POTATO PROCESSING WASTES:
PROGRESS REPORT on PILOT PLANT
STUDIES OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
January 1968
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
NORTHWEST REGION
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
-------
-------
-------
PROGRESS REPORT
PILOT PLANT STUDIES ON SECONDARY TREATMENT
OF
POTATO PROCESSING WASTES
Prepared by
Robert W. Vivian
Kenneth A. Dostal
Technical Projects Branch
Report No. PR-4
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Northwest Region
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
No. No.
1 Flow Diagram of Primary Treatment Plant A-37
2 Flow Diagram of Pilot Plant A-38
3 Hydraulic Loading Pattern - 1967 A-39
4 Variation in pH A-40
5 Temperature Changes of Waste Stream A-41
6 Alkalinity and Volatile Acids Relationships . . . A-42
7 Total Volatile Solids Reduction A-43
8 Pond II CODC Loadings and Reductions A-44
E>
9 Pond III CODS Loadings and Reductions A-45
10 Data Comparison on CODg Reduction Across
Pond II + Pond III A-46
11 Influence of Pond Loadings on CODg Reduction . . A-47
12 BOD Loadings on and Reductions by Anaerobic
Pond II A-48
13 BOD Loadings on and Reductions by Aerobic
Pond III A-49
14 Total BOD Reduction Across Pond II + Pond III . . A-50
15 Influence of Pond Loading on BOD Reduction . . . A-51
16 Preliminary Estimate of Annual Charges A-52
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
5-day biochemical oxygen demand
National Canner's Association modified chemical oxygen
demand
CODS Standard Method chemical oxygen demand
SS Suspended solids
VSS Volatile suspended solids
TDOC Total dissolved organic carbon
TS Total solids
TVS Total volatile solids
mgd Million gallons per day
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Problem 1
B. Authority 1
C. Objective and Scope 2
D. Acknowledgment 3
II. SUMMARY 4
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSING PLANTS 5
IV. WASTE TREATMENT PLANT 7
A. Description 7
B. Efficiency 7
V. PILOT PLANTS 10
A. Description 10
B. Operation 10
C. Results 12
VI. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 21
VII. DISCUSSION 23
VIII. REFERENCES 26
IX. APPENDIX
Appendix A - Memorandum of Understanding
Appendix B - Data
Appendix C - Analytical Procedures
Appendix D - Figures
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
Waste Production per Ton of Raw
Potatoes
2 Operational Characteristics of Primary
Clarifier 9
3 Pilot Plant Feed Rates 12
4 BOD5 Loadings and Plant Efficiencies . . 18
-------
PROGRESS REPORT
PILOT PLANT STUDIES ON SECONDARY TREATMENT
OF POTATO PROCESSING WASTES
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Problem
Potato processing in Idaho has had a rapid expansion during
the past 15 years. The $23,235,457 payroll and $52,085,335 plant
investment by the eleven Potato Processors of Idaho members in
1965-66 represent growth of more than 10 times that of comparable
1950 figures'*'. Waste production has, unfortunately, kept pace
with their growth.
Potato wastes are one of the major pollutional sources in the
State of Idaho. Even with primary treatment afforded by all processing
plants, these wastes, in combination with other wastes, have resulted
in fish kills and other pollution problems during periods of low flow
in receiving streams. The potato processors are now faced with pro-
viding secondary treatment for their wastes and recognize that the
cost of waste treatment must be considered to be part of the cost of
doing business. Processors know that they must minimize the cost of
waste treatment to be both competitive and profitable.
B. Authority
Federal authorization for this type of study comes from the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended. Sec. 5(b) of the Act
provides that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA)
-------
may, "upon request of any State water pollution control agency, conduct
investigations... concerning any specific problem of water pollution
confronting any... industrial plant, with a view to recommending a
solution of such problem."
The regional office of the FWPCA received a verbal request for
technical assistance from the Idaho State Health Department in July
1966 in the development of secondary treatment methods for potato
process waste water. The Technical Projects Branch of the FWPCA located
in the Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory (PNWL) in Corvallis, Oregon,
was selected to participate in the study since this was a logical extension
of a previously authorized Technical Projects study on aerated lagoon
treatment of food processing wastes. A memorandum of understanding
authorizing the study was drawn up and signed by the three participating
groups: Potato Processors of Idaho, Idaho State Health Department, and
Technical Projects, FWPCA, PNWL, in January 1967. A copy of the memo-
randum is in Appendix A.
C. Objective and Scope
The objective of this study is to conclude pilot plant studies
on feasible methods of secondary treatment of potato processing wastes.
Two specific methods are being investigated: an anaerobic lagoon followed
by a surface-aerated, aerobic lagoon and an aerobic lagoon system.
Due to late arrival of a surface-aerator this progress report
covers only the first system - an anaerobic lagoon followed by a surface-
aerated, aerobic lagoon.
-2-
-------
0. Acknowledgments
The assistance of the Idaho State Health Department,
J. R. Simplot Co. and the consulting firm of Cornell, Rowland,
Hayes, and Merryfield in instituting, formulating, and completing
the present studies is gratefully acknowledged.
In addition, appreciation is due the Wayne Wiscomb
Co. for supplying the surface aerator used in the aerated pond.
-3-
-------
II. SUMMARY
This report outlines the operation of and results from a
pilot plant used to treat potato wastes from January 1 to June 1,
1967.
Primary clarifier effluent was fed to the first of two small
lagoons in series. The first lagoon was operated as a complete
mixed anaerobic unit and the second lagoon was aerated with a small
surface aerator. Hydraulic loadings were varied to give detention
times of 8.8, 5.0, and 2.4 days in each lagoon.
Preliminary conclusions drawn from the information gathered
during this period include:
1. The 8005 in potato wastes can be reduced by greater than
90 percent by primary clarification plus anaerobic-aerobic lagoons
in series.
2. Mixing of the contents of the anaerobic lagoon is Meeisary
for proper operation of the anaerobic-aerobic system.
3. Covering the anaerobic lagoon will reduce the temperature
drop and help control odors.
4. Secondary clarification for removal of suspended solids
will be required following the aerobic lagoon.
5. Foaming may cause operational difficulties in full-scale
aerobic lagoons, but can be controlled by proper design.
6. Preliminary cost estimates show that a combination of
anaerobic-aerobic lagoons may result in a lower cost than either
anaerobic or aerobic treatment separately.
-4-
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSING PLANTS
The Simplot Bur ley Processing Company plant processes about
75,000 tons of potatoes per year. It is a highly automated processing
plant and produces instant mashed potatoes and related specialties.
The potatoes are washed, lye peeled, cut, automat icily sorted for
flakes or granules, dehydrated, and packed for shipment. Water use
is about 1.2 mgd.
The J. R. Simplot Heyburn plant is one of the largest potato
processing plants in the world. It processes approximately 180,000
tons per year and employs 860 people. Products include french fries,
potato specialties, and potato starch. Here, too, the potatoes are
washed and lye peeled; then trimmed, blanched, processed, and packed.
Water use totals about 5.0 mgd.
Table 1 presents average figures for waste production per ton
of potato processed as measured during the 1966-67 processing season.
These figures do not include fat recovered or solids screened out
for cattle feed. Unit waste production for this season, however,
was higher than generally reported.
-5-
-------
TABLE 1
WASTE PRODUCTION PER TON OF RAW POTATOES
-------
IV. WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
A. Description
Waste streams from both potato processing plants are
piped to a primary waste treatment plant. They first enter a
receiving tank and are passed through two 5-foot diameter,
10-foot long rotary drum screens as shown in Figure 1. (All
figures appear in Appendix D.) All solids retained on the +20
mesh screens are strained and stored in bins.
' The remaining waste water then enters a 100-foot diameter
Eimco clarifier with an overflow rate of about 800 gallons per day
per square foot. Additional solids settle out in the clarifier
and the bverflow passes through a Parshall flume and is discharged
to the Snake River.
The solids collected as clarifier underflow are pumped
through a Sharpies Super-D-Canter Dewatering Centrifuge. The sludge
is stored in bins and the centrate is either returned to the clarifier
or discharged to the river.
The screenings and the sludge from the centrifuge are
trucked together to a cattle feet-lot operation for use as part of
the animal's diet.
B. Efficiency
Primary treatment plant efficiency affects both the design
and cost of secondary treatment. A high degree of efficiency requires
a well-designed and operated primary clarification system. When this
-7-
-------
is provided, the cost of secondary treatment is minimized.
The efficiency of the primary clarifier at the J. R.
Simplot Co.'s Waste Treatment Plant is indicated by seasonal
averages of the waste parameters measured on the clarifier
influent and effluent during the January through May, 1967, process-
ing period as shown in Table 2. All data is presented in Appendix B.
The influent temperature ranged from 68 to 82 degrees Fahren-
height and averaged 78. The temperature of the waste dropped an
average of 4 degrees across the primary clarifier. 8005 reduction
across the clarifier averaged 40 percent with an average effluent
concentration of 1680 mg/1. CODS was reduced by 45 percent and the
suspended solids were reduced an average 73 percent. The suspended
solids concentration in the clarifier effluent with a maximum
3190 mg/1, averaged 740 mg/1.
The influent to the primary clarifier contained an average
total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration of 113 mg/1 as N and the effluent
contained 78 mg/1. Thirty-one percent was removed by the primary
clarifier. Only 10 percent of the phosphates were removed by the
clarifier with the effluent containing 51 mg/1 as
-8-
-------
TABLE 2
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY
pH
Temp
oF
BOD.
rag/1
CODg
mg/1
TS
mg/1
TVS
mg/1
SS
mg/1
VSS
mg/1
Range
Median
Range
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
Mean
Std. Deviation
Clarifier
Influent
12.1 - 10.6
11.3
82 - 68
78
± 3
5150 - 1900
2780
+ 750
10,800 - 3120
6140
+ 1720
9080 - 3950
6440
+ 1160
7410 - 2500
4850
+ 1270
5900 - 280
2730
+ 1340
5900 - 280
2680
+ 1330
Clarifier
Effluent
11.6 - 7.1
10.4
79 - 63
74
+ 3
2080 - 1180
1680
+ 200
6000 - 2520
3400
+ 610
5970 - 2070
4040
+ 600
4300 - 1880
2540
+ 510
3190 - 90
740
+ 640
3040 - 50
640
+ 570
Ave.
Removal %
40
45
37
48
73
76
(a) J. R. Simplot Co. from January through May, 1967.
-9-
-------
V. PILOT PLANTS
A. Description
The pilot plant facility of the Potato Processors of Idaho
is located at the primary waste treatment plant in Burley, Idaho.
Two earthen ponds sealed with concrete applied as gunite were utilized
together with ancillary pumps and piping. Each pond was 40 feet square
at the water surface and 10 feet deep with side slopes of 3 on 1;
providing about 51,000 gallons capacity. Feed and overflow were at
the water surface on opposite sides of the pond. Flows were measured
by timing the filling of a bucket at the feet lines.
The anaerobic cell, pond II, was covered with 3-inch thick
styrofoam blocks to retard heat loss and control odors. It was provided
with a 100 gpm pump to continuously circulate the contents from the
bottom to the inlet. Feed to the cell was pumped from the clarifier
overflow at a predetermined flow rate.
The aerated cell, pond III, was pump fed from the surface of
the anaerobic cell. Pond III contained a floating 5 hp Wells aerator
and was open to the atmosphere. Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of
the pilot plants as operated from January 2, 1967, to the end of the
processing season.
B. Operation
Both ponds were placed in operation September 19, 1966 as
covered anaerobic lagoons while awaiting the arrival of a previously
ordered surface aerator. Inasmuch as the aerator was not delivered
until the latter part of December, both ponds were operated as parallel
-10-
-------
anaerobic units until the processing and waste treatment plants
were shut down for the holidays, December 23, 1966. This period of
(2)
pond operation was covered in a previous progress report.
On January 2, 1967, both ponds were started as covered anaerobic
units with the feed rates set at 1.15 gpm to pond II and 8.8 gpm to
pond III. The feed to both ponds was clarifier effluent. Pond II was
seeded with 20 gallons of primary sludge from a municipal sewage
treatment plant on January 4. The styrofoam cover was removed from
pond III on January 11 and on the following day the feed to pond
III was changed from clarifier effluent to pond II effluent. The
feed rate to pond III was 3.7 gpm, the minimum for that pump. This
pump was operated intermittently since pond II was only being fed at
a rate of 1.15 gpm. The feed rate to pond II was increased slowly
until both ponds were being fed at the same rate on February 23.
The 5 hp Wells surface aerator was installed in pond III and
started on January 14. At that time, with the ponds in series and
the aerator running, the complete sampling program was started.
Eight-hour composite samples were collected from the clarifier
influent and overflow. Grab samples were collected from the effluent
of each pond. Split samples in iced containers were shipped by bus
on a weekly schedule to the Idaho State Health Department laboratory
and to the FWPCA Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory.
-11-
-------
All analyses were performed according to the 12th edition of
Standard Methods with the exception of volatile acids and the National
Canner's Association modified chemical oxygen demand test (CODm).'
These are described in Appendix C. Tests included: pH, temperature,
alkalinity, total dissolved organic carbon, volatile acids, solids,
CODS, CODiQ, BOD5, and inorganic nutrients. All data collected is
presented in Appendix B.
Table 3 presents the feed rates and detention times for the
three primary periods of operation of the two lagoons. Figure 3
presents the hydraulic loading rates for the entire period of
January 2 to May 27, 1967.
TABLE 3
PILOT PLANT FEED RATES
Pond II - Anaerobic Pond III - Aerobic
Q Detention Time Detention Time
Date gpm Days gpm Days
2/23-3/20/67 4.0 8.8
3/29-4/23/67 7.0 5.0
4/30-5/27/67 15.0 2.4
4.0 8.8
7.0 5.0
15.0 2.4
C. Results
1. pH and Temperature
Fluctuations in pH in the primary clarifier effluent,
anaerobic pond II effluent, and aerobic pond III effluent are presented
-12-
-------
in Figure 4. The pH of the clarifier effluent ranged from 7.1 to
11.7 with a median of 10.7. During the three periods of study
(Table 3), the median pH was 6.5, 6.4, and 6.5 in pond II effluent,
respectively, and 8.3, 8.6, and 8.3 in pond III effluent.
The temperature drops across the primary clarifier, the
clarifier plus pond II, and the clarifier plus ponds II and III are
shown on Figure 5. Across the clarifier plus both ponds the tempera-
ture drop ranged from 45° F in late January to less than 25° F in May.
During the three periods of operation the temperature averaged 62,
68, and 71° F in the anaerobic pond effluent, respectively, and 42,
43, and 53° F in aerobic pond III effluent.
2. Alkalinity and Volatile Acids
Although analyses for alkalinity and volatile acids
were made on samples from all sampling points they are of primary
concern only in the anaerobic cell, pond II. Volatile acids : alkalinity
(4)
ratios in excess of 0.8V ' are inhibitory to methane production in
anaerobic digestion. Figure 6 shows the change in volatile acids
concentration and the volatile acids : alkalinity ratio during the
study. The volatile acids ranged from 600 in January to 3500 mg/1
in the middle of May. The volatile acids : alkalinity ratio ranged
from 0.5 to 1.0 for the first two months, then it started increasing
and reached a maximum of 3.5 on May 9. Since the primary aim was
only hydrolysis of the wastes in the anaerobic pond to more easily
oxidized forms, the high ratios and high volatile acids concentra-
tions were probably not harmful.
-13-
-------
3. Solids
Averaged reductions in suspended solids and total
volatile solids for the three periods of operation are shown in
Table 4. All reductions, both positive and negative, shown for
the primary clarifier, anaerobic pond and aerobic pond are based
on the percentage change from the influent to the effluent of
that unit. Overall reductions show the percentage change from
the influent of the primary clarifier to the effluent of the
aerobic pond. BOD loadings were calculated from the feed rates
and influent BODS to each of the two ponds.
During the February 23 to March 20 period the primary
clarifier removed 57 percent of the suspended solids. The anaerobic
pond reduced the suspended solids by 82 percent and there was a 230
percent increase in suspended solids upon passage through the
aerobic pond. Overall reduction in suspended solids across the
clarifier and both ponds was 74 percent.
Suspended solids removal by anaerobic pond II was
related to the efficiency of the primary clarifier. As the percentage
removal increased across the clarifier, the removal decreased across
the anaerobic pond. Volatile suspended solids averaged 97 percent of
the suspended solids for the clarifier influent, 90 percent for the
clarifier effluent.
Total volatile solids reductions by ponds II and III
are shown on Figure 7. Average reductions for the three periods
-14-
-------
col
H!
CO
00
co
CN
co
en
CM
vO
co
ro
vO
co
co
CM
oo
o
co
CM
I
in
CO
10
vO
vO
vO
CM
CM
I
Hi
CN
CM
00
CO
in
CO
CO
*
•o
•o
c
CO
in
60
C
•H
•O
CO
o
n4
m
Q
O
«
-*
f< in eo ^"r-tOOON ^
•o
"^N^
•
00 4J
C ^M
•^ *
TJ 3
SO 1 r-l 00 1 1 CM O 1 1
1 i— < 1 1 CM CM 1 1
J 0
o
mo
Q t-H
0 -^
CQ M
CO
vO
oo
CM
00
vO
vO
OO
O
CM
CO
1
•o
O
1-1
to
0)
(X
r-~
vO
*-^
CO
CM
^^^
CM
y clarif
to
§
•H
to
a,
•o
c
o -a
a c
o
u a
1-1
x> u
O -H
to X)
0) O
(0 M
3 3
.— <
i— I
efl CO
to CM
<1J --
>
O
a
u
•rl
XI
O
l-l
V
at
$
"8 -
o ^-<
D. td r>-
Jj CM
O 0) —
•H > m
XI 0
O 1
to
. CO
M
U 0>
^ >
XI 0
o
to
*
-15-
-------
ranged from 29 to 48 percent across pond II and from 12 to 33
percent across pond III. The negative reductions shown for pond III
in January are a result of the change of operation from a covered
anaerobic pond to an aerobic pond. While operating as an anaerobic
unit a considerable buildup of suspended solids occurred in pond III.
After conversion to an aerobic unit these solids were washed out,
markedly influencing reductions for most of January.
The total volatile solids : total solids ratio
remained fairly constant throughout the study for each of the
sampling points as shown by the following table:
Clarifier Clarifier Pond II Pond III
Influent Effluent Effluent Effluent
Range 0.59 to 0.82 0.56 to 0.89 0.36 to 0.89 0.36 to 0.59
Mean 0.72 0.63 0.52 0.45
Std.Dev. + 0.05 + 0.06 + 0.09 + 0.06
4. CODrc
This test was a modification of National Canners Association's
(3)
method for running a quick COD test. For certain wastes it has been
shown that a good correlation exists between COD and either COD or BOD,
Tu. s
In this study both the CODm : COD ratio and the CODm : BOD ratio varied
depending upon type of treatment as well as organic loadings. All CODm
data may be found in Appendix B, Table A-12.
5. CODS
Figure 8 shows the COD_ loading and reductions by anaerobic
5
pond II. In general the removals decreased from about 50 percent to
-16-
-------
about 13 percent as the CODS loading was increased from 10 to 100
lbs/day/1000 cu.ft. As the average BODj loading was increased from
11 lbs/1000 cu.ft./day to 22 to 46 during the three separate periods
of operation, the average CODg reductions were 33, 15, and 15 percent,
respectively.
CODs reduction by pond III ranged from -50 percent, due to
the changeover from anaerobic to aerobic, to 60 percent as shown in
Figure 9. With a BODs loading of 20 lbs/1000 cu.ft./day during the
March 29 to April 23 period, the CODS reduction averaged 58 percent.
During the third period when the 8005 loading averaged 40 Ibs, the
average CODS reduction dropped to 28 percent. After the CODS loading
increased above 60 lbs/day/1000 cu.ft., the percent reduction started
to decrease rapidly. The total CODS reduction across ponds II and III
is shown in Figure 10 along with the reductions calculated from Idaho
State Health Department's data. Agreement is good except for four
samples during the month of April which showed consistently higher
removals based on the Department's data.
Figure 11 shows all of the COD data run onsite for both
ponds. The influence of loading is readily seen as removals decreased
for both ponds with increasing load. Reduction by pond II appeared to
reach a minimum of 10-15 percent as the loading was increased to the
50 to 110 lbs/day/1000 cu.ft. area. The drop in CODS reductions
across pond III was rather uniform as the loading was increased from
-17-
-------
15 to 90 lbs/day/1000 cu.ft. The five low reductions near the 16 Ib/day
loading were a result of the change in operation of pond III from anaerobic
to aerobic. Much of the scatter may be attributed to using grab samples
from the pond effluent for analysis.
6. BOD5
The BOD5 loadings on and reductions by anaerobic pond II are
shown in Figure 12. As the loading was increased from 4 to 50 Ibs BOD^/
1000 cu.ft./day, the percent reduction decreased from 50 to about 10.
For the three periods of operation shown in Table 3, the reduction
averaged 25, 12, and 13 percent, respectively.
Figure 13 presents the BOD5 reductions by aerobic pond III
and the loadings on that pond. After the solids which had accumulated
during operation as an anaerobic lagoon were washed out, the BOD5
reduction maintained itself in the 80 to 90 percent range until the
loading increased to about 20 Ibs/1000 cu.ft./day. For the three
periods of operation the reductions averaged 88, 87, and 64 percent
as the loading was increased from 8 to 20 to 40 Ibs BODj/lOOO cu.ft./day.
Five-day BOD reductions across both ponds are shown in Figure 4
based on the data collected onsite and that collected by Idaho State
Health Department. For the first two months of the study, the reductions
based on the Health Department's data were 30 to 40 percent lower than
those based on analyses run onsite. Some of this disagreement may be
explained by the fact that the State Health Department seeded their
incubation bottles and the BOD's run onsite were not seeded. In
-18-
-------
addition, different techniques were used for getting the small sample
sizes needed for the high BOD's encountered. As the study progressed
the differences between the two labs decreased. BOD- reductions across
the two ponds were maintained near 85 percent for about three months.
A plot of percent reduction vs BOD loading in lb/day/1000 cu.ft,
for both ponds is shown in Figure 15. Estimated lines of best fit were
drawn through the data and these curves were used for a rough cost
comparison between anaerobic and aerobic ponds. This is discussed later.
7. Total Dissolved Organic Carbon
Nine sets of samples were analyzed for total dissolved organic
carbon (TDOC) during the April and May period of operation. The primary
clarifier reduced the TDOC from an average of 1590 to 1220 mg/1 (23
percent). The results from the ponds are shown in the following table:
Pond II Pond II Pond III
Date Influent Effluent Effluent
3/29-4/23 1250 1220 755
4/30-5/27 1230 1090 915
Removal across both ponds averaged 40 percent during the 3/29 to 4/23
period and 26 percent during the May period.
8. Inorganic Nutrients
Inorganic nutrient levels were measured in the form of total
phosphate, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite and nitrate nitrogen, and total
Kjeldahl nitrogen. Neither phosphates nor nitrogen were removed by the
ponds as expected, inasmuch as both ponds were completely mixed. The
nitrogen form changed upon passage through both ponds. Ninety-one
percent of the 78 mg/1 total Kjeldahl nitrogen was in the organic form
-19-
-------
in the clarifier effluent. In the effluent from the anaerobic pond
only 42 percent of the nitrogen was in the organic form and the
percentage increased to 78 upon passage through pond III.
The feed to pond III contained about 75 mg/1 total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, 50 mg/1 phosphate, and 1500 mg/1 of BODj. These values
result in a BOD : N ratio of 20:1 and a BOD : P ratio of 90:1. The
most commonly quoted ratios for N and P requirements of aerobic
biological systems are 20:1 and 100:1. Based on the measured levels
of inorganic nutrients and the degree of treatment obtained by the
ponds, nutrient deficiencies did not seem to occur.
-20-
-------
VI. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
The Loading curves drawn on Figure 15 were used to make some
very rough cost estimates to see if a combination anaerobic-aerobic
system might result in lower total annual charges. The following
assumptions and prices were used to develop the cost estimates.
1. BOD of clarifier influent = 2700 mg/1.
2. BOD of clarifier effluent = 1700 mg/1. (Thirty-seven
percent reduction by clarifier.)
3. Overall BOD5 reduction = 90% (effluent BOD = 270 mg/1).
4. Aerators installed at $500/HP (amortized across 10 years
at 6 percent).
5. Cost of aerator maintenance at 2%/year of installed cost.
6. Aerators add 2 Ibs 02/HP-hr.
7. Oxygen requirements of waste = 1.2 Ibs/lb BOD applied.
8. Power costs $0.01/KW-Hr.
9. Total land costs based on $1000/acre of lagoon surface
(yearly cost of 6%).
10. Aerobic ponds installed (lined) at $10,000/acre (10
years - 6%).
11. Anaerobic ponds installed (lined, covered, and mixed)
at $16,000/acre (10 years - 6%).
12. Waste plant operates 300 days/year, 24 hours/day.
A series of annual charges were calculated using these assumptions
for various combinations of anaerobic-aerobic loadings to achieve the
-21-
-------
effluent 8005 concentration of 270 rag/1. Other costs were assumed
to remain relatively constant for a given size plant regardless of
type of treatment used. On Figure 16 is shown the annual charges in
$l,000/yr/mgd treated. Any combination of anaerobic reduction and
aerobic reduction, shown directly opposite will reduce the BOD from
1700 to 270 mg/1. Arriving at the desired endpoint by aerobic ponds
only (84% reduction) results in a cost of about $48,000/year per tugd
treated, whereas, anaerobic ponds removing 35% of its influent BOD
followed by aerobic ponds reducing it to 270 mg/1 results in a cost
of about $39,000. The important point from this preliminary analysis
is that a combination anaerobic-aerobic system appears at this time to
result in an overall cost lower than either of them separately. This
is true despite the relatively poor BOD removals obtained by the
anaerobic pond and the higher installed cost of anaerobic ponds.
-22-
-------
VII. DISCUSSION
The pilot plant study on secondary treatment of potato processing
wastes will be continued during the 1967-68 processing season. Due to
the late arrival of the 5 hp aerator the anaerobic-aerobic lagoons in
series were only operated about one-half of the 1966-67 season. The
10-hp aerator for a third aerobic lagoon which was to be operated in
parallel with the other two ponds did not arrive until the end of the
processing season. Preliminary conclusions, however, may be drawn
from the data already collected and presented in this report.
An overall BOD reduction of at least 90 percent is feasible
with primary clarification followed by anaerobic and aerobic ponds
in series. Preliminary findings indicate that loading rates in the
range of 10 to 20 pounds of BOD. per 1000 cu.ft./day can be applied
to the lagoons to achieve the desired removals. The BOD removal
varied from 12 to 25 percent across the anaerobic pond and from 87 to
88 percent across the aerated pond at these loading rates. Overall
pilot plant efficiencies during this period ranged from 88 to 91
percent BOD removal. Coupled with an average of 40 percent removal
by the primary plant, this results in a total BOD removal in excess
of 90 percent.
The combination of high BOD removals with substantial increases
in suspended solids across the aerobic lagoon indicate that inorganic
-23-
-------
nutrient levels were not limiting to growth of required organisms
to accomplish treatment. As a result of this solids increase, the
overall suspended solids reduction was relatively poor -- ranging
from 50 to 75 percent. In order to increase the suspended solids
reduction to 90 percent or higher, secondary clarification will be
needed. This would also increase the overall BOD removals.
The advance of the volatile acids : alkalinity ratio above 0.8
did not seem to affect the removal rates in the anaerobic pond. Short
detention time coupled with pH values of about 6.5 and fluctuating
loading conditions contributed to the inhibition of methane production.
The purpose of the anaerobic cell was to carry out the first stage of
anaerobic fermentation and hydrolize some of the more complex organics
to simpler forms more amenable to aeration. The effectiveness of
this cell cannot be evaluated until results from a parallel aerobic
lagoon study are obtained. Mixing the contents and covering the
anaerobic pond with styrofoam did, however, increase its effectiveness
by holding the temperature drop to a minimum and preventing sludge
deposits from accumulating in the pond.
Foaming in the aerated cell was an intermittent problem. At
the small scale of our pilot lagoon it was not a major nuisance, but
a fullscale lagoon will probably require some means of preventing
foaming.
-24-
-------
The cost analysis presented is based on rough assumptions and
the annual charges derived from it are subject to gross adjustment.
The figures do, however, provide an idea of the relative weight to
be applied to removals in the anaerobic or aerated cells.
The 1967-68 processing season should provide all the necessary
additional pilot plant data for formulation of design parameters for
lagooning potato wastes. Changes planned for the pilot facility will
greatly expedite its operation. In addition, the replacement of the
primary sludge centrifuge with a vacuum filter will substantially
reduce the solids loading to the ponds and should result in even
better removal rates.
-25-
-------
VIII. REFERENCES
1. "Idaho Image," Idaho State Department of Commerce and Development,
Boise, Idaho. July 1967.
2. "Progress Report - Pilot Plant Studies on Secondary Treatment of
Potato Process Water", Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Northwest Region, Corvallis, Oregon,
January 1967.
3. Rose, W. W. and W. A. Mercer. "Chemical Oxygen Demand as a
Test of Strength of Cannery Waste Water." National
Canners Association Research Laboratories, Berkeley,
California, May 16, 1956.
4. "Anaerobic Sludge Digestion," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, p. 1684, October 1966.
5. DiLallo, R. and 0. E. Albertson. "Volatile Acids by Direct
Titration," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
p. 356, April 1961.
6. "An Engineering Report on Pilot Plant Studies, Secondary Treatment
of Potato Process Water." Cornell, Rowland, Hayes, and
Merryfield, Boise, Idaho. September 1966.
-------
IX. APPENDIX
-------
APPENDIX A
Memorandum of Understanding
-------
A-2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This agreement sets forth the provisions of a cooperative
study of methods for secondary treatment of potato processing wastes
to be conducted by the Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, (a division
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration), the Potato
Processors of Idaho Association, and the Idaho Department of Health.
Objective; This project will conclude pilot plant studies on feasible
methods of secondary treatment of potato processing wastes.
Facilities; These studies will be conducted on pilot plant facilities
furnished by the J. R. Simplot Co. at its Burley, Idaho, site.
This company has constructed three lined cells, each 40 feet
square, and about 10 feet deep with a liquid volume of 51,000
gallons, which receives the clarified effluent from two inte-
grated potato processing plants. Some pilot plant studies were
made on these facilities last year and operating data are
available. Major laboratory equipment and supplies will be
furnished by FWPCA.
FWPCA Responsibility; Technical assistance will be provided consisting
of one resident sanitary engineer on site during the 1966-67
processing season to supervise and operate pilot plant facili-
ties, determine plant loadings and flow patterns, and perform
laboratory tests. General supervision and laboratory back up
will be provided by FWPCA through the Pacific Northwest Water
Laboratory at Corvallis, Oregon.
State Responsibi1 ity; The State of Idaho will provide some laboratory
staff and facilities for special analyses requiring more than
routine type equipment.
Industry Responsibility; The industry will provide some laboratory space
and pilot plant facilities as well as some assistance in routine
plant operation. Some existing laboratory equipment will be
provided. Plant production figures will be made available for
calculation of unit loads on the pilot plant facilities.
Procedure; Sufficient chemical and bacteriological analyses at various
flows and organic loadings will be run to determine the feasi-
bility of secondary treatment methods. Treatment processes to
be studied include; (1) anaerobic treatment in one cell equipped
with a Styrofoam float cover followed by aerobic treatment in a
mechanically-aerated pond, and (2) independent aerobic treatment
in an additional mechanically-aerated pond.
-35-
-------
A-3
Coordination; Day-to-day direction of pilot plant operation and tests
will be provided by FWPCA. Regular review meetings will be
held at intervals of approximately one month to apprise State
and industry representatives of study findings and to review
proposed operation and tests.
Reports; Semimonthly activity reports will be prepared by FWPCA and
submitted to the State and industry representatives. At the
completion of the processing season, in the spring of 1967,
all pilot plant study results shall be incorporated into a
final report prepared by FWPCA for public distribution, which
shall include unit waste loadings and a description of the
process wastes being treated.
Revision and Termination; Changes in the provisions of this agreement
may be made by mutual consent of the parties thereto. This
agreement shall terminate on. December 31, 1967.
For the FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION:
Date: _jan 9
D^reVtor, Technical Sefvices
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory
For the IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:
ef, Watejf-Bollutioh Section
For the E0fATO PROCESSORS OF 2DAHO ASSOCIATION
Date:
^___ Date:
Vice Pres^Ldenft, J. R. Simplot Co.
-36-
-------
APPENDIX B
Data
-------
A-5
Table A-I FLOW DATA, gpm
Date
1-1-67
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
2-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Aerobic
Clarifier Pond I
3510
3880
4220
3750
3690
3380
3320
4220
4220
4390
4190
4220
4210
4280
4390
4220
4220
4390
4390
4220
4390
4390
4390
4190
4390
3500
4390
4390
4390
4290
4290
4040
4380
4390
Anaerobic
Pond 11
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Anaerobic
Pond III
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
3.7 *
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Comments
Ponds down since
12-23-66
Changed pond III to
aerobic in series
following pond II.
Pump minimum =
3.7 gpm.
-38-
-------
A-6
Table A-l FLOW DATA (Cont'd.)
Date
2-15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Aerobic
Clarifier Pond I
4390
4390
4290
3760
4290
4390
4390
4390
4220
4170
4190
4190
4290
4290
4390
4190
4290
4390
4290
4390
4390
3860
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4290
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
3590
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
Anaerobic
Pond II
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
39-
Anaeroblc
Pond III Comments
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
-------
Table A-l FLOW DATA (Cont'd.)
Date
4-1
2
33
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
5-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Aerobic
Clarifier Pond I
4060
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4220
4390
4390
4390
4390
4040
4390
4390
4390
4290
4220
4140
4390
4390
4390
4390
4220
4190
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4390
4290
4210
4390
4390
4390 7
Anaerobic
Pond II
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
11
11
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Anaerobic
Pond III Comments
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
11
11
13
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15 Started aerol
-40-
-------
A-8
Table A-l FLOW DATA (Cont'd.)
Aerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic
Date Clarif ier Pond I Pond II Pond III Comment a
5-18 4390 7 15 15
19 4390 7 15 15
20 4390 7 15 15
21 4390 7 15 15
22 4390 7 15 15
23 4390 7 15 15
24 4390 7 15 15
25 4390 7 15 15
26 4390 7 15 15
27 4390 7 15 15
-41-
-------
A-9
Table A-2 TEMPERATURE DATA, °F
Date
1-3-67
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
30
31
2-1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
3-1
2
3
Clarifier
Influent
73
73
72
74
73
73
80
78
76
80
77
77
76
78
78
77
78
80
77
79
78
71
78
77
82
72
79
77
78
80
78
79
78
78
78
77
77
80
79
78
78
77
78
78
77
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
63
69
70
70
69
69
74
71
73
76
70
73
72
74
76
73
74
76
75
75
76
68
76
75
79
69
76
76
76
75
75
75
75
74
74
75
74
76
75
74
73
74
75
74
75
Pond II
Effluent
52
52
52
54
51
55
54
55
54
54
53
56
54
55
55
54
54
56
56
56
57
57
58
60
59
53
59
58
61
60
60
59
61
62
60
60
63
62
60
61
62
59
61
Pond III
Effluent
54
58
58
59
51
50
47
44
44
44
44
34
32
32
33
36
36
34
32
33
33
36
40
41
41
35
35
33
38
38
42
34
34
34
33
34
37
43
41
39
42
43
46
-42-
-------
A-10
Table A-2 TEMPERATURE DATA (Cont'd.)
Date
3-4-67
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
30
31
4-3
4
7
11
13
18
19
20
21
24
25
27
5-2
3
9
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
Clarifier
Influent
78
70
78
78
78
80
79
78
79
77
78
78
79
78
81
82
82
81
72
79
78
78
78
70
79
80
78
79
80
79
80
76
68
79
77
76
76
82
79
68
79
81
79
79
80
76
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
74
69
74
74
74
76
76
76
76
75
75
76
77
76
76
79
77
76
70
77
76
75
74
68
77
77
73
77
78
75
77
74
64
77
75
72
72
80
77
66
77
78
77 61
76
76
74 62
Pond II
Effluent
62
53
61
63
62
60
61
65
65
66
63
64
66
66
67
65
67
66
68
70
70
68
63
67
68
68
70
73
71
71
70
71
72
Pond III
Effluent
45
36
32
35
48
42
39
41
51
49
48
44
46
47
40
47
40
41
42
47
42
45
44
44
44
40
46
57
51
54
53
55
62
-43-
-------
A-ll
Table .*-2 TEMPERATURE DATA (Cont'd.)
Clarifier Clarifier Pond I Pond II Pond III
__ Date . _ . ._ .-
5-23-67 78 76
24 79 76
25 80 75 59 73 59
26 79 75
27 78 76
-44-
-------
A-12
Table A-3 ptt DATA
Date
1-3-67
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
30
31
2-1
2
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
3-1
2
3
4
6
Clarifier
Influent
11.1
11.6
11.8
11.4
11.6
11.8
11.4
11.9
10.7
10.8
11.1
11.5
11.2
11.1
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
10.3
11.0
10.8
10.8
10.7
9.6
10.7
11.1
8.9
10.7
10.3
11.4
10.9
10.3
Pond II
Effluent
6.. 7
7.5
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.5
6.9
6.8
7.2
6.4
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.6
6,7
6.2
6.3
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.6
6.3
6.3
6.6
6.2
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.3
6.4
6.5
Pond III
Effluent
6.8
7.2
6.8
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.2
8.5
8.4
7.6
8.2
7.8
8.0
8.6
8.5
8.7
8.4
8,1
8.3
8.5
8.3
8.7
8.3
8.5
8.3
8.4
7.6
7.8
8.5
8.4
8.6
7.5
8.1
8.2
8.0
8.3
8.3
8.3
7.9
8.2
8.9
-45-
-------
A* 13
Table A-3 pH DATA (Cont'd.)
Date
3-7-67
8
10
13
14
15
17
18
20
21
22
28
31
4-4
7
11
13
18
20
25
27
5-2
3
9
11 .
16
17
18
22
25
Clarifier
Influent
U.3
ii.4
12.1
11.4
11,4
10.8
11.6
10.6
11.6
10.8
10.5
11.4
11.1
11.2
11.6
11.7
11.3
11.4
11.4
11.2
11.5
11.5
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
10.6
10.2
11.6
9.4
9.9
11.1
10.1
8.9
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.8
11.2
7.1
10.5
11.1
10.8
11.7
10.8
9.8
10.4 8.0
8.6
11.2 8.2
Pond II
Effluent
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.8
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.7
6.4
6.4
7.0
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.2
6.4
6.3
6.6
6.6
Pond III
Effluent
8.9
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.6
8.5
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.5
9.0
8.0
8.1
8.4
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.4
-46-
-------
A-14
TABLE A-4 TOTAL ALKALINITY DATA, mg/1
Date
1-3-67
5
12
17
19
24
26
31
2-2-67
10
17
21
24
28
3-3-67
10
17
21
28
31
4-11-67
13
18
20
25
27
5-3-67
9
16
25
Clarifier
Influent
870
1230
1380
1070
1240
1500
1300
1240
1810
970
840
910
1180
930
840
1030
1220
900
1110
820
920
970
970
770
1050
1200
930
970
1040
1170
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
470
930
760
860
880
810
1060
980
1560
760
520
750
1410
960
760
780
640
980
610
450
800
880
830
370
700
1020
790
1130
720
1020 1190
Pond II
Effluent
1100
1040
1090
1080
1010
1080
1060
1080
1160
1070
1080
1000
1040
1080
1020
1090
1020
1080
1090
990
920
980
1010
1040
940
1010
1050
1010
830
1020
Pond III
Effluent
1060
1100
1100
1120
1080
1160
1140
1210
1240
1320
1250
1220
1240
1200
1210
1240
1340
1320
1240
1210
1230
1200
1250
1200
1220
1220
1240
1210
1140
-47-
-------
A-15
TABLE A-5 VOLATILE ACIDS DATA, mg/1
Clarifier Clarifier Pond I Pond II Pond III
Date Influent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
1-17-67 550 120 570 750
19 390 380 630 630
24 380 560 600 50
26 440 480 800 60
31 ' 440 380 860 60
2-2-67 540 550 840
10 360 450 880 110
17 480 700 1040 540
21 340 300 1080 130
24 510 580 1040 140
28 380 420 1050 60
3-3-67 300 400 940 50
10 400 640 1200 90
17 450 720 1080 80
21 390 390 1230 60
28 420 640 1170 60
31 380 600 1590 60
4-11-67 380 420 1320 80
13 520 500 1620 540
18 940 800 2060 100
20 690 1300 2360 120
25 870 1040 2280 110
27 820 990 2320 120
5-3-67 760 860 2100 90
9 1950 2120 3520 100
16 1260 1170 2380 150
25 870 940 120 2180 300
48-
-------
A-16
TABLE A-6 TOTAL SOLIDS DATA, mg/1
Date
1-3-67
4
5
10
12
17
19
24
26
31
2-7-67
14
15
21
22
28
3-2-67
7
8
14
15
21
22
28
29
4-4-67
7
11
13
18
20
25
27
5-3-67
9
11
16
18
22
25
Clarifier
Influent
5450
7650
7540
8810
8040
5760
6460
7670
6940
6540
6050
6250
5270
4890
4890
5350
7080
6010
3950
6720
8310
6680
6610
6310
9080
6110
6650
6600
6100
6460
5170
6510
6730
6270
8910
4620
5900
4680
5960
6580
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
2070
4660
4160
4000
3480
3360
3880
5090
4710
3900
4100
4010
3630
3430
4330
4050
5970
4410
3500
4300
3480
4080
3940
3750
4070
3870
4080
3700
4370
3880
3750
3880
4270
3800
4750
4680
3770
4830 3290
3310 2760
4240 2500
Pond II
Effluent
2560
2720
2550
2450
2530
2340
2570
2620
3040
2840
2840
2670
2940
2950
2760
3150
2880
2980
2950
2990
3060
3160
3190
3230
3260
3110
3320
3220
3310
3350
3380
3000
3320
3260
3300
3500
3010
3240
3090
3110
Pond III
Effluent
2720
2690
2580
2910
2930
3350
3050
2140
2810
2750
2630
2540
2390
2860
2700
2860
2630
2690
2710
2780
2780
2640
2690
2830
2800
2870
2950
2770
2770
2730
2820
2750
2810
2880
3190
•* «
2930
3360
3350
3270
-49-
-------
A-17
TABLE A-7 CENTRIFUGED TOTAL SOLIDS DATA, mg/1
Clarifier Clarifier
Date Influent Effluent
1-4-67 4570 4020
17 3310 2940
31 4380 3630
2-21-67 33,60 2850
28 3290 3810
3-7-67 3850 3300
14 4720 2090
21 3730 3230
28 4090 3600
4-4-67 3940 3840
11 3490 3390
18 4190 3670
25 3930 3490
5-3-67 3340 3390
9 4880 4670
16 3480 3660
-50-
-------
A-18
TABLE A-8 SLUDGE-TOTAL SOLIDS DATA, mg/1
Date
1-4-67
17
24
31
2-14-67
21
28
3-7-67
14
21
28
4-4-67
11
18
25
5-3-67
9
16
Clarifier
Influent
7500
5590
6230
5930
6300
4380
4650
5190
5910
4920
5820
4050
5550
6230
4050
3950
6440
4860
Sludge
from
Clarifier
40,800
81,800
77,000
50,500
57,500
61,000
43,700
44,500
45,800
36,100
43,300
40,400
43,200
45,800
41,600
63,500
51,400
48,800
Centrifuge
Supernatant
21,600
40,300
49,300
32,500
34,700
29,800
25,500
25,200
24,500
32,800
22,900
24,300
21,500
26,500
25,900
28,200
26,400
23,900
S ludge
from
Centrifuge
165,000
184,000
191,000
203,000
198,000
210,000
183,000
208,000
212,000
218,000
196,000
227,000
229,000
191,000
182,000
241,000
232,000
182,000
-51-
-------
A-'19
TABLE A-9 TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS DATA, mg/1
Date
Clarif ier
Influent
1-10-67
12
17
19
24
26
2-14-67
15
22
3-2-67
8
15
22
29
4-4-67
7
11
18
20
25
27
5-3-67
9
11
16
18
22
25
6880
6030
3980
4450
5210
5330
4510
3850
3510
4630
2500
6580
4900
7410
4150
4970
4900
4460
3790
4670
4790
4670
7200
3000
4090
2750
4520
4810
Clarifier
Effluent
3480
2110
1880
2260
3080
2530
2340
2480
4300
2050
2240
2370
2730
2480
2150
2320
2420
2340
2630
2280
2990
2750
2190
3140
2010
2640
Pond I
Effluent
1490
1090
990
Pond II
Effluent
1160
1200
880
930
1240
1820
2380
1740
1380
1370
1460
1580
1650
1530
1410
1890
1830
1750
1840
1540
1840
1530
1900
1750
1590
1710
1730
1850
Pond III
Effluent
1460
1500
1430
1480
1270
1660
1090
1130
1070
1050
1240
1090
1030
1200
1110
1280
1170
1060
1020 104o(a)
1010
1380
1080
1640
1260
1580
1730
1700
(a) After 2 hours settling
-52-
-------
A-20
TABLE A-10 SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA, mg/1
Clarifier Clarlfier Pond I Pond II Pond III
Date Influent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
1-3-67 1660 420 640 160
5 4040 2260 1140 100
12 5100 360 240 400
17 200 520 2060
19 3280 520 640 210
24 4140 1780 320 890
26 5900 680 1270 910
31 4500 600 870 650
2-15-67 2880 780 70 160
22 3280 510 390 950
3-2-67 2330 3190 370 830
8 2560 500 180 1100
15 5000 560 220 610
22 3170 860 370 1220
29 2600 1100 150 420
4-4-67 2380 990 380 460
7 2280 280 170 460
11 2580 420 250 740
13 280 820 400 1840
18 580 370 580 500
20 2700 90 720 200
25 2620 180 440 160
27 1660 400 1080 800
5-3-67 2020 500 500 280
9 2960 1160 910 1680
11 1280 500 80 120
16 2720 340 90 1160
18 3240 380 380 210 420
22 860 570 900 130 1080
25 720 840 480 130 1960
-53-
-------
A-21
TABLE A-ll VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA, mg/1
Date
1-12-67
17
19
24
26
31
2-15-67
22
3-2-67
8
15
22
29
4-4-67
7
11
13
18
20
25
27
5-3-67
9
11
16
18
22
25
Clarifier
Influent
5060
3380
3280
4140
5900
4440
2800
3280
2220
2460
4780
2640
2680
2320
2240
2480
280
580
2580
2460
1580
2020
2920
1120
2600
3240
860
660
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
400
240
520
1780
680
600
710
510
3040
480
500
250
1080
990
220
420
770
320
50
170
360
460
960
460
340
380 280
570 700
620 240
Pond II
Effluent
140
260
370
230
500
470
70
390
340
180
200
300
110
380
140
230
230
550
—
360
730
380
730
80
90
210
130
60
Pond III
Effluent
400
580
210
830
880
590
160
890
700
820
560
850
320
460
380
740
1840
500
80
160
640
280
1440
120
1020
420
1080
1540
-54-
-------
'A* 22
TABLE A-12 CODm DATA, mg/1
Clarifier Clarifler Pond I Pond II Pond III
Date Influent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
1-4-67 6320 2780 540 690
10 3500 2020 500 660
13 2960 1300 620 1020
17 3180 1240 560 840
20 5680 2440 500 830
24 4740 2160 600 920
27 3720 3000 860 920
31 3820 1900 860 740
2-3-67 3900 2200 700 600
7 5680 1340 120 480
10 3040 1920 760 440
14 4400 2260 850 460
15 3940 1760 670 410
21 2600 1900 590 730
22 3380 2260 700 610
28 3220 2120 780 760
3-2-67 5280 4880 740 610
7 3080 2080 620 620
14 4500 2320 640 730
15 6580 4280 740 760
21 2820 2180 720 590
22 5440 2000 740 710
28 4240 2220 880 860
29 4440 1620 490 550
4-4-67 5220 2460 840 920
11 6120 2120 720 610
18 4300 2340 620 580
25 3640 2280 660 580
5-3-67 6920 1980 1170 960
9 6700 2460 860 950
16 2920 2440 700 680
22 2460 1720 810 870 1080
-55-
-------
A-23
TABLE A-13 CODg DATA, mg/1
Date
1-4-67
6
11
13
16
18
20
23
25
27
30
2-1-67
3
10
15
22
3-2-67
8
15
22
29
4-4-67
7
11
13
18
20
25
27
5-3-67
9
11
16
18
22
25
Clarifier
Influent
7050
6390
5250
6540
4950
4860
6080
8100
4920
5920
4110
5900
5140
3700
3140
9860
5660
3120
--
6050
7270
6940
6880
6940
7440
7260
4980
7200
7240
6750
10800
4140
5920
9570
3420
4650
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
3740
3330
3360
3040
2660
2520
3600
3700
3720
4090
2680
3150
4030
2680
3140
3440
6000
2930
2930
3330
3790
3550
3320
3000
3530
3170
3360
3280
3230
3180
3870
3790
3030
4100 1400
2730 1320
3080 1290
Pond II
Effluent
1780
1580
1610
1640
1800
1460
1640
1890
2000
2340
2330
2240
2210
2330
2190
2190
2520
2500
2500
2680
2840
2760
2930
3080
3140
2620
2890
2810
2810
2750
3310
3270
2660
2750
2990
2470
Pond III
Effluent
2150
2220
2300
2270
2740
2640
2480
1930
1990
1680
1590
1450
1660
790
960
2020
1340
1250
1410
1230
1170
1180
1170
1220 7
1360
1270
1150
1530
1190
1530
2520
1920
1940
1980
2050
2570
690(a)
680(b)
710(a)
io(a)
870
-------
A-24
TABLE A-14 BOD DATA, rag/1
Date
1-4-67
11
18
25
2-15-67
22
3-2-67
8
15
22
29
4-7-67
11
13
18
20
27
5-3-67
9
11
16
18
22
25
Clarifier
Influent
2580
2550
2210
2630
2180
2050
2260
1900
3720
2340
3800
3060
3080
3100
3100
2350
3170
2280
5150
1930
3160
3650
2200
2200
Clarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
1680
1800
1180
1830
1710
1800
1870
1220
1550
1630
1510
1750
1550
1720
1770
1960
1690
1590
2000
2080
1680
1480 540
1660 360
1720 420
Pond II
Effluent
670
950
730
1020
1200
1070
1100
1110
1260
1180
1060
1420
1730
1700
1560
1580
1440
1590
1590
1710
1350
1390
1630
1390
Pond III
Effluent
950
1290
1170
280
250
230
120
120
180
220
100
95
200
240
320
240
340
320
570
540
640
640
640
790
-57-
-------
A-25
Table A-15 AfftONIfl NITROGLf? PAT/f, mg/1 as N
Date
3-16-67
23
29
4-4
11
19
25
5-3
10
16
23
Clarifler
Influent
7.5
5.3
9.1
7.1
6.1
9.8
6.4
8.2
10.0
9.6
10.8
Clnrifler Pond I
Effluent Effluent
5.5
4.0
6.1
7.7
5.4
7.8
5.9
7.0
9.3
9.5
8.9 27
Pond II
Effluent
48
25
36
45
39
35
47
29
88
28
43
Pond III
effluent
14
18
30
26
21
23
24
11
10
19
__
mean
8.2
7.0
43
20
3-16-67
23
29
4-4
11
mean
1.0
1.1
0.6
1.4
1.7
1.2
MITIGATE-NITROGEN DATA, mg/1 as N
0.7
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.3
NITRITE-NITftOGEtf DATA, mg/1 as N
3-16-67
23
29
4-4
11
mean
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.
0.
0.
0.2
0.1
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.004
0.03
-58-
-------
Table A-16 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN DATA
mg/1 as N
D_atc_
3-16-67
23
29
4-4
11
19
25
5-3
10
16
23
Ciarifier
Influent
225
96
131
112
91
110
102
76
120
03
84
Ciarifier Pond I
Effluent Effluent
38
83
72
108
60
99
84
48
93
70
98 79
Pond II
Effluent
41
R7
79
7°
70
70
7°
69
R7
67
85
Pond III
Affluent
20
01
92
70
C6
89
91
90
110
104
130
mean
113
78
7
71
74
43
31
R9
20
69 Org.
-59-
-------
'A-27
Table i-17 TOTriL PHOSPHATE PAT/I
mg/l as PO
Date
3-L6-67
23
29
4-4
11
19
?3
5-3
10
16
23
CUrifier
Influent
46
63
89
33
52
60
57
46
67
71
45
CZarifier Fond I
Affluent Cffluent
71
46
50
41
41
45
48
36
54
64
48
Pond II
Bffluent
51
52
55
?4
39
50
53
53
56
61
52
Pond III
Affluent
53
52
57
26
56
54
55
54
62
73
65
mean 57 51 50 55
5-23 11.7 3.8 19.0 9.7
-60-
-------
A-28
Table A-18 TOT^L ORGANIC C.dlBON DATA, mg/1
Clarifier Clarifier Pond I Pond II Pond III
Date Influent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
3-29-67 1720 1350 1240 860
4-4 1550 1350 1200 730
11 2020 1220 1370 870
19 1420 1070 1060 560
25 1610 1110 1040 810
5-3 1190 1090 1170 890
10 1760 1340 1150 950
16 2080 1200 1000 890
23 980 1290 730 1040 930
mean 1590 1220 1140 830
-61-
-------
Table A-19 IDAHO STATE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT DATA (a)
p.H
1-11-67
Clarifier Influent
Clarlfier Effluent
Pond II Affluent
?onJ III Effluent
1-1:
Total
Alkalinity
Total Suspended
Solids Solids
COD
BOD
1295
725
1130
1090
5468
3930
3831
3801
506
393
327
382
3998
3644
2118
2451
2150
1862
1088
1270
Influent
Effluen'-
Fond II
Fond III
10.6
10.5
6.6
8.0
°20
930
1110
1040
5834
3791
2756
3599
2100
620
200
740
3493
308?
1680
2378
2314
1318
1202
2285
Influent
Effluent
Fond II
Pond III
11.9
8.0
7.6
9.2
1080
490
1060
1390
5780
3901
3214
3396
500
464
316
576
3738
3224
1950
1416
3900
2010
1140
1260
2-1
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Ton..I III
2-8
11.4
11.2
6.7
6.2
1570
1120
1090
1450
8946
5005
3170
2322
610
180
120
200
7558
3184
2336
1638
3137
1758
1223
1544
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
10. C
10.2
7.1
e.4
1130
960
1410
153C
7335
4164
2772
2554
288
204
252
360
10691
3933
1932
1249
5450
2812
1560
900
2-15
Influent
Affluent
Pond II
Pond III
10.5
10.0
7.2
8.5
1200
720
1160
1300
6742
4017
3162
2685
602
370
242
452
4277
2780
1805
960
2883
1825
1245
1195
(a) all mg/1, except pH
-62-
-------
Table A-19 IDAHO STATE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT DATA (CONTiD.)
A-30
Total
Alkalinity
Total Suspended
Solids Solids
COD
BOD
2-22-67
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
3-1
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
3-8
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
3-15
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
3-22
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
3-30
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
9.6
8.3
7.6
9.1
10.8
9.1
7.5
8.6
11.0
9.6
7.0
8.1
10.8
9.4
7.4
8.2
11.2
9.6
7.5
8.0
11.1
9.8
7.6
7.8
1530
1040
1260
1440
5620
3852
2868
2768
720
330
258
462
4113
3562
2097
1292
3223
2382
1485
1244
1400
1120
1060
1380
6224
3446
2686
2492
680
420
300
580
4726
2932
2253
1616
2400
1970
1323
815
1460
1220
980
1300
5524
3528
3040
2988
800
620
480
760
5864
3231
2910
1606
3894
2262
1907
1125
1520
1100
940
1340
7227
4218
3162
2626
920
880
520
640
8103
3843
2327
1504
5584
2606
1202
680
1600
920
1020
1280
6887
5184
3086
2768
840
800
680
540
7531
4186
1760
1369
4500
3000
1550
570
1580
1060
980
1220
7224
5586
3018
2664
1040
880
660
580
8472
6384
2818
1142
6000
4400
1800
650
-63-
-------
A-31
Table A-19 IDAHO STATE H&VLTH
DEP.JVTMENT DAT^ (CONT'D.)
Total
4-4-67
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
4-19
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Tond III
4-26
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
5-3
Influent
EfflllGUt
Pon^ II
Pond III
5-9
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
5-16
Influent
Effluent
Pond II
Pond III
.-B.H
Total
soiids
Suspended
COD
BOD
10.8
9.7
7.4
8.0
12.2
10.4
7.2
8.0
11.8
10.2
7.4
8.0
11.4
10.0
7.2
8.2
11.2
10.2
7.4
8.0
11.5
10.6
7.2
8.4
1540
1110
860
1320
8122
5484
2928
2410
860
820
680
620
6848
4740
2404
780
3450
2850
1325
480
1610
1200
920
1220
1720
1460
880
1180
7050
5226
2779
2208
920
780
620
600
6744
3270
2245
756
4500
1960
1800
450
7226
4867
2818
2016
1080
600
SCO
460
6286
3178
2184
724
4200
1950
1300
390/270
1880
1520
960
1240
7868
5812
3024
2287
1240
940
380
540
5204
3393
2089
1496
3286
2018
1354
COO
1780
1600
1120
1440
1050
870
925
1370
3277
6103
2928
2614
1620
1240
1080
960
9856
3763
2284
1990
5439
3450
1486
912
6116
3428
2068
2820
1728
1408
1204
1048
8725
4054
2394
2051
4800
2227
1438
1126
-64-
-------
A.-32
Table A-19 IDAHO ST.iTE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT DATA (CONT'D.)
Total Total Suspended
pH Alkalinity Solids Solids COD BOD
5-23-67
Influent 11.8 1840 6052 4691 3000
Effluent 11.1 960 4526 2352 2360
Pond I 7.6 1360 3420 1175 732
Pond II 7.2 1020 2842 2055 1245
Pond III 8.0 1400 2382 1796 553
-65-
-------
APPENDIX C
Analytical Procedures
-------
A-34
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
All of the analyses performed on the collected samples were
in accordance with the 12th edition of Standard Methods with the
exception of the volatile acids determination and the short-term
modified Canner's Association chemical oxygen demand, CODm, tests.
The methods used for these parameters are outlined below.
The volatile acids determinations were made following the
procedure outlined in 'Volatile Acids by Direct Titration," by
DiLallo and Albertson.(S) The sample is first titrated with
H2S04 to a pH of 3.5 to 3.3. Then, it is boiled lightly for at
least 3 minutes, and cooled to its original temperature. It is
then adjusted to pH 4.0 with 0.05 N sodium hydroxide. The sample
is then titrated with the 0.05 N sodium hydroxide from pH 4.0 to
7.0, The volatile acid alkalinity is then calculated from;
Volatile acid alkalinity = mlO.OSNNaOH x 2.500
ml. sample
The volatile acids are then calculated as 1.5 x volatile acids
alkalinity for volatile acid alkalinities greater than 180 rag/1
and 1.0 x volatile acid alkalinity for volatile acid alkalinities
less than 180 mg/1.
This test was concise and convenient and appeared to give
accurate results.
The National Canner's Association modified chemical oxygen
demand determination was performed in accordance with procedures
outlined in "Chemical Oxygen Demand as a Test of Strength of
Cannery Waste Water," by Rose and Mercer, National Canner's
Association Research Laboratories, Berkeley, California, May 16,
1956. However, a. 20 minute digestion period was substituted for
the recommended 10 minutes. The method consists of boiling the
sample in a mixture of sulfuric and phosphoric acids for 20 minutes,
cooling to room temperature, diluting with distilled water and
titration with 0.1N Sodium Thiosulfate solution with the addition
of KI crystals and 2 ml of starch solution. The endpoint occurs
when the sample first turns light blue-green.
The CODj,! test gave fairly consistent correlation with the
standard method CODS test for the clarifier effluent, but diverged
from it for the pond effluents. The test is extremely sensitive
to digest ion time and temperature variations and to laboratory
techniques due to the incomplete oxidation which occurs during its
digestion period. Replicate samples did not reproduce accurately.
The ratios of BOD to both CODS and CODm are shown in Table A-20.
The BOD/CODg ratios show a consistently higher correlation than
the BOD/CODjn ratios.
The CODjj! results were not an adequate indications of the
efficiency of secondary waste effluent.
-67-
-------
A*. 55
TABLE A -20 COMPARISONS BETWEEN BOD:CODS RATIO
and BOD:CODm RATIO
Clarifier Influent
BOD/CODs(a)
0.46 + 0.10(c) 0.63 + 0.22
Clarifier Effluent
0.50+0.07
0.74 t 0.20
Pond II Effluent
0.51 t 0.06
1.80 0.38
Pond III Effluent
0.23 0.12
0.47 0-31
24 sets of values
13 sets of values
Mean 1 1 standard deviation
-68-
-------
APPENDIX D
Figures
-------
A-37
Screened
Solids
Bin
Raw
9
Waste
Tank
Screen
Screen
Screened
Waste
Stream
Sludge
Bin
Screenings
Sludge
Underflow
River
Parshall
Flume
Centrifuge
Figure 1. FLOW DIAGRAM OF PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
-------
A-38
'•
Feed
Pump
Feed
Pond II
(covered)
Mix
Pump
o
rj
Feed
Pump
Feed
Effluent
Sump
Pond III
(open)
n
5HP
Wells
X^^x Aerator
To River
Figure 2. FLOW DIAGRAM OF PILOT PLANTS
-------
H
35
o
2
M
Q
o
1-1
60
-------
§
2
-------
H
en
W
H
en
CO
w
O
o
I
H
W
m
-------
S
H
X
in
§
H
a
u
H
>
H
a
s
a
u
M
o
«
1
s.0001 -
-------
H
O
g
s
in
9
M
H
I
H
r-~
4>
t>0
-------
CO
I
6
S
8
S
§
a
QOO II puoj
-------
M
H
O
g
a
en
CJ
§
O
1
-------
M
o
CM
CO
3
PM
O
P4
CO
en
§
CO
§
§
a
§
CJ
§
§
u
I
M
•H
-------
A-47
60
H!
o 40
•r^
4J
U
3
•O
3
Q 20
O
o
t-<
M
•o
1 °
(Vi
-20
©
Ph®
0 %
_© ©
©
e «
G
0 ° ©
©003 ^ G © ©Q ©e
©
0
100
80
3 60
•o
01
a
o
•8
o
cm
20
©
©
0
0 GE>
„.
G
G
0
20 40 60 o 80 100
Loading - Ibs COD8/day/1000 cu. ft.
120
Figure 11. INFLUENCE OF POND LOADINGS ON CODs REDUCTION
-------
o
pj
o
g
8
H
O
1
§
8
S
§
§
PQ
4)
M
60
•i-l
O
vO
3
uof 3onp3}}
o
II puoj
o
04
I
-------
o
f^
o
H
M
O
§
M
H
O
g
e
<
§
o
o
W)
•H
% - uo^^onpa^ aoa III puo
-------
t-4
s
pp
3,
-------
A-51
c
o
u
3
TJ
•I
Q
O
(Q
O
e
o
o
3
TJ
Q
O
PQ
§
80
60
40
20
-20
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
O
10
O o
0
O
20 30 40 50
Loading - Ibs BOD/day/1000 cu. ft.
Figure 15. INFLUENCE OF POND LOADING ON BOD REDUCTION
60
70
-------
A-52
o
o
o
I
T)
00
_6
en
V
00
M
(0
J2
U
I
30
82.5
Reduction in aerobic pond - %
80 77.5 72.5 68
60.5
10
20 30 40 50
Reduction in anaerobic pond - "L
60
70
Figure 16. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL CHARGES
------- |