk)
  from which that fat has been
  separated as completely as
  commercially practicable.
  The maximum fat content is
  normally established by law
  and is typically 0.1% in
  the United States.  There is
  also a common but not univer-
  sal requirement that non-fat
  milk contain a minimum
  quantity of milk sclids other
  than fat, typically 8.25%.
  In many states the meaning
  of the term skim milk is
  broadened to include milk
  that contains less fat
  that the legal minimum for
  whole milk, such as the low-
                             158

-------
Stagdard_Manufacturing
Process
Susggnded_ Solids
Viaste
Waste Load
Vvbey
fat sold in the retail
market.  The term skim milk
used in this study refers
to non-fat milk.

Trickling filter slimes that
have been washed off the filter
media.  They are generally quite
high in BOD5 and will degrade
effluent quality unless removed.

An operation or a series of
operations which is essential
to a process and/or which
produced a waste load that is
substantially different from
that of an alternate method
of performing the same
process.  The concept was
developed in order to have
a flexible "building
block" means for charac-
terizing the waste from
any plant within an
industry.

Particles of solid matter in
suspension in the effluent
which can normally be removed
by settling or filtration.

Potentially polluting material
which is discharged or disposed
of from a plant directly to the
environment or to a treatment
facility which eliminates its
undesirable polluting effect.

Numerical value of any waste
parameter (such as EOC
content, etc.)  that serves
to define the characteristics
of a plant effluent.

Waste-containing water discharged
from a plant.   Used synonymously
with "effluent" in this report.

By-product in the manufacture of
cheese which remains after
                              159

-------
                                      separating the cheese curd frcm
                                      the rest of the milk used in the
                                      process.  Whey resulting from
                                      the manufacture of natural cheese
                                      is termed "sweet whey" and its
                                      composition is somewhat differ-
                                      ent to "acid whey" resulting from
                                      the manufacture of cottage cheese.
                                      Typically, whey is composed of
                                      93% water and 7% solids, including
                                      5% lactose.

Vjhole_Milk                         -  In its troad sense, the term whole
                                      milk refers to milk of coirposition
                                      such as produced by the cow.  This
                                      composition depends on many
                                      factors and is secisonal with fat
                                      content typically ranging between
                                      3.5% and 4.0%.  The term whole
                                      milk is also used to designate
                                      market milk whose fat content has
                                      been standardized to conform to a
                                      regulatory definition, typically
                                      3.5%.
                                160

-------
                                  TABLE  31

                               METRIC  UNITS

                             CONVERSION  TABLE
ILTIPLY  (ENGLISH  UNITS)

  ENGLISH  UNIT       ABBREVIATION
 re
 re  -  feet
 itish Thermal
 Jnit
 itish Thermal
 Jnit/pound
 lie feet/minute
 Die feet/second
 jic feet
 jic feet
 )ic inches
 ;ree  Fahrenheit
 :t  *
 .Ion
 .Ion/minute
 •sepower
 :hes
 hes  of mercury
 nds
 lion gallons/day
 e
 nd/square inch
 gauge)
 are  feet
 are  inches
 s  (short)
by            TO OBTAIN • (METRIC UNITS)

CONVERSION  ABBREVIATION  METRIC UNIT
                          hectares
                          cubic meters
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cf m
cfs
cu f t
cu f t
cu in
°F
ft
gal
gpm
hp
in
in Hg
Ib
mgd
mi
psig
sq ft
sq in
ton
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
(0.06805 psig +1
0.0929
6.452
0.907
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
1
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
)*atm
sq m
sq cm
kkg
                       yd
 0.9144
kilogram-calories
kilogram calories/
 kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/second
killowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic raeters/day
kilometer
atmospheres
 (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric tons
 (1000 kilograms)
meters
  :tual  conversion,  not  a multiplier
                                    161

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Moor
        ft  60604-3590

-------