vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
industrial E'lvnonfr-ental Resear:*
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA 600 2-78-203
'-^ ptemhe! 1978
Reuse of Treated
Fruit Processing
Wastewater in a
Cannery
EP bOO/2
78-203
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U S Environmental
Protection Agency have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental techno ogy Elimination of tradit onal grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology trans"er and a maximum interface in related fields
The nine series are
1 Environmental Health Effects Researcn
2 Environmental Protection Technology
3 Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Stud es
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8 "Special Reports
9 Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution This work
provides the new 01 improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/2-78-203
September 1978
REUSE OF TREATED FRUIT PROCESSING WASTEWATER
IN A CANNERY
by
Larry A. Esvelt
Esvelt Environmental Engineering
for
Snokist Growers
Yakima, Washington 98901
Grant No. S803280
Project Officer
Harold W. Thompson
Food and Wood Products Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis Field Station
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commerical products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, process-
ed, converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on
our environment and even on our health often require that new
and increasingly efficient pollution control methods be used.
The Industrial Environemental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(IERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both effici-
ently and economically.
This document reports the results of two years of investi-
gation of the reclamation and reuse of fruit processing waste-
water in a fruit cannery. The conclusions contained herein are
applicable to wastewater reclamation and reuse in plants pro-
ducing high acid processed foods in hermetically sealed con-
tainers. They may be of limited applicability for plant
operators producing low acid hermetically sealed processed
foods or frozen processed foods.
The conclusions and recommendations have been reviewed
by technical staff members of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Health Effects Research Laboratory and Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory (Food and Wood Products
Branch), the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and
Quality Service's Fruit and Vegetable Quality Division, the
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Food and Drug
Administration's Division of Food Technology, and the Western
Research Laboratory of the National Food Processors Association
These groups concur with the publication of the conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report.
Further information may be obtained from the Food and Wood
Products Branch of the Industrial Environmental Research Labor-
atory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
54268.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
-------
ABSTRACT
The Snokist Growers' Cannery at Yakima, Washington, has
conducted a 2-year investigation of processing wastewater
reclamation and reuse. Snokist's wastewater is generated from
processing approximately 250 metric tons (kkg) of pears or
peaches per day during a 9-to 12-week season beginning the last
week in August, and TOO to 150 kkg of apples per day during a
10-to 15-week season beginning in October. The seasons overlap
slightly. No sanitary wastes enter the processing wastewater,
which is treated by screening and an activated sludge system.
The treatment system was installed in 1968 with direct dis-
charge to the Yakima River. The effluent consistently meets
the Cannery's discharge permit, which was based on U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for 1977.
Reclamation of the biologically treated effluent by filtra-
tion through mixed media pressure filters and disinfection with
chlorine was investigated for two processing seasons. The
reclaimed water was put to several trial uses: (a) initial
product conveying, (b) equipment, floor and gutter wash,
(c) direct contact container cooling, and (d) boiler feed.
Steam generated from the reclaimed water was used on a trial
basis for equipment cleaning, exhausting, cooking and blanching
No degradation of the product was produced as a result of
reclaimed water use during these trial runs.
The cannery wastewaters and the biological treatment
system were monitored during the study period for comparison
with results from a 1967-1968 evaluation. Unit waste emission
rates for flow, COD, and BOD from the cannery were lower than
during the earlier study because of more efficient in-plant
controls. The biological treatment system performance was
approximately equivalent to that observed earlier except that
the endogenous respiration rate of the biological sludge was
lower. The treatment system was influenced adversely by chlor-
ine discharges from the cannery cleaning operations during
portions of both the 1975 and 1976 seasons.
The reclaimed water turbidity was consistently maintained
at 15 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) or less during the
1976 processing season through the end of pear processing
except for 1-week of biological treatment system upset caused
by chlorine toxicity. Overall during the 1976 season, 20 NTU
or less was maintained 87% of the time including extreme cold
i v
-------
weather periods. During 74% of the 1975 processing season,
20 NTU or less was maintained in spite of recurring chlorine
discharges that caused mild upset to the activated sludge system
for much of the season. Disinfection to less than 1-total
coliform per 100 ml and less than 500 total aerobic bacteria
per ml (total plate count) was consistently achieved by chlor-
ination to 3 mg/1 residual chlorine or greater with detention
time at approximately 1 hour. Cost for the wastewater reclama-
tion will be approximately 20 cents per cubic meter including
capital costs. Snokist Growers' Cannery wastewater discharge
reduction will be over 50% at full utilization of the reclaimed
effluent in the areas of cooling, initial product conveying
and floor and gutter wash. The EPA BATEA effluent guidelines
can be achieved during peach and pear processing, but may not be
met during apple processing.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of EPA RD&D Grant
S 803280 by Snokist Growers. The project was conducted under
partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The report covers the period of October 1974 through May 1977
when investigations were completed.
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD 111
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES ix
TABLES xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE 1
OBJECTIVES 2
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3
BACKGROUND 3
SECTION 2 CONCLUSIONS 6
FEASIBILITY OF WASTEWATER REUSE 6
WASTEWATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT 8
SECTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 10
INDUSTRYWIDE 10
SNOKIST GROWERS' CANNERY 10
SECTION 4 FACILITIES AND CONDUCT OF THE STUDY 12
TREATMENT FACILITIES 12
TREATMENT SYSTEM OPERATION AND MONITORING 22
REUSE TESTING OF RECLAIMED WATER 26
SECTION 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT.. 33
vii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Waste Load 33
Biological Treatment of Processing Wastewater .. 40
BIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT POLISHING FOR REUSE 55
Mixed Media Filter Performance 56
Disinfection 61
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL QUALITY OF THE RECLAIMED WATER. 71
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BY WASTEWATER REUSE 82
RECLAIMED WATER USE 90
Equipment Cleaning 91
Product Cleaning and Conveying 92
Steam Generation 94
Exhausting 97
Applesauce Cooking 98
Sliced Apple Blanching 99
Direct Contact Container Cooling 100
REFERENCES 103
APPENDIX 104
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Snokist Growers Wastewater Treatment System -
Schematic Flow Diagram - 1968-1974 14
2 Snokist Growers Cannery and Wastewater Treatment
System - Aerial Looking South 15
3 Snokist Growers Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation
System - Schematic Flow Diagram - 1975, 1976 19
4 Pressure Filter System 20
5 Continuous Turbidity and Chlorine Residual Analyzers
for Reclaimed Wastewater 21
6 Filter Feed and Reclaimed Water Pumps 21
7 Equipment Washdown Stations 28
8 Pear Peeler Line 28
9 Waste Peel and Core Slide Belt for Pear Line 29
10 Peach and Pear Dump and Initial Conveying Area 29
11 Can Cooler 29
12 Aeration Basin 42
13 Clarifier 42
14 COD Removal Rate Coefficient vs. Temperature 44
15 Net Sludge Growth vs. COD Removal Rate, 15-19°C 47
16 Net Sludge Growth vs. COD Removal Rate, 10-14°C 48
17 Net Sludge Growth vs. COD Removal Rate, 4-6°C 49
18 Net Sludge Growth vs. COD Removal Rate, 3°C or Less... 50
19 Endogenous Respiration Rate vs. Temperature 52
ix
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
20 Suspended Solids in Biological Effluent and Filter
Effluent 57
21 Effect of Alum Dose on Turbidity in Filter Effluent... 59
22 Chlorine Contact Tank Flow-through Characteristics.... 62
23 Reclaimed Effluent Coliform Count vs. Contact Chlorine
Residual -1976 65
24 Reclaimed Effluent Coliform Count vs. Contact Chlorine
Residual - 1975 66
25 Reclaimed Effluent Total Plate Count vs. Contact
Chlorine Residual - 1976 68
26 Reclaimed Effluent Total Plate Count vs. Contact
Chlorine Residual - 1975 69
27 Yeast, Mold and Mesophilic Spore Content in Reclaimed
Water vs. Chlorine Residual - 1976 70
28 Bacterial Count on Fruit and in Dump Tank Using
Reclaimed Water and House Water for Peach Dumping
and Conveying 95
29 Bacterial Count Recovered from Fruit Using Reclaimed
Water and House Water for Apple Dumping and
Conveying 95
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Existing 1974 Snokist Growers Process Wastewater
Treatment Facilities 13
2 Wastewater Polishing Facilities Constructed in
1975 16
3 Cost of Construction of Wastewater Filtration and
Disinfection Facilities 18
4 Wastewater Treatment System Testing and Monitor-
ing Schedule 24
5 Raw Processing Waste Emission Rate - 1974 34
6 Raw Processing Waste Emission Rate - 1975 35
7 Raw Processing Waste Emission Rate - 1976 36
8 COD Removal Rate Coefficients 43
9 Characteristics of Biological Sludge 53
10 Biological Effluent Quality 54
11 Mixed Media Filter Suspended Solids Removal 58
12 Wastewater and Water Supply Bacteriological
Quality 63
13 Reclaimed Effluent Turbidity 74
14 Heavy Metals Analysis Results, 1975 77
15 Heavy Metals Analysis Results, 1976 78
16 Pesticide Results 81
17 Organohalides in Reclaimed and House Water - 1976. 83
18 1974 Pollutant Emissions 84
19 1975 Pollutant Emissions 85
xi
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
20 1976 Season Pollutant Emissions 86
21 EPA Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Snokist
Growers Products 88
22 Cost of Wastewater Reclamation for Reuse 90
23 Swab Tests on Processing Belts and Equipment
Cleaned With Reclaimed and House Water - 1975... 91
24 Swab Tests on Waste and Product Belts Cleaned
With Reclaimed and House Water and Steam - 1976. 93
25 Boiler Feed Suitability 96
Al Sample Handling and Analytical Methods 105
A2 Swab Count Method for Machinery Mold 109
A3 Determining Bacterial and Soil Loads on Raw
Commodities 110
xn
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted by Snokist Growers of Yakima,
Washington at their cannery and cannery wastewater treatment
facilities. Mr. Frank Coleman, General Manager, and the Board
of Directors for Snokist Growers, are acknowledged for their
recognition of the need to investigate reclamation as an alter-
nate source of water supply and a means for pollutant dis-
charge reduction. The project director for this study was
Mr. Jule Graff. Mr. Mel Christenson and Mr. Darwin Finch,
cannery Manager and Assistant Manager, respectively, coordin-
ated the study with cannery operations. Mr. Don Peterson
directed construction necessary for the in-plant distribution
of the reclaimed water and for its in-plant control.
Mr. Herb H. Hart, Director of Pollution Control at Snokist
Growers Cannery managed the treatment system operations and
data collection. He was assisted in the laboratory by
Mrs. Nina Wright, Mrs. Jeanne Rippy, Mrs. Veatrice Jossi,
Mr. Dave Bybee, Miss Steva Ames, Mr. Ken Hegland and Mrs. Sharon
Hill.
Dr. Larry A. Esvelt of Esvelt Environmental Engineering
was Principal Investigator for this project. During project
and facilities design, he was employed by Bovay Engineers, Inc.
Mr. Harold W. Thompson of EPA's Food and Wood Products
staff, Corvallis, Oregon, was the project officer. He, Mr. Ken
Dostal , and Dr. Martin Knittel of the EPA Corvallis staff are
acknowledged for their technical assistance.
The National Food Processors Association, Western Research
Laboratory, provided assistance in the form of heavy metals
analysis, organoleptic evaluations and product grading during
the course of the study. Additional outside analysis were
performed by the Region X EPA laboratory in Seattle, by Fore-
most Foods laboratory in Dublin, California, by Columbia Lab-
oratories, Inc. of Corbett, Oregon, and by Dohrmann Corporation
of Santa Clara, California.
Mountain States Construction Company of Sunnyside, Wash-
ington, constructed the effluent polishing facilities. The
pressure filter system was provided by Neptune Microfloc, Inc.
Chlorination equipment was provided by Wallace and Tiernan,
Inc. Pumps were provided by Aurora.
x i i i
-------
A Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the work plan
and progress of this project. The committee consisted of:
Mr. David A. Patton, Acting Director, U.S.D.A. Fruit
and Vegetable Quality Division
Mr. Herbert R. Pahren, P.E., Physical Science Adminis-
trator, EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory
Dr. Reginald L. Handwerk, FDA Fruit and Vegetable
Products Branch, Division of Food Technology
Mr. Allen Katsuyama, National Food Processors
Association, Western Research Laboratory
Mr. Harold W. Thompson, P.E., Project Officer, EPA IERL
Food and Wood Products Branch
Mr. Herbert H. Hart, Project Manager, Snokist Growers
Dr. Larry A. Esvelt, P.E., Principle Investigator,
Esvelt Environmental Engineering
X!V
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This study was conducted to establish the technical and
economical feasibility of reusing treated processing effluent
from a cannery to supplement or replace a portion of the raw
water supply. This report describes the results of treatment of
fruit processing wastewater for reclamation and reuse. The qual-
ity of the reclaimed effluent and the results of pilot reuse
studies within a fruit cannery are reported. These investiga-
tions were aimed at establishing parameters for reclaimed water
quality and determining suitable uses within the fruit process-
ing cannery for the reclaimed waters. These results may be used
to determine whether reclamation and reuse projects are econom-
ically and technically viable at other locations for supplement-
ing limited water supplies and/or reducing the quantity of waste-
water and pollutants in discharges from food processing plants.
The purpose of this project was to supplement the water
supply of the Snokist Growers' cannery by reclaiming processing
wastewater so limitations on groundwater withdrawal for the can-
nery would not limit their fruit processing capabilities. The
project will also reduce effluent emission rates with Snokist
Growers' cannery to the Yakima River and result in water quality
improvements, especially during low flow periods.
Processing wastewaters from Snokist Growers' fruit cannery
contain no sanitary wastes. Treatment is by a biological treat-
ment system (activated sludge). This project evaluated polish-
ing of the biological effluent with multi-media filters and
disinfection for reclamation and reuse in the cannery. Uses
within the cannery included fairly continuous floor and gutter
wash and pilot use for equipment wash down, steam generation
and direct contact container cooling.
Evaluation of reclaiming and reusing the cannery's treated
processing effluent was predicated on historically low suspended
solids levels. A low suspended solids level is necessary for
reuse to allow adequate disinfection and to prevent contamina-
tion of equipment or product by foreign materials. Both turbid-
ity and suspended solids of the reclaimed water were monitored
during this study to determine its suitability for reuse.
1
-------
It is essential to have a water of good bacteriological
quality for use in a cannery. Thus one of the most important
criteria for reclamation of a wastewater is the capability for
producing a good quality water from a bacteriological stand-
point. Organisms of interest include those which can damage
the product, cause failure of the product or its packaging
during storage and those organisms which can transmit disease.
Since disease transmitting organisms (pathogens) occur in
extremely low densities even in poor quality water, indicator
organisms, more numerous in quantity, are measured to indicate
potential threat from these pathogens. Indicator organisms
normally used are of the coliform and fecal coliform groups.
Total bacteriological content of waters for cannery use is also
of interest since many other types of bacteria can cause pro-
blems with a product or its packaging during storage. Total
coliform organisms, fecal coliform organisms and total bacterial
plate count were used as indicators of bacteriological quality
for the reclaimed water for this study. Their removal was used
as an indication of disinfection performance in the treatment
system.
OBJECTIVES
The project was divided into two phases. The first phase
evaluated the feasibility of reusing treated process wastewater
within the processing plant. Phase one is reported in this
document. Phase two which has not been initiated to date would
be the commercial demonstration of reusing the treated waste-
water in those areas found feasible during phase one. The
specific phase one objectives were as follows:
1. To determine the feasibility of fruit processing waste-
water treatment to achieve a water quality suitable
for reuse; and to develop operational procedures to
insure consistant performance of the treatment system.
2. To determine the feasibility of reusing the treated
processing wastewater for:
A. Equipment cleaning;
B. Product cleaning and conveying;
C. Boiler feed to produce steam for:
(1) Cleaning,
(2) Exhausting,
(3) Cooking,
(4) Blanching; and
-------
D. Direct contact container cooling.
3. To document the reduction of pollutants being discharged
to the environment resulting from reuse of treated
processing wastewater; and evaluate the economics of
wastewater reuse for achieving EPA's 1983 effluent
standards .
Phase two objectives if undertaken, would be to demonstrate
on a commercial scale and continuous production basis, the
reuse of treated wastewater in areas determined feasible during
phase one.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A Technical Advisory Committee representing various agencies
interested in wastewater reuse in the food processing industry
was formed to review the work plans, project activities and
finally the conclusions and recommendations. The committee
members were charged with representing the interests of their
agencies during the project and with reviewing and making
recommendations for the project Conclusions and Recommendations
to allow their endorsement by the agencies. The committee
consisted of:
Mr. David A. Patton representing the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Food Safety and Quality Services' Fruit
and Vegetable Quality Division,
Mr. Herbert R. Pahren representing the Environmental
Protection Agency's Health Effects Research Laboratory,
Dr. Reginald L. Handwerk representing the U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare Food and Drug Admin-
istration's Division of Food Technology,
Mr. Allen Katsuyama representing the National Food
Processors Association's Western Research Laboratory,
Mr. Harold W. Thompson, Project Office representing the EPA
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory's Food and
Wood Products Division,
Dr. Larry A. Esvelt, Principle Investigator, and
Mr. Herbert H. Hart, Project Manager representing Snokist
Growers.
BACKGROUND
Snokist Growers is a grower's cooperative located in the
Yakima valley of Washington. The cooperative operates a fruit
-------
cannery near Yakima to process pears, apples, peaches, plums,
crab apples, cherries and other products of the growers. The
principle annual pack consists of canned pears and canned apple
products. During a typical season, the cannery processes
approximately 250 metric tons (kkg) of pears per day for about
two months, about 250 kkg of peaches per day for about one week,
and 100 to 150 kkg of apples per day for two to four months.
Cherries, plums and crab apples are processed for limited
periods during the season.
For several years prior to 1966, Snokist Growers was subject
to increasing pressure from regulatory agencies to upgrade the
quality of wastewater discharged to the Yakima River. In 1967
the cannery constructed an aerated lagoon treatment facility.
In 1968 it was upgraded to an activated sludge treatment system
with capability for limited sludge reaeration. These facilities
were evaluated under a Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration Research, Development and Demonstration Grant. The
results were highly gratifying and were made available through
the literature to processors throughout the United States,
Canada and the rest of the world for application on similar
wastewaters.1>2>3 The activated sludge system was effective in
reducing BOD and suspended solids levels in the processing
effluent on an efficient and consistent basis. Snokist Growers'
cannery wastewater treatment system was selected as being exem-
plary during the development of guidelines for. best practicable
technology for wastewater treatment according to provisions in
the Federal water quality amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500) .l+>5
The wastewater treatment system performed adequately from
1968 to 1973 and consistently produced a very clear effluent.
In 1973 Snokist Growers began consideration of reclaiming and
reusing the treated effluent in the cannery. The consideration
was prompted by a low water year in the northwest and a decreas-
ing water table in the vicinity of the plant. The ground water
level decrease resulted in one of the cannery's three wells
becoming unuseable and cannery personnel became concerned about
the integrity of the remaining two wells in the water supply
system. An investigation of the feasibility of an additional
well versus reclaiming a portion of the biological treated pro-
cess effluent for use in the cannery indicated that the lower
cost alternative was development of a new well supply. Results
of the feasibility analysis and the fact that Snokist was con-
sidering reclaiming effluent, reached EPA officials in charge
of evaluating the possibility of reducing food processing waste-
water emissions through reclamation and reuse in compliance with
the goals of Public Law 92-500 for limitation of pollutant
discharges.
-------
The national pollutant discharge elimination system admin-
istered by the EPA and by the States, requires that the dis-
charge of pollutants from a processing plant be limited to a
certain quantity per unit of product processed. The emission
quantities recommended allowable for fruit processing waste-
waters were developed and presented for two stages of implemen-
tation. The first stage intended for implementation by July 1,
1977, was mandated to be "best practicable control technology
currently available" (BPCTCA). The second stage developed for
implementation by July 1, 1983, is to be the "best available
technology economically achievable" (BATEA). Limitations on
emission rates for these two levels of technology were developed
for each fruit processed and presented in the development doc-
uments for proposed effluent limitation guidelines and new
source performance standards.4'5
Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) funds were
appropriated by Congress to assist in developing technology for
reduction of pollutants. The possible availability of these
funds induced Snokist Growers to submit an application for the
funds which would overcome the economic disadvantage of waste-
water reclamation and reuse when compared with the alternative
of a new well water supply. An EPA RD&D Grant S803280 was
awarded in late 1974, for the investigation of reuse of treated
fruit processing wastewater within the cannery. The grant
allowed for payment of a fee to Snokist to partially offset
the cost differential between wastewater reclamation and reuse
and the alternative solution to their water supply problem,
providing a new well. In addition, the investigative activities
and operating cost for the reclamation system during the grant
period were to be covered by the grant.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The study of Snokist Growers' Cannery wastewater treatment,
reclamation and reuse has resulted in the conclusions contained
in this Section. In considering the widespread application of
technology based on these conclusions, it must be remembered
that they are applicable to treatment and reclamation of a fruit
processing wastewater with no sanitary wastes, and reused in
areas of processing high-acid (fruit) products preserved by
heat treatment for storage in hermetically sealed containers.
Since high-acid products inherently inhibit the growth of many
microorganisms, caution should be exercised in application of
these conclusions to any other class of food, such as low-acid
canned foods and foods not subjected to a terminal thermal
process. These conclusions must not be considered applicable
to any wastewater containing sanitary wastes.
Conclusions have been divided into two categories, those
relating to the feasibility for reuse of Snokist's fruit pro-
cessing wastewater, and those relating to the processing waste-
water and its treatment. Conclusions in the first category,
reuse feasibility, have been reviewed and approved by members
of the technical advisory committee for the project and their
organizations: The EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory; the
EPA Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory; the FDA Food
Technology Division; the USDA Food Safety and Quality Service;
and the National Food Processors Association Western Research
Laboratory.
FEASIBILITY OF WASTEWATER REUSE
1. Snokist Growers biologically treated wastewater can be
polished by filtration and disinfected by chlorination to a
quality suitable for reuse within their cannery, except during
periods of high suspended solids discharge from biological
treatment.
2. The lack of consistency and the potential for equipment
malfunctions requires that continuous monitoring of reclaimed
water quality be sufficient to provide cannery operating per-
sonnel with early warning of deterioration. Residual chlorine
monitoring at two points, turbidity monitoring of the reclaimed
effluent and low chlorine residual and high turbidity alarms at
-------
strategic locations in the cannery are necessary to allow the
conversion to alternate water supplies for key cannery processes
in the event of effluent quality deterioration.
3. Based on this study, neither the quality nor the safety
of the final product is adversely affected by the use of
reclaimed processing wastewater. Specific uses evaluated were
equipment cleaning in the initial processing area, raw product
conveying, container cooling and boiler feed for steam genera-
tion. Steam generated from the reclaimed water was used for
equipment cleaning in the initial processing area, exhausting,
cooking and blanching. Monitoring for volatile organics in the
steam and product was not conducted so reclaimed water steam
use for exhausting, cooking and blanching cannot be concluded
as acceptable.
4. Toxic constituents tested for were not present in the
reclaimed effluent in concentrations sufficient to cause public
health concern for the final products. Heavy metals were at or
below primary drinking water standard maximum permissable con-
centrations. Pesticides were undetectable or below primary
drinking water standard levels. Halogenated organics were below
levels found in many drinking water supplies. No buildup of
these toxicants in the system with extended reuse was apparent
at the testing schedule conducted although added testing would
be desirable to confirm these results.
5. The reclaimed wastewater is suitable for full scale
continuous use for initial raw product conveying, washdown of
equipment in the initial processing area of the cannery (exclud-
ing peelers and peeled product conveyors), floor and gutter
washdown and direct contact container cooling when the quality
is maintained equal to:
Suspended solids 4 30 mg/1 ,
Turbidity < 20 NTU,
Total coliform < 1 organism/100 ml,
Fecal coliform < 1 organism/100 ml,
Total plate count 4 500/ml.
6. The reclaimed effluent is suitable for continuous full
scale boiler feed except that COD and dissolved oxygen were
higher than recommended levels. When the suspended solids are
higher in the reclaimed effluent than in the house tap water,
it may be less desirable for this use because of potential
solids buildup in the ion exchange boiler feed water treatment
system. Use of the generated steam may be restricted to areas
wnere it would not directly contact the product due to the
-------
unknown extent of concentration of volatile organics into the
steam.
WASTEWATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT
1. The cannery pollutant unit emission rates were lower
during this study than during the 1967-68 period, primarily
due to in-plant water use reduction and to preventing waste
solids (cores, peels) from contacting the wastewater.
2. Biological treatment performance is keyed to suffici-
ent nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) addition, control of
chlorination practices in the cannery and adequate aeration,
sludge return and clarification capacity.
3. Biological treatment kinetics during this study were
comparable to those observed during 1967-68: COD and BOD
soluble effluent concentrations were a function of the removal
rate per unit of mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS)
and the temperature (fj = 0.019 x l.TS^-ZOg COD removed/g
MLVSS-day-mg/1 COD); the activated sludge production per unit
COD or BOD removed was the same as reported earlier (Yield =
0.50 g VSS/g COD removed = 0.68 g VSS/g BOD removed); and the
endogenous respiration rate of the MLVSS was apparently lower
than observed earlier while still being equally temperature
dependent (kd = 0.05 x 1.15T-20g VSS/g VSS-day) .
4. The mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) composition
was approximately as reported in 1967-1968 (MLVSS/MLSS = 0.89,
COD/MLVSS = 1.38, BOD/MLVSS = 0.25, N/MLVSS = 0.074, P/MLVSS =
0.016).
5. Biological effluent quality deteriorated when chlorine
was periodically applied in dry form during plant cleanup and
flushed to the aeration system at startup, apparently due to
selective killing of portions of the activated sludge organisms.
The effluent deterioration occurred as high effluent suspended
solids and, during extreme upset (i.e., 1976), as high COD,
BOD and chlorine demand.
6. Direct biological effluent multimedia pressure filtra-
tion resulted in a normal reduction in suspended solids of 20
to 30 percent. Alum added ahead of direct filtration did not
improve the suspended solids removal. The polymers investigated
did not result in improvement either. Without upsets it is
possible to maintain a reclaimed (filtered) effluent quality
with a turbidity less than 15 NTU and a suspended solids concen-
tration less than 20 mg/1.
7. Chlorination to 3 mg/1 or above with approximately one
hour contact, consistently provided bacteriological reduction
to: total coliform < 1/100 ml; fecal coliform < 1/100 ml; total
8
-------
pi ate count < 500/ml .
8. The cost of reclaiming wastewater for reuse at Snokist
Growers' Cannery was about $0.20 per cu. meter, including the
cost of capital investment amortization. A new well development
would have resulted in a cost of about $0.085 per cu. meter of
water including capital investment amortization. The operating
cost of the two systems would be similar.
9. Snokist Growers can reduce its effluent emission rate
by more than 50% by using its reclaimed wastewater for initial
product conveying, container cooling and floor and gutter wash.
The BATEA discharge standards can be met during peach and pear
processing with this amount of reclamation and reuse.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations based on the results of this study are
divided into categories, those specifically pertaining to
Snokist Growers future operations of the wastewater reclamation
system and use of reclaimed water, and those pertaining to the
entire food processing industry. These recommendations have
been reviewed and approved by the technical advisory committee.
INDUSTRYWIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the food processing industry
consider wastewater reclamation and reuse as demonstrated at
Snokist Growers' Cannery as a viable alternative for reducing
pollutant emissions. It should be considered in concert with
other pollutant reduction measures such as in-plant controls.
2. It is recommended that industry and regulatory agency
representatives consider means for validating these results to
include low acid and non-thermally processed foods by confirm-
ing key results through further studies at appropriate facil-
ities .
SNOKIST GROWERS' CANNERY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Further demonstration of consistent performance for
reclamation is recommended. Funding of Phase 2 of the project
to demonstrate reclamation and reuse on a full scale basis for
a two year period should be obtained. Full scale use for can
cooling,for initial product conveying and for initial process-
ing area (prior to peeling) washdown would give full use of the
reclaimed effluent.
2. Monitoring of the reclaimed effluent during the demon-
stration seasons should include: coliform, fecal coliform and
total plate count analyses to demonstrate sanitary quality;
suspended solids and turbidity to demonstrate aesthetic quality;
heavy metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
halogenated organics to demonstrate whether there is a buildup
of toxic or carcinogenic substances during prolonged reuse.
The methodology, detection limits, frequency and quality assur-
ance program for all of these tests should be reviewed by con-
cerned regulatory agencies to assure that they will be able to
10
-------
apply the results on an industry wide basis.
3. Reclaimed water quality criteria for reuse in critical
areas such as direct contact container cooling should be set
at:
Coli form
Fecal Coli form
Total Plate Count
Turbidi ty
Suspended Solids
Chlorine Residual
Conform to the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regula-
tions
Conform to the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regula-
tions for Coli form
Equal to or less than 500/ml
Average, Equal to or less than
1000/ml max.
Equal to or less than 20 NTU
Equal to or less than 30 mg/1
Measurable residual at the point
of use.
4. It will be necessary to chlorinate to a residual of
approximately 3 mg/1 with one hour of contact to achieve ade-
quate bacterial kill. An alarm system for low chlorine residual
and for high turbidity in the reclaimed water should be extended
to appropriate locations for monitoring at all times that waste-
water is bei.ng reused in critical areas. In the event of a
chlorine residual or turbidity alarm during processing, water
supply to critical areas such as direct contact container cool-
ing should be converted to house water until the problem is
corrected .
5. Continued in-plant diligence to prevent chlorine
discharges toxic to the biological treatment system should be
maintained and to assure the protection of the biological system
and a consistent high quality effluent, the wastewater should
be equalized. The existing sludge reaeration basin should be
used for an equalization basin which would require inlet and
outlet structure modifications and addition of a pump in the
existing sludge pump building.
6. In-plant revisions are recommended to take full advan-
tage of reclaimed water and to reduce the cannery discharge.
Principally, this should consist of a collection and repurnping
system for cooler overflows to allow further use at the floor
and gutter wash areas. The remaining coolers should be plumbed
into the reclaimed water system.
11
-------
SECTION 4
FACILITIES AND CONDUCT OF THE STUDY
This study was conducted at the Snokist Growers cannery.
Reclaimed wastewater for reuse was produced from the cannery's
processing wastewater by biological treatment and effluent pol-
ishing facilities. Biological treatment was monitored during
the 1974 processing season and reclamation with pilot reuse was
evaluated during the 1975 and 1976 processing seasons. The
overall evaluation followed a detailed work plan which was devel-
oped by the principal investigator, project manager and the pro-
ject officer and was approved by the technical advisory commit-
tee .
TREATMENT FACILITIES
Facilities to provide activated sludge treatment of Snokist
Growers processing wastewater were constructed in 1967 and 1968
and were in existence at the start of this study. Effluent
polishing facilities were constructed in 1975 to enable the
cannery to reclaim water for reuse.
Biological Treatment Facilities
The wastewater treatment facilities at Snokist Growers were
described in the report of the 1967-68 R,D&D Grant.1 These fac-
ilities (Table 1) and a laboratory of approximately 800 square
feet were valued at approximately $500,000 in 1968. A schematic
flow diagram of the wastewater treatment system is shown on
Figure 1. Figure 2 is an aerial view of the system and the
cannery.
The nutrient deficient but high strength (carbohydrate)
wastewaters are screened, and nitrogen and phosphorus are added
before entering the aeration basin. The wastewater is mixed
with return sludge and is aerated for biological treatment. De-
tention time in the aeration basin is from three to five days.
The contents of the aeration basin are nearly completely mixed.
The aeration basin effluent flows to the clarifier where settl-
ing removes the activated sludge mixed liquor suspended solids
(MLSS) (bacteria), before discharge of the effluent to the
Yakima River and/or to the reclamation facilities. The sludge
is returned to the aeration basin by pumping, or "wasted".
12
-------
Wasted sludge is thickened by the flotation sludge thickener and
hauled to land disposal.
TABLE 1. EXISTING 1974 SNOKIST GROWERS PROCESS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Faci1i ty
Description
1. Screening
Aeration Basin
C1 a r i f i e r
8 mesh/cm (20 mesh/in) vibrating
screens.
22,700 cubic meter (6 million gallon)
earthen dike, PVC lined basin with 5
surface aerators having a total of
292 kw (390 horsepower).
27.5 meter (90 ft.) diameter, hydrau-
lic sludge removal, 2.4 m (8 ft.)
side water depth, center feed.
Sludge Recirculation Two variable speed pumps each with
6,600 liter per minute (1750 gal.
per minute) capacity.
5. Sludge Reaeration
Sludge Thickener
5,700 cu. meter (1.5 million gal.)
basin with 45 kw (60 horsepower)
surface aeration.
9.2 meter (30 ft.) diameter
pressurized recycle flotation sludge
thickener.
Design Capacity of Biological Treatment System
Flow = 6.8 x 106 liters/day (1.8 mgd)
COD = 10,000 kg/day (22,000 Ib/day)
BOD = 7,300 kg/day (16,000 Ib/day)
Reclamation Facilities
In 1975 Snokist Growers added facilities for reclaiming a
portion of the biologically treated processing effluent for re-
use in the cannery. These facilities, listed on Table 2, pro-
vide for multimedia filtration of the biological effluent, dis-
infection, and pumping to the cannery for reuse. Filtration is
through pressure filters and disinfection is by chlorination at
a controlled residual. The reclaimed effluent disinfection
system consists of a solution feed chlorinator which dissolves
gaseous chlorine into plant water for injection into the filtered
13
-------
SCHEENED WASTE
FROM CANNERY NUTRIENT(N, P)
[""ADDITION
METERING1 ' *~
TO RIVER
SLUDGE
REAERATION
BASIN
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION SLUDGE
THICKENER
PRESSURIZATION j
Y
AERATION
BASIN
WASTE FLOW
SLUDGE FLOW
Figure 1. Snokist Growers' wastewater treatment system
schematic flow diagram, 1968 - 1974.
14
-------
Figure 2. Snokist Growers' cannery and wastewater treatment system
aerial view looking south. Cannery is in the foreground;
small aeration basin, clarifier and large aeration basin
are at the top; and the sludge thickener, sludge recircul-
ation pumphouse and filter/chlorination building are east
of the clarifier.
15
-------
effluent. The chlorine solution is fed through a perforated
pipe diffuser into the filter effluent line ahead of the chlor-
ine contact tank. The chlorine contact tank feed and discharge
points are at opposite corners and 6 baffles across the tank
prevent short circuiting. The tank volume is approximately
220,000 liters. Bacterial kill is enhanced by plug flow condi-
tions in the chlorine contact facility and the baffles are in-
tended to provide as close an approximation to plug flow as
poss ible.
TABLE 2. WASTEWATER POLISHING FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTED IN 1975
Faci1i ty
Descri ption
1. Filters
2. Turbidity Meter
3. Filter and Backwash
Pumps
4. Chemical Feed Pumps
5. Reclaimed Water Pump
Two 2.4 meter (8 ft.) diameter by 1.8
meter (6 ft.) high pressure filters.
Area = 4.7 sq. meters (50 sq.ft.) each
Media = Microfloc MF 177 - 91.5 cm
(36 in.) depth: 30% 1.5 sp.gr. anthra-
cite (3 mm); 30% 1.6 sp.gr. anthracite
30% 2.6 sp.gr. silica sand; 10% 4.0
sp.gr. garnet sand (0
on 7.6 cm (3 in.) 1-2
sand and 28 cm (11 i-n
gravel. Max. f1ow
1400 liter/min.ea.
.25 mm) supported
mm 4.0 sp.gr.
.) graded silica
rate = 0.5 cm/sec =
Backwash rate =
1.2 cm/sec = 3400 liter/min.ea.
Equipped with pipe underdrain, surface
wash, pneumatically operated automatic
valves, automatic backwash program,
flow and headloss meters and automatic
f1ow control.
Low range, continuous flow - Hach CR
Two constant speed 3800 liter (1000
gal.) per min @ 20 meter (66 ft.)
TDH/2600 liter (700 gal,,) per min.
@ 23 meter (75 ft.) TDH pumps, inter-
changeable. 22.5 KW.
Liquid alum storage and automatic
stroke-adjustable feed pump. Polymer
stroke-adjustable feed pump. To be
used if needed.
Split case 2600
min. @ 54 meter
37 KW.
1iter (700 gal .) per
(177 ft.) TDH pump.
(continued)
16
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Faci1ity
Descri ption
6. Chiori nator
Chlorine Residual
Analyzers
9.
Chlorine Contact
Chamber and Backwash
Water Storage
Controls and
Operation
One 227 kg (500 Ib.) per day chlorin-
ator with motorized control valve
and motorized vacuum valve for "com-
pound 1oop" control.
Two wastewater type amperometric con-
tinuous flow analyzers for monitoring
and controlling chlorine residual at
the filter effluent and for monitor-
ing chlorine residual at the reclaimed
water pump inlet.
Two hundred twenty seven cu. meter
(60,000 gal.) baffled chamber - 11.6
meters (38 ft.) x 6.7 meters (22 ft.)
x 3 meters (10 ft.) deep with 6
baffles.
a. Flow to filters automatically
maintained according to chlorine
contact level up to a preset
maximum rate per filter.
b. Filter backwash initiated by timer,
high head loss across filters or
manually.
c. Chlorine residual automatically
maintained by flow proportioning
and residual monitoring and feed
rate adjustment.
d. Chemical feed of alum and/or poly-
mers, if used, paced to filter
flow rate.
e. Reuse pump automatic shutdown at
low contact tank level.
f. Alarms transmitted to wastewater
lab and plant for appropriate
action due to the following:
1) Low or high chlorine residual
in reclaimed water.
2) High turbidity in filtered
water. (continued)
17
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
3) Low contact tank/backwash stor-
age 1 eve! .
4) Filter system malfunction.
Figure 3 shows a schematic flow diagram of the wastewater
treatment facilities including the reclamation facilities.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 are photographs of the pressure filters and
piping, the chlorine residual and turbidity analyzers, and the
pumps used for pumping to the filters and to the cannery.
The cost of construction for the wastewater reclamation fac-
ilities was approximately $325,000 as detailed on Table 3.
These costs increased Snokist Growers total investment in waste
water treatment and handling facilities to above $800,000.
TABLE 3. COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER
FILTRATION AND DISINFECTION FACILITIES
Faci 1 i ty
1. Filter Building, including Contact
Tank in Basement
2. Filters, Installed Including Controls
3. Pumps, Installed
4. Chlorine Equipment, Installed
5. Piping & Plumbing in Building
6. Chemical (Alum) Feed Pump & Storage
Cost
$ 76,090
72,140
10,800
15,230
51 ,020
5,790
Installed
7. Water Line & Reclaimed Water Line 12,710
to Cannery
8. Biological Effluent Line to Filter 3,060
Building
9. Electrical 20,570
10. Piping Inside of Cannery 36,230
11. Design Engineering 21 ,930
Total $325,570
18
-------
SCREENED WASTE
FROM CANNERY
WASTEWATER
REUSE IN
CANNERY
METERING
,*>
NUTRIENT
I~ADDITION
SLUDGE
REAERATION
BASIN
-------
"O
O)
S-
cu
QJ
C
r- rO
E
S- S- CU O CU
CU O .E -I- C
+-> » 4-> +-> Q.
r .E S-
O) _c
r- O
CM CO
O 0)
S- -E
o
QJ O r
-E z ro
-(-> - >
E 4-> i
O 4- O
S- CU S-
co
-o 3
CU ID O
O) C i
4- -i- 4-
JZ
S- CU T3
CU -Q C
4-> ro
(O T3
S C CO
CU ro S-
4-> O)
CO +-> -M
(O 4- OJ
3 CU E
JC 4J
co C7) ro
S- 3 E
CU O O
4-> S- +->
C -C 3
CU -(-> ro
^: co co
CO O) T-
rO Ol
2 S- cn
^>^ ro c:
o .c -r-
ro o ^:
CO CO CO
- ro
-(->
C
CU
E -c
> 4-) 4-
CO CU
I/I
i- aj $.
CU O> CU
4-> S- 4->
r rO r
i- -C -r-
4- O 4-
to
CU -ii- CU
i- -o .c
3 +->
CO 5-
co 0) QJ
CU -t-> -4->
S- ro O
a. ~s z.
O)
S-
c -o o
i- C ro
CTi ro CQ
S-
ro S-
E CU
+-> i-
+J C CU
4- O) +->
QJ O C CO
i OJ CU
+-> O >
+-> J= r
ro cn -4-> ro
i- 4- >
QJ i- CU
QJ i T3
+J +J Ol
ro Q--(->
C O ro
r- CU +J 3
Q. 4J
-O -i- QJ O
Or- >>
QJ ro 4-> i
r-j O ro i
C -i- ro
i- +-> QJ O
S- Q.-I-
CO QJ -r- +-»
i- > Q- ro
20
-------
Figure 5. Continuous turbidity and chlorine residual
analyzers for reclaimed wastewater. Filters
are in the background.
Figure 6. Filter feed and backwash
water pump.
pumps and reclaimed
21
-------
TREATMENT SYSTEM OPERATION AND MONITORING
The biological treatment system was monitored during the
1974, 1975 and 1976 processing seasons and the effluent polish-
ing system, constructed in 1975, was operated and monitored
during the 1975 and 1976 processing seasons. The performances
of the systems were monitored to determine the feasibility for
reuse and to document pollutant reduction. Operation and mon-
itoring of the reclamation system was conducted during pear,
peach and apple processing from late August into the winter.
Treatment System Operation
Figure 3 shows the schematic flow diagram for the wastewater
treatment system. The nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus were
added in the form of diammonium phosphate and aqueous ammonia to
the screened and metered processing wastewater. The nutrient
addition was established initially at ratios of 0.04 to 1 of
nitrogen to COD and 0.006 to 1 of phosphorus to COD. After
start up and establishment of the biological treatment system,
the nutrient feed rate was adjusted according to the concentra-
tions of nitrogen and phosphorus in the supernatent from the
mixed liquor. The feed was adjusted to maintain from 0.5 to 1
mg/1 of ammonia and/or nitrate nitrogen and the same concentra-
tion of phosphate phosphorus. The system was operated to main-
tain no less than 2 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen and sludge recycle
was maintained to retain all of the solids in the system. The
sludge recycle rate was normally 1.5 to 2 times the wastewater
flow rate. After the solids in the basin (mixed liquor sus-
pended solids MLSS) reached approximately 4000 mg/1, sludge
wasting was initiated to the flotation thickener. The thicken-
ed solids were hauled via tank truck to disposal on farm land
in the Yakima area.
The biological treatment system was designed for COD removal
rates of approximately 0.20 grams COD per gram mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids per day (g COD/g MLVSS day). The
clarifier was designed for a surface loading rate not to exceed
16,000 liters per day per square meter (1/sq m-day) and the
sludge recirculat ion capacity was designed for up to two times
the maximum influent flow rate. Up to 2,800 liters per minute
of secondary effluent can be applied to the pressure filters.
The actual flow rate depends on the demand exerted by the reuse
pump to the cannery and the need for backwash water for the
filters. Filtration rate of the reclaimed wastewater was de-
signed at up to 0.5 centimeters per second(cm/sec) face velocity
on the filter media. The filter backwash flow rate was set at
approximately 1.2 cm/sec face velocity. Each filter flow rate
is controlled by an orifice flow meter and pneumatically
operated modulating butterfly valve. Chlorine is injected into
the filtered effluent line through a diffuser which extends
across the filtered effluent line ahead of the contact tank.
22
-------
The chlorine residual monitoring points are at the contact tank
entrance and effluent. The continuous chlorine residual analy-
zers record the chlorine residual. The chlorine feed rate is
paced to the filter flow rate and adjusted according to the
residual at the contact tank entrance, resulting in a compound
loop chlorine control system.
Treatment System Monitoring
Snokist Growers wastewater treatment system was routinely
monitored through the 1974, 1975 and 1976 processing seasons
for several chemical and biological parameters. Points in the
system specifically monitored were the processing wastes follow-
ing screening, the aeration basin, the clarifier effluent, and
the return activated sludge. During the 1975 and 1976 seasons,
when the reclamation system was in operation, the reclaimed
effluent was monitored following filtration and following dis-
infection. Table 4 shows the routine monitoring program con-
ducted during the study for the treatment system and reclama-
tion systems.
Snokist Growers cannery well water supply was also sampled
on a number of days during the 1975 and 1976 processing season.
Analyses included COD, total solids, ammonia, organic and
nitrate nitrogen, ortho and total phosphorus, calcium, magnes-
ium, alkalinity, chloride, sulfate and color. Trace material
analyses were performed on the reclaimed effluent and on the
Snokist raw water supply for comparison. Analyses included
reactive silicate, detergent (MBAS), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), volatile halogenated organ i c s, total halogenated organ-
ics, and the heavy metals; arsenic, lead, zinc, tin, copper,
cadmium, mercury, iron, sodium, potassium, manganese and alum-
inum. Heavy metal analyses were also performed on wastewater
samples before treatment during the 1976 season for comparison.
Bacteriological analyses on the reclaimed effluent during
the 1975 and 1976 seasons included total plate count and total
coliform daily; and fecal coliform, staphylococcus and Salmon-
ella weekly. Yeast, mold and total spore forming plate count
tests were performed on the reclaimed effluent periodically
during the 1976 season.
Analyses were performed according to EPA recommended meth-
ods for the most part. However, some of the analyses were not
according to the specific method recommended and a number had no
EPA recommended method. The analytical methods were agreed
upon between the project officer, principal investigator and the
project manager prior to initiation of the evaluation. A sum-
mary of the methods used is included in the Appendix.
23
-------
H
i_q
ID
Q
W
( 1
U
CO
T f\
U
2
r^-t
H
t*S
PH
O
EH
H
2
O
S
Q
§
O
1 »
r1-*
H
EH '
CO
t]
M-i
EH
S
H
EH
CO
>H
CO
EH
t-^r
w
*r<
^-H
EH
H H
n) («H
rH H-f
O W
C
0
H
-P C
(0 -rl
n u
0) nS
.< «
.
t-
0)
'O -P
(U n
C £
0) 0)
-------
d
£
C
H
4J
C
0
U
*
^
W
m
EH
4-1 G
G to
rj
H 4J
UH t7> O
*M C (d
W -H -P
£ C
-d o o
H O
Id fa CO
^H W
O G)
(U 4->
/^ _ J
HH ^^
H
fa
0) 4->
H C
M-t O
H !3
M rH
It} t-l
r-t »W
U W
C
0
H
-P C
V4 CO
0) nJ
-H -H O Id
t7* Id rH fH O rH
O rH O O 0 H
rH 04 U U rH 0)
0 >1 G
H rH rH rH X! O
rl Id Id i
U ri
C (U
C
H
U
O
rH
rH
0
^.
25
-------
REUSE TESTING OF RECLAIMED WATER
An objective of the study was to determine the feasibility
of reusing the treated fruit processing wastewater for:
A. Equipment cleaning;
B. Product cleaning and conveying;
C. Boiler feed to produce steam for:
1 . Cleaning;
2 . Exhausting;
3 . Cooki ng ;
4 . Blanchi ng.
D, Direct contact container cooling.
Reclaimed water was used during the 1975 and 1976 process-
ing seasons to conduct pilot experiments in the cannery for
each of these uses. Data was collected on using the reclaimed
water and on using house water for the same purposes.
Equipment Cleaning
The processing equipment in the cannery is normally cleaned
with high pressure chlorinated water mixed with steam from the
boiler system. Comparative cleaning experiments were conducted
during both the 1975 and the 1976 processing seasons. Peelers
and adjacent peeled product belt conveyors (processing lines)
were washed down with reclaimed water and house or reclaimed
water steam, or the normal steam-water mixture. After wash
down, the belts were sampled for total plate count and mold to
compare the use of the experimental and the normal wash down
water sources. Sampling was done using the swab contact method
(see Appendix A) on 2 belts for each processing line studied,
a "peeler" belt and a subsequent "shaker" belt.
During the 1975 season, parallel pear processing lines
were washed down using reclaimed water and house steam on one
line and chlorinated house water and house steam on the other
line for several days during the processing season. Following
sampling on the lines for bacterial and mold residual, the
line washed with the reclaimed water and house steam was re-
washed using house water and house steam to assure that no con-
tamination of product could take place. Later during the 1975
season, an apple processing line was washed down using reclaimed
water and house steam on several days. It was rewashed with
house water and house steam following sampling. The apple line
26
-------
was sampled following wash down under normal procedures with
house water and house steam on a like number of days.
During the 1976 processing season, three parallel pear lines
were used for equipment cleaning comparison. Line No. 1 was
washed down using reclaimed water and steam generated from
reclaimed water by a portable steam generator described later.
Line No. 2 was washed down using reclaimed water and house
steam. Line No. 3 was washed down using house water and house
steam. The washed equipment were sampled for total plate count
and mold following the wash down procedures which were conducted
once each week for six weeks. The processing equipment on the
experimental Lines No. 1 and 2 was rewashed with house water
and house steam following this sampling.
Figure 7 shows two adjacent "wash down stations" with steam
and water pipes joining ahead of the common hose bib for each
station. The two wash down stations shown on Figure 7 are
adjacent to the experimental wash down area of the No. 1 pro-
cessing line. Figure 8 shows a typical pear processing line
with peelers and the belts used to carry the fruit.
During the 1976 processing season, pear peelings and other
solids were recovered prior to entering the gutter system.
These solids were transported by a conveyor belt and discharged
down a belting covered slide and into bins which were emptied
into trucks for hauling to disposal. These slides on Lines 1,
2 and 3 were daily washed with reclaimed water and steam gen-
erated from reclaimed water, reclaimed water and house steam,
house steam and house water, respectively, for a six week
experimental period. They were not rewashed using house water
and house steam following sampling. They were sampled twice
weekly during this period to determine the long term effect of
using reclaimed water for equipment washing. One of these
slides is shown on Figure 9.
Product Cleaning and Conveying
During the 1976 processing season, reclaimed water was used
in the peach dump tanks which receive peaches from the bins in
which they are transported to the cannery. This dump tank
system has sodium sulfate added to increase the peach floatabil-
ity so they can be more easily removed. Reclaimed water was
used for a three day period and a comparable three day period
using house water was also evaluated. The water in the dump
tank; and the peaches prior to dumping, following removal from
the dump tank, and following a spray rinse were tested for bac-
teria count for comparison. The dumping facilities are shown
on Figure 10 being utilized for pear dumping. Peach dumping is
done in a similar manner.
Following analysis of the results of the peach dumping using
27
-------
Figure 7. Equipment washdown stations. House steam/house
water on the left and reclaimed water steam/reel
aimed water on the right for pear line No. 1.
Figure 8. Pear peeler line.
28
-------
Figure 9. Waste peel and core slide
for pear line. Slide was
covered with belting.
Figure 10. Peach and pear dump and
initial conveying area.
Fruit in bins entered the
dump at top left, floats
from the bins at top center
and enters the cannery at
lower right.
Figure 11. Can cooler. Cooling water
enters pipes from top of
picture. Left top is house
water and right top is
reclaimed water.
29
-------
the reclaimed and house water, and review by the Technical
Committee, similar dumping comparisons for apples were conducted
for the remainder of the 1976 processing season. The apples
prior to dumping and following dumping, and the dump water,
were tested for approximately two weeks using reclaimed water,
and three weeks using house water.
Using Reclaimed Water for Boiler Feed
During the 1976 processing season, a portable steam gener-
ator was rented and installed in the cannery to convert re-
claimed water to steam for various pilot uses in the cannery.
Pilot tests were conducted over a two month period using the
reclaimed water steam for equipment cleaning, exhaust box steam
during pear processing, blanching sliced apples and cooking
applesauce.
Reclaimed Water Steam for Equipment Cleaning --
The portable steam generator which converted reclaimed
water to steam was used over a six week period for comparative
cleaning. Testing was described above under Equipment Cleaning.
One of the three parallel lines was cleaned with reclaimed
water steam and reclaimed water for comparison with the other
two lines using house steam and reclaimed water, and house
steam and house water. Total plate count and mold analyses
were done on samples from the lines following cleaning. After
testing for comparative sanitary quality, the equipment and
belts which were washed with reclaimed water or reclaimed water
steam, were rewashed with house water and house steam in order
to prevent inadvertent contamination.
The three peeling and core slides described above were
washed with reclaimed water and steam generated from reclaimed
water, reclaimed water and house steam, and house water and
.house steam as discussed earlier.
Exhausting --
Many fruits and vegetables wnicn are sterilized by thermal
processing and preserved in sealed cans are "exhausted" before
the can lid is seamed into place. This consists of passing the
filled can through an "exhaust box" where live steam is applied
which preheats the can and its contents to drive out dissolved
air before the can lid is applied. During two short pilot runs,
steam from the portable steam generator, using reclaimed water,
was used to exhaust a batch of canned pears to compare with
pears exhausted using the house steam under normal continuous
processing procedures. Evaluations were made by grading of the
processed fruit and by organoleptic evaluation. The organo-
leptic evaluation was conducted according to the "triangle test"
CAppendi x).
30
-------
Cooking with Reclaimed Water Steam --
Steam generated from the portable boiler was used to batch
cook applesauce during two product pilot runs during the 1976
processing season. The commercial applesauce cooker operates
on a continuous basis with a scroll auger to move the apple-
sauce through in a certain time period. The experimental oper-
ation consisted of batch cooking applesauce with steam generated
from reclaimed water. The cooked applesauce was then canned.
A similar batch was cooked with steam generated from house water
and canned for comparison. Batch cooking consisted of filling
the cooker with applesauce and injecting steam to bring the
applesauce up to the pre-specified cooking temperature. Con-
tainers of applesauce from the normal run (continuously cooked)
at the end of the processing day, prior to the batch testing,
were retained for comparison with the batch cooked applesauce.
Thus three sets of samples from each of the two runs were re-
tained for testing by USDA grading procedures and by organolep-
tic evaluations.
Blanching with Reclaimed Water Steam --
During the 1976 season, apple slices were blanched using
reclaimed water steam from the portable steam generator. Two
separate runs of blanching with the reclaimed water steam and
with house steam were conducted for comparison. The normal
blanching operation, as with the applesauce cooking, is contin-
uous. For experimental blanching, the blancher was filled with
apple slices and then steam was injected to bring it up to
blanching temperature. The apple slices were canned for preser-
vation. A similar batch of apple slices were blanched under
the same conditions with steam generated from house water for
comparison. Cans of apple slices from the regular continuous
run were retained for comparison with the batch processed pro-
ducts by USDA grading and organoleptic evaluation.
Direct Contact Container Cooling
A major potential use for reclaimed water at the Snokist cannery is
direct contact container cooling. This potential use alone could reduce
the amount of water supply necessary and the plant discharge by approximately
30 percent. During the 1975 season, slightly over a thousand cans were
cooled with reclaimed and with house water under similar conditions in a
can cooler that had been brought up to a normal cooling temperature by
steam injection (approximately 35°C). One thousand cans from each of the
reclaimed and the house water cooling runs were stored at approximately
18°C. They were inspected after six months and after one year for failures.
One hundred containers from each of the cooling runs were shipped to the
NFPA Laboratory in Berkeley for two months storage at approximately 30°C
to simulate long-term storage. Following this storage, they were visually
inspected, vacuum was checked and they were opened for product
31
-------
inspection.
During the 1976 season, slightly over three thousand cans
(about one pallet) were cooled under continuous flow conditions
with each of the reclaimed and house waters. Approximately 100
cans from the control test and 100 from the reclaimed water test,
were sent to the NFPA and stored at 35°C for six months. At
the end of the storage period, the containers were checked for
vacuum and examined for spotting, corrosion and other defects.
The remainder of the cans were stored at the cannery at approx-
imately 18°C. They were examined for can failure after one
year.
Figure 11 shows the can cooler. The dual piping shown allowed
either house water from one of the feed pipes or reclaimed
water from the other feed pipe to be used for container cooling.
32
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of monitoring the wastewater, the treatment
system and the reuse activities are presented in summarized and
analyzed form. Raw data are presented only where necessary to
indicate particular aspects of the studies. Monitoring data
were contained in two progress reports for 19756 and 19767 and
in a separate EPA report.g They are available from the Food and
Wood Products Branch of EPA's lERL-Ci if needed.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
The results obtained during this study are compared with
those obtained during the 1967-68 Snokist R&D study1'2'3
to provide a better knowledge of the wastewater treatability
and the biological treatment system characteristics.
Waste Loajj
During the 1974, 1975 and 1976 seasons, Snokist Growers'
cannery processed pears, peaches, apples and plums. Pears
were canned as halves or slices as were peaches. Plums were
canned whole, and apples were canned as apple rings, apple
slices or applesauce. A summary of the cannery emission rates
for flow and COD is included on Tables 5, 6 and 7 for the 1974,
1975 and 1976 processing seasons respectively.
The cannery wastewater after screening on the 8 mesh/cm (20 mesh/in)
vibrating screen, is very low in suspended solids and the prin-
ciple loading for the biological treatment system is oxygen
demanding soluble organics. These organics are measured as COD
and BOD. The COD was monitored on a daily basis, whereas the
BOD was only monitored on a weekly basis during the 1975 and
1976 processing seasons, and on a bi-weekly basis during 1974.
A BOD to COD ratio was established during this project from 41
samples of screened processing effluent.
BOD:COD ratio = 0.73 mg BOD/mg COD
Standard Deviation = 0.07
This is compared to 0.75 with a standard deviation of 0.10 dur-
33
-------
-a*
r-
O-i
I
H
O
H
CO
CO
w
w
EH
H
CO
CO
H
O
O
PS
CL,
in
m
EH
QJ O
P rH
0) b
nl
H tn
£ .V
D X
nj tr>
PX
O
0)
0)
(0
o
PM O
M
cu
0)
^J r>
m cr»
Q iH
rHCOf^iHrH
Csj
cu
in CNJ (Ninininininm
in n ..............
M CU PH M H 0)
iniHHooinvovorHf-irHHi-iiHi-i«50orMrorM
0 -0 3
9 c o
^ -c c
O en fd
>1 T-\ 01
"i m tn
-J 0
«J -P H
0 *o o
en
a)
(D
-------
H
3
rl
in
r-
H
CO
W
H
e
H
Q
O
U
W
O
H
CO
CO
H
s
w
w
EH
CO
0)
^J
n)
P
H
3
M
CM
tn
AJ
AJ
e
3
O
H
CO
co
w
u
3
O
3
O
X
EH
di
S
3
CO-
rf!
EH
4J
rl
0)
W
CO
o
o
di
iH (X rH
O
VO CM O
^* in oo
^4 pL^ pL| (H^ (|) O
^^ in ^p ^j* oo co
^« CO VO VO CM 00
rH rH rH rH CTVCyirHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH
35
-------
vo
W
EH
§
H
CO
CO
H
g
w
w
EH
CO
S
u
!Z5
H
CO
CO
w
u
CM
&
r^
W
ffl
c
o
H
W
(0
H
g
w
§
u
M
H Cn
C ,
CP
4J
O
EH
01
a
P rH
n fo
O
-o
0)
-P (0
H w tn
^ o
M o
CM O
V)
(U vo
+J t-
rt en
Q ^
n
0)
d
c
H
O
o
00
r-
vo
00
CM
O^ O ^ (N
(N VO O H M
m r*> (N c
03 J^ S^ Vj
CM Oj CM CM
I
O O 00 00 O
&,
OOrHrHHiHrHHH
36
-------
^
13
CD
3
G
H
-P
c
o
(J
f^»
w
i-q
«
<;
EH
-p
.r
*
M
fn
P
H tn
C C .X
O D .*
, i Nt.
rl ^s^
to tn
to x
H
g
W
Q
O rH
u rd t^
j i \j
+* »*
0 ^
EH
-P
"^
r"
r
t,
tn
M X
CD .*
p \
(d g
& :s
3 o 3
P H O
W Cn
(d
s a
t
3
O
3
O
x:
EH
T3
0)
-P CO
-H to tn
'"I 111 k>
r-* Vl/ rX
M O ^4
fc 0
li
M
Oi
to
0) V£l
4J I-
fH rt\
IV) wl
Q H
rH in in
o r» cr\
CN rH rH
o\ ro r>
r^ o cri
rH
r- H co
in in rH
rH rH rH
in oo cri
rH co in
vo oo in
<«
rH 00 ^
OA 00 O\
ro in ^r
<
m\
CN n o
1 1 rH
n oo i
CN CN t^
CN CN CO
c
T3 ^ O
(1) * tQ
P -'H
O H
Q) t) fd
H M 1
W 0)
en >
c c
H O
rH O
0)
0) -P
OiH
0)
M X)
rd
i
O4 X)
0)
M to
0) M
X! Q)
*s
-p 3
O*tn
(U
o o
x -P
0)
^J
^ c
rH (U
rd £
to
0
0) H
P rH
rd rd
M
rd C
CX 0)
Q) J5
W >
to
0)
4J
0
p c:
3 rd
n o x:
o o
m . CD
-- n e
(D
g M q
CD 3 -P
-P -P
to U CD
>i td 3
to m TJ
r<
O
C
O
CD rd
> M CD
C rd W
O tn
U CD »w
C O
><-H
r( > X
T3 O
O 3
OJ -P g
O
O
H d
rd -H
tO (H
id
CD
. to
t) TJ g
C CD
rd CD rH
0X1
_ >i"H O
Q. M > r(
CD M a
CD > CD
H O tO rH
a u rd
a CD M-I o
CN
37
-------
ing the 1967-68 period.
In order to compare waste treatment requirements between
various processors and products, it is beneficial to know the
unit emission rates for flow and pollutants. The unit emission
rate is the quantity of wastewater flow and of pollutants per
unit of product or per unit of raw material used in the process.
Average emission rates were calculated for peaches and plums
by linear regression over the three season period. There were
very few days when either of the products were processed separ-
ately and even then in the case of plums, the daily waste load
reflected extended clean up operations from previous pear or
peach processing. The peach and plum emission rates for the
study period were as follows based on the quantity of raw fruit
processed in metric tons (kkg):
Peach wastewater flow = 16.6 cu.m/kkg
Plum wastewater flow = 44 cu.m/kkg
Peach COD = 36 kg/kkg
Plum COD = 32 kg/kkg
Peach BOD = 26 kg/kkg
Plum BOD = 24 kg/kkg
The BOD emission values were calculated from the BOD/COD
ratio and the COD emission rates. The Standard Deviations for
these values were about 15 percent of the arithmetic mean.
The 1967-1968 period had emission rates of about 30 cu.m waste-
water flow/kkg, fruit about 48 kg COD/kkg and about 33 kg
BOD/kkg for each product.1
Emission rates for pears and apples were calculated for
each season when the products were processed separately, and
by linear regression for each pear, apple and combined pear-
apple season. There were no significant differences between the
unit flow rates for apples or pears between the three process-
ing seasons even though the flows varied considerably for the
apples, especially within each processing season. Based on
linear regression analysis, the wastewater flows for apple and
pear processing were as follows:
Pear Wastewater Flow = 17 cu.m/kkg
Apple Wastewater Flow = 22 cu.m/kkg
The Standard Deviation for the wastewater emission rate from
pear processing was approximately 10 percent of the mean. For
apples, the Standard Deviation was approximately 35 percent of
38
-------
the mean. Apples are processed into several product styles
which accounts for the high variation in wastewater flows.
These emission rates compare with about 24 cu.m/kkg for pears
and 34 cu.m/kkg for apples during the 1967-68 seasons and in-
dicate that in-plant awareness of water usage have resulted in
a lowering of the emission flow rate.
The COD emission rates for both pears and apples were
significantly different between processing seasons of this
study. The linear regression derived unit COD emission rates
agreed with measurements taken during separate pear processing.
The unit COD emission rates obtained by linear regression for
apples, however, were somewhat different from rates found dur-
ing separate apple processing. The apple processing tonnage
was much less than the tonnage of concurrently processed pears
and thus the waste load from apples was out weighed by that
from pears in the linear regression analysis. Based on the
linear regression, the COD and BOD emission rates for pears
during the three processing seasons studied were as follows:
Pear 1974 season COD = 61 kg/kkg, BOD = 44 kg/kkg
Pear 1975 season COD = 42 kg/kkg, BOD = 31 kg/kkg
Pear 1976 season COD = 23 kg/kkg, BOD = 17 kg/kkg
There was a significant difference between the COD and BOD
unit emission rates for the 1974 and 1975 and 1976 processing
season. The differences can be explained as follows: During
the 1974 processing season, the pear quality coming into the
cannery was poor which resulted in a greater amount of peel and
pear flesh lost during processing due to softness. The emiss-
ion rate was significantly greater than during the 1975 season.
It was also greater than during the 1967 and 1968 seasons when
a COD unit emission rate of 52 kg/kkg and a BOD emission rate
of 39 kg/kkg was experienced. Reduction from the 1967 and 1968
seasons to the "normal" 1975 season was probably due to more
efficient handling of the material in the cannery and due to
the water saving measures which tended to flush less material
into the gutters and thus less sugars were leached into the
wastewater. The reduction from the 1975 to the 1976 processing
season was due to the improvements in waste material handling.
During the 1976 season, the peels and cores from the peeling
machines were dropped onto a conveyor belt where they were con-
veyed to a side chute and deposited into a water tight bin
instead of going into the gutters. The collected solid waste
material was hauled to separate disposal. This method of hand-
ling resulted in nearly a 50 percent reduction in wastewater
pollutant load to the treatment system which results in cost
savings for power, nutrients and sludge disposal. The Standard
Deviation for the unit emission COD values for pear processing
was approximately 15 percent of the means.
39
-------
The organic pollutant emission rates during apple process-
ing for the three seasons was as follows:
Apple 1974 and 1975 seasons COD = 22 kg/kkg, BOD = 16 kg/kkg
Apple 1976 season COD = 27 kg/kkg, BOD = 20 kg/kkg
These values have Standard Deviations of approximately 30 per-
cent of the means. They compare with a COD emission rate of
about 35 kg/kkg and a BOD emission rate of 26 kg/kkg during the
1967 and 1968 processing seasons. The reduction in emission
rate from 1967 and 1968 to these seasons can be attributed
largely to recovery of the peel and cores for vinegar production
by a separate plant in the Yakima area. The difference between
the 1974 and 1975 seasons and the 1976 season was due to mech-
anical breakdowns of the core and peel
ing the 1976 season. This resulted in
ing to the gutter during a substantial
processing season. The exact dates of
not adequately recorded to allow correlation of waste emission
rates with the actual breakdown of the equipment. The value of
dry recovery of solid waste materials is readily seen from the
comparison of the earlier and more current values and between
the values during normal and unreliable operation of the solid
waste recovery equipment.
Fruit processing wastewater is known to be nutrient defici-
ent for biological treatment. During this study, nutrient
analyses were performed on the screened raw wastewater. The
nitrogen and phosphorus content of the wastewater as a ratio
to the organic content was as follows:
N = .004, std.dev. = .002
recovery equipment dur-
the cores and peels go-
portion of the apple
mechanical failure were
COD
N = .006, std.dev. = .003
BOD
_P__ = .0016, std.dev. = .0013
COD
P = .0022, std.dev. = .0018
BOD
Snokist Growers adds both nitrogen and phosphorus to their waste^
water for biological treatment.
Biological Treatment of Processing Wastewater
Performance of the biological wastewater treatment system
was monitored during the three years of this study. The acti-
vated sludge system aeration basin and clarifier are shown on
40
-------
Figures 12 and 13. The COD, suspended solids, volatile sus-
pended solids, temperature and dissolved oxygen were measured
daily in the biological treatment system influent, effluent and
aeration basin. The nutrients and BOD were determined on a per-
iodic basis. These test results were analyzed to compare the
operation of the biological treatment system with that recorded
during the study of 1967 and 1968.1
COD and BOD Removal --
The removal rate of organics from the wastewater is de-
fined as the removal of COD or BOD per unit weight of mixed
liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) per day. The MLVSS
is taken as an indication of the concentration of bacteria in
the aeration system. This removal rate is determined by measur-
ing quantity of COD or BOD removed by the biological treatment
system on a daily basis and dividing by the quantity of MLVSS.
The rate of removal of food by the microorganisms is a func-
tion of the concentration of food available. In other words,
organisms with a low concentration of organics available will
perform at a lower rate. At a higher substrate concentration
(BOD, COD) the organisms perform at a higher rate. The removal
rates experienced in this study were in the range of .01 to
0.5 g COD removed/g MLVSS-day. It is assumed that a linear
relationship describes the removal rate as a function of the
availability of the food (COD or BOD). Where f is the COD or
BOD removal rate coefficient, COD or BOD removal (g COD or
BOD/g MLVSS-day) = f x soluble COD or BOD. The removal rate
coefficient (f) is defined as the slope of a line relating the
food concentration versus the removal rate. It was shown in
the final report on the 1967, 1968 study,1 that the removal rate
coefficient varied with temperature.
During the three seasons of this study, data on substrate
(soluble COD or BOD) concentrations available to the microorgan-
isms were gathered and the substrate removal rates were calcu-
lated. Separation of the data by temperature range was made
for each of the three seasons and the mean ratio of removal
rate to soluble effluent COD concentration (removal rate coeffi-
cient) was calculated for each group of data. The COD removal
rate coefficients by season and by temperature range are given
on Table 8. Table 8 also shows a logarithmic regression equa-
tion for the information. The COD removal rate temperature
relationship was found by least squares regression to be:
fT = 0. 019 x 1 .161"-20
The mean removal rate coefficient at each temperature was
weighted according to the number of data points that went into
its calculation. The data points (removal rate coefficient vs.
temperature) and the least squares linear regression for the
three years of data are shown on Figure 14. There is consider-
41
-------
Figure 12. Aeration basin.
Figure 13. Clarifier. Aeration basin in background,
42
-------
I/O
1
LU
1 t
O
H-^
Li_
LJL.
LU
o
o
LU
1
"^
^
t
a:
^*
o
«
^
LU
O-
* *
o
o
.
00
LU
1
CQ
I
CO
r***-
o^
r
in
r-v.
O*i
.
x^
» 1
CU
4-> -4->
03 C
rv cU
r-
i"" O
(C -r-
> 4-
C O 4-
03 E CU
CU OJ O
4- CO
O -4->
_ tc
O O
^^* ft
f-H
CU
4_3 4_>
ro c:
or cu
-
03 !-
> 4-
C O 4-
03 E CU
QJ CU O
5:0:0
4- co
O !->
c~
-r
O O
Z. Q-
i 1
CD
1 J) . >
(O C
r~
fO -r-
> 4
C 0 4-
co E QJ
CU QJ O
s: o
4- CO
O +J
C
-p
0 0
Z. Q-
QJ
s_
3
-!-> CU
(O C75
S- C 0
QJ CO Is- CO Lf)
Is VO ^" CO CO
O 0 0 O O
O 0 O 0 O
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1
CTl CO O CM
O CO O% i >*
i O O O
o o o o o
LD r~«. i co 10 o
i i CM i i
lf\ f*^ is^
r «3" CO i i
O O O 0 O
o o o o o
+1 +1 +1 +1 +<
Is- O CO LO i
LO r~. oo i CM
o o o o o
o o o o o
tn in in co LO o
i CM i
o> co co o
r r i r r~~ *3"
i i i i i i
>O CO O 1 ^1" O
>,
-°
T3
QJ
T3
i
> C
TD -
cr-i-
>
CU "O
03 -a
i. i.
-D
(0 C >>
> rO *O
O +> "D
E oo
t fi i //^
^ \U v I
C >
t/1 ^5 1
(O *^-
+1
"O O^
QJ C ^^
C "3 "O
r- QJ CU
4- E >
QJ O
-a ^ E
03 QJ
Q i-
O C
O QJ Q
> O
S- -r- O
O O>
4- cn
CO
4 13 O"
^^
« 03 II
C H
QJ 4
0 Q
i O
4 C_>
4-
o c
C_> QJ
3
QJ
+-> 4
re 4-
o; QJ
> QJ
> [Q
O 3
£-
CU O
OC. CO
»-l
.
I
~^ CU
C7> i-
E 3
> (O
CO S_
Q QJ
O QL
<-> E
QJ
_L_>
4-1
(O
C
QJ
O
tj
QJ
O
O
O3
>
O
E
QJ
S-
Q
0
II
H
4-
43
-------
.040J
,030-
.020-
.010.
£ .008_|
UJ
o
u.
Hi .006.
o
u
UJ
i004_|
o
Q
O
O
.003.
-002.
.001
O 1976
* 1975 fy= Q.OI9 X |.|6
H 1974
T-20
I
1967-8 fT=O.OI7xl.!6
T-20
I
5 10
TEMPERATURE °C
15
20
Figure 14. COD removal rate coefficient vs. temperature.
44
-------
able scatter among the points. The temperature relationship
found during the 1967, 1968 study (fy = 0.017 x 1.16'-20) is
also shown on Figure 14 for comparison. The information on
Table 8 and Figure 14 show a high correlation between tempera-
ture and the COD removal rate coefficient. The coefficient
temperature relationship established during this study is very
similar to that found during the 1967-1968 season although this
study showed a much greater scatter of data than the earlier
investigations.
The BOD removal rate coefficient could not be directly
determined due to less BOD data being available. Soluble BOD
measurement was attempted during the study but the results were
erratic. A linear regression was performed using total BOD and
volatile suspended solids information for the biological treat-
ment system effluent. The regression indicated that the sol-
uble BOD fraction on an overall average basis, was 4 mg/1.
The mean BOD removal rate was 0.089 g BOD removed/g MLVSS per
day, and the mean temperature was 9.6°C. Using the average
soluble BOD and the average BOD removal rate, a removal rate
coefficient at the average temperature was estimated at 0.024 g
BOD/g MLVSS-day-mg/1 BOD for 9.6°C. By assuming that the temp-
erature relationship for the BOD removal coefficient is the
same as for the COD removal rate coefficient, an expression for
the BOD removal rate coefficient can be obtained as follows:
BOD
T
T-20
= 0.11 X 1.16
The 1967 anH 1968 study obtained an f2gvalue of 0.068 as com-
pared to 0.11 obtained during this study. Both of these values
were derived using the COD removal rate temperature relationship
Biological Growth --
One aspect of biological waste treatment that strongly
influences its cost is the amount of sludge produced by the
treatment system. The sludge produced from a highly soluble
carbohydrate waste such as from fruit processing, can be corre-
lated to the organic (COD and BOD) removal rate. A constant
proportion of the organics removed (defined as the yield coeffi-
cient, Y) is converted to sludge by bacterial growth. Endogen-
ous respiration (k^) by the sludge organisms reduces the net
quantity of sludge produced, measured as mixed liquor volatile
suspended solids (MLVSS).
Net Sludge Production (VSS) = Y x COD removed - kd x MLVSS
where the net sludge production includes the sludge wasted,
sludge in the effluent and the change in the aeration basin.
45
-------
During this study, the amount of organics removed from the
wastewater was monitored on a dily basis as COD and periodically
as BOD. The amount of suspended and volatile suspended solids
in the biological system was monitored on a daily basis to deter-
mine changes. It was difficult to accurately monitor the solids
removed from the system by "sludge wasting" due to metering
problems to and from the sludge thickener. Sludge wasting was
by flotation thickening and hauling of the flotation thickened
sludge by truck to land disposal. The thickener feed rate,
overflow solids and sludge volume hauled were not sufficiently
recorded to allow an accurate assessment of the amount of sludge
wasted in this manner. The amount of solids lost in the efflu-
ent was monitored on a daily basis. The net sludge growth was
accurately determined only when no sludge wasting was conducted;
this eliminated the middle portion of each processing season.
The sludge growth rate and organics (COD, BOD) removal
rate data were separated by temperature range. Figures 15, 16,
17 and 18 show the net sludge growth rate in grams of volatile
suspended solids increase per gram of mixed liquor volatile
suspended solids per day versus the COD removal rate in grams
of COD removed per gram of MLVSS per day by temperature range.
The slope of the line through the data points is the "yield
coefficient" in grams of VSS (sludge) growth converted from
each gram of COD removed. The zero removal rate intercept is
the apparent endogenous respiration rate (k j) for the group of
data. Four data groupings were possible from the information
available for the three processing seasons. Data between 6 and
10°C was insufficient due to sludge wasting to allow confirma-
tion of the yield coefficient or endogenous respiration rate
in that temperature range.
A consistent yield rate coefficient adequately describes
all of the data on Figures 15, 16, 17 and 18. The yield coeffi-
cient found by eye plotting and by linear regression on
Figure 15 and 16 during this study was:
Yield Coefficient, Y = 0.50 g VSS/g COD removed.
The yield coefficient for COD can be converted to a yield
coefficient for BOD by employing the BOD to COD ratio, 0.73 g
BOD/g COD, presented earlier. Thus, the VSS yield coefficient
from BOD is:
Yield Coefficient, Y = 0.68 g VSS/g BOD removed.
These yield coefficients compare to 0.49 g VSS/g COD removed
and 0.66 g VSS/g BOD removed determined during the 1967-1968
seasons for pear processing,1
The endogenous respiration rates determined from Figures 15,
16, 17 and 18 are shown on Figure 19 plotted against temperature.
46
-------
O
O
o
in
in
6
o
o
I
LO
ro si
O > -Z
O)
(O
CVJ §
C3»
UJ
H
<
cr
O
CJ
O
AVQ-SSA 6/SSA 6 '
47
O
O
o
o
o
s_
en
cn
o
O)
O)
s-
3
CT>
-------
o
I
o
O
CM
2
0
6
it
, J
6
ro
6
^
a
CO
CO
^
2
o»
C\J -^
6§
o
o>
cf
*.
UJ
1-
^
cc
_<
UJ
cc
o
0
O
o
o
1
O
QJ
S-
ro
o
E
O)
S-
Q
O
.
t/1
-C
2
O
S-
CD
OJ
CD
to
QJ
AVQ-SSA8 / SSA6 'H1MOMO 390013 13N
48
-------
o
o
CO
o
II
CM
O
ro
6
>
«^
Q
i
tn
_i
2
Ol
^N.
Q
CsJ 0
0°
o>
CT
liJ
t-
tr
_j
>
_ o
o o w
o cc
0 Q
0
-*1 <->
1
o
o
1
s
O)
fl3
^
'(O
>
i
i-
Q
O
°
>
_c
1 ^
-f-1
o
i.
CD
a;
CD
-o
rs
CO
-p
a>
z
a>
AVO- SSA 6/SSA 6
39aniS'-i3N
49
-------
01
a)
S-
o
o
o
OO
to
i.
03
O
S-
o
o
1/1
.c
o
en
OJ
D)
T3
00
O)
00
O)
S-
cn
AVQ-SSAB/SSAB 'H1MOH9 390018 13N
50
-------
Regression analysis of the points on Figure 19 indicate that
the endogenous respiration rate as a function of temperature is:
(T-20}
Endogenous Respiration Rate, kd = 0.050 x 1.15V '
The endogenous respiration rate expression found from data
collected during the 1967 and 1968 seasons was
kd = 0.115 x 1.14 (T-20)Bi Tne
-------
.05 H
.03 H
.02 J
o
i
en
o>
^.
CO
CO
>
o>
Uj"
I-
<
z
o
.01 H
005 H
UJ
ce
CO
r>
o
z
UJ
o
o
Q
Z
UJ
.003-^
.002-
kd=.050 x 1.15
T-20
J.
_L
5 10
TEMPERATURE °C
15
20
Figure 19. Endogenous respiration rate vs. temperature.
52
-------
during the 1967
ratio was 1.39;
ratio was 0.016
sludge seems to
obtained during
BOD content of
and 1968 processing seasons, the COD to VSS
the N to VSS ratio was 0.087; and the P to VSS
Only the nitrogen content of the biological
be significantly different than the values
this study. During the 1967-1968 study, the
the mixed liquor volatile suspended solids was
approximately 0.33 at a BOD removal rate of 0.1
day. The .25 value found during this study was
less than that found during 1967 and 1968.
g BOD/g MLVSS
about 25 percent
TABLE 9. CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOLOGICAL SLUDGE
Ratio
MLVSS
MLSS
COD
MLVSS
Overa
0.890*0
1 .38*0.
11
.021*
12
Processing
1974
0.895*0.012
1 .39*0.03
Season
1975
0.895*0.026
1 .39*0.03
1976
0.883*0.020
1 .36*0.03
MLVSS 0.074*0.009 0.076*0.004 0.078±0.012 0.070*0.007
P
MLVSS 0.016*0.003 0.017*0.001 0.017*0.004 0.015*0.002
BOD
MLVSS 0.25
Mean * Standard Deviation
Biological Effluent Quality --
Effluent water quality from the biological treatment system
clarifier is summarized on Table 10. The summary is broken
down by product processed and by water quality ranges which are
significantly different at the 95 percent level.
During the 1974 season, the
poor apparently due to nutrient
system following start up. Then
and was fairly consistent throug
The quality deteriorated slight!
processed, possibly due to lower
basin in this later part of the
in the cannery may have affected
processing beginning in November
effluent quality was initially
deficiency in the aeration
the effluent quality improved
h pear and peach processing.
y when pears and
temperatures in
season, although
the treatment
saw a further
apples were
the aeration
chlorine use
system. Apple
deterioration of
53
-------
effluent quality with more suspended solids in the effluent
during the colder operating conditions. Chlorine use again
could have been causative in lowering the effluent quality.
The effluent BOD and soluble COD concentrations declined during
apples, apparently due to the lower organic loading on the
aeration system.
Product
Season
TABLE 10.
By
& Dates
BIOLOGICAL EFFL
Mean
COD
mg
UENT
/I
±
QUAL
Std.
BOD
ITY
Dev.
(No.
Samp
Susp
of
le
s)
Sol .
1974
Pears (8/23-31)
Pears, Peaches (9/3-20)
Pears & Apples (9/23-11/9)
Apples (11/11-12/13 except
12/5)
(12/5)
1975
Pears, Peaches (8/26-10/4)
Pears & Apples (10/6-10/23)
Pears & Apples (10/24-11/19)
Apples (11/20-12/18)
1976
Pears, Peaches (8/24-9/7,
9/13-10/2)
Pears (9/8-11 Upset)
Pears & Apples (10/4-11/13)
Apples (11/15-24)
Apples (11/29-12/2)
Apples (12/3-1/6)
Apples 1/7-19)
Apples (1/20-31 , 2/23-3/10)
133*75(8)
32±10(17)
42*16(36)
52±39(21)
850(1)
58*23(34)
139*47(16)
45*14(22)
101*37(18)
142(1)
12*7(3)
8.6*2.5(5)
54*28(8)
8*3(17)
16*7(36)
6.0*7.11(7) 20*12(21)
680(1)
9.7*5.3(6)
20*10(3)
6.3*3.2(4)
29*12(3)
32*8(30)
247*170(4)
40*11(35
49*4(7)
85*14(4)
52*18(19)
Aeration
Basin Frozen
Over
113*35(20) 20*9(3)
4.8*2.1(5)
47(1)
4.5*2.3(8)
6.0*1.4(2)
15 (1)
10*3(3)
25*8(34)
98*45(16)
19*7(22)
51*29(18)
9*4(30)
66*22(4)
14*5(35)
16*5(7)
56*6(4)
32*12(21 )
77*31(20)
Effluent quality during the 1975 season was not as good as
during the 1974 season and not as good as expected. It was con-
cluded that inadequate management of chlorination in the cannery
during cleanup operations resulted in the effluent quality being
lower than anticipated during this entire season. The 1976
season showed an effluent quality improvement overall from the
1975 season and return to an effluent quality comparable to that
experienced in 1974, with some exceptions. The first exception
was during the week following Labor Day when an apparent toxic
discharge, possibly chlorine, from the cannery, resulted in a
biological upset. Microscopic examination of the floe before
and after the upset showed that the motile life forms in exist-
54
-------
ence before the upset had all been immobilized. Management of
the wastewater treatment system and in-plant efforts to control
future toxic discharges, resulted in a rapid recovery of the
biological system so that good effluent quality was experienced
through remainder of the pear processing seasons. Relatively
good effluent quality continued on through apple processing un-
til about the first of December although periodically measurable
residual chlorine levels were detected in the discharge to the
biological treatment system. Effluent quality began to deterio-
rate rather severely about December 1st, when prolonged cold
conditions resulted in aeration basin temperatures at less than
2 C. On January 7th, the aeration basin finally froze over re-
sulting in shut-down of the system. On January 20th, the aera-
tion basin thawed and the treatment system was put back in oper-
ation. Effluent quality for the remainder of January and during
a short processing period in late February and early March was
fairly consistent but not particularly good as high suspended
solids in the effluent resulted in the high COD and BOD readings.
One exception to the generally good water quality during apple
processing, prior to the first part of December, was in the few
days following the Thanksgiving shut-down when quality deterio-
rated. This deterioration may have been due to clean up opera-
tions in the cannery.
It is evident from this that careful control of the bio-
logical treatment system and the feed to the system is necessary
to maintain consistently good effluent quality. The toxicants
which apparently entered the system during much of 1975 process-
ing season and at least a couple of times in 1976, resulted in
upset of the system. The toxic discharges, assuming they were
chlorine, can be controlled through diligent in-plant efforts,
combined with equalization ahead of the biological treatment
system.
BIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT POLISHING FOR REUSE
The biologically treated effluent was polished by the mixed
media pressure filter system and disinfected by chlorination
to produce a reclaimed water for reuse in the cannery. During
this study several equipment malfunctions and difficulties in
start up occurred. During the 1975 seasons, the backwash
system for the filters malfunctioned several times due to pro-
blems with automatic control valves. These problems caused
some periods of improper operation of the system. Also the
chlorine residual control equipment functioned poorly during
much of the 1975 season. The relatively low chlorine demand
allowed the chlorination system to be operated, however, in a
flow-pace mode to obtain satisfactory results. Better results
were obtained during the 1976 season when the equipment func-
tioned relatively well during most of the season.
55
-------
Mixed Media Filter Performance
The mixed media filters used for polishing the biological
effluent were pressure filters fed by pumps as described
earlier. The filter media consisted of two densities of
anthracite, silica sand and a layer of garnet sand. Liquid
alum was fed to the wastewater stream ahead of the pumps to
the filters during portions of the 1975 operation season and
much of the 1976 season. The alum feed was varied from 15 to
60 mg/1 to determine the effect of alum feed concentration. A
cationic polymer was tried during the 1976 season and labora-
tory investigations of anionic and non-ionic polymer addition
with the alum feed was tried during the 1976 season.
The filter effectiveness is indicated on Figure 20 where
the frequency distribution of suspended solids levels in the
biological effluent and in the filtered effluent are shown.
As discussed above, the biological effluent quality was better
in 1976 than in 1975 with 1974 being similar to 1976. The
biological and filtered effluent data for 1975 and 1976 covered
comparable time periods.
Table 11 shows the suspended solids removal effectiveness
of the filter system for the 1975 and 1976 seasons. The sus-
pended solids level in the biological effluent and in the
filter effluent are shown, as is the amount removed and the per-
cent removal for various time periods. Each of the time periods
had significantly different suspended solids levels or removal
performance than adjacent time periods.
Effect of Chemical Addition --
The wastewater reclamation facilities had provisions
incorporated for addition of chemicals. Liquid alum, paced
according to flow, could be added ahead of the pumps to the
filters. There were also the capability incorporated for
addition of polymers. Alum was added during a portion of the
1975 processing season and during the majority of the 1976
processing season. Specific trials when alum dosage was varied
and the turbidity monitored after stabilization of the filters,
were conducted in 1976. The results of these trials on several
dates are shown on Figure 21. There appeared to be little
beneficial effect of the alum with increases in dosages or in
comparison to filtration without alum addition.
Periods of comparable effluent feed to the filters with
and without alum addition, were statistically analyzed. The
period from October 24, 1975 through November 24 had a relative-
ly consistent filter feed quality (see Table 11). During this
period, alum was added at a rate of approximately 30 rng/l for
10 days and no alum was administered on 14 of the days of
operatiori. Statistically there was no difference, at the 95
56
-------
E
CO
o
CO
Q
UJ
Q
Z
Ld
Q_
CO
D
CO
100
70
50
40
30
20
10
T
I I
ACTIVATED SLUDGE EFFLUENT
FILTERED EFFLUENT
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
FREQUENCY LESS THAN , %
Figure 20. Suspended solids in biological effluent and filter effluent.
57
-------
1
et
o
s:
UJ
Q^
00
Q
t i
1
O
oo
Q
UJ
Q
z:
UJ
D-
00
ID
OO
Cd
UJ
I
1
1 H
LL_
c£ cu
Q
c/1
o -o
i i_
. re
o -a
00 C
re
T3 +->
OO OO
"O +1
CD
T3 i
C v^.
re
O>
s:
*
4-
O
O
z:
cn
c
to
cu
o
0
S-
Q_
3-s
,
"v.
j?
^_)
E
5- 0)
fl 1 "^
UJ _)
1 <4-
i- <4-
U- UJ
re
O 4->
i- C
cn cu
O 3
0 4-
CQ UJ
to >,
QJ fO
1 Q
08
E
O to
to O>
re -M
cu re
oo Q
oo o 10 LO rv cn «=j- LO «3- CM co in i i o
i i i CO «d-i i IO LO IO CM i i
+1 +/ +1 +1 +J -H +) +1 +1 +1 +) +1 -H +1 +1
CO 00 CO CM i"" 00 *JD t^ i CD LO *3~ CO cn CO
CO CMCMi i CMCMCOIV-OOCOCOCM
1 1 i
1
CM CM
^d-, corv.r~~.Lo -oo oo o CM vo i oo
r CO CM i CO t
+ + 1 1 +1 +1 + 41+1 +1
cor-v^j-uncnco vo«*Or ^cncncMCM
i r r- tO CM
CM *d- i i i
c-j-
COCMUDi i O CM'^t'LOCOlJDLOOOOO
1 «3" i CO
re o i i i
Q i CM to O i
V, v^ \ CM CM
i CM CM ^ ^~^
- ~
L>
0)
E to
O VO ~^,
to rv ^
re cn u
CU i
OO LO
0
-
in re
i CU
r- X O O LO O E
. O CO CO r CM -r-
01 S- E
E Q. -v
QL i-
to v^ r^ CM i i re
O) t ! 1 1 O
(-> i 1 LO CM *->
re " oo i cu
Q *> «d" «tO
LO I " «^J-
i i in rv i E
1 i 1 1 1 3
oo r- CM i rv E
O i CM O O X
E
1
E OJ
T3 O LO <& 4->
cu to iv. rv re
T3 re cn cn s-
-o cu i i
re oo s-
O)
E 4->
3 i
1 'I
*£. u.
* *
58
-------
221
20-
*
IB 4
z>
5 2
m
cc
ID
9-24
DATE, I976
IO-I4
9-30
"20~
'0 20 30 40
ALUM DOSE, mg/l AI2(S04)3-14 H20
60
Figure 21. Effect of Alum dose on turbidity in filter effluent.
59
-------
percent significance level, between the filter feed or the fil-
ter effluent suspended solids concentrations between periods
when alum was added and the periods when no alum was being
applied. The suspended solids removal in mg/1 and in percent
reduction were also statistically similar. The automatic back-
wash valve malfunctioned about 6 days during the period, three
each during alum addition and no alum addition. These days
were included in the comparison.
From August 24 through November 4, 1976, with the except-
ion of September 7 through 11, the biological effluent quality
was good. During this period, the first twenty-four days were
operated without alum addition. Subsequently, from October 1
through November 4, there were nine days of operation with alum
fed at about 15 mg/1 (as Al2(SOit)3. 14 H20) and 20 days when
alum was fed at about 20 mg/1. Comparison of the data between
the two alum dosage rates showed there to be no difference, at
a significance level of even 80 percent, between the suspended
solids in the biological effluent, in the filter effluent and
in the suspended solids removed. Comparison of the entire 32
days of operation when alum was added with the 24 days when
alum was not added, showed that the suspended solids concentra-
tion in the biological effluent fed to the filters, and in the
filter effluent, were significantly higher (at the 95 percent
level) during alum addition. The removal of suspended solids
was not significantly different either as mg/1 removed or per-
cent reduction between the two time periods.
During the 1976 processing season, alum was added from
approximately the 1st of October through the end of the process-
ing season at various levels. Referring to Table 11, it can
be seen that suspended solids actually increased from the bio-
logical to the filter effluent from about November 5 through
December 3. This increase was probably attributable to the
alum addition as no other source of suspended solids production
would be available. The filters were backwashed by headless
limit switch from 3 to 6 times per day during this time period.
Alum addition from December 6 through January 7 was at a
dosage rate of 30 mg/1 and from January 19 through the end of
processing at a rate of 15 mg/1. Even though there were signi-
ficant differences between the suspended solids in the filter
feed and filter effluents, there was no significant difference
in the reduction of suspended solids measured as mg/1 between
the two periods.
Anionic and non-ionic polymers (magnifloc 844A and 990N)
were tested on a bench filter to determine whether suspended
solids removal could be enhanced. Both polymers achieved
slightly over 20 percent improvement in suspended solids reduc-
tion at a 4 mg/1 dosage with alum dosage at 15 mg/1. The tests
took place during a period when suspended solids feed to the
60
-------
filters of about 40 mg/1 was being reduced to about 36 mg/1 with
only the a 1 urn feed.
Cationic polymer (DOW C31) was added to the filter feed
on a trial basis one day during 1976 when the inlet suspended
solids was approximately 40 mg/1. The polymer, added at 2 mg/1
(with no alum), resulted in a decrease in the capture of the
suspended solids. The turbidity of the filter effluent with no
chemical addition was at 4.7 NTU and increased after polymer
addition to 6.2 to 8.0 NTU.
Based on these studies, there appears to be little if any
benefit of aluminum sulfate addition, at the dosages used,
ahead of the filters for removing suspended solids from the
biological effluent. There was also little indication of ben-
efit due to polymer addition. Alum dosage up to 120 mg/1 was
tried for a short period at the maximum filter rate (1400 l/min;)
but the filter run was shortened to about 30 min., an impracti-
cal duration.
Disinfection
Disinfection is a function of initial mixing of the chlor-
ine solution with the filtered water (diffuser across a 20 cm
pipe) and contact time. The contact should be under plug flow
conditions. Figure 22 shows the results of tests for chlorine
residual on the contact basin influent and effluent when the
chlorine feed was turned off for approximately one-half of a
detention time. The resulting chlorine residual at the tank
discharge indicates that the tank provided a reasonably good
approximation of plug flow_at the 1500 1/rm'n. feed rate during
the test (detention time, t, of 2.4 hr) .
Disinfection efficiency is a function of consistency of
maintaining a chlorine residual as well as the initial mixing
and chlorine contact. The facilities at Snokist Growers had
some difficulties during start up and through the 1975 season
due to the chlorine residual analyzer unit partially clogging
with solids and causing the chlorine residual to fluctuate.
The chlorine residual measured in the reclaimed wastewater at
Snokist was as total residual chlorine. Since the ammonia
content of the biological effluent was always near zero, the
residual was probably as "free chlorine" however.
Wastewater Bacteriological Quality --
The processing wastewater, biological treatment effluent
and filtered effluent bacteriological quality are shown on
Table 12. Also included is the bacteriological quality of the
house water supply for the cannery, an on-site well. The
cannery water supply was of excellent bacteriological quality.
61
-------
- 10
o
o
S-
JH
o
JZ.
cr>
o
jc:
4->
I
O
- CM
O
03
o
o
O)
CXJ
CSJ
O)
=3
CD
I/6UJ *lvnaiS3d 3NW01HO
62
-------
>_
1
I-H
1
ZD
o-
1
ej;
O
i i
O
|
O
Qi
UJ
h-
O
c£
CO
>_
1
Q.
Q-
)
OO
Q;
UJ
h-
3
Q
^
eC
ct;
UJ
h-
d|
3
til
h-
OO
.
t- "d
QJ 4->
4-> OO
c
t H Oi
O
QJ _J
(J
C CM
O)
T3 +i
i
4- C
C 03
0 OJ
o s:
c?^ O"
LO O
v
sr
03
CD
^"
cn
O
I
to
4->
i
c
ZD
4->
CO
QJ
1
, v
to
QJ
E i
0 Q.
to E
(^ ("O
QJ t/")
00
.
0
OJ
1
Q.
E
03
OO
CO CO
4-> 4->
i i
3 Z1
co co
QJ QJ
ry1 ry
QJ QJ
> >
1 -I
4-> 4->
r- 'I
CO CO
0 O
D_ Q_
O O
z ^"
1 1
V V
E
O
o
1
\
E
s_
0
4
1
1
0
o
03
4-J
0
1
, .
r-» . -
i LO
LO to
r-- r-~
cn cn
s_
QJ
4->
03 >,
3 r-
Q.
2 CL
03 3
Qi OO
O
O
to o
to
0
4_>
O
i 4->
0
o oo
o
CO
*3"
0 i
,
E
\
4->
C
3
0
O
QJ
4->
03
i
D^
"03
4-J
O
1
, .
i - ~
i OO
LO tO
r>. r-~
en cn
i
r
i.
O "
r T3
JC QJ
0 4->
C o3
ZD C
" '
^
O
1
a. X
O
i 00
X i
CO O
4->
1
o
0 O
4-> O
^
O i
o^ r*^
LO i£>
0 0
i i
X X
OO r
i i
E
O
0
r
E
S-
o
4-
r
i
0
o
03
4->
0
1
, v. x
coo
i CM
LO~IO
r-~ r^
cn cn
*
CJ) S-
c: QJ
i 4-J
tO 03
to S
QJ QJ
0 4->
O tO
S- 03
0- 3
LO
O
i
0
O X
o
"CO
to
CM r
O 0
4-> 4->
r- 0
CM
0 r
CO O
LO O
0
"
3-
'E
o
o
1
-^
E
i-
o
4
r
1
O
o
03
CJ
QJ
LJ_
, ,, »
0 *3-
i CM
LO to
t~~» r^.
cn cn
LT>
^) 0
0 r
i
X
X
r~
i
^f
i
o
0 4J
4->
O
O 0
o o
CM "
" 1
to i
O 0
o o
o o
" "
OO O
co r>-
,
E
^
4-}
E
^j
O
CJ
QJ
4->
03
i
CL
03
4_>
O
1
, «, .
i O
r OJ
LO tO
r^ r^
cn cn
ID
C-~ O ID
O i O
r i ID
X 0
X X r
^J-
to o o LO x
to o o
i OJ O "3- tO
0 " "
o 4-> cn i o r
1 ^ oo i '
O 0 O
CD O 4-> O O 4->
O O 4-> O
i^ " i^ oo o
«"d" «^ " O
tO OO i i OO LO
LO LO
O 0
1 1
o o o o
X X CM to O O
r tO O 0
oj r*^ " "
co cn
oo ^3- oo CM
"E 'i r-
E
O O '-^
0 O 4->
i r- C
^> \ 3
EEC
t- S- C_)
0 0
4- 4- QJ
r -i +3
i i 03
O 0 r
O C_3 0-
03 03 03
4-7 (J 4->
O OJ O
1 Ll_ 1
, ,
. .O . .- -- - «
LO oj r^ ^3- co o
i^~ i r oj r^ co
LO tO LO tO LO tO
r~- r^. r^- r^ r^ i
cn cn cn cn cn cn
i
03
(J 4->
r C
CD QJ
O 3
i ,
O 4-
i- 4-
CQ LU
LD
^ CD
O i
1
X
X
LO
CO
LO
1
o
O 4->
40
o
o o
o o
IT) "
* r~^
i CM
LO LO
O O
1 1
X X
to cn
.
i CO
E
o
o
r
\
E
l_
o
4-
i
i
O
(_)
03
4_>
O
I
, ,
- »o
LO CM
r^ n-
LO tO
r»- r^
en cn
4->
c
i- 0)
QJ 3
4-J r
r 4-
- 4-
U. UJ
o
o o
0 0
OO "
"CM
<3- oj
0 0
4-> 4->
oo to
O CO
oo o
OO 00
«d"
E
O
0
r
\
E
s_
0
4-
r
i
O
o
03
O
QJ
U_
, » , .
LO *±
i CM
LO tO
r^ r^
cn cn
i
.,_
L.
O '
. T3
JZ QJ
(J 4->
C 03
Z3 C
LO
0
r ID
0
X i
'd- X
LO tO
o
4->
o
0 4->
o
LO O
"tO
i CM
o o
0 0
0 0
" "
CTl r
CM (XI
r
E
-
4->
C
3
O
o
QJ
4->
03
,
Q-
03
4_)
O
1
, ,, ,
«j- o
r^ co
LO to
r r~^
cn cn
S-
OJ
4-5
03
S
0)
4-J
to
03
S
cn
.^
to
to
QJ
(J
O
L
Q.
QJ
JZ
4_)
S-
QJ
"^
Q)
C.
03
U
to
4_>
to
03
S-
03
4_)
i
j^
tO
to
O
zr
*
63
-------
The untreated process wastewater had a high bacterial con-
tent. The total coliform count present in the wastewater un-
doubtedly resulted from soil washed from the fruit during pro-
cessing. There is also bacteria which indicated positively in
the fecal coliform test, although their low numbers confirmed
that sanitary waste was not being discharged into the waste-
water. Some fecal coliform indicator organisms may be washed
from the fruit or from the floor. Organisms which positively
react to the fecal coliform test may be maintained and incubated
in wet warm areas of the cannery waste system.
Table 12 shows that there is very little difference in the
bacteriological quality of the processing wastewater and the
biological effluent. There is a very small reduction in bac-
terial count through the filtration system. The removal of
bacteria by the filters was significant during some periods of
operation but not during others. The data from periods when
alum was used on the filter was compared with information
gathered when there was no alum used. Data from 1975 indicated
that alum was beneficial in the removal of coliform and total
plate count bacteria but the information gathered during 1976
did not confirm this.
Chlorination Disinfection Effectiveness --
Disinfection effectiveness on sanitary wastewaters in
municipal treatment has been related to the reduction in col-
iform as a function of contact time and chlorine residual. The
greater variation in input organism level to the disinfection
system at Snokist Growers' cannery made organism reduction
correlation unfeasible. The most consistent method for assess-
ing the disinfection performance seemed to be the relation of
effluent quality to the chlorine residual maintained in the
contact tank. It was shown earlier that the contact tank had
relatively good plug flow characteristics.
Total Coliform Removal--Probably the most appropriate
measurements of sanitary water quality from a public health
standpoint are the coliform and fecal coliform organisms.
Their reduction in the reclaimed water was felt to be of crit-
ical importance. Disinfected effluent quality during the 1976
and 1975 processing seasons, measured as coliform count per
hundred ml , as a function of chlorine residual in the contact
tank, is shown on Figures 23 and 24. The chlorine residual was
the average of the inlet and outlet concentration as measured
with the amperometric titrator. Figures 23 and 24 indicate
that 3 mg/1 chlorine residual was adequate to assure a very
low level of coliform bacteria in the reclaimed water. No
positive results were obtained on the coliform test when
chlorine residuals of greater than 3 mg/1 were maintained.
Figure 24 shows three erratic points during the 1975 processing
season. These can probably be attributed to the chlorine
64
-------
10
6.
10
5.
10
4.
cr
o
8 10
O
h-
FILTER EFFLUENT LOG MEAN COLIFOR M = 3.9x I05/ 100 hi!
95% CONF. RANGE = 2.7xl04to 5.5 x I06 / I 00 ml
I976
o DATA POINT
L ESS THAN
o
9
8f
O O
8°
o
*
o
t«««a« t.i.i
012345
C \2 Residual, mg/ I
Figure 23. Reclaimed effluent coliform count vs. contact chlorine residual ,-
1976.
65
-------
10
7.
10
6.
10
- FILTER EFFLUENT L0<5 MEAN COLIFORM = 1.6 x
5-l 95% CONF. RANGE = 1.5 x I03 to 1.8 x I07 / IOO ml
10
4.
o
o <»
O
z
io2
1975
« DATA POINT
LESS THAN
DC
o
o
o o
o o
o o
o o
Oft
,«i mmm i t
I 2 3
CI2 Residual, mg/l
\
4
Figure 24.
Reclaimed effluent coliform count vs. contact chlorine residual,
1975.
66
-------
residual control problems prevalent during that season. Occa-
sionally, chlorine residual oscillated during the processing
day due to instability in the feedback control system. The
control system maintained a more consistent chlorine residual
during 1976.
Fecal Coliform RemovalThe relatively low level of fecal
coliform organisms in the wastewater was due to the absence
of any sanitary waste entering the system. However, dirt
sources and animal contamination by water fowl and turtles in
the aeration basin and clarifier resulted in some fecal coliform
bacteria in the filtered wastewater. These levels were shown
on Table 12. Weekly testing during both the 1975 and the 1976
processing seasons showed no positive fecal coliform counts in
the reclaimed water if chlorine residual was present.
Total Bacteria ReductionThe level of total bacterial
content in the wastewater was assessed by use of the total
plate count. The total plate count vs. chlorine residual in
the reclaimed effluent is shown on Figures 25 and 26 for the
1976 and 1975 processing seasons respectively. Marked improve-
ment with chlorination is readily evident from Figures 25 and
26. The reclaimed effluent consistently contained fewer than
500 organisms/ml when the chlorine residual was maintained at
3 mg/1 or above.
Reclaimed Water Biological Quality --
Total coliform, fecal coliform and total plate count bac-
terial water quality was discussed in the previous section.
Quality was found to be dependent on the reclamation system
disinfection efficiency. Additional reclaimed water testing
was done for Salmonella and Staphyloccus bacteria, for the
presence of yeast and mold organisms, and for mesophilic spores.
No positive Staphyloccus organism reactions were obtained
during testing. Non-lactose fermenting colonies isolated dur-
ing the concentration step were selected for innoculation into
enterotubes to determine the presence of Salmonella organisms.
The enterotube reactions were read and interpreted and no
Salmonella typical reactions were found. Staphyloccus and
Salmonella isolation analyses were conducted on the reclaimed
water weekly through the two seasons, 1975 and 1976.
Yeast and mold organism analyses were conducted on the
reclaimed water during the 1976 processing season. The results
are shown on Figure 27 plotted against chlorine residual. The
analyses indicated low concentrations of these organisms but
there was no clear cut evidence on Figure 27 that they are
eliminated at the levels of chlorination used during the test-
i ng.
67
-------
10'
10
6-
10
5.
FILTER EFFLUENT LOG MEAN TPC =2.lxl04/ml
95% CONF. RANGE = 260 to 1.6 x I06/m|
10
4 .
1976
o DATA POINT
LESS THAN
O
Q_
h-
io3-
I I02
o
o
LJ
a! 10
o o" o o
o o o
o 8°
o o
000 O
o
o o o
00
g>
> t & «ft got
01 2345
CI2 Residual, mg/l
Figure 25. Reclaimed effluent total plate count vs. contact chlorine
residual, 1976.
68
-------
10
7.
10'
10
5 .
FILTER EFFLUE.NT LOG MEAN TPC =2.9xl04/ml
95 % CONF. RANGE = l.5x I03 to 5.4 x I05 /ml
10'
o
o
o
o o
oo
1975
o DATA POINT
LESS THAN
O O
o o
00
o o
o
0 o
00
o
o
00 O
o
o
o
UJ
<
10
<
01 2345
CI2 Residual, mg/l
Figure 26. Reclaimed effluent total plate count vs. contact chlorine
residual, 1975.
69
-------
E
>v
6
CO
UJ
(T
O
Q.
co
100-
10-
o.
o
to
O.I
1000
_ IOO
E
(A
~
C
O
5
o
10-
O
2
I
IOOO
IOO
e
o
"5
o
CO
<
Ul
10-
o o
LEGEND^
° =Log Mean Data Point
= Less Than
All points are duplicates.
oo
e
o
I 2 3 4
CHLORINE RESIDUAL, mg/I
Figure 27. Yeast, mold and mesophilic spore content in reclaimed
water vs. chlorine residual, 1976.
70
-------
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL QUALITY OF THE RECLAIMED WATER
The physical and chemical characteristics of the reclaimed
water are important in evaluation of its uses.
Temperature
The temperature of the reclaimed water was very close to
that in the aeration basin although slight heating occurred
through the pumping energy input and ground heating in the
chlorine contact tank. During the first four weeks of 1975
processing, the reclaimed water temperature averaged 17.2°C.
During the first two weeks of processing in 1976, the tempera-
ture averaged 17.8°C. This compared to a house water normal
temperature of 15°C, and indicated that during the early part
of each processing season, if reclaimed water were used for can
cooling, it would take more of the reclaimed water than house
water. At a water temperature of 18°C, it would take 18 per-
cent more reclaimed water for cooling than house water, or
approximately an additional 200,000 liters per day. However,
as soon as the temperature of the reclaimed water decreased to
below 15°C, about 4 weeks into the season during 1975 and 2
weeks into the season during 1976, the demand for cooling water
from the reclaimed water source would be less than that from
the house water. By the end of pear processing, the reclaimed
effluent temperature was approximately 12°C or less indicating
a saving of cooling water of at least 13 percent or approxi-
mately 150,000 liters per day. During the entire pear process-
ing season of 1975, there would have been no difference in
water use between the house water and reclaimed water. During
the 1976 season, however, an average of 80,000 liters of cool-
ing water could have been saved per day, based on the compar-
ative temperatures of house and reclaimed water.
The pH of the wastewater discharged to the treatment
system was fairly constant throughout the season except during
peach processing. The peaches were lye peeled which resulted
in a high pH discharge. During 1975, excepting peaches, the
average pH of the discharge was 7.1 with a standard deviation
of 0.3 with no significant differences between various prod-
ucts. During 1975 peach processing, the pH averaged 11.4 with
a standard deviation of 0.3. During the 1976 processing sea-
son, except peach processing, the average pH of the processing
effluent was again 7.1 with a standard deviation of 0.3. The
pH averaged 11.5 with a standard deviation of .1 during peach
processing .
The high pH discharge during peaches resulted in some
fluctuation in the pH of the reclaimed effluent. The pH of the
reclaimed effluent during each the 1975 and 1976 seasons, prior
71
-------
to peach processing, averaged 7.0 with a standard deviation of
approximately 0.5, except during the one week of 1976 when
chlorine caused an upset of the biological treatment. During
that week the pH average dropped to below 6. This pH depress-
ion during upset is characteristic of biological treatment
systems receiving strong waste during upsets. Reclaimed water
pH during the 1975 week of peach processing, increased to an
average of 8.1 and then decreased during the subsequent two
weeks to average 7.9 and 7.5. The next three week average was
7.4 with no significant difference between the weeks and the
average for the remainder of the season was 7.2. During the
1976 week of peach processing, the pH raised to an average of
7.5 and during the subsequent three weeks, increased to an
average of 7.8, then decreased to 7.5 and 7.3. The remaining
season average was 7.0 and there were no significant differences
between processing weeks.
Total Dissolved Solids
Total dissolved solids analyses were conducted on a weekly
basis throughout the two processing seasons. Total dissolved
solids levels in the reclaimed water averaged 290 mg/1 with a
standard deviation of 99 mg/1. There was no significant diff-
erence in the values between the 1975 and the 1976 seasons.
The total dissolved solids in the house tap water averaged
120 mg/1.
Turbi di ty
Turbidity was measured in biological, filtered and chlor-
inated effluent grab samples once or twice daily with a for-
ward scatter turbidimeter* during the 1975 and 1976 processing
seasons. During the 1976 season, a continuous flow turbidi-
meter* was placed in operation to record turbidity in the
filter effluent. This unit measured turbidity as side (90°)
scatter light. Also during 1976, a side scatter bench unit*
was used for about a month to measure turbidity in grab samples
in parallel with the forward scatter unit. The standard meth-
od for low level turbidity measurement is with a "nephelometer"
containing a light source and one or more photoelectric detec-
tors and a readout device to indicate the intensity of light
scattered at 90 degrees to the path of the incident light.
Forward-scattering turbidimeters are excessively sensitive to
the presence of larger particles in comparison to the side
* The bench model forward-scatter turbidimeter used through-
out the study was a Monitek Model 150.
The continuous side-scatter turbidimeter placed in opera-
tion for the 1976 season was a Hach CR low range Model 1720
(range 0-30 NTU).
The bench model side scatter turbidimeter used for one
month during the 1976 season was an HF Instruments
Model DRT-100.
72
-------
scattering units. The continuous flow turbidimeter and the
side scattering bench unit used during the 1976 season comply
with standard methods while the forward scattering unit does
not.
The side scatter turbidity meters always yielded lower
results than the forward scatter (non-standard) turbidimeter.
The log mean ratio of the continuous reading turbidity values
(in NTU) to the readings obtained from the bench forward scatter
turbidimeter was 0.35, (95% confidence range 0.20 to 0.60).
There was no significant (95%) difference between the log mean
ratios from one portion of the processing season to another
including when alum feed was on or off. All continuous flow
meter readings were on the filter effluent.
From December 3, 1976, to January 6, 1977, the bench
model side scatter turbidimeter was used to analyze grab sam-
ples in parallel with the forward scatter machine. On filtered
effluent the log mean ratio of side scatter to forward scatter
readings was 0.26 (95% confidence range 0.14 to 0.50). The log
mean ratio on unfiltered biological effluent was 0.21 (95%
confidence range 0.15 to 0.30). This ratio is significantly
different at the 95% level from the ratio obtained for filtered
effluent. Alum feed was on during the entire period.
The turbidity of the reclaimed wastewater is shown on
Table 13. The turbidity data is in NTU (nephelometric tur-
bidity units) as derived from the continuous flow turbidity
meter, or as calculated from the values obtained on grab
samples from the forward scatter unit (xO.35). Table 13 shows
that the reclaimed effluent turbidity was very low during the
1976 season through November 23 except for the one week upset
following Labor Day. A short run in May also produced a low
turbidity reclaimed water. Reclaimed water turbidity from
November 29 through January 7 was marginal with 13 of 23 days
at 15 NTU or less, and after the January freeze through March
10, was high with only 4 of 18 days having 15 NTU or less.
The 1975 processing season did not result in particularly good
reclaimed water turbidity either, although from start up
through October 4 the reclaimed effluent was consistently below
20 NTU.
The maintenance of a consistent low turbidity reclaimed
water must, apparently, yet be demonstrated after cold weather
and product changes occur late in the processing season. The
1976 data indicate that consistency was maintained during the
main portion of the season. The primary drinking water
standards9 call for turbidity of 5 NTU or less plus demonstra-
tion of adequate disinfection. Disinfection consistency was
demonstrated as documented above. The reclaimed effluent is
not to be used for final product contact, inclusion with the
final product or for human consumption. The reclaimed effluent
73
-------
>-
1
1 I
O.
t <
CQ
Di
ZD
I
h-
UJ
1
l i
U_
UJ
Q
1 1 1
1 1
1
o
UJ
Qi
,
OO
1
1 1 1
1
CO
1
i
s- (
O "Z.
i O
tO CM
O"
LU
ZT>
CO h-
cnz
r- ID
T3 i
QJ
Di
1
M- h-
O Z
E 0
0
r-
P
S-
0 ZD
0-1
O Z
S-
D- ID
CM
i i
>,
P
i ZD
-o i
i- 'Z.
_Q "
S-
-3 >
h- 0)
O
0
r O
S- -4J
4-> CO
CL)
E +1
O
cu to
-C CU
CD-2I
Ol
'Z.
CO
Q>
(O
Q
o o oo o o o «3~ ^d~ o o
CO OO CO CD *sj~ CD CO CJD LD CD
>00 r- 0 r- 0 O 0
o oo LD ooor~-.cooo
0 P^ 0 ^t- 0 r- oo oo o
i O O i O i O O O i
OOlJDCO OOOCOOOOO
COOUD O CM O ID r CM O
OOO r OrOOOr
r-- co oou3r~-.coi.nLn
UD sd- OCMCTl^-r OCTl
OOO r O O O O O O
CD CO tQ CD CTi LD
CM CM CO «* i l£>
.
000 OOOOOOO
ID ID UD OO
.
^- i CM CM
+1 +! +1 +1
CO ** 00 CM
CO OO LO ID
r*-*
ID ic r-.
LD r^ r^ vjo ~
LD r*"^ **^^ ~^o "^-* r^-» p^ r^
r~- ^-^ oo c ^3" ^^ ~^~ r^
~~^ c*~> i (o \ ro i r-~ -^.
d-cM1^. i VDCM ir-^or---
~v. ---. CM «3- i r-- \ ID -^-^ § r
o o i ~-« i ~^~ i r^~ r ~^ ^
i i CTvCO' i ~-^OOOOt~^
1 1 "3- 1 i i 1 CTl 1 i
r-.cocM^-^,^LncMCTioo^
~\OO^ ~\ r l ^Z. -^ -\
COi i CO CTli i i CMLO
-a
S-
ta
S
S-
"*- ai
-C
f
0
S- o_.
<*- o
"0 c:
-P .°
to +j
= 0
<-> a.
03 to
c:
s- CD
0 _£;
=> S
S- H-
CD 'z- (f>
-P -0
OJ O O
E oo .r.
<- 1-
~o " aj
i- Q.
JD O)
J- s.-
Zi "3 O
+j O 14..
co
s- -a
d) E CL)
)-> ^ -I-J
4-> E n3
fQ ! j
0 X ^5
CO S
S- CL1 -o
E co ^ T-
CZ 4-> CO
o s-
o «u EC
4-> j- .^
E +-> 4^-0
0 ro .,- (C
S- <-> S- (U
U. CO ec j_
-1 CM
74
-------
at turbidities less than 20 NTU appears to be attainable and
adequate for reuse in the cannery.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen in the reclaimed effluent during the two
processing seasons was above 8.0 mg/1 with the exception of
three days each season. During 1975, the lowest dissolved
oxygen recorded was 6.7. The other two readings below 8.0
were 7.6 and 7.9 mg/1. During the 1976 season, a 7.7 mg/1
reading was obtained and two readings of 7.9 mg/1 were recorded
A1 kalini ty
The alkalinity of the reclaimed effluent varied consider-
ably as would be expected due to the lye peeling of peaches
during a portion of each processing season. The range of alka-
linity was approximately the same during each of the seasons
from about 40 to approximately 290 with a median of from 60 to
70 mg/1 as CaC03. The mean alkalinity was not significantly
different between the two seasons and the overall average was
86 mg/1 as CaCOs. For comparison, the well water supply had
an average alkalinity of 61 mg/1 as CaC03.
Hardness
Hardness was measured as total hardness and as calcium
hardness during each of the two processing seasons, each mea-
sured as CaCOs. The hardness stayed relatively constant with
a total hardness range over the two seasons of 17 to 57 mg/1
as CaCOs and the calcium hardness range from 11 to 35 mg/1
as CaCOs. The mean values for the two seasons (there was no
significant difference between seasons) were 30 mg/1 as CaCOs
for total hardness and 20 mg/1 as CaCOs for calcium hardness.
The well water supply total hardness averaged 41 mg/1 as CaCOs
and calcium hardness averaged 30 mg/1 as CaC03. Thus both
total and calcium hardness reduction were approximately 10 mg/1
as CaCOs through the biological treatment and effluent polish-
ing. The reduction was probably due to calcium carbonate
precipitation, principally during and following peach process-
ing when the alkalinity was high as a result of lye peeling.
Chlorides and Sulfates
The chloride content in the reclaimed effluent reflected
the variations in chlorides in the effluent to the biological
treatment system. The chlorides in the cannery effluent were
largely a function of the amount of salt used on the floor to
prevent the wet floors from becoming slick and hazardous to
foot traffic. Chlorides ranged from near 0 to 112 mg/1. There
was no significant difference between the average chloride
concentration between the two seasons. The overall mean was
75
-------
49 mg/1 and the standard deviation 32 mg/1 . Chlorides in the
well water supply were less than 1 mg/1 .
Sulfates in the reclaimed effluent were variable with a
range from 5 to 60 mg/1. There was no significant difference
between the means obtained in 1975 and 1976 and the overall
average was 21 mg/1 with a standard deviation of 12 mg/1. The
well water supply sulfate level was 5 mg/1.
Reactive Silicate, Detergents and Color
Reactive silicates were measured in the reclaimed effluent
and in the house water supply. There was no significant diff-
erence between the mean concentrations determined during the
two seasons. The average in the reclaimed effluent was 2.5 mg/1
with a standard deviation of 0.9 mg/1. The house water supply
had an average reactive silicate level of 2.4 mg/1.
Detergent concentration was measured by the methylene
blue active substance (MBAS) test, as LAS, in the house water
supply and in the reclaimed effluent. The house water supply
showed less than 0.01 mg/1 of MBAS as LAS and the reclaimed
effluent showed less than 0.1 mg/1 MBAS as LAS on all tests.
Color was estimated in the reclaimed effluent by color
comparater on a weekly basis over the two seasons. There was
no significant difference between the two seasons. The range
was from 5 to 90 color units with a median color reading of
25 color units.
Heavy Metals
Heavy metals analyses were performed by National Food
Processors Association Laboratories in Berkeley, California,
by atomic absorption. The results of the heavy metal analyses
on the reclaimed water, the untreated wastewater, the biological
effluent and on the tap water are shown on Tables 14 and 15
for the 1975 and 1976 seasons respectively. The detectable
limits for the various heavy metals were different for differ-
ent analysis days. This resulted from sensitivity of the atomic
absorption apparatus varying between dates of analysis. The
values reported as "less than", reflected the sensitivity at
the time of running that particular set of analyses. The sen-
sitivity was checked during calibration on each day that
analyses were conducted.
The aluminum content in the reclaimed wastewater was of
measurable concentration only when alum was being fed ahead
of the filters. The remainder of the time, it was below
detectable limits. Heavy metals for which primary drinking
water standards9 have been promulgated are lead, arsenic,
cadmium and mercury. The lead (Pb) concentration limit of
76
-------
TABLE 14. HEAVY METALS ANALYSIS RESULTS, 1975
Date
Sample
Pb
As
Zn
Sn
Cu
Cd
Hg
Ca
Mg
Fe
Na
K
Mn
Al
11/4/75
Reclaimed
Water
0.05k*
0.05k
0.50
Not done
0.05k
0.03k
0.0002k
6.0
0.5
O.Ik
60
17
0.05k
0.10k
11/4
Reclaimed
Water
0.05k
0.05k
0.50
Not done
0.05k
0.03k
0.0002k
7.0
0.5
O.Ik
60
16
0.05k
0.10k
11/18/75
Reclaimed
Water
0.05k
0.05k
0.02
Not done
0.05k
0.03k
0.0003
6.0
1.0
O.Ik
60
15
0.05k
0.10k
12/16/75
Waste-
water
0.05k
Not done
Not done
3.0k
0.05k
0.03k
0.0004
11.6
1.8
0.9
17
16
0.05k
0.50
12/16
Clarifier
Effluent
0.05k
Not done
Not done
3.0k
0.05k
0.03k
0.0008
11.0
1.3
0.2k
24
7.0
0.05k
0.2k
12/16
Reclaimed
Water
0.05k
Not done
0.15
3.0k
0.05k
0.03k
0.0009
11.0
1.3
0.2k
22
7.0
0.05k
2.2
12/16
Tap
Water
0.05k
Not done
Not Done
3.0k
0.05k
0.03k
0.001
12.5
1.8
0.2k
15
3.0
0.05k
0.2k
* k = 'less than', results are in mg/1.
77
-------
-^ ^£
LO LO
oo oo oooooo oo oo oo
-Q r i r t CM VO LO r CO i r CM
a. oo oo oooooo oo oo oo
IO
CT)
CM CM 0000 000000000000 OO CO LO LO
o oo oo oooooo oo oo oo
cr>
co E
ZD "
00 fd C OO OO OOOOOO OO OO OO
4->
CO
->^
__ ^^ ^_ ^^ \x
^ re
CMCM r r r i r i r i r i CMCM CMCM
o oo oo oooooo oo oo oo
-V
CO
«=c oo oo oooooo oo oo
LU
*
0) LOlO LOLO h^OCMLOLOLO LOLO LOO LOLO
_ CO CO CM
UJ
1r>
CQ
O)
.
E 0
(Q CX.
I/O
OJ
o
C
O
o
EL O Q- O
re a> re a)
t cc. h- a:
UD
CM
IO
CM
o
Ol
QJ
vo
s_
-------
.
-o
cu
Z3
d
r
i >
c
0
o
'
LO
LU
1
m
<
1
"^
E
r>
to
03
**y
^
>
ro
CO
:E
a
r
C
£
re
tr
5
ro
SX
cn
^-
(O
O
C
M
C
IT
)
-p
L. C
i O
) Cu
ai
-P
rO
a
to LO
** CM
1 1
o
O CO
OO «3-
1
CO O
«=J- OO
O CM
CO LO
cn r^
*K:
i CM
O CM
t^» to
) CM
o o
O O
-o
£
r
rO
P
Q- 0
rO
1 <"*"
to
^_
r
CM
cn
--to
0 r
LO
CM O
CM «*
CO
o
t^ =*
CNJ *
t
O LO
UD <
o
r^~ to
r 10
1
LO LO
r CM
o to
OO CO
0 O
O O
O 0
CU
E
r
f
(C CU
1 a:
to
^
CM
r
"^^
O
'
CM
O
O
CM
1^.
CM
CO
r
^j.
00
o
to
cn
CM
cn
o
LO
o
o
o
IS
a>
ro
cu
i-
c:
10
f^
^r
p
*v^^
0
^J-CO^-
0 O O
O CM O
oo cn cn
i » r-^ to
0 00
LO O OO
CM cn co
00 r r
«* O oo
cn o <
O U3
OO LO
cn LO
LO LO CM
CO 00 CM
o o o
LO OO
O CO
o o
0 0
a>
r-
n-
~ ^~
ro
-^
,-r-
0 O
CO O
O CM
r-- r-
CM
OO LO
CM i
r r
LO CO
to to
LO i
LO IO
CM CM
CM CM
O 0
3" LO
o o
o o
o o
^
r- l~^
o
CO
LO O
co cn
^
CM OO
r-- oo
CM «3-
^~
r^ 'i-
to cn
r O
^J-
r- CM
i LO
l~~
LO CVJ
CO
O r
~~
CO CO
o o
o o
0 0
a
cu
rO
^_
(O CU
I a:
to
r^
to
f~-.
*+^
f.
r
LO
O CM
«3- LO
r OO
O O
o cn
oo oo
o cn
CO OO
«=J- 0
«3- r-^
CM to
1
LO
. co
o oo
co *^t*
O 0
o o
O 0
TD
t
ro
ro O)
to
f-
^T
r
^^
CM
O VO
^j- «3-
r CM
0 0
CTl CM
CM O
r
O 0
to to
0 0
00 «3-
r CD
i i
CM OO
O CM
^
CO OO
0 0
O 0
0 0
T3
0)
ro
D- (J
(O CU
i a:
f^;
^^
CO
CO
c:
fO
-P
i/>
cu
ii
*
79
-------
0.05 mg/1 was not exceeded in any of the reclaimed or tap water
samples analyzed but was approached in the sample of process-
ing effluent analyzed in 1976. The arsenic (As) limit of
0.05 mg/1 was not approached in any of the samples analyzed.
The limit for cadmium (Cd), 0.01 mg/1 was not exceeded in any
of the samples. The mercury (Hg) limit, 0.002 mg/1, was exceed-
ed in the reclaimed effluent on September 21, 1976. Results
for mercury analysis on that date were higher than observed
at any other time for both tap water and reclaimed water samples
however, indicating that there could have been problems in the
analysis on that particular day. The higher results were not
indicated at any other time in the tap water even though the
well water source was consistent throughout the project.
Pesticides
Pesticide analyses were conducted by the EPA Region X lab-
oratory in Seattle, Washington, and by Columbia Laboratories
in Corbett, Oregon, during this study. The Region X laboratory
conducted analyses during both the 1975 and the 1976 seasons
for a wide variety of pesticides. They are shown on Table 16
with the detectable limit, the samples analyzed, and the occur-
rence of positive results. The analyses (primarily herbicides)
performed by Columbia Laboratories are also shown on Table 16.
Pesticides listed on Table 16 for which there are primary
drinking water standards limitations are: Endrin = 0.2 yg/1;
Toxaphene = 5 yg/1; Lindane 4 ug/1; Methoxych'l or 100 yg/1;
2,4-D 100 ug/1; and Silvex = 10 yg/1. Since 2,4-D was not
known to have been applied (it would kill fruit trees) it was
not run on the samples.
The positive pesticide results obtained during this study
and indicated on Table 16 were not particularly consistent in
that they were not shown to persist in the case of BHC or
lindane. The PCB 1248/1254 results were somewhat more consis-
tent, although their occurrence was principly in the tap water
and even then was not particularly consistent in quantity or
in its detection. The significance of this polychlorinated
biphenyl is not documented but its presence was detected in
the house water supply and could be of concern if it were found
to be of public health significance. The inconsistency of its
detection could mean that there is a problem with the analysis
for this constituent. Its concentration was too low to confirm
by mass spectrograph.
The Diphenylamine detected in the two samples for which
herbicides were analyzed could have occurred from its applica-
tion to stored apples, which were subsequently brought out of
storage and processed in the cannery. There were no analyses
performed earlier in the season, before the start of process-
ing of stored apples. There was also some uncertainty as to
the results at this low level due to difficulty with clearing
80
-------
TABLE 15. PESTICIDE RESULTS
Detectable Limit Sampl
Pesticide ug/1 Analy;
Aldrin
BHC
Chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Toxaphene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Lindane
PCB's
PCB 1242
PCB 1248/1254
PCB 1260
Organo Phosphates as Parathion
Perthane
Endosulfan
Sil vex
Sevin
Benomyl
Diphenylamine
Plictran
Karathane
Omite
Maneb
Methoxychlor
esi 2
:ed Results
0.001 a 0
0.001 a w
0.005 a 0
0.001 a 0
0.001 a 0
0.003 a 0
0.001 a 0
0.003 a 0
0.060 a 0
0.001 a 0
0.001 a 0
0.001 a x
0.015 b 0
0.010 c 0
0.010 c y
0.030 c 0
0.010 a 0
0.010 c 0
0.005 c 0
1.0 d 0
10 d 0
20 d 0
1 d z
10 d 0
4 d 0
2 d 0
0.2 d 0
0.01 a 0
a. Reclaimed and house tap water tested by EPA Region X Lab, Seattle, WA.
11-4, 11-17 & 12-16-75; 9-21, 10-12 (dup),11-16 & 12-14-76, & 3-8-77.
b. Same as a. but 1975 samples only.
c. Same as a. but 1976-77 samples only.
d. Reel, water tested by Columbia Labs, Corbett, OR. 12-14-76 & 3-8-77.
0 = less than detectable limits.
w. BHC: 11-4-75 - Reel, water = 0.008 ug/1.
9-21-76 - House water = 0.021 yg/1, Reel, water = 0.028 yg/1.
x. Lindane: 11-4-75 - Reel, water = 0.016 yg/1.
y. PCB 1248/1254: 9-21-76 - Reel, water = 0.015 yg/1. 10-12-76 - House =
0.028 (dup.=0). 11-16-76 - House = 0.013. 12-14-76 - House = 0.023
(dup.=0.065). 3-8-77 - House = 0.051, Reel. = 0.143 yg/1.
z. Diphenylamine: 12-14-76 - Reel. = 1-2 yg/1. 3-8-77 - Reel. = 2-4 yg/1.
There is uncertainty in the diphenylamine results due to difficulty
in elimination of the blank from the analyzer. A source of diphenyl-
amine was identified as an application to apples brought from storage
to processing.
81
-------
the Diphenylamine blank from the analytical appartus.
0 r g a n o^h a 1 i d e s
During the 1975 season, three sets of samples from the
reclaimed effluent and from the house tap water were submitted
to the Seattle EPA laboratory for organohalides analysis.
The samples were taken November 4, November 17 and December 16.
Analysis by the EPA laboratory yielded results on total vola-
tile chlorinated organics as chloroform. The analysis on the
first set of samples was somewhat insensitive and only indica-
ted that organohalides in both the reused and tap water were
less than 1 mg/1. On November 17 and December 16, the reclaimed
water results indicated less than 3 yg/1, while on November 17,
the tap water analysis showed 20 yg/1 and on December 16, less
than 3 yg/1. The 20 yg/1 reading was confirmed by gas chroma-
tagraph/mass spectrograph. The reading presents somewhat of
an anomoly since the tap water was not chlorinated.
Organohalides were run by Foremost laboratories in Dublin,
California and by Dohrmann Laboratory in Santa Clara, Calif-
ornia, during the 1976 season. Table 17 contains the results
of these analyses and shows that the reclaimed water is defin-
itely higher in concentration of volatile organic ha Tides than
the house tap water. It appears that the volatile organic
halides are predominately as chloroform. For reference the
chlorine residual on the days that these samples were collected
in the reclaimed water was approximately 2.9 mg/1 on September
21, 1976, approximately 1.2 mg/1 on October 12, approximately
3.3 mg/1 on November 16, 1.6 mg/1 on December 14 and 1.5 mg/1
on March 8, 1977. It appears that a correlation between chlor-
oform level and the residual chlorine may exist, although it
is not well established. The total organic chlorides and total
organic halides results, based on the solvent (hexane and
ether) extraction procedures suggested by Food and Drug Admin-
istration chemists to Dohrmann and by Dohrmann's own procedures,
were i nconclusi ve .
The volatile organic halides in the tap or reclaimed water
were not high enough in any of the samples to cause alarm when
compared with values observed in drinking water samples at other
1ocations10where values up to 300 yg/1 chloroform were observed
in some municipal water systems.
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BY WASTEWATER REUSE
The emission rates for COD, BOD and suspended solids for
Snokist Growers' cannery through the three processing seasons;
1974, 1975 and 1976, on a weekly average basis, are shown on
Tables 18, 19 and 20, respectively. The EPA effluent limita-
tion guidelines for the products processed at Snokist Growers'
ft?
-------
U3
r^
cn
*
C£
LU
h-
<
LU
OO
=>
O
:n
Q
z
<
Q
LU
s:
i i
<
_i
o
LU
Q£
Z
t-H
OO
LJL)
Q
_l
<
:r
0
z
O
S-
J2
CU
1 E
i- (O
T3 -E
O -P
E 0)
Oer
c
S- 0
co s_
o
i
_c
o
0)
o
.,_
s_
o
E r
o JE
-Q 0
S- (0
ro S_
O +->
Oi
P
1
0
S-
o
r- O)
J^ C
U rc
r .C
Q -P
1 Oi
CM
*s
I
1
O
S- E
O i.
r O
-E l(-
CJ)
01
i
Q.
E
ro
00
Oi
(->
(O
Q
QQ J^^i QQ QQO ^^Js<:
ZZ i i ZZ ZZZ i
.
^i ^:j>^ ^. ^. ^:coco Q-i<:
i i
. . .
.*: ^. ^. ^. ^. QQQ QJ^
. . ...
Q -^ O-i<: -l^^<: QQQ ^i^^
. . ...
Zr Zr- i t ZZZ ii
J»S Q QQ QO QQQ QQ
i Z ZZ ZZ ZZZ ZZ
VD CO CM CM
' . .
-*:CM JK;O ^icM -^oo .^CM
+i +i +i +i +i
r 00 CMCO r CO r IT) IO i ^~
. .
LO ^" i i CO
CM i
* *
O-T3 CX."O CX.T3 Q-~a T3 Q- T3
rOCU O3CU n3O) rOOlO) roO)
t E h- E 1 E r-EE I E
i -r -i -r -r- !
CU«3 O)n3 O)(O CUfOro O)rO
COi COr COi COi i COi
30 30 30 300 30
OO) OO) OO) OOIO) OCU
3:0: ^a: ^o; n:a;a: n:cc:
*-^ r>~
^> CM VO ^J- P^
: 1 1 1 \
CVJ ^ ^ \ 00
^» O i CM ->.
cn r- i i co
oo
1
_i
^3
00
LU
at
*zz
z
<
s;
o;
in
o
o
Ci
1
£="--
fO C7^
0 E E
i £_*
E ^: E
(O O CD
cnQ -P
S_ ' CO
0 >>
1 OO
.
ro CO O
+-> CU C\J
o -o '
I -I- OO
il
rOO
:rs:
i
^
cn
CO 3.
Ct) O) *^~^
i X3 0
i- -r- O
-P i CM
ro (O 1
i 3: LU
0 Q
> O
i- E
i E E
(O rO ro
-P cn E
0 S- S_
1 0 -E
o
Q
- ^
-P
E i
O> ^~
o > cn
E O
ro OO **
CD ^~^
S- E
O co O
QJ T-
-o -p
ro T- O
P S- ro
O O S-
1 r -P
-E X
O LU
CU
i
a.
E
ro
00
O)
-P
ro
Q
co CM CM _i
O) ^f
3C ~
*
Q.-O T3 Q.-O
ro O) OJ ro O)
r-EE r- E
( T -1
O) n3 to O> ro
co i i co i
3 O O 3 O
O CU O) O O)
2: oi CXL in oi
^o
r~>-
^v ^~-
«* t^.
i ^
^- 00
CM ^^
i CO
0)
_a
r-
co
co
O
CL
E E
r- O
._
C i
O r
i *r
P S-
ro -P
-p
i- S-
-P O)
E Q.
ro
3 CO
CT-P
s_
-P ro
3 O-
J3
O
-o o
CU LO
-p 1
0 0
cu o
-P CO
CU
-o >>
p
T3 -i-
E r
3 -r-
o JD
Q- ro
E -P
O O
O CU
-p
* CU
E a
O)
>(
*T
i- O
m
w )
-p
01 -r-
3 E
1 !
ro 1
>
CU
-E 73
-P CU
P
E O O)
ro O) -P
-E -P rO
-P 0) O
Q !-
co i
co -P CL
0) O 3
. Z Q
II II II
-^ -X
Q
Z
83
-------
TABLE 18. 1974 POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Week
8/23-24
8/26-31
9/3-7
9/9-14
9/16-20
9/23-28
9/30-10/5
10/7-12
10/14-19
10/21-26
10/29-11/2
11/4-9
11/11-15
11/18-22
11/25-27
12/2-6
12/9-13
Fruit
Processed*
kkg
518 Pr
1616 Pr
1319 Pr
1305 Pr,121 PI
624- Pe,426 PI
1636 Pr,236 A
1600Pr,519A,20Pl
1546 Pr,587 A
1588 Pr,595 A
1618 Pr,592 A
1335 Pr, 538 A
1438 Pr, 576 A
648 A
819 A
234 A
386 A
295 A
COD Emi
Total
kg
1590
4520
1030/4 da
1025
810
1000
765/5 da
1830
1750
1930
770/3 da
1095
1260
770/4 da
255
4440***
540
ssion
kg/kkg
Fruit
3.07
2.80
0.98
0.72
0.77
0.53
0.43
0.86
0.80
0.87
0.69
0.54
1.94
1.18
1.09
11.5
1.83
BOD**
Emission
kg/kkg
-
3.00
0.06
0.06
-
0.07
-
0.20
0.15
0.13
0.09
0.64
0.09
0.14
0.19
0.16
Suspended Solids
Emission
Total kg
1050
1430
189/4 da
229
230
450
309/5 da
785
486
825
473
428
474
140/4 da
136
3530***
310
kg/kkq
2.03
0.8£
0.18
0.16
0.22
0.24
0.17
0.37
0.22
0.37
0.25
0.21
0.73
0.21
0.58
8.63
1.05
* Pr = Pears, Pe = Peaches, PI = Plums, A = Apples
** 1 day or 2 days during week only
***! day high results skewed results
Total Wastewater Flow 8/23 - 12/13/1974 = 460,600 cu.m.
Total Fruit Processed 8/23 - 12/13/1974 = 22,800 kkg
Wastewater Discharge Rate = 20.2 cu.m./kkg (4770 gal/ton)
84
-------
TABLE 19. 1975 POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Week
8/26-30
9/2-6
9/8-13
9/15-20
9/22-27
9/29-10/4
10/6-11
10/13-18
10/20-25
10/28-11/1
11/3-8
11/10-15
11/17-19
11/20,21,24,25
12/1-5
12/8-12
12/15-18
Fruit
Processed*
kkg
1407
1358
1664
1644
1311
1734
1620
1598
1666
1334
1730
1670
789
Pr
Pr
Pr,
Pr,
Pe,
Pr,
Pr,
Pr,
Pr,
Pr,
Pr,
Pr,
Pr,
46
520
280
14
473
555
550
498
570
682
397
570
840
PI
PI
PI
PI
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
881 A
291
A
COD Emission
Total
kg
1300
880
1940
1700
1330
1230
4240
3320
2590
1190
1990
1130
350
362
1540
1070
455
kg/kkg
Fruit
0
0
t
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
.92
.65
.13
.79
.84
.70
.03
.54
.17
.65
.87
.48
.30
.64
.83
.21
.56
BOD**
Emission
kg/kkg
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16
.076
.22
.12
.105
.070
.31
.27
.14
.054
.13
.115
.033
--
.39
.25
.26
Suspended Solids
Emission
Total kg kg/kkg
592
346
817
625
630
627
3290
2230
1590
482
829
505
88
125
1035
585
161
0.42
0.25
0.48
0.29
0.40
0.36
1.57
1.04
0.72
0.26
0.36
0.21
0.074
0.22
1.23
0.66
0.55
*Pr = Pears= Pe = Peaches, PI = Plums, A = Apples
**1 day per week only
Total Wastewater Flow 8/26-12/19/75 = 557,500 cu.m.
Total Wastewater Reused = 180,100 cu.m.
Total Effluent to River = 377,400 cu.m.
Total Fruit Processed 8/26-12/19/75 =27,000 kkg
Wastewater Flow Rate =20.6 cu.m./kkg ( 4950 gal/ton)
Effluent Flow Rate = 14. 0 cu.m./kkg (3350 gal/ton)
85
-------
TABLE 20. 1976 SEASON POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Fruit
Processed*
Week kkg
8/24-8/28 1529 Pr
8/30-9/4 1760 Pr
9/7-9/11 1520 Pr, 178 PI
9/13-9/18 1422 Pr, 376 PI
9/20-9/25 1601 Pe, 470 PI
9/27-10/2 1490 Pr, 29 Pe, 261
10/4-10/9 1828 Pr, 529 A
10/11-10/16 1808 Pr, 563 A
10/18-10/23 1830 Pr, 551 A
10/25-10/30 1674 Pr, 569 A
11/1-11/6 1744 Pr, 575 A
11/8-11/13 1452 Pr, 459 A
11/15-11/20 646 A
11/22-11/24 422 A
11/29-12/3 566 A
12/6-12/10 714 A
12/13-12/17 728 A
12/20-12/22 418 A
12/27-12/30 549 A
1/3-1/7*** 678 A
1/12-1/14*** 397 A
1/17-1/21*** 741 A
1/24-1/28 & 1/31 958 A
2/23-2/25 391 A
2/28-3/4 588 A
3/7-3/10 494 A
Total Wastewater Flow
Total Wastewater Reused
Total Effluent to River
Total Fruit Processed
Wastewater Flow Rate
Effluent Flow Rate
Overall Reuse = 34.8%
Overall Effluent Flow Rate =
COD Emission BOD**
Total Unit Emission
kg kq/kkg kg/kkg
449 .326 .078
514 .292 .027
3854 2.27 .454
(max. da. = 5.2)
742 .415 .046
1020 .493 .120
PI 610 .343 .026
694 .294 .027
772 .326 ,030
845 .355 .053
1001 .446 .041
957 .413 .044
1146 .600 .099
584 .904 .066
408 .967 .137
1127 1.99 .336
867 1.21 .245
602 .827 .165
470 1.13
315 .574
573 .845 .111
2797 7.05
4460 6.02
1938 2.02 .57
570 1.46
709 1.21 .238
238 .482 .047
8/24/76-11/13/76
422,720 cu m
159,660 cu m, 38%
263,060 cu m
24,209 kkg
17,500 1/kkg
4,190 qal/ton
10,900 1/kkg
2,610 gal/ton
12,700 1/kkg, 3,050 gal/ton
Susp. Solids
Total Unit
kg kg/kkg
172 .112
118 .067
1022 .602
(max. da. = 1 .09 )
196 .110
309 .149
147 .083
211 .090
232 .098
362 .152
295 .132
403 .174
364 .190
155 .240
178 .423
751 1.33
606 .849
366 .503
266 .636
149 .271
488 .720
686 1.73
1627 2.20
1277 1.33
439 1.12
449 .764
140 .283
11/15/76-3/10/77
209,750 cu m
60,340 cu m, 29%
149,410 cu m
8,290 kkg
25,300 1/kkg
6,080 gal/ton
18,000 1/kkg
4,330 gal/ton
* Pr = Pears, Pe = Peaches,
** One or two days per week
*** Aeration Basin partially
PI = Plums, A = Apples.
for BOD data.
or completely frozen over, aerators inopperable.
86
-------
cannery during these seasons, is shown on Table 21. The emiss-
ions during the 1975 and 1976 processing seasons reflect the
actual emission rate to the Yakima River and therefore take
into acocunt the wastewater reclamation and reuse in the can-
nery. Tables 18, 19 and 20, show that the emission rate of
pollutants increased between the 1974 and 1975 season even
though the unit wastewater flow decreased due to the effluent
reuse. The increase in emission rates was due to the poorer
quality biological effluent in 1975. The effluent degradation
is thought to have occurred primarily due to uncontrolled
chlorination practices in the cannery which affected the bio-
logical treatment system. During 1976 pear processing, the
emission rates improved over both the 1974 and 1975 processing
seasons. The pollutant emission rates during apple processing,
on a unit basis, increased over pear and apple processing com-
bined, during all three of the seasons. This was due to the
relatively high water useage during apple processing and the
wastewater treatment system being sized for the greater organic
waste load that accompanies peach and pear processing. The
effluent quality during pear processing carried over to apple
processing and affected unit emission rates to some extent.
Also, the colder weather during the latter portion of pear
processing season and then the extremely cold weather during
apple processing, especially in 1976, undoubtedly resulted in
increased suspended solids and BOD unit emission rates. This
can be seen especially during January 1977 when the aeration
basin froze over for about a week. The use of dry chlorine
in the plant following cleanup may also have affected the bio-
logical treatment system during apple processing.
Comparison of the unit emission rates on Tables 18, 19 and
20 with the effluent limitation guidelines on Table 21, shows
that the best available technology guidelines, 30-day maximum
average, were met by weekly averages during a majority of each
of the three seasons for suspended solids and BOD through the
end of pear processing. The exceptions were the 1974 season,
during startup, and the 1975 season, during pear and apple
processing. During the 1976 season, the 1-day and the 30-day
limitations were exceeded by the average emission during the
week following the upset which occurred over the~Labor Day week-
end .
The weekly average unit emission rates during apple pro-
cessing exceeded the 30-day effluent limitations guidelines
for best practicable technology during most of all three sea-
sons when apples were processed alone.
Based on the comparison of the unit emission rates and the
effluent limitations guidelines, it appears that Snokist Growers
with the wastewater reclamation reuse system, will be able to
meet best available technology effluent limitations during their
peach and pear processing seasons. During their apple process-
87
-------
TABLE 21. EPA EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
Category
BPCTCA
i
BATEA'
BOD
TSS
BOD
TSS
Apple Products
Max 30 Day Ave
Max 1 Day
Peaches
Max Annual Ave
Max 30 Day Ave
Max 1 Day
Pears
Max Annual Ave
Max 30 Day Ave
Max 1 Day
PI urns
Max Annual Ave,
Max 30 Day Ave
Max 1 Day
0. 55
1 .10
0.67
0.93
1 .51
0.83
1 .12
1 .77
0.29
0.42
0.69
0.70
1 .40
1 .26
1 .93
2.72
1.55
2.32
3.21
0.54
0.87
1 .24
0.10
0.20
0.324
0.583
0.766
0.397
0.664
0.855
0.095
0.204
0.283
0.10
0.20
0.324
0.583
0.766
0.397
0.664
0.855
0.095
0.204
0.283
1 BPCTCA = Best practicable control technology currently
achievable. To be implemented by July 1, 1977.
2 BATEA = Best available technology economically achievable
To be implemented by July 1, 1983. Peach, pears and plum
limitations shown are for large processors.
Limitations
processed.
are in kg of pollutant per kkg of raw product
88
-------
ing seasons. During their apple processing season, it does not
appear that they will be able to meet these effluent limita-
tions. It is evident that the apple limitations are somewhat
more stringent than those for peaches and pears and therefore
may be unrealistic for Snokist Growers to achieve even with the
capability for wastewater reclamation and reuse.
It was evident during both 1975 and 1976 processing seasons
that substantial water reduction was achieved through the
reclamation and reuse of treated wastewater. The overall reduc-
tion in water use per ton of processed product from the 1974 to
the 1975 and 1976 seasons, was 31 percent and 37 percent respec-
tively. The proportion of the wastewater reclaimed and reused
during the 1975 and 1976 seasons was 32 percent and 35 percent
respectively.
Potential Additional Haste Load Reduction
Based on the assumed suitability of the reclaimed effluent
for use as direct contact container cooling water, the waste-
water flow could be reduced still further than during 1975 or
1976. The reclaimed water could be used for cooling with
subsequent use for floor and gutter wash. The additional cool-
ing use would reduce the overall flow rate during pear and
apple processing by about 1,100 1/min. or about 1,000 cu.m/day.
This would result in the effluent flow rate being reduced from
approximately 6,800 cu.m/day to approximately 5,800 cu.m/day.
With the existing effluent reclamation system capacity of about
2,500 cu.m./day in use, the final effluent quantity would be
reduced to the river to approximately 3,300 cu.m/day. The unit
discharge rate during apple and pear processing, would be about
8.5 cu.m/kkg with this type operation or over a 50 percent
reduction from the levels existing prior to wastewater reclama-
tion and reuse. Assuming that the biological effluent quality
would be equal to that experienced without the effluent reclam-
ation and reuse, the BOD and total suspended solids emission
rates would also be decreased by 50 percent.
A large proportion of the apple processing wastewater flow
results from water spray glass container cooling. Separation
of this flow from the effluent and use of reclaimed water for
its makeup could result in a substantial emission reduction
during apple processing.
Cost of Wastewater Reclamation
The cost of wastewater reclamation for reuse includes the
additional operating costs for the wastewater reclamation
facilities and the amortized first cost of the facilities on an
annual basis. The unit costs would vary according to the quan-
tity of water reclaimed per season. Table 22 shows the esti-
mated operating costs for the wastewater reclamation facilities
89
-------
on an annual and per unit of reclaimed water basis. Also
included on Table 22 is the annual capital cost based on amort-
ization over 15 years at 8 percent interest with no credit taken
for investment tax credits, early write off or other potential
savings (see Table 3 for capital cost of facilities). Snokist
Growers is a non-profit corporation so such credits are not
applicable. The cost of power and chemicals for reclaiming
the effluent is approximately the same as the operating costs
for providing the same amount of raw water supply. Because of
the high capital cost wastewater reclamation for reuse at
Snokist Growers' cannery could not be economically justified on
a water supply savings basis alone. The same amount of water
provided each year, assuming a new well costing $150,000, would
be required, would cost approximately .085 dollars per cubic
meter (.32 dollars/1,000 gal.).
TABLE 22. COST OF WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FOR REUSE
Item Cost
0 & M Cost (for 220,000 cu.m/yr)
Power $ 900
Chlorine 400
Coagulant 500
Extra Technician 4 ,200
Total 0 & M $ 6,000/yr, $0.027/cu.m
($0.103/1000 gal)
Capital Cost Amortization
$325,000 @ 8%, 15 yrs 38,000/yr
Total Annual Cost $44,000/yr, $0.20/cu.m
($0.76/1000 gal)
Reclamation and reuse may be justified in order to achieve
EPA best available technology for reducing waste loads in the
effluent. The reclamation system will apparently achieve this
through the peach and pear processing season. These standards
could probably not be achieved on a consistent basis without
effluent reclamation and reuse.
RECLAIMED WATER USE
The reclaimed water was put to use during the 1975 and 1976
90
-------
processing seasons in pilot cannery areas. During the 1975
season, uses were limited to equipment washing and cleaning,
and direct contact container cooling. Uses in 1976 included:
equipment washdown; initial product cleaning and conveying;
direct contact container cooling; and boiler feed for steam
generation for cleaning, exhausting, cooking and blanching.
Equipment Cleaning
During the 1975 processing season, comparative cleaning
of belts on the peeler line was done on six occasions with
reclaimed water and house steam and with house water and house
steam. Swab tests for total plate count were conducted on the
belt receiving peeled product (peeler belt) and the belt which
transports fruit from the peeler belt to shaker screens (shaker
belt), following cleaning. There were four seperate samples,
each analyzed in duplicate from each belt washed with either
the house or reclaimed water and steam.
Table 23 contains the log mean swab total plate count and
one standard deviation range each side of the mean for the six
1975 washing trials on the peeler and shaker belts. The trials
were conducted between September 19 and December 20, 1975.
TABLE 23. SWAB TESTS ON PROCESSING BELTS AND EQUIPMENT
CLEANED WITH RECLAIMED AND HOUSE WATER, 1975 PROCESSING SEASON
Item
House Water
House Steam
Reclaimed Water
House Steam
Peeler Belt - Swab Water
Count
Log Mean Plate
Log Mean - 1
Log Mean + 1
Count/100 ml
Std.Deviation
Std.Deviation
Shaker Belt - Swab Water
Count
Log Mean Plate Count/100 ml
Log Mean - 1 Std.Deviation
Log Mean + 1 Std.Devi at ion
Peeler & Shaker Belts
Log Mean Plate Count/100 ml
Log Mean - 1 Std. Deviation
Log Mean + 1 Std . Deviation
Chlorine Residual in Water
Mean
Std.
mg/1
Deviation
n = 6
1 .24 x 10
1.10 x 10
1 .40 x 10'
4.1
0.4
i+
n
1
6
2
n
1
9
1
= 6
.34
.74
.76
= 1
.29
.55
.74
x
x
X
2
X
X
X
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
6
5
3
6
n = 6
3.26 x
3.64 x
2.92 x
0.3
0.4
5
104
1 n 6
n
1 .
9!
n
5.
6.
5.
= 6
03
09
86
= 1
75
31
25
x
x
X
2
X
X
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
o
0
6
5
6
5
k
6
91
-------
There was no significant difference between results from the
peeler belt and shaker belt utilizing either wash water. The
log swab total plate count and one standard deviation range for
the peeler and shaker belts combined also are shown. There is
a slight difference between the results using the house and
reclaimed waters for washing equipment, although it is not
statistically significantly different at the 90 percent level.
The minor difference that exists can probably be explained by
the differences in chlorine residual in the two waters used
for washing. The mean chlorine residual in the house water
during the cleanup periods was 4.1 mg/1 while in the reclaimed
water, the average chlorine residual was only 0.3 mg/1.
During the 1976 processing season, three parallel pear
processing lines were separately washed using: reclaimed water
and steam generated from reclaimed water on line 1; reclaimed
water with house steam on line 2; and house water with house
steam on line 3. During the 1976 equipment washing trials,
the chlorine residual in the house water was controlled so the
mean residual chlorine in the two waters used for washdown
were equal and averaged 0.9 mg/1. The results are shown on
Table 24.
The waste slide results shown on Table 24 resulted from
bi-weekly monitoring of the waste peel and core slide described
in Section 4 which was washed with the indicated treatments
over the entire six weeks of study without intervening wash-
downs with any other treatment. There was no trend in the
results over the six week period and no buildup or changes on
any of the belts other than an apparently random distribution
of total plate count values. There is no significant differ-
ence between the three waste slides on the lines 1, 2 or 3 at
the 70 percent level.
The peeler and shaker belt information shown on Table 24
was collected during weekly parallel washdown procedures using
the treatments indicated on the three parallel lines. Follow-
ing washdown with the particular treatments, the lines washed
with reclaimed water were rewashed with house water to avoid
the potential for residual contamination. The peeler belt
information and shaker belt information were separately analyzed
for each of the lines and then jointly analyzed as indicated
on the Table. There is no significant difference between the
washdown results using reclaimed water and reclaimed steam,
reclaimed water and house steam, or house water and house steam
at the 90 percent level of significance. The equipment clean-
ing during the 1976 season was conducted between October 1 and
November 15.
Product Cleaning and Conveying
Use of the reclaimed water for initial conveying and
92
-------
TABLE 24. SWAB TESTS ON WASTE & PRODUCT BELTS CLEANED WITH
RECLAIMED AND HOUSE WATER AND STEAM, 1976 PROCESSING SEASON
Item
Line 1
Reclaimed Water
Reclaimed Steam
Line 2
Reclaimed Water
House Steam
Line 3
House Water
House Steam
Waste Slide - Swab Water Count n=20
Log Mean Plate Count/100 ml 1.30 x 105
Log Mean - 1 std. Deviation 3.23 x 104
Log Mean + 1 std. Deviation 5.20 x 105
n=22
2.08 x 105
4.05 x 104
1.06 x 106
n=22
1.45 x 105
5.35 x 104
3.92 x 105
Peeler Belt - Swab Water Count n=10
Log Mean Plate Count/100 ml 8.03 x 105
Log Mean - 1 std. Deviation 2.14 x 105
Log Mean + 1 std. Deviation 3.01 x 106
n=10
3.09 x 105
2.70 x 104
3.54 x 106
n=10
1.43 x 105
2.83 x 104
7.23 x 105
Shaker Belt - Swab Water Count n=10
Log Mean Plate Count/100 ml 3.68 x 104
Log Mean - 1 std. Deviation 1.36 x 104
Log Mean + 1 std. Deviation 9.97 x 104
n=10
8.01 x 104
7.33 x 103
8.74 x 105
n=10
2.58 x 104
2.86 x 103
2.33 x 105
Peeler & Shaker Belts n=20
Log Mean Plate Count/100 ml 1.72 x 105
Log Mean - 1 std. Deviation 2.45 x 104
Log Mean + 1 std. Deviation 1.21 x 106
n=20
1.57 x 105
1.36 x 1C4
1.82 x 106
n=20
6.08 x 104
7.63 x 103
4.85 x 105
Chlorine Residual, mg/1
Mean
Std. Deviation
Reclaimed Water
0.9
0.5
House Water
0.9
0.6
93
-------
cleaning of fruit was conducted during the 1976 processing
season. The water was initially used during a portion of the
peach processing season and compared with house water used
during the other portion of the peach processing. The results
of the total plate count analyses are shown on Figure 28. The
peach dump tank water, after filling and after chemicals were
added, was not changed for the 3 days of operation with either
water. Minimal make up water was added. The peach dump oper-
ations were performed on the week of September 20 through 25,
1976.
House water and reclaimed water were alternately used in
the apple dump and conveying area for about a five week period.
The results of total plate count analyses on the fruit during
these dumping operations are shown on Figure 29. The apple
dump operations were performed using the reclaimed water through
December, part of January and into March. The reclaimed water
chlorine residual averaged 2.9 ing/1 and ranged from 0.8 mg/1 to
5.2 mg/1 in the chlorine contact tank. It was not checked
at the point of use. The house water was not chlorinated.
The dump tank was refilled each day and water flowed through it
continuously at a rate to replace the contents each shift.
There was no significant difference between the total plate
count on the fruit or in the dump tank whether reclaimed or
house water was used for the initial fruit dumping and convey-
ing for these two products.
Steam Generation
The suitability of the reclaimed effluent for steam gener-
ation in the cannery was compared with the house tap water and
with the maximum recommended concentrations for low pressure
boiler feed water of various constituents in Table 25. There
doesn't appear to be any significant difference between the
suitability of the house tap water and the reclaimed water for
boiler feed according to the concentration of silica, aluminum,
iron, manganese, copper, pH, or MBAS. The dissolved oxygen in
the reclaimed water exceeded the recommended concentration.
The dissolved solids of the reclaimed water are significantly
higher than in the house tap water although both were less than
the maximum recommended concentration. The alkalinity of the
reclaimed water was higher than that of the tap water and
exceeded the recommended level a portion of the time. The
period when the alkalinity exceeded that recommended, occurred
during and for approximately two weeks following peach process-
ing when the lye peel residuals raise the alkalinity signifi-
cantly. During the 1975 and 1976 processing seasons, the
maximum alkalinity was from 270 to 300 mg/1. The alkalinity
exceeded 200 mg/1 for two weeks during each of the seasons and
otherwise did not exceed the 140 mg/1 recommended limitation.
94
-------
10
10
10
.o5-
4
10
3
(.0 -
DUMP TANK WATER
TPC/ml ,+,
/ ,"""
s+
/
/
/
/
HOUSE WATER »
RECLAIMED WATER <-
PEACHES AFTER DUMP TANK
TPC / 9
PEACHES BEFORE DUMP TANK
TPC / g
DAY
DAY 2
DAY 3
Figure 28. Bacterial count on fruit and in dump tank using reel
aimed water and house water for peach dumping and
initial conveying.
IO5..
o
z
I04._
10
10 _____
RECLAIMED WATER'S
UJ
(t
o
U-
LJ
CD
MEAN 4 I STD. DEV.
LOG MEAN
MEAN- I STD. DEV.
o
z
Q.
5
0
Q-
UJ
H
-------
>-
h-
t f
I
t-H
CQ
CXI
LU
1
CQ
=C
h-
CM
<~-
0>
P
ra
3
a
01
£
i
rO
r
u
0)
G£
CM
i_
CD
-P
rd
2
O_
ro
h-
OJ
CO
3
O
~1~
1 1
c:
0
r-
-P
ro
i-
4->
C
cu
o
c:
O
<_J
ro
CTi CM CM i CM
O O
O CM O
V O O
-HI V V
LT> i
CM O
v
OO i CM i CM
O 0
O O O
v O O
+l| V V
^f 1
CM O
V
o Ln i oo LO
ro
o o
i
X.
ro
^"
4->
E
CU
3
P
>r~.
4~*
CO
c
o
o
i
r * r "
~--^ \- CD
en CD E i
E E *^
«* f r * N CD
" ' "* ***-. E £
CM, CDS! "
0 -a: £-
r- ' " * 3
OO --N O> O
* £ O> co
3 U_ CU
rO C E S-
O T- ro CU
r- £ E CD Q.
i 3 O E CL
r- r- S_ ro 0
co =? i i s: c_>
en CM O
O1 kO i
+1 +1 -H
O CO CD
CTi 00 OO
CM
i OO CO
i
+1 -H +1
O i i
CM CO ^f
i
O O 0
O ^1- CM
1^ i
,
I -v^
\ cni
en £ \
E " en
- - E
v CO r,
co O ^~-
^O C_J f"0
i- ro O
c O O
O ^ rO
00 C_>
>)--'
T3 -P
CU -r- CO
> E CO
r- !- O>
0 E
CO rO TD
CO -V S_
i- r~ rO
Q < n:
un
^~
r
O
o
+1 V
LT)
i
t-»-
00 i
o
CO
0
1 V
1
00
0
1
1
oo
,
CO ^~.
4-> en
<- E
3 "
CO
"cC
3T CQ
Q.S:
ro
CD
Q_
IO
r-^
en
i
C[_
O
S^
O
CO
*
0
«3-
V
0
,
1
LT)
LO
,
-^^
CD
E
"
Q
o
0
CO
r^.
CTi
i
O\J *4
r- O
1
r^ ^s
o
r^.
,K
O
1
V
in
.
CO r-
V
1
LO
CM
ir> o
i
CM
i r
'^ ^*v
en 01
E E
r, n
E CO
CU T3
CD-r-
>;!
X 0
o oo
TD T3
O) ~O
r C
O O)
co CL
co co
i 3
Q OO
1
ro
E
S-
cu
4->
E
r-
i_
O
4-
a
CD
co
3
CO
CD
O
C
ro
+J
CO
J2
3
CO
s
o
1
S-
0
C(_
"
en
i
>
cu
r
JD
ro
1
«
CO
CO
CTi
i
*
<£
C_)
CDD-
E
i
-a
a
rO
cu
s_
0
M
O)
.O
E
0
1
4->
rO
i.
4->
C
O)
U
E
O
O
-o
cu
T3
C
CD
E
E
0
o
cu
i.
E
3
E
i
X
ra
^
-<
3
U_
>
ro
i
i.
CD
4->
i
S-
C_J
>,
4->
i
i
rO
3
o-
s_
01
4->
ro
3
E
0
s-
Ll_
CD
E
i
E
O
r
4->
r-
T3
E
0
O
. .
CD
i
CO
Q.
O
in
i
o
4->
o
S-
O)
4->
n3
3
T3
CU
CU
Ll_
S-
OJ
1
r
O
CQ
Ol
S-
3
CO
co
CD
S-
n_
to
cu
3
i
ro
>
<+-
0
CU
en
E
ro
C£
O)
_c:
4-)
s^
0
>
E
0
I
4->
ro
i
>
a>
Q
-a
S-
(O
a
E
ro
4->
CO
H
E
rO
a>
^
CU
.E
4~>
E
i
.
Ol S^
co O)
O) to
-E JD
1 0
CM
CD
E
i
CD
.Q
E
3
,
=c
'4-
r
CZ
O)
3
r
4-
4-
UJ
a
CD
E
i
ro
r
u
cu
a:
E
i- -O
CU
i CO
-------
The hardness of the reclaimed water was less than for the
house water. Each of the hardness concentrations exceeded the
20 mg/1 maximum concentration recommended but Snokist Growers
normally uses an ion exchange system to reduce hardness in the
cannery boiler feed water. The reclaimed water would not
exhaust the ion exchange system as rapidly as the tap water and
therefore would provide a more economical boiler feed from the
hardness standpoint.
The chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the house tap water
was at the minimum concentration measurable. The reclaimed
water COD exceeded the recommended 5 mg/1 virtually all of the
time. During the 1976 pear processing season, when the reclaim-
ed effluent was of the most consistent and best level of qual-
ity, the COD was less than 40 mg/1 80 percent of the time. The
period when the COD exceeded 40 mg/1 was principally during
the week following the Labor Day biological treatment system
upset. Suspended solids in the reclaimed effluent were much
greater than those in the house tap water. However, the sus-
pended solids in the reclaimed water were within the recommend-
ed 10 mg/1 maximum concentration 70 percent of the 1976 pro-
cessing season and for a greater proportion of the time during
the pear processing portion of the season.
Reclaimed water was used during six weeks of the 1976
processing season for feed to a portable steam generator to
produce steam for pilot uses inside the cannery. During the
period from October 4 through the week of November 12, steam
generated from the reclaimed water was used with reclaimed
water to clean a waste peel and core slide on a daily basis
and to clean equipment belts weekly. Parallel equipment was
cleaned using reclaimed water and house steam, and house water
and house steam. The results are reported under Equi pment
Cleaning above.
Steam generated from the reclaimed water was also used for
exhausting canned pears prior to sealing, for cooking apple-
sauce, and for blanching sliced apples.
Exhausti ng --
On October 15 and October 23, 1976, batches of processed
pears in cans were exhausted in the steam exhaust box using
steam from reclaimed water. The canned pears were then capped,
cooked and cooled and retained for comparison with pears
exhausted under normal conditions using house steam. The con-
trol products were run on a continuous basis, whereas the test
products were run on a semi-batch basis where the canned pears
were transported into the exhaust box, then the exhaust box
brought up to temperature with the steam generated from the
reclaimed water and then transported to the remainder of pro-
cessing.
97
-------
Comparison of the pears exhausted using reclaimed water
steam, were made with the pears from the normal run by organo-
leptic evaluation at National Food Processors Association's
laboratory at Berkeley, California. The "triangle test" eval-
uation by 17 in-house panelists at NFPA resulted in 15 correct
responses out of 34 for the October 23 set which is not signi-
ficantly different from random response at the 95 percent
significance level. The October 15 samples obtained 20 correct
responses initially which is significant at the 99 percent
level but upon retesting, only obtained 11 correct responses.
The combined results were nearly significant at the 95 percent
level. The NFPA specialists conducting the tests, concluded
that taking into account all of the results, there was no
difference in sensory attributes between control and test
samples. This was in spite of the differences in processing
between the test and control products.
The reclaimed water quality on October 15 and October 23
was consistently good with coliform counts less than 1/100 ml,
total plate counts from less than 1 to 3/ml , turbidity in the
range from 3 to 4 NTU on the continuous analyzer. Suspended
solids were 8 and 13 mg/1 on the two dates respectively and
COD was 39 and 28 mg/1.
Applesauce Cooking --
Applesauce cooking trials with steam generated from the
reclaimed water were conducted on November 29 and 30, 1976.
Applesauce cooking is normally done by live steam injection on
a continuous basis. However, in order to conserve the amount
of product loss, the trial run was made on a batch basis in
the commercial cooker. For comparison, applesauce was also
cooked using house steam on a batch basis on each of the two
days. Product from each of the runs was graded according to
the standard scoring procedures for the cannery. Samples from
each of the runs were also sent to NFPA laboratory for organo-
leptic evaluation. The three comparative treatments, house
steam continuous cooking control, house steam batch cooking and
reclaimed steam batch cooking, resulted in grading scores of
96, 89 and 90 respectively. The control was different from
the house steam and reclaimed steam scores at the 99.9 percent
significance level. The house steam and reclaimed steam scores
were not significantly different at the 95 percent "level. The
catagories in which the control was most different from the
house steam and reclaimed steam treated samples were in color
and flavor.
The organoleptic evaluation on the triangle difference
test was conducted using 18 NFPA employees. Each employee
conducted two triangle difference tests, one between the control
and the house steam treated sample, and one between the house
steam and reclaimed steam treated samples, for each of the trial
98
-------
days. In every case, the correct responses were significantly
different than would have been randomly generated at the 99.9
percent level. The organoleptic evaluations did not indicate
which treatment was preferable, only that the panel was able to
distinguish the difference between the samples.
Comments from the tests between the control and house
steam samples indicated that the house steam treated apple-
sauce was darker. Between the house steam and reclaimed steam
samples, notes indicated that the house steam treated samples
were darker in each case. The panelists were forced to wear
dark glasses during the testing so the difference in taste was
their principle means for detecting difference.
The NFPA specialist who cond
the difference in color and the d
related to caramelization. This
the source of the steam but from
sauce was cooked and the lack of
the temperature in the cooking ve
runs. They noted that the finish
the samples also. This also coul
cooking procedure.
ucted the test indicated that
ifference in taste may have
probably originated not from
the method in which the apple-
careful and close control over
ssel during the trial batch
or texture varied between
d have been influenced by the
As nearly as could be determined from the tests, there
were no differences in the product which related to the origin
of the water used in generating the steam. However, it would
be impossible to state that the steam generated from the re-
claimed or the house water are equivalent since the test diff-
erences due to handling methods influenced the product greater
than did the steam source.
Reclaimed water quality during the applesauce cooking
trials with steam generated from the reclaimed water was as
follows on the two days respectively: pH = 7.1 and 7.2;
suspended solids = 52 and 44 mg/1; chlorine residual = 2.2 and
1.5 mg/1; total coliform = less than 2/100 ml; total plate
count = 190 and 30/ml.
Sliced Apple Blanching --
Trials with reclaimed steam for sliced apple blanching
were conducted on November 22 and 23, 1976. On each day,
control samples were drawn from the end of the continuous pro-
cessed blanched sliced apple run. Batch blanched sliced apples
using house steam and using steam from reclaimed water were
retained. The samples of canned fruit were graded according
to Snokist Growers normal grading procedures. Additional
samples of the canned fruit were sent to the NFPA laboratory
for organoleptic evaluation.
The mean grading scores for the control processed fruit,
99
-------
the fruit blanched with house steam on a batch basis., and fruit
blanched with reclaimed water steam on a batch basis were 79,
84, and 79, respectively. The house steam batch processed fruit
score was significantly different from the control and the re-
claimed steam processed fruit at the 95 percent level. There
was no significant difference between the control and the re-
claimed steam processed fruit grading scores. The uniformity
of the control fruit was distinguishably less than either of the
batch processed fruit and the character of the reclaimed steam
processed fruit was graded lower than either of the others.
The organoleptic evaluation by 18 NFPA employees using the
triangle test, each employee running two tests, resulted in
significant differences between the control fruit and that
processed on a batch basis with house steam and between the
fruit processed on a batch basis with house steam and reclaimed
steam. The specialist at NFPA who conducted the test again
attributed the differences to texture and degree of carameliza-
tion which was felt to be unrelated to the origin of the steam.
The principle differences were judged to be influenced by
batch to batch variability in the fruit processed and the pro-
cessing variables such as holding time and temperature.
The reclaimed effluent quality used for generating steam
for sliced apple blanching was as follows for the two respect-
ive days: pH 7.1 and 7.2; suspended solids 17 and 18 mg/1;
chlorine residual 0.6 and 1.0 mg/1; total coliform less than
1 and 28/100 ml; total plate count 30 and 460/ml.
As with the use of the reclaimed steam for applesauce
cooking, its use for sliced apple blanching could not be fin-
ally judged based on these tests. Apparently the differences
in processing variables unrelated to steam source had greater
effect on the product quality than the source of water for
steam generation.
Direct Contact Container Cooling
On October 24, 1975 and on September 15, 1976, contact
container cooling with reclaimed water was performed on a trial
basis. The trials were conducted in one of the coolers regu-
larly used for cooling the canned product. In each of the
trials, approximately the same number of containers cooled in
house water in the normal fashion was retained for control as
were cooled in the reclaimed water.
The 1975 direct contact container cooling trial produced
1,150 cans of pears cooled in each of the two waters. One
hundred twenty cans from each of the treatments were sent to
NFPA's laboratory where they were incubated at 30°C for 2
months to simulate longer termed storage. The remainder of
the cans were retained in Snokist Growers' warehouse basement
100
-------
at approximately 18°C.
The 1976 cooling trial produced about 3,000 cans from the
process trial run and about 3,000 cans of control were retained
for comparison. One hundred eight cans from each of the waters
were sent to National Food Processors Association for accelerated
storage trial at 35°C for 6 months and the remainder stored in
Snokist Growers' warehouse basement at approximately 18°C.
NFPA incubated the 1975 trial cooled pears and controls
for 60 days at 30°C. At the end of that period, they checked
the vacuum and pH of each can and examined approximately one
third of the cans microscopically for biological contamination.
The average vacuum for the cans cooled in house and reclaimed
water was 7.2 inches and 8.7 inches Hg, respectively. The
ranges were 0-11 inches and 5-14 inches. The low vacuums, less
than 3 inches, from the house water group occurred in dented
cans. The pH averages for the house and reclaimed water cooled
cans, respectively, were 3.93 and 3.96, with a range of 3.85
to 4.10, and 3.85 to 4.05. The microscopic examination results
were nagative for all cans checked and the NFPA personnel
judged all cans to be commercially sterile.
NFPA incubated 96 reclaimed water cooled cans and 115
house water cooled cans for 6 months at 35°C from the 1976
cooling water trial. Once again, all of the cans were checked
for vacuum and pH and the containers were examined for spotting
and corrosion. No swollen or leaking containers were detected
and all samples were stable with the product having normal
color and texture. All of the containers were free of spotting
and corrosion both externally and internally. The vacuum in
the reclaimed water and house water cooled cans averaged 8.8
and 9.4 inches Hg, respectively. The range was 3.0 to 13.5
and 2.5 to 17.0 for the reclaimed and house water cooled con-
tainers, respectively. The pH averaged 3.8 and 3 Q with the
ranges 3.6 to 4.9 in both cases.
The 1,000 cans cooled in reclaimed water and the 1,000
cans cooled in house water for control were retained from the
1975 processing season cooling water trial for one year. Exam-
ination of all of the cans for failures reveled that there
were no swelled or leaking cans at the end of that period of
storage .
Approximately 3,000 experimental and control cans for the
1976 cooling water trials were stored at the cannery for one
year and the entire lot examined for failures. No leaking or
swelled cans were observed at the end of this period.
Quality of the reclaimed water during the 1975 cooling
water trial was as follows: pH = 7.5; suspended solids = 18
mg/1; chlorine residual = 0.6 mg/1; total coliform = 1900/100 ml;
1Q1
-------
total plate count = 5,900/ml. Reclaimed water quality during
the 1976 contact container cooling trial was as follows:
pH = 7.1; suspended solids = 5 mg/1; chlorine residual = 0.7
mg/1; total coliform = 80/100 ml; total plate count = 140/ml.
The chlorine residual was maintained at 1 mg/1 in the cooling
vessel during the cooling trials by chlorine solution addition
The contact container cooling trials were conducted on
each of the two years during a period of time when the bacter-
iological quality of the reclaimed effluent was not as good
as was experienced at other periods during the years. Since
there were no failures of the containers during the contact
container cooling trial runs, it can be concluded that with an
even better bacteriological quality of the reclaimed effluent
that direct contact container cooling can be conducted safely
with the reclaimed water.
102
-------
REFERENCES
1. Snokist Growers, (Esvelt, L.A.), Aerobic Treatment of Fruit
Processing Wastes. Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, Department of the Interior, 12060 FAD, Oct. 1969.
2. Esvelt, L.A. and H.H. Hart, "Treatment of Fruit Processing
Wastes by Aeration," Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, 4_2, 1305, July 1970.
3. Esvelt, L.A., "Aerobic Treatment of Liquid Fruit Processing
Waste," Proceedings First National Symposium on Food Process-
ing Wastes, FederalWater Quality Administration, April1970.
4. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standard, for the Fruits, Vegetables
alnd Specialties Segment of the Canned and Preserved Fruits
and Vegetables Point Source Category, U.S. Envi ronmental
Protection Agency, March 1976.
5. Development Document for proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Citrus. Apple arTd Potato Segment of the Canned and Preserved
Fruits and Vegetables Processing Point Source Category,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1973.
6. Progress Report, Snokist Growers Wastewater Reuse Project,
Snokist Growers, Yakima, Washington and Bovay Engineers, Inc.
Spokane, Washington, April 1976. (For information contact
EPA IERL Food & Wood Products Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio 54268)
7. Progress Report No. 2, Snokist Growers Wastewater Reuse
Project. Snokist Growers, Yakima, Washington and Esvelt
Environmental Engineering, Spokane, Washington, May 1977.
(For information see Ref. 6)
8. Esvelt, Larry A., Fruit Cannery Waste Activated Sludge as
a Cattle Feed Ingredient, EPA Environmental Protection
Technology Series Report EPA-600/2-76-253, September 1976.
9. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation, U.S.
EPA Federal Register December 24, 1975, Part IV.
10. Preliminary Assessment of Suspected Carcinogens in Drinking
Water, USEPA, Report to Congress, June 1975.
103
-------
APPENDIX
This appendix contains three tables, AT, A2, and A3,
which outline the analytical methods used during this study.
TABLE Al. SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
Parameter
Samp!e
Preservation
Analytical Procedure
Alkalinity (Total)
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD
Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD)
Chiori ne
(Total )
Residual
Color
Di ssolved
(DO)
Oxygen
Hardness
(a) Total (EDTA)
(b) Calcium (Ca)
Ions
(a) Chloride
(b) Sulfate
Metals
1
Total
(a) Aluminum
(b
(c)
(d)
(e)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Tin
Copper
Refri gerati on
at 4°C
Refrigeration
at 4°C
Refrigeration
at 4°C
N.A
Refrigeration
at 4°C
N.A.
N.A
None
25 ml
1 i t e r
HN03 per
Standard Methods1:
Pg. 52, Method 102
Standard Methods1:
Pg. 489, Method 219
Standard Methods1:
Pg, 495, Method 220;
except proportion of
sample and dichromate
solution reversed for
strong samples
Amperometric Titration
Back titration of excess
.00564 N PAO with .00564
N Iodine at pH4-Standard
Methods Pg. 160
Standard Methods1:
Pg. 160, Method 118
EPA2: Pg.
Method
56, Probe
Standard Methods1:
(a) Pg.179, Method 122B
(b) Pg.84, Method HOC
Standard Methods1:
(a) Pg.97, Method 112A
(b) Pg.334, Method 156C
EPA2: (a)-(j)
Pg. 78-155 Atomic Absorp^
tion Methods, Performed
by National Canners
Association, Western
Regional Lab . ,Berkeley,
Calif.
See Footnotes at end of Table
104
-------
TABLE Al. SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS (Continued)
Parameter
Samp!e
Preservation
Analytical Procedure
None Required
(f) Iron
(g) Lead
(h) Manganese
(i) Mercury
(j) Zinc
Total
(a) Calcium
(b) Magnesium
(c) Potassium
(d) Sodium
Methylene Blue-Active Refrigeration
Substances (MBAS as at 4°C
LAS, detergents)
Microbiological
(a) Coliforms
(1) Fecal
(2) Total
(b) Mold
(c) Mold (viable)
(d) Salmonel1 a
(e) Spores
(f) Staphlococcus
(g) Total Plate
Count
See Footnotes at end of Table
EPA2: (a)-(d)
Pg.78-155, Atomic Absorp-
tion Methods
Standard Methods1:
Pg. 339, Method 159A
(a) Standard Methods1:
(1 ) Pg.684, Method 408B
(2) Pg.679, Method 408A
(b) Swab-count method
for machinery mold-see
attached procedure -
Table A2
(c) Recommended Methods3:
Pg.101 &use acidified
potato dextrose agar
plate water directly)
(d) Methods of Analysis8:
Pg.905, Salmonella
(e) Recommended Methods3:
Pg.68, Spore Forming
Bacteria
(f) Recommended Methods3:
Pg.149, Staphlococcus
(g) Liquid - Standard Meth-
ods3: Pg.660, Method
406; Surface-Standard
Methods4: Pg.190, Swab
Contact Method; on Raw
Fruit-See Table A3
105
-------
TABLE Al. SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS (Continued)
Parameter
Samp!e
Preservation Analytical Procedure
(h) Yeast (viable)
Ni trogen
(a) Ammonia (NH3-N)
(b) Nitrate
(N03+N02-N)
(c) Organi c (Org-N)
Organoleptic
Evaluation
Pesticides
(a) Organo-Chlorine
(b) Organo-Phos-
phorus
(c) Other specific
pesticides
pH
Phosphorus
(a) Ortho (Ortho-P)
(b) Total (Tot-P)
Polychlori nated-
biphenols (PCB)
Refri geration
at 4°C
(h) Recommended Methods3:
P g . 1 01 (use acidified
potato dextrose agar,
plate water directly)
(a) EPA2: Pg. 159 Distil-
lation Procedure
(b) Standard Methods1:
Pg.461, Method 213C
(Brucine)
(c) EPA2: Pg.175, Total
Kjeldahl (Org-N=Tot.
Kjeld-NH3-N)
Tri angle Test9
Store in brown FDA5: Performed by Region
glass bottles X EPA Laboratory and by
& refrigerate Columbia Laboratories,
at 4°C Inc.
N.A.
400 mq HgCl2
per 1i ter
or
Refrigeration
at 4°C
Store in cool
dark place
Standard Methods1:
Pg.276, Method 144A
(Electrometric)
EPA2
(a) Pg.249, Single Rea-
gent Method
(b) Pg.249, Single Rea-
gent Method following
alkaline ashing of
evaporated sample8
EPA approved method6.
Performed by Region X
EPA Laboratory
See Footnotes at end of Table.
106
-------
TABLE Al. SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS (Continued)
Parameter
Sample
Preservation
Analytical Procedure
Reactive Silicate
Suspended Solids
(SS)
Temperature (T)
Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS)
Total Halogenated
0 r g a n i c s
Total Solids (TS)
40 mg/1 HgCl2
or
Refrigeration
at 4°C
Refrigeration
at 4°C
N.A.
Refrigeration
at 4°C
Refrigeration
at 4°C
Total Volatile Solids Refrigeration
(TVS) at 4°C
Turbidity (Turb)
Volatile Halogenated
Organics (chloroform,
bromodichloromethane,
di bromoch1 oromethane,
bromoform, carbon
tetrachloride , and 1,
2 dichloroethane)
Volatile Suspended
Solids (VSS)
N.A.
Refri geration
at 4°C
Manual of Sea Water
Analysis7: Pg.67
Standard Methodsl:
Pg.537, Method 224C
(Membrane Glass Filter
Method)
Standard Methods1:
Pg.348, Method 162
Standard Methods1:
Pg.539, Method 224E
Performed by Dohrmann
Laboratories
Standard Methods1:
Pg.536, Method 224A
Standard Methods1:
Pg.536, Method 224A
EPA2: Pg.295 (electro-
metric) continuous with
nephelometric apparatus
GC-MS. Performed by EPA
Laboratory in 1975.
Performed by Foremost
Laboratories in 1976
season .
Standard Methods1:
Pg.538, Method 224D
i
APHA, 1971. Standard Methods for the Examination of Hater
and Wastewater. 13th ed. New York, NY.
USEPA, 1974. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Mater and Wastes
EPA-625/5-74-003.
107
-------
TABLE Al. SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS (Continued)
A P H A , 1966. Recommended Methods for the Microbiological
Examination of Foods. 2nd ed. New York, NY.
^
APHA, 1967. Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy
Products. 12th ed. New York, NY.
USFDA, 1972. rev. Pesticide Analytical Manual. Vol. I & II.
Washington, DC.
j
Armour, J.A. and J.A. Burke. Method for Separating Polychlor-
inated-biphenols from DDT and Its Analogs. Jour.
AOAC, Vol.53, No.4, pg. 761-768. 1970
FRBC, 1965
re. A Manual of Sea Water Analysis. Bulletin
No. 125, 2nd ed. Ottawa.
AOAC, 1975. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of
Official Analytical Chemists. 12th ed. Washington,
DC.
a
Amerine, M.A., P.M. Pangborn, and E.B. Roessler. Principles of
Sensory Evaluation of Food, Pg. 335-342. Academic
Press, NY, 1965
TABLE A2. SWAB-COUNT METHOD FOR MACHINERY MOLD
This method has been suggested for a rapid semi-quantitative
check on the presence of mold in or on equipment, with the
source identified.
Laboratory Equipment and Materials:
Disposable, plastic swab tubes: unbreakable test-tube with a
swab attached to the cap, available from scientific supply
firms.
30-Power stereoscopic microscope with diffused light from
below the stage . 1
1 Use a dissecting microscope, commonly referred to as an
"insect fragment counting scope". Provide a sub-stage
light source, using a light diffuser (parchment paper works
well).
108
-------
TABLE A2. SWAB-COUNT METHOD FOR MACHINERY MOLD (Continued)
Plate glass counting plate, about 9 cm x 10 cm, with three
spacers made of layers of scotchtape,2 and cover glass about
8 cm x 9 cm, with ruled parallel lines. One - milliliter
pipette with tapered end cut off.
Thickener such as pectin solution or Certo (filter the solution
if it contains mold fragments).
Gentian violet solution, about 10% crystal violet in alcohol.
Add three milliliters of a mixture of tap water and a little
thickener solution to each swab-tube. Swab a suspected surface,
standardizing approximately the area swabbed and the pressure
applied. Shake the swab in the tube; squeeze the swab against
the side of the tube and discard the swab; add a drop of gentian
violet. Count by microscope all of the identifiable pieces of
mold in a 0.5 ml sub-sample.3 Repeat samplings in each plant
will show what counts to expect, the effects of clean-up and
so on .
Also suggested is a system of line samples of the product, as
opposed to the equipment. At different steps in preparation,
take amounts of the product equivalent to the quantity in a
No. 303 can (which has net weight close to 500 grams, the AOAC
sample size for Geotrichum). Soak the product sample in water
and follow approximately the AOAC Geotrichum method, using
No. 16 and No. 230 screens. (Rinse the product sample with a
stream from a wash bottle while it is on the screen.)
2 Spacers should be located at two corners and at the middle
of the opposite side of the slide. The thickness should be
adjusted by trial-and-error such that when the cover glass
is placed on the 0.5 ml. sample, the drop will spread to a
diameter of about 6 cm.
3 Use AOAC Geotrichum method criteria for identifying machinery
mol d .
TABLE A3. DETERMINING BACTERIAL AND SOIL LOADS ON RAW COMMODITIES
Equipment
Plastic bags with labels
Scale or balance
109
-------
TABLE A3. DETERMINING
BACTERIAL AND SOIL
(Continued)
LOADS ON RAW COMMODIES
Cylinder, preferably plastic or ^
Wire basket with handle and wire top
Containers, 1 liter capacity
Whirl-Pak bags
Ice chest
Apparatus for total and fixed suspended solids
Apparatus for total plate counts.
Procedure
1. Randomly collect from each sampling point approximately
five pounds of raw commodity. (Use one plastic bag per
sample and identify with a suitable code.)
2. Weigh each sample; place the raw commodity in the wire
basket and secure the wire top.
3. Weigh a volume of water equivalent to twice the weight of
commodity. Use a portion of the water to rinse the plastic
bag; combine with remaining volume in the cylinder.
Discard the plastic bag.
4. Rinse the commodity for 1 minute by briskly raising and
lowering the basket within the cylinder. The commodity
should remain submerged during this period.
5. Withdraw the commodity from the water and allow the adher-
ing water to drain into the cylinder for 30 seconds.
Discard the raw commodity.
6. Vigorously mix the contents of the cylinder.
7. Fill one Whirl-Pak bag and one container with aliquots
from the cylinder. Discard the excess volume.
8. Seal the Whirl-Pak bag and the container, identify with
suitable code (use indelible or waterproof ink), and immed-
iately ice these samples.
9. Use the contents of the Whirl-Pak bag for bacteriological
analyses .
10. Use the contents of the container for solids and other
chemical determinations.
Fabricate a cylinder
(8 in.) x .6 cm (1/4
to a 25 cm x 25 cm x
by fusing a 61 cm length of 20 cm
inj wall thickness Plexiglass tubing
0.6 cm Plexiglass base; or fabricate
110
-------
TABLE A3. DETERMINING BACTERIAL AND SOIL LOADS ON RAW COMMODIES
(Continued)
a metal cylinder of comparable dimensions from galvanized
sheetmetal .
** Fashion a 56 cm x 15 cm cylinder from .6 cm (1/4 in.)
screen (hardware cloth). Attach a bottom by soldering a
15 cm diameter circle of the screen to the cylinder. Use
a second 15 cm diameter circle, attached by wire, as a lid.
Ill
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-203
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Reuse of Treated Fruit Processing Wastewater
in a Cannery
5. REPORT DATE
September 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Larry A. Esvelt
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Esvelt Environmental Engineering
for
Snokist Growers
Yakima. Washington 98901
11.
T/GRANT NO.
S-803280
12. SP.ONSORJNG AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Uhio 45268
- Cinn, OH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report 10/74 - 5/77
14. SPONSOR 11NCTAG E'NcVcdo'E
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Reclamation of the biologically treated effluent by filtration through
mixed media pressure filters and disinfection with chlorine was investigated
for two processing seasons. The reclaimed water was put to several trial uses-
(a) initial product conveying, (b) equipment, floor and gutter wash, (c) direct
container cooling, and (d) boiler feed. Steam generated from the reclaimed
water was used on a trial basis for equipment cleaning, exhausting, cooking and
blanching. No degradation of the product was produced as a result of reclaimed
water use during these trial runs.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Cannery, Waste water, Apples,
Peaches, Pears
Fruit Cannery
Processing Wastes
Reclamation and Reuse,
Activated Sludge Fruit
Processing, Biological
Treatment
68D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
112
OUS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OfFICE 1978 657-060/ 1508
------- |