Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelin
and New Source Performance Standards for the
APPLE,  CITRUS AND POTATO
Processing Segment of the
Canned and Preserved Fruits
and Vegetables
Point Source Category
                 MARCH 1974
      •&    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      "£
      UJ
      ^          Washington, D.C. 20460

-------

-------
                         DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

                                  for

                   EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

                                  and

                   NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

                                for the

                 APPLE, CITRUS  AND POTATO PROCESSING
                 SEGMENT OF THE CANNED AND PRESERVED
                        FRUITS  AND VEGETABLES
                        POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
                           Russell E.  Train
                            Administrator

                            Roger Strelow
      Acting  Assistant Administrator for Air & Water Programs
                             Allen Cywin
                Director, Effluent Guidelines Division

                           James  D.  Gallup
                           Project Officer
f
i                             March 1974
                     Effluent Guidelines Division
                   Office of Air  and Water Programs
                 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                       Washington,  D.C.  20460
                   For sale by the Superintendent ol Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
                             Washington, D.C. 80402 - Price $2.15

-------

-------
                                ABSTRACT

This document presents the findings of a study of the apple, citrus  and
potato  processing  segment  of  the  canned  and  preserved  fruits and
vegetables industry for the purpose of developing waste  water  effluent
limitation  guidelines. Federal standards of performance for new sources
in order to implement Section 304  (b)   and  306  of  the  Federal  Water
Pollution  Control  Act Amendments of 1972  (the "Act").  The first phase
of the study is limited to processors of apple products (except  caustic
peeled  and  dehydrated  products),  citrus  products  (except pectin and
pharmaceutical products), and frozen  and  dehydrated  potato  products.
Other  commodities  in  S.I.e. 2033, 2034, and 2037 will be covered in a
subsequent phase of this study.

Effluent limitations guidelines are set forth for the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of  the  "Best  Practicable
Control   Technology  Currently  Available",  and  the  "Best  Available
Technology Economically Achievable", which must be achieved by  existing
point  sources  by  July  1,  1977, and July 1, 1983 ,respectively.  The
"Standards of Performance for New  Sources"  set  forth  the  degree  of
effluent  reduction  which  is achievable through the application of the
best available demonstrated  control  technology,  processes,  or  other
alternatives.

The  proposed  regulations  for  July  1,  1977,  require in-plant waste
management and operating  methods,  together  with  the  best  secondary
biological  treatment  technology currently available for discharge into
navigable water bodies.  This technology is represented  by  preliminary
screening,  primary  treatment   (potatoes only) and secondary biological
treatment.

The recommended  technology  for  July  1,  1983,  and  for  new  source
performance  standards,  is  in-plant  waste  management and preliminary
screening, primary sedimentation  (potatoes only),  the  best  biological
secondary  treatment and disinfection (chlorination).  In addition, more
intensive biological treatment, and in a few cases final multi-media  or
sand filtration, may be required.

Land  treatment  systems such as spray or flood irrigation are effective
and economic alternatives to the  biological  systems  described  above.
When  suitable  land  is  available,  land  treatment  is  the preferred
technology for July 1, 1977, for  July  1,  1983,  and  for  new  source
performance standards.

-------

-------
                          CONTENTS

Section

I             CONCLUSIONS                                       1

II            RECOMMENDATIONS                                   3

III           INTRODUCTION                                      5

                Purpose and Authority                           5
                Data sources                                    6
                General Description of the Industry             7
                  Apples                                        7
                  Citrus                                       12
                  Potatoes                                     17

                Profile of Manufacturing Processes             20
                  Apples                                       20
                  Citrus                                       23
                  Potatoes                                     27

IV            INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION                          33

                Categorization                                 33

                Rationale for Categorization                   34
                  Raw Materials                                34
                  Products and By-Products                     42
                  Production Processes                         43
                  Age of Plant                                 44
                  Size of Plant                                45
                  Plant Location                               46
                  Waste Treatability                           55

V             WATER USAGE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION           57

                Waste Water Characterization                   57

                Apples                                         58
                  Water Use and Waste Characterization         58
                  Factors Affecting Wastewater                 60
                               ill

-------
                    CONTENTS (Continued)

Section.

IX            EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH
              APPLICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
              TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE                    157

                Introduction                                    157

                Effluent Reduction Attainable Through
                the Application of Best Practicable
                Control Technology Currently Available          158

                Identification of Best Practicable
                Control Technology Currently Available          158

                Rationale for the Selection of Best
                Practicable control Technology Currently
                Available                                       161

                  Age and Size of Equipment and Facilities      161
                  Total Cost of Application in Relation to
                    Effluent Reduction Benefits                 162
                  Engineering Aspects of Control Technique
                    Applications                                162
                  Process Changes                               162
                  Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact        165
                  Factors to be Considered in Applying
                    BPCTCA Limitations                          165

X             EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
              APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
              ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE                           169

                Introduction                                    169

                Effluent Reduction Attainable Through
                Application of the Best Available Technology
                Economically Achievable                         170

                Identification of the Best Available
                Technology Economically Achievable              n\

                Rationale for Selection of the Best Avail-
                able Technology Economically Achievable         173
                                 vi

-------
                    CONTENTS  (Continued)

                                                               E13S

X                 Age and Size of Equipment and Facilities     173
                  Total Cost  of Application in Relation to
                    Effluent  Reduction  Benefits                174
                  Engineering Aspects of  Control Technique
                    Application                                 174
                  Process Changes                               175
                  Non-Water Quality  Environmental Impact       175
                  Factors to  be Considered in Applying
                    BACTCA Limitations                          175

XI            NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS                 179

                Introduction                                    179

                Effluent Reduction Attainable for
                New Sources                                     180

                Pretreatment  Requirements                      180

XII          ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                  181

XIII         REFERENCES                                         183

XIV          GLOSSARY                                           187

XV           APPENDICES                                         199

             CONVERSION TABLE
                                  vii

-------
                           TABLES

Number

1          Apples - Production by States in
           United States 1971                                   8

2          Apples - Fresh Pack and Manufactured
           Products in United States 1969-71                   10

3          Citrus - United States Production &
           Processing by State 1970-72                         13

U          Potatoes - Production by States in
           United States 1969-71                               18

5          Distribution of Waste Load by
           Subcategory                                         36

6          Effect of Location for Various
           Apple Plants                                        37

7          Effect of Paw Material Mix at Various
           Citrus Plants                                       38

8          Effect of Paw Material Mix at Citrus
           Plant 123                                           39

9          Effect of Location for Various
           Citrus Plants                                       40

10         Effect of Location for Various
           Potato Plants                                       41

11         Average (Range) of BOD and Flow for
           Various Apple Product Styles                        47

12         Average (Range) of BOD and Flow for
           Various Citrus Product Styles                       48

13         Average (Range) of BOD and Flow for
           Various Potato Product Styles                       49

14         Effect of Waste Heat Evaporator for
           Various Citrus Plants                               50
                               viii

-------
Number

15         Average (Range)  of BOD and Flow for                 51
           Various Potato Peelers

16         Average (Range)  of BOD and Flow for
           Various Apple Plant Sizes                           52

17         Average (Range)  of BOD and Flow for
           Various Citrus Plant Sizes                          53

18         Average (Range)  of BOD and Flow for
           Various Potato Plant Sizes                          54

19         List of Apple Industry Waste Load                   59

20         List of Citrus Industry Waste Load                  63

21         List of Potato Industry Waste Load                  69

22         Water Usage and Waste Characterization
           in Apple Processing                                 70

23         Water Usage and Waste Characterization
           in Citrus Processing                                74

24         Water Usage and Waste Characterization
           in Potato Processing                                76

25         Effectiveness of Various Secondary
           Treatment Systems                                   110

26         Effectiveness and Application of Waste
           Treatment Systems                                   132

27         Effluent Treatment Sequence by Subcategory
           to Achieve Various Levels of Effluent
           Reduction                                           139

28        . Investment and Annual Costs:  Preliminary,
           Primary, and Biological Waste Treatment
           Systems                                             140

29         Investment and Annual Costs:  Advanced
           Waste Treatment Systems and Ultimate
           Disposal                                            141

30         Investment and Annual Cost by Effluent
           Reduction Level for Apple Juice                     142
                             IX

-------
Number

31         Investment and Annual Cost by Effluent              143
           Reduction Level for Apple Products

32         Investment and Annual Cost by Effluent
           Reduction Level for Citrus Products                 144

33         Investment and Annual Cost by Effluent
           Reduction Level for Frozen Potato Products          145

34         Investment and Annual Cost by Effluent
           Reduction Level for Dehydrated Potato
           Products                                            146

35         Total Investment and Annual Cost for Each
           Effluent Reduction Level by Subcategory
           and Size                                            147

36         Total Subcategory and Industry Investment
           Cost for Each Level of Effluent Reduction           143

37         Total Subcategory and Industry Annual Cost
           for Each Level of Effluent Reduction                149

38         Total Capital Investment to Meet Each
           Level of Effluent Reduction                         150

39         Total Annual Cost to Meet Each Level of
           Effluent Reduction                                  151

40         Recommended Effluent Limitation Guidelines
           for 1 July 1977   (Maximum Thirty Day Average)       150

41         Effluents from Biological Secondary
           Treatment Systems                                   164

42         Recommended Effluent Limitation Guidelines
           for 1 July 1977  (Maximum Daily Average)             157

43         Recommended Effluent Limitation Guidelines
           for 1 July 1983  (Maximum Thirty Day Average)        171

44         Recommended Effluent Limitation Guidelines
           for 1 July 1983  (Maximum Daily Average)             177

-------
                                FIGURES
Number                      Title                     Page

1    Number of Operating Apple Processing
     Plants in United States                            9

2    Citrus Processing Plants                          15

3    Potatoes - Number of Operating
     Canned & Frozen Plants in United States           19

U    Water Flow Diagram - Apple Slices  (Frozen)        71

5    Water Flow Diagram - Apple Sauce (Canned)         72

6    Water Flow Diagram - Apple Juice                  73

7    Water Flow Diagrams - Juice, Oil,  Segments,
     and Peel Products (Citrus)                        75

8    Water Flow Diagram - Dehydrated Potato Flakes     77

9    Water Flow Diagram - Frozen Potato Products       78

-------

-------
                               SECTION I
                              CONCLUSIONS

The  purpose  of  this  report  is  to  establish  waste  water effluent
limitation guidelines for a segment of the canned  and  preserved  fruit
and  vegetable  industry.   This  segment  consists of processors of the
following products: apple products (except caustic peeled and dehydrated
products);  all  citrus  products  (except  pectin  and   pharmaceutical
products);  and all frozen and dehydrated potato products.  A conclusion
of this study is that  this  segment  of  the  industry  comprises  five
subcategories:
   1.   Apple Processing
   2.   Apple Processing
   3.   Citrus Processing
   4.   Potato Processing
   5.   Potato Processing
Apple Juice
Apple Products Except Juice
All Products
Frozen Products
Dehydrated Products
The  major  criteria  for the establishment of the subcategories are the
five day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD!5) and the suspended solids  (SS)
in the plant waste water.  Subcategorization is required on the basis of
raw  materials  processed  and products produced.  Evaluation of factors
such as age, size and  location  of  plant,  production  processes,  and
similarities  in  available  treatment and control measures substantiate
this industry Subcategorization.

The wastes from all subcategories are amendable to biological  treatment
processes  and  several  apple, citrus, and potato processing plants are
able to achieve high levels of effluent  reduction  (BOD  and  suspended
solids)  through  secondary biological treatment systems.  The following
plants are currently achieving at least the effluent reduction  required
through the application of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available:  four  apple  plants  including  one juice plant; five citrus
plants; and four frozen potato plants  including  one  dehydrated  plant
(see  Table  41) .   It  is  estimated  that the costs of achieving these
limits by all plants within this segment of the industry will be between
$17  and  $26  million   ($11.6  million  for  land  and  land  treatment
facilities  included).   Costs of $17 million would increase the capital
investment in the industry  segment  by  about  1.4  percent  and  would
increase  the retail price of the products produced by approximately 2.3
percent.

with present secondary biological  treatment  systems  without  advanced
treatment  methods  such  as sand filtration, at least one apple, citrus
and potato  plant  in  each  of  the  five  subcategories  is  presently
achieving  the  high  levels  of  effluent  reduction  required  by  the
application  of  the  Best  Available  Control  Technology  Economically
Achievable  (see  Table 41).  It is estimated that the costs above those
for 1977 for achieving the  1983  limits  for  all  plants  within  this

-------
segment  of the industry will be an additional $12 million.   These costs
would increase the capital investment  by  about  1.0  percent  and  the
retail price of the products produced by approximately 1.6 percent.

It  is  concluded  that  land  treatment  is an effective and economical
alternative where suitable and adequate land is available.   Over  forty
apple,  citrus, and potato processors utilize this technology to achieve
minimal waste water discharge.

-------
                               SECTION II

                            RECOMMENDATIONS


The waste water effluent reduction  limitations  attainable   through   the
application   of  the  Best  Practicable  Control  Technology   Currently
Available  are  based  on  the  performances  of   exemplary   secondary
biological  systems  treating apple, citrus or potato waste water.   Best
Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently   Available   includes    the
following  treatment components:  for the apple juice and apple products
(except juice)  subcategories   (except  caustic  peeled   and  dehydrated
products)   —  preliminary screening and secondary biological  treatment;
for the citrus products subcategory (except  pectin  and  pharmaceutical
products)   —  cooling  towers  for weak cooling wastes  and preliminary
screening and secondary biological  treatment for process  waste  waters;
for   the   frozen  and  dehydrated potato  products  subcategories
preliminary screening, primary sedimentation, and  secondary  biological
treatment.   Where sufficient quantities of suitable land are  available,
land treatment such as spray irrigation is an attractive  alternative  to
biological treatment in order to achieve BPCTCA limitations.

Recommended  BPCTCA guidelines are  set forth in the following  tabulation
including maximum limitations for any one day  and  maximum limitations
for  the  average  of  daily values for any period of thirty consecutive
days;

                     Effluent            Maximum             Maximum
§!2j2cate3orY. (1)     Characteristic      Daily Average      Thirty Day  Ave.
                                     kg/kkq    Ib/T       JS3£JSJ!S2     ife^IE

Apple Juice            BOD5           0.60&.34 1.20       0.30 *•'*»   0.60
                   Suspended Solids  0.80 .M  1.60       0.40 'zz   0.80

Apple Products         BOD5           1. 10 ,»*  2.20       0.55»-37   1.10
 (Except Juice)    Suspended Solids  1.40 '-'  2.80       0.70 •***   1.40

Citrus Products        BOD5           0.80-S*  1.60       0.40--?^   0.80
                   Suspended Solids  1.70 A'2  3.40       0.85 •**   1.70

Potato Products        BOD5           2.80£-?/  5.60        1.40 '''3   2.80
 (Frozen)           Suspended Solids  2.80^"?^ 5.60        1.40/'#'   2.80

Potato Products        BODS           2.40''** 4.80        1.20 £62   2.40
 (Dehydrated)      Suspended Solids  2.80 2.«7 5.60        1.400.'*   2.80


(1)  For all subcategories pH should be between 6.0 and 9.0.

-------
The waste water effluent reduction limitations  attainable  through  the
application  of  the  Best  Available  Control  Technology  Economically
Achievable are based on the performance of the best secondary biological
system  treating  apple,  citrus  or  potato  waste  water.   For   each
subcategory  Best  Available  Control Technology Economically Achievable
includes Best Practicable Control Technology  Currently  Available  plus
additional    secondary    biological    treatment    and   disinfection
(chlorination).  Advanced treatment such as sand filtration  could  also
be  used.   Recommended  waste  water  guidelines  are  set forth in the
following tabulation:
§ubcategory(1)


Apple Juice
Apple Products
  (Except Juice)

Citrus Products
Potato Products
  (Frozen)

Potato Products
  (Dehydrated)
  Effluent
Characteristic
    BOD5
Suspended Solids

    BOD5
Suspended Solids

    BOD5
Suspended Solids

    BOD 5
Suspended Solids

    BOD5
Suspended Solids
  Maximum
paily^Average
         Ib/T
0.40
0.40

0.40
0.40

0.28
0.40

0.68
2.20

0.68
2.20
 0.20
 0.20

 0.20
 0.20

 0.14
 0.20

 0.34
 1. 10

 0.34
 1. 10
            Maximum
        Thirty Day Aye.
               "  Ib/T~
0.10
0.10

0.10
0.10

0.07
0.10

0. 17
0.55

0. 17
0.55
0.20
0.20

0.20
0.20

0. 14
0.20

0.34
1.10

0.34
1.10
 (1) For all subcategories pH should be between 6.0 and 9.0.

 (2) For all subcategories most probable number (MPN) of fecal  coliforms
 should not exceed 400 counts per 100 ml.

 The  waste  water effluent reduction limitations for new sources are the
 same as those attainable through the application of the  Best  Available
 Control  Technology  Economically  Achievable.   These  limitations  are
 possible because of the present availability of the treatment technology
 to attain this level of effluent reduction and because new  source  site
 selection  can  assure  land  availability for land treatment facilities
 (such as spray irrigation).

-------
                              SECTION III

                              INTRODUCTION



                         PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

On October 18, 1972, the Congress  of  the  United  States  enacted  the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.  The Act in part
required  that  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)   establish
regulations providing guidelines for effluent limitations to be achieved
by "point sources" of waste water discharge into  navigable  waters  and
tributaries of the United States.

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

Section  304(b)  of the Act requires the Administrator to publish, within
1 year of enactment of the Act,  regulations  providing  guidelines  for
effluent  limitations  setting  forth  the  degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the  application  of  the  Best  Practicable  Control
Technology  Currently  Available  and  the  degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of  the  best  control  measures  and
practices   achievable,  including  treatment  techniques,  process  and
procedure innovations, operation methods and  other  alternatives.   The
regulations  proposed  herein  set forth effluent limitations based upon
raw material used, products produced,  manufacturing  process  employed,
and  other  factors.   The  raw  waste  water  characteristics  for each
subcategory were then identified.  This included an analysis of  (1)  the
source  and volume of water used in the process employed and the sources
of waste and waste  waters  in  the  plant;  and  (2)  the  constituents

-------
(including thermal)  of all waste waters including toxic constituents and
other  constituents which result in taste,  odor and color in water.  The
constituents of  waste  waters  which  should  be  subject  to  effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance were identified.

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

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


                              DATA SOURCES

The segment of the Canned and Preserved Fruits and  Vegetables  Industry
category  selected  for  this phase I effort includes S.I.C. codes 2033,
2034,  and  2037  for  apple  processors   (except  caustic  peeled   and
dehydrated    products),    citrus   processors    (except   pectin   and
pharmaceutical products), and potato processors  (frozen  and  dehydrated
products).  The remaining fruit and vegetable processors in those S.I.C.
codes  will  be  covered  in  a later phase of this study.  The data and
recommended  effluent  guidelines  contained  in  this   document   were
developed  from  information  derived  from  a number of sources.  These
sources included review and  evaluation  of  available  literature,  the
results   of  EPA  research,  development  and  demonstration  projects,
consultation with qualified experts in the  field,  correspondence  with
industry   associations,   EPA   Permit   data,  data  from  states  and

-------
municipalities, and correspondence with individual  processors  and  on-
site  visits  and  interviews.   Visits  were made to, and historic data
reviewed at, more than 130 processing plants; sampling and analysis were
carried out at 38 of these plants.  The principal source  of  raw  waste
and  treated  effluent  data  was  current  and  historical  information
gathered from individual plants.  Visits were made  to,  and  historical
data  reviewed  from  more than 40 apple processing plants, more than 50
citrus processing plants and more  than  40  potato  processing  plants.
Appendix  C  contains the format for this collected data.  Sampling data
was gathered from 13 apple plants,  13  citrus  plants,  and  12  potato
plants.   The  purpose  of  this  data was to supplement or confirm data
supplied by the processor or other sources.  The success of this  effort
is  reflected  in  Section  V with the computation of industry raw waste
loads.   Sixty-two  different  plants  actually   contributed   to   the
computation.   All  references  used  in  developing  the guidelines for
effluent limitations  and  standards  of  performance  for  new  sources
reported  herein  are  included  in  Supplement  B  to this document.  A
listing of apple plants (AP-101 to AP-142) , citrus plants  (CI-101 to CI-
149) , and potato plants   (PO-101  to  PO-136)  used  in  this  study  is
presented in Appendix A.

                    GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRY
The  apple  was  introduced  into the western part of the country in the
middle of the nineteenth century.  Apples cannot be grown satisfactorily
in  the  southern  part  of  the  United  States  because  of   climatic
conditions.   Because  the  fruit  requires  a relatively constant, cool
temperature, production has been concentrated in relatively few  states.
For the last three years, the average national apple production has been
almost  three  million  kilo-kilograms.   About  70 percent of the total
production are obtained from six leading states  (Table 1) .

In 1971, there were 164 apple processing plants  located  in  28  states
(Figure  1).   In  that  year  total  production  was  2.8 million kilo-
kilograms.  Of this total, about 57 percent went for fresh pack  and  43
percent  for  processing.   Of  the  total  crop,  apple sauce and other
canning took 18 percent; frozen products 3 percent, and  dried  products
less  than  2  percent.   Other  products, which consist mostly of apple
juice and vinegar, accounted for over  20  percent  of  the  total  crop
(Table  2).   By  geographic  distribution,  about  50  percent  of  the
processed apple products is obtained from the states  of  Michigan,  New
York  and  Pennsylvania,  while  the  states of Washington, Virginia and
California each contributed about 11 percent.  The remaining 17  percent
of  processed  apple  products is obtained from 22 states, where most of
the processing is concentrated in the production of vinegar.

-------
                           TABLE 1
          APPLES - PRODUCTION BY STATES IN U.S.  1971
                No. Of
                  Fresh Pack
                           Processed
Location
Michigan
New York
California
Washington
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Other States
Processing
Plants
35
28
21
15
9
7
49
M kg
136.2
160.3
50.8
415.9
84.0
89.0
650.7
M Ibs.
300.0
353.0
112.0
916.0
185.0
196.0
1,433.3
M kg
190.7
259.7
130.8
128.9
145.3
128.9
202.8
M Ibs.
420.0
572.0
288.0
284.0
320.0
284.0
446.8
   TOTAL
164
1,586.9
3,495.3
1,187.1 2,614.8
Source:  Agricultural Statistics - 1972
         U.S. Department of Agriculture

-------
FIGURE  1
NUMBER OF OPERATING APPLE PROCESSING PLANTS IN UNITED STATES
                            T " * ^"^ • • ^» • • «H • • M«M • • J\
                            • NORTH DAKOTA  ;    '•*",
                            I            {MINNESOTA
                            |             \
                            '             i
                           .^NEBRASKA"" "^—>.A
                                           L....-.-J
     ^   —
                ------
                                                                                    CLEARTYPE
                                                                                      IMM MMW HfC US P»I Off
                                                                                    STATE OUTLINE
                                                                                    UNITED STATES

-------
                              TABLE 2



      APPLES - FRESH PACK AND MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS IN U.S. 1969-71



              	1969               1970                1971



ITEM



Fresh



Canned



Dried



Frozen



Other



     TOTAL
M kg
1,682.
634.
127.
94.
509.
3,065.

9
8
2
3
5
3
M Ibs
3,707.
1,398.
280.
207.
1,122.
6,751.
•
0
3
2
6
2
8
M kg
1,597.
539.
84.
82.
552.
2,857.

9
9
9
1
7
4
M Ibs
3,519.
1,189.
187.
180.
1,217.
6,293.
•
5
3
0
8
3
9
M kg
1,586.
496.
44.
77.
569.
2,774.

9
4
2
3
1
0
M
3,
1,


1,
6,
Ibs.
495.3
093.5
97.4
170.3
253.6
110.1
  Source:  Agriculture Statistics - 1972, U. S. Department of Agriculture
                                     10

-------
Consumption of  canned  apples  and  apple  sauce  has  remained  almost
constant  over  the last ten years.  Frozen and dried products have also
failed to exhibit any real growth.  Only apple juice products show signs
of increased consumer acceptance, with larger volumes of domestic apples
channeled to this outlet and increased juice imports apparently  finding
a  ready  market.   Trade  reports  indicate  that apples are being used
increasingly in the production of wines.

Product Classification

The U. S. Bureau of Census  classifies  the  apple  processing  industry
within   Standard   Industrial  Classification  (SIC)   203,  Canned  and
Preserved Fruits and Vegetables.   A  detailed  list  of  product  codes
applicable to the apple processing industry is contained in Appendix B.

Growth Projections

The  processing  of  apples  will continue to be concentrated in the six
leading states of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Virginia
and California.  Statistics covering the last few  years  indicate  that
the  production  of  apples  in  the  eastern  United  States  increased
slightly; central U. S. production remained almost constant and that  of
the  western  states   (predominately  fresh  pack)  was  down  slightly.
Increased demand for apple juice is expected to exert an upward pressure
on apple production.  The new  factor  in  the  apple  industry  is  the
rapidly  increasing  use  of apples for the production of wine.  If this
trend continues, a substantial tonnage of apples  will  be  required  to
satisfy this market sector.

The  technology  of  harvesting  apples  and  processing  them  has been
relatively static for a number of years.  Some of the factors  that  are
bringing about changes in the industry are:

1.  Mechanical harvesting is increasing in order to reduce labor costs.

2.  Concern over waste generation and treatment has resulted in interest
in  such  waste  reduction techniques as dry caustic peeling and hot gas
blanching.


3.  Because of improvements in controlled atmosphere storage, the season
for processing apples will become progressively longer.

It is estimated that about 1.5 million kilo-kilograms of apples will  be
processed by 1977.
                                   11

-------
Citrus

Citrus is the largest fruit crop in the United States,  with a farm value
exceeding  $400  million annually in recent years.   Primarily because of
climate, citrus  production  is  concentrated  in  Florida,  California,
Arizona  and  Texas  (Table  3).   During  the  1950's   and early 1960's
production was low.  Beginning in 1963,  production  increased  steadily
because   of   improvements   in  technology,  management  and  cultural
practices.  Since 1950, Florida citrus output has more  than doubled  and
now   represents   about   three-fourths  of  total  U.  S.  production.
California citrus production has fallen to 18 percent of total output in
recent years as land has been  converted  to  housing  and  other  uses.
Arizona  and  Texas,  together,  produced  approximately  5  percent  of
domestic citrus output.

There are 97 citrus processing plants in 14 states (Figure 2).   Florida
has 53 plants, representing more than 54 percent of the total (Table 3).
During  the last two decades, there has been a striking shift in the use
of citrus from fresh to processed forms.  This mainly reflects the sharp
increase in the use of Florida production for processing.  In  the  1971
season, Florida packed 97 percent of the citrus products produced in the
United  States.   Marketing  patterns  favor  fresh  citrus  in Arizona,
California and Texas.  But even in these states the proportion of citrus
used fresh has declined.

Processed  forms  include  frozen,  chilled  and   canned.    Commercial
introduction  of  frozen  concentrated citrus juices in the mid - 1940's
stimulated a rapid  and  dramatic  increase  in  processing  of  Florida
citrus.  Since that time, the rate of increase in citrus used for frozen
concentrated  citrus  juices  has  been dramatic.  The proportion of the
Florida citrus crop dedicated to juice production has increased  from  6
to  70  percent.  The increased volume of citrus used for chilled citrus
products has also had an impact on processing use.   The  proportion  of
the Florida citrus used for chilled citrus products has increased from 3
percent  in  1945  to 14 percent in the 1971 season.  In contrast to the
sharp increase in utilization of  citrus  for  frozen  concentrated  and
chilled  products,  the  volume  of  Florida citrus used for canning has
decreased sharply.
                                   12

-------
                                     TABLE 3

                CITRUS - U.S.  PRODUCTION & PROCESSING BY STATE - 1970-72
No. of
Processing
LOCATION Plants
FLORIDA 53
Oranges -Production
-Processed
Grapefruit-Production
-Processed
Tangerines-Production
-Processed
Temples -Production
-Processed
Limes -Production
-Processed
Tangelos -Production
-Processed
CALIFORNIA 20
Oranges -Production
-Processed
Grapefruit-Production
-Processed
Lemons -Production
-Processed
Tangerines-Production
-Processed
1970
1,000
kkg

5,621
5,079
1,442
891
130
26
212
97
26
13
102
45

1,327
425
155
73
438
161
25
12

1,000
Tons

6,197
5,600
1,590
983
143
29
234
107
29
14
113
50

1,463
469
171
81
483
178
28
13
1971
1,000
kkg

5,808
5,238
1,563
1,077
160
44
204
113
111
44
211
64

1,275
400
149
65
458
167
48
15

1,000
Tons

6,404
5,775
1,823
1,187
176
49
225
125
122
49
233
71

1,406
441
164
72
505
184
53
16
19
1,000
kkg

5,592
5,134
1,812
1,155
138
42
217
143
160
82
178
56

1,473
517
151
73
469
196
21
8
72
1,000
Tons

6,165
5,660
1,998
1,273
152
46
239
158
176
90
196
62

1,624
570
166
81
517
216
23
9
ARIZONA         2
Oranges   -Production
          -Processed
Grapefruit-Production
          -Processed
Lemons    -Production
          -Processed
Tangerines-Production
          -Processed
    158         174
     75          83
     92         101
     41          45
     97         107
     51          56
     12          13
      4           4
(Continued)
122
 76
 73
 53
108
 64
 14
  5
134
 84
 81
 58
119
 71
 15
  6
167
 98
 73
 36
106
 61
 19
  6
184
108
 81
 40
117
 67
 21
  7

-------
TABLE 3
CITRUS- U.S. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING BY STATE
(Continued)
                                   - 1970-72
LOCATION
  No. of
Processing
  Plants
                                1970
                            1971
                                       1972
TEXAS           6
Oranges   —Production
          -Processed
Grapefruit-Production
1,000
 kkg
                 171
                  73
                 294
1,000
 Tons
             189
              81
             324
1,000
 kkg
             253
             125
             366
1,000
 Tons
             279
             138
             404
1,000
 kkg
             237
             131
             334
1,000
 Tons
             261
             144
             368
TOTAL U.S.
    97
Source:  1.  Citrus Fruits by States,
             Statistical Reporting Service,
             U.S. Department of Agriculture,
             October 1972, Fr Nt 3-1 (10-72)

         2.  The Directory of Canning,  Freezing,
               Preserving Industry, 1972-1973,
               by Edward E. Judge & Son, Inc.

-------
                       FIGURE 2
CITRUS PROCESSING PLANTS
                               • NORTH DAKOTA   ;      '»•*•.
                               I             (MINNESOTA
                               !             \
                               \             \
                               SOUTH DAKOTA"
      .
\  .j***SZ	/•	           !
 \l             /NewMEw5)	T^'Z'"
   \             /              TEXAS!
                                                                                          CLEARTYPE
                                                                                            TMMM MAH* ma u & MI or*
                                                                                           STATE OUTLINE

-------
Annual per capita consumption of citrus, fresh and processed combined on
a fresh weight equivalent basis, shows an erratic trend during the  last
two decades.  In general, fresh consumption has decreased,  but processed
citrus  consumption  has  increased,  led  by a sharp increase in frozen
items.  Per capita consumption  of  frozen  concentrated  citrus  juices
increased from 6.8 to 16.3 kg (15 to 36 Ibs)  over the past two decades.

Chilled  citrus  juice  consumption increased from 0.8 to 3.8 kg (1.7 to
8.5 Ibs)  over the same period.  Because of the rapid rise in frozen  and
chilled  juice  consumption,  canned  citrus juice consumption decreased
substantially from 5.2 to 3.2 kg (11.5 to 7 Ibs).  Consumption of canned
orange sections and citrus salad combined has also been erratic and  has
accounted  for  less than 2 percent of processed per capita consumption.
However,  consumer demand for processed citrus appears to be increasing.

Product Classification

The citrus processing industry is classified under SIC  Group  No.  203,
Canned  and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables.  A detailed list of product
codes covering  the  products  of  the  citrus  processing  industry  is
contained in Appendix B.

Growth Projection

Citrus  for fresh use will continue to be grown in three western states.
However,  because of the increasing demand for frozen concentrated juice,
it is expected that more citrus grown in California and  Texas  will  be
processed.   Florida will continue to be the leading state for processed
citrus products and production can be expected to  expand  substantially
with time to meet the rising demand.

Chilled  citrus  juices  cannot  be  made  from stored fruit but must be
processed immediately after harvesting.  For this reason, the processing
season is short and there is little incentive to  increase  plant  size.
In  the production of frozen concentrated juice, however, the processing
season is extended through the use of stored concentrate and there is  a
trend   toward   processing   plants  of  larger  capacity.   Processing
techniques have been relatively static  in  recent  years  although  the
pressure  for  water  pollution  control  has  resulted in some changes.
Waste heat  evaporators  are  being  introduced  to  treat  odor-causing
wastes.

It is estimated that the quantity of citrus processed will increase to 9
million kilo-kilograms by 1977.
                                   16

-------
Potatoes_

The  potato  was  first  introduced into the Northern American continent
from England in 1621.  During the 18th and  19th  centuries  the  potato
became  a significant source of food in Europe, but because of its short
storage life it was not completely utilized.  During the latter half  of
the  18th  century there was experimentation with various types of dried
potatoes.  However, little was  accomplished  in  this  direction  until
World   War   I  when  a  number  of  dehydrated  potato  products  were
manufactured for military use.  Since that time,  potatoes  have  ranked
high among crops utilized chiefly for food.

The  average  annual United States potato production over the last three
years was approximately 14 million kkg  (315  million  hundred  weights).
Two-thirds  of  this total was obtained from seven leading states (Table
4).  About 40 percent of total national potato production  is  used  for
processing.  In 1972, there were 112 canned and frozen potato processing
plants in 31 states  (Figure 3) .

Demand  for   potatoes and potato products has changed markedly over the
past decade.  Annual per  capita  consumption  increased  from  47.2  kg
(108.4  Ibs)  in  1961 to 54.12 kg  (119.2 Ibs) in 1971.  The increase in
consumption is credited entirely to processed  use.   In  contrast,   per
capita  consumption  of fresh  potatoes has fallen substantially.  Frozen
french fries have paced the growth of processed potato products.  Frozen
products now account for about 45  percent  of  all  potatoes  used  for
processing.

Dehydrated  potatoes  account  for about 20 percent of all potatoes used
for processing.  Per capita consumption of canned potatoes has  remained
almost  constant  at  about 5  percent and the production of potato chips
account for 30 percent of potatoes.

Product Classification

The potato processing industry  is  classified  under  SIC  Groups  203,
Canned  and  Preserved  Fruits and Vegetables, 204, Grain Mill Products,
and 209,  Miscellaneous  Food  Preparations  and  Kindred  Products.   A
detailed  list of product codes within the foregoing groups is presented
in Appendix B.

Growth Projections

Potato production in the 1960's trended generally upward due  to  larger
output  of North Dakota, Idaho and Washington.  Demand for potatoes will
increase in the years ahead  due  to  population  growth  and  continued
increases  in  demand  for  processed convenience products.  Projections
indicate that processed potato products will account  for  approximately
75 percent of total
                                    17

-------
                                               TABLE  4
         POTATOES - PRODUCTION BY STATES IN U.S.  1969-71
                        No. of
1969
1970
1971
oo
Location
Idaho
Maine
Washington
California
North Dakota
Minnesota
New York
Wisconsin
Colorado
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Other States
TOTAL
Source :
Processing
Plants
13 3
4 1
14 1
6 1
1
3
6
9
1
5
3
47 2
112 14
Agricultural
1,000
kkg
,172.1
,593.5
,352.7
,320.8
733.6
702.6
770.6
563.4
528.6
399.3
354.6
,668.5
,160.4
Statis
M
6,
3,
2,
2,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,


5,
31.
tics,
Ibs.
987.0
510.0
979.6
909.3
615.9
547.5
697.4
241.0
164.3
879.6
781.0
877.7
190.3
1972
1,000
kkg
3,389
1,620
1,525
1,351
790
607
770
591
598
446
375
2,714
14,781

.6
.8
.0
.1
.0
.9
.8
.5
.4
.5
.9
.4
.7

M Ibs.
7,466.0
3,570.0
3,359.0
2,976.0
1,740.0
1,339.0
1,697.7
1,302.8
1,318.0
983.4
828.0
5,978.9
32,558.8

1,000
kkg
3,443.
1,713.
1,367.
1,198.
837.
759.
689.
598.
469.
374.
370.
2,531.
14,350.

6
9
0
6
4
3
2
5
0
1
7
2
2

M
7
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1


5
31

Ibs.
,585.0
,775.0
,011.0
,640.0
,844.5
,672.5
,518.0
,318.3
,033.0
824.1
816.5
,575.4
,608.3

                      U.S. Department of Agriculture

-------
FIGURE
                POTATOES  - NO. OF OPERATING CANNED  & FROZEN PLANTS  IN  UNITED  STATES
                               •-	r	,—A
                                      • NORTH DAKOTA   ;      •»•*•.
                                      I              I MINNESOTA


                                      !      i        \

                                     I               \


                            	       •SOUTH~DAKn~     7
                            ;•—      ^/
                                                                                        J*..~S    vvpGVJJ*^.
\   .j **!%>&'	/..	    j
                                                             \ 1   MISSISSIPPI,  rvt6pT6^	^
                                                                                                       CLoEARTYPE


                                                                                                       STATE OUTLINE


                                                                                                      UNITED STATES

-------
food  use  of  potatoes by 1980.  Frozen potato products are expected to
remain the leading item  among  the  processed  forms.   Consumption  of
dehydrated  potatoes  will  increase  only  slightly, while fresh potato
consumption is projected to continue its long downward trend  to  a  per
capita consumption in the range of 15.9 kg to 18.2 kg (35 to UO Ibs).

The  size  of  processing plants has increased in recent years, and this
trend is expected to continue under the  pressures  of  competition  and
increased  complexity of manufacturing and marketing operations.  Except
for  the  introduction  of  dry  caustic  peeling,   potato   processing
techniques  have  not  changed substantially in recent years.   Increased
water pollution control activity  is  expected  to  have  an  impact  on
processing  plants  in  the  form  of  better  in-plant control of waste
generation and water consumption.

                   PROFILE OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Apples

General

There are three basic products which  are  made  from  apples  in  large
volume:  a) slices, b) sauce, and c) juice (cider).   Other products such
as  dehydrated apple pieces, spiced apple rings, spiced whole apples and
baked apples, are all produced in much lesser  volume  and  are  usually
produced  in  conjunction with one of the major products  (slices, sauce,
juice) .

The apple harvest begins in some locations in  midsummer  and  in  other
areas  extends through the fall season.  In recent years, the processing
season which begins with the harvest of apples has  been  extended  well
beyond  the  harvest  period by placing an increased amount of apples in
controlled atmosphere storage. Consequently,  when there is  an  adequate
or abundant supply of apples, most large processors can, and usually do,
operate their plants over a seven to eight month period.

During  the  early  fall, at the peak of the  harvest season, many of the
apple processors will operate their plants on  a  two  or  three  shift,
five-day-per-week  basis.   However, when the apples are no longer being
delivered directly from the field, the processor  usually  operates  his
plant on one shift for processing, followed by a cleanup shift.

Later  in the operating year, depending upon  the availability of apples,
the processor may operate his plants on an even more sporadic schedule.
                                   20

-------
Processing Steps

Apple processing usually includes storage, washing and sorting,  peeling
and coring, slicing, chopping, juice extracting, dehydrating, deaerating
and  cooking.    End products in approximate order of pack size are apple
sauce, apple juice, and frozen and canned apple slices.

CA (ControiledmAtmosphere)  Storage - The proper ripeness  of  the  apple
directly  reflects on the final product quality.  An overripe apple will
cause a poor flavor in the product, while an unripe apple  will  produce
an  off-color  and  a  poor  flavor  in  the product.  In the controlled
atmosphere  storage,  the  temperature  and  relative  humidity  of  the
recirculated  air  is  closely  controlled.   To meet the demands of the
fresh market,  the apples are periodically removed from  storage,  graded
or sorted, and the proper quality fruit is directed to the processor.

Washing	and Sorting - Apples that are received from either the field or
CA storage must be thoroughly washed to remove all residues that may  be
on the fruit.   To ensure removal, in some instances, chemicals or deter-
gents are added to the wash water.  The water, or a large portion of it,
is  often  reused  within  the washing system to conserve wash water and
reduce the volume of waste effluent leaving the processing plant.   This
can  be accomplished by (1)  periodically draining the washing system, or
(2) regulating the overflow and makeup water addition to the system.

The purpose of sorting is to remove the smaller, misshapened or inferior
fruit and redirect this fruit into products, such as  juice,  which  can
accept the lower-quality raw material.

Peeling	and	Coring - Mechanical peeling is the most popular method for
removing the apple peel.  This  is  particularly  true  where  a  sliced
product  is  being  produced.   The mechanical peeler can be adjusted to
remove a greater or lesser percentage of the imperfections in the fruit.
The peel and  core  particles  are  often  collected  and  used  in  the
production  of  either  juice or vinegar stock.  In a mechanical peeling
operation, the  peel  and  core  fraction  represents  approximately  35
percent of the apple processed.

Steam  and  caustic  peeling are also used by apple processors; however,
these methods are more successful in manufacturing a sauce product  than
with a sliced product.  The peel loss is not as great in caustic peeling
when  compared to mechanical peeling.  It is often desirable to remove a
greater percentage of the peel in the manufacture of slices or sauce  to
ensure the complete elimination of surface imperfections.

The  peel  removed  by  caustic  treatment  cannot  be utilized in cider
manufacture, but the core,  if properly handled, is  still  suitable  for
use  as  a  raw material for cider processing.  In the steam and caustic
type peelers,  the final removal is accomplished by a rotary washer using
water sprays.   A few of the apple  processors  have  installed  abrasive


                                   21

-------
type  scrubbers to replace the conventional rotary washers.   The peeling
and coring operations represent a major source of  waste  to  the  apple
processing  industry and, wherever possible, operating procedures should
be used to minimize the contact between cut portions and wash  water  to
reduce the amount of soluble constituents lost to the waste effluent.  A
certain  amount  of  water  is still required to prevent browning of the
apple particles.
        ~ *f fresh apple slices are the end product, these slices can be
cut after the core has been removed or simultaneously as  the  apple  is
being  cored.   The apple slices are washed, graded and inspected before
packaging as fresh apple slices or further  processed  into  dehydrated,
frozen, or canned products.

Deaerating - If the apple slices are to be either frozen or canned, they
are  deaerated by immersion in a brine solution while a vacuum is pulled
on the tank.  The brine is then drained from the slices which  are  then
either frozen and packaged or cooked prior to canning.
         ~ In tne canning of apple slices, the slices are steam blanched
or pre-heated, placed into the can while still hot, sealed, and  further
cooked to assure preservation,

Product Styles
        ~  APPle  slices are processed from solid fresh apples of proper
maturity and proper ripeness.  After  the  apples  are  washed,  sorted,
peeled and cored, they are sliced by cutting segments longitudinally and
radially from the core centerline.  The slices are further inspected and
packaged for immediate use as a fresh product, or they can be dehydrated
in  a tunnel drier and packaged as dehydrated apple slices.  If either a
frozen or canned product is required, the apples are deaerated prior  to
processing.

£>auce  - Apple sauce is prepared from comminuted or chopped apples which
may or may not have been previously peeled and cored.   In  addition  to
removal  of  the peel and core, good manufacturing practice dictates the
separation of bruised apple particles, carpel tissue  and  other  coarse
hard  extraneous  materials.   The  apples are washed, sorted, cored and
peeled in a manner identical to the manufacture of slices.   Flavor  and
consistency  are adjusted with water and sugar, generally in the form of
liquid sugar.

The cored apple is sliced or diced into small pieces, cooked and,  while
still  hot,  passed  through a finisher for removal of any large foreign
particles.  The hot apple sauce from the finisher is inspected, and  any
remaining foreign particles are removed prior to canning and cooling.

Appj-e __ Juice ___ (Ciderj_  -  Apple   juice   (cider) is an unfermented liquid
prepared from~l) ""fresh whole sound apples or 2)  apple  pieces  such  as


                                   22

-------
cores and peelings obtained from either a slice or a sauce manufacturing
operation.   If  whole  apples  are used, they are washed and comminuted
before pressing.  The pressed juice is screened to remove large  foreign
particles  and  frequently  clarified  by  diatomaceous  earth  pressure
filtration.  The apple juice is then heated to  assure  preservation  of
the product in hermetically sealed containers.

A  concentrated  apple  juice can be made from the single-strength juice
through the removal of water (evaporation).  The concentrate  is  stored
or packaged in bulk containers (55-gallon drums).  In the manufacture of
apple  juice   (cider),  it  is  not customary to either peel or core the
apple.  Consequently, there is not  the  large  amount  of  waste  being
discharged at this portion of the process.

Vinegar  stock  is  made  in  a  manner similar to the pressing of apple
cider.  However, the vinegar stock is made from poor quality apples.  It
is never clarified to the same degree as apple  cider;  however,  it  is
usually  concentrated prior to bulk shipment in tank cars to the vinegar
processing plant.

Citrus

General


The citrus industry is concentrated in two areas of the U.S.  The  major
portion, approximately 80 percent of the industry, is located in Florida
and  the remaining 20 percent is located in the southwestern part of the
U.S.   (California, Arizona and  Texas).   Oranges,  grapefruit,  lemons,
tangerines (mandarins) and limes, ranked in the order of importance, are
all  processed into citrus products and co-products such as juice, dried
peel,  oil,  segments  and  molasses.   A  few  citrus  processors  also
manufacture  such items as pectin, flavorings, essence, Pharmaceuticals,
etc.  Citrus juice, single-strength and  concentrated,  is  by  far  the
major product of the citrus processing industry.

Citrus  is  both  harvested  and processed only in four states; Florida,
California, Texas and Arizona.  In the eastern area, Florida, 90 percent
of all fruit picked is sent directly to the processing plant.   Only  10
percent  of  the fruit harvested in this area is directed to the packing
house where it is graded, and the poorer quality fruit is redirected  to
the  processor.   In  the  southwestern  region of the U.S.  (California,
Arizona and Texas) normally all fruit is sent first to a packing  house,
where  the fruit is graded for the fresh-table market, and the remaining
fruit is then  sent  to  the  processor.   The  only  exception  to  this
procedure  occurs when, because of low temperatures in a given area, the
fruit on the trees becomes frozen.  In an effort to salvage as  much  of
the  fruit  as  possible,  the  frozen  fruit  is immediately picked and
shipped directly to the processor as f_ield run fruit.
                                   23

-------
Processing Steps

There are a  number  of  similar  or  identical  process  steps  in  the
manufacture  of  most  citrus  products.   For  example,  the receiving,
washing, intermediate storage,  extraction and  finishing  process  steps
are  common to all single strength juice plants.   In addition, the juice
concentrating process step must be added for the production of a  frozen
concentrate.   In  the  manufacture of citrus segments the process steps
which are common to all citrus segment plants  are  mechanical  peeling,
caustic  treating,  sectionizing, canning or bottling, and cooling.  The
peel and pulp  (including rejected fruit)  are  processed  into  a  dried
citrus  pulp and a molasses.  These can be marketed as separate items or
the molasses can be added back to the dried citrus pulp.

Receiving/Storage/Washing - When the fruit is received at the processing
plant, it is transferred to intermediate storage  prior  to  processing.
This  storage is usually sized to hold one to three days supply of fruit
for the plant.  When needed, the fruit is  withdrawn  from  storage  and
washed  before  processing  to  remove  any  foreign materials including
pesticides and insecticides that are adhering to the fruit.  Either high
pressure water sprays or immersion in water, in combination  with  brush
scrubbers,  is  the  conventional  method  of  fruit cleaning.  All free
surface water must be drained from the fruit  prior  to  extracting  the
juice.

Extraction - In this process step the raw citrus juice is extracted from
the  fruit by mechanical methods.  In a reamer type extractor, the fruit
is cut into halves and each half reamed separately to remove the  juice.
In  another system the juice is extracted from the whole fruit through a
hollow tube while pressure is applied to the  exterior  surface  of  the
fruit.   In another procedure, the fruit is sliced and the juice removed
from the fruit halves by pressure on the  exterior  of  the  fruit.   An
average yield of juice is 480 1/kkg  (115 G/T) of fruit processed.

Finishing  -  Mechanically  extracted   juice  contains  seeds,  pips and
segment membranes  (rag)  that  must  be  removed.   This  separation  is
usually  accomplished  by  a  screw or paddle type finisher  (pulp press)
where the pressure applied and the size of the  perforations   (openings)
control the degree of solids removal.  The finished juice is blended and
ready for canning or bottling as a single strength juice.

A fruit base drink can be manufactured by washing the citrus pulp solids
discharged  from  the  finisher  with water and separating the solids in
another finisher.  The washed pulp is transferred to the peel process.

JjSi2§_£2G£§Si£S£i22 ~ In concentrating  citrus juice to 42° or 65°  Brix,
it  is  necessary  to remove practically all of the pulp solids.  If the
finisher cannot be adjusted to remove a sufficient quantity  of  solids,
then  it  is   necessary  to  desludge  the  single  strength  juice in a
centrifuge.  The removal of solids reduces the viscosity  of  the  juice


                                   24

-------
during the concentration procedure.  The citrus juice is concentrated in
evaporators   (rising  or  falling  film)  that  have  been  designed for
operation at a high vacuum  and  a  short  residence  time.   If  citrus
essence  is  to  be  recovered from the juice, this must be accomplished
during the concentrating of the raw citrus juice.
        " In this process step the peel is mechanically removed from the
fruit.  First the fruit is scalded with steam and cooled to  loosen  the
peel.   The  fruit is manually placed or positioned into a receiving cup
of the mechanical peeler, and is retained in the cups while the peel  is
scored  and  mechanically  stripped  from the fruit.  The peel is trans-
ferred to  the  peel  process  part  of  the  plant  or  sold  to  other
processors.

Caustic __ Treatment  -  A caustic solution is applied to the whole peeled
fruit by  dipping  or  spraying.   The  caustic  treatment  removes  any
adhering  rag  or  membrane prior to sectionizing.  After treatment, but
prior to sectionizing, all liquid caustic is thoroughly removed from the
fruit by washing with water.

Segmenting - The segmenting process is either a manual or  a  mechanical
operation.   The manual or hand method produces a higher quality segment
with less waste being  generated  than  with  the  automatic  sectioning
machines.   The  sectioned  fruit  is  inspected and packaged in cans or
bottles.

Peel Shaving - A number of the citrus processors quarter and  shave  the
peel~to recover the citrus oil.  This cold pressed oil is a valuable co-
product  if  lemons  or  grapefruit  are  being processed.  Mandarin and
orange oils are of lesser commercial importance.   To  release  the  oil
from  the  peel,  the  citrus  halves  are  quartered and passed between
knurled  pressure  rolls  to  break  the  oil  sacs  in  the  peel.    A
recirculated  water  stream  is  sprayed  into the shaver to pick up the
citrus oil being released from the shaved peel.

Citrus peel may also be shaved or deragged to  produce  a  peel  product
acceptable for drying and ultimate use as a food ingredient  (cake mixes,
orange marmalade) .

Products and Co- products

In  a  large  citrus  processing  plant  a number of the products or co-
products will be made.   Process  descriptions  of  the  more  important
products are outlined below.

Single Strength Juice - In this process, the raw  juice is extracted from
the "fruitT"  The  suspended solids  (seeds, pulp, etc.) are then removed
from the raw juice in a paddle or screw  type  finisher.   The  filtered
juice  from  the  finisher  is  blended  and bottled for sale as a fresh
chilled  juice or pasteurized and canned as a single strength juice,


                                   25

-------
Processing Steps

Most  potato  processes  have  a number of steps which are common to the
manufacture  of  potato  products,  i.e.,  storage,  washing,   peeling,
slicing,  and  blanching, followed by a further processing step in which
the final product character is determined.

Storage - To achieve maximum use and  efficiency  of  his  manufacturing
facilities, the processor attempts to operate his plant on a year-round,
continuous  basis.   Thus,  it  is  necessary  for  large  quantities of
potatoes to be placed into storage at the end of each harvest for future
use.  The potatoes are often  stored  for  many  months  prior  to  use.
Today,  below-ground  storage  systems  -  cellars - are gradually being
abandoned in favor of above-ground construction.  In either instance, it
is  necessary to maintain a high relative humidity to prevent dehydration
of  the  stored potatoes,  shrinkage during long-term improper storage can
result  in a 90 percent water  loss  by  evaporation  and  a  10  percent
carbohydrate  loss  by respiration.  However, proper temperature control
and air recirculation will prevent these  losses as well as  prevent  the
occurrence of blackheart, mahogany browning, and stem rot.

Receiving/Washing -  The  potatoes  that are received from the storage
cellar  or field  are directed  into a water flume or transport  system  by
high pressure   water  hoses.  In this  manner the potatoes are withdrawn
from the intermediate plant  storage and  transported to  the  processing
area.    The  potatoes  are withdrawn from the flume system by means of  a
metering wheel and  fed  into the  process system.  The transport water  is
normally pumped to a settling  basin for silt removal and then  returned
to  the  receiving system.

Prior to processing,  it  is necessary to  wash  the  potatoes.    This  is
accomplished    by  passing   the potatoes   through   a  rotary   drum  or
cylindrical washer where the  potatoes are scrubbed either  with  brushes
or   merely  by   tumbling them   together.  In this washing operation the
potatoes are  also subjected  to water sprays  for the removal  of   foreign
material  and   soil  particles.   Following the rotary washer  the  potatoes
pass over a  short drainage belt  which permits internal recirculation  of
the  wash water.  An  inspection of the potatoes is made  on  the  drainage
belt, and the undesirable whole  potatoes are removed.

Peeling - There  are  a  number  of  methods for  the  removal of peel  from the
potato.  These  methods usually  involve   a pretreatment   with  chemicals
 (lye)   or heat   (steam),  which are  followed by  water sprays,  abrasive
rolls or rubber  studded  rolls to remove the  peel from the  potato.   The
peel  loss,   including   trimming, can result in  15 to 30  percent loss of
the potatoes  processed.  The  combination of  the  above  peeling   methods
has resulted  in  four systems  which are  known in the industry as  abrasive
peeling,  steam  peeling,  lye  (caustic) or wet lye peeling  and dry caustic
peeling.   All  these  methods  can be  designed as  either a  continuous or  a
                                    28

-------
batch system.  No simple peeling method provides the highest  degree  of
peel removal for all potato products or raw potato types.

Abrasive  peelers  have  rough  coated rolls which rotate  and remove the
peel and small portions of the tissue by mechanically abrading  it  from
the  surface  of  the  potato.   Water  sprays  are  used  to remove the
particles of peel from the abrasive rolls and the  peeled   potato.   The
potatoes  are  also  rotated to insure removal of peel from all sides of
the potato.  Abrasive peeling is normally employed in the  manufacture of
potato chips.  In this style of product it  is  not  essential  to  have
complete peel removal.

Steam  peelers  expose  the  potatoes  to  high pressure steam for short
periods of time.  After the steam treatment the potatoes are brushed and
sprayed with water to remove the cooked peel particles.   Steam  peeling
is  an excellent procedure for producing a completely peeled product and
is extremely effective on new or thin skinned potatoes.

Lye (caustic) peelers immerse or dip the potatoes in a hot lye solution.
Longer immersion times are required at lower temperatures   and  the  lye
consumption increases with higher caustic concentrations.   After removal
from  the  hot lye solution, the potatoes are held for a short period of
time to allow for the softening of the peel.  The  loose  peel  is  then
removed  by  brushes and water sprays in a manner similar to the removal
of peel after steaming.  If caustic treatment is used, the potatoes must
be thoroughly washed to remove all traces of caustic along with the peel
prior to further processing of the potato.

Dry caustic peelers are a recent modification of lye peelers.   In  this
peeling  process  the potatoes are treated with a lye solution and after
removal of the excess lye solution by draining, the potatoes are exposed
to infrared heating.  The caustic treated peel which has  been  loosened
is  removed  by an abrasive scrubber utilizing one-half-inch-long rubber
studs on rapidly  rotating  cylinders  developed  by  the  USDA  Western
Utilization  Research  Laboratory.  The peel is removed in this abrasive
scrubber with minimal rinsing.  This method  of  peel  removal  has  the
beneficial  effect  of  substantially  reducing  the  volume and organic
strength of the waste streams.  In actual plant operation, the  peelings
are collected as a slurry having a 15 to 25 percent solids content.

A  recent  extension of this new development in peel removal has been to
use the abrasive  scrubber  (USDA  design)  with  other  types  of  peel
treatment.   A  similar  reduction in waste loads has been realized when
this scrubber has been employed with steam peelers or  the  conventional
lye  peelers.   The  reduction  in  water  volumes  and  waste  loads is
equivalent to that attained when the scrubber is used in the dry caustic
peeling system.

The trimming process should be considered as part of the  peel  removal.
In  this process the presence of eyes, blemishes, and remaining peel are


                                   29

-------
often detected electronically, which directs  the  imperfect  potato  to
the  trim  table  where  the  imperfections  are manually cut out of the
potato.  The degree of completeness of trimming is usually determined by
the desired end product or style.  All solid wastes from either trimming
or peeling can be directed toward cattle feed.

Slicing/Dicing - In this process step, slicing or dicing, the potato  is
cut  or  subdivided  into smaller pieces.  The size and shape into which
the potato is subdivided is dependent upon  the  end  product.   In  any
cutting  process  a  number  of  potato  cells  are  ruptured, releasing
considerable amounts of starch.  The more  extensive  the  cutting,  the
greater  the  amount  of starch that is released.  This starch is washed
from the surface of  the  potato  pieces  and  usually  appears  in  the
transport or cutting water.

Many  processors  are now installing hydroclones to remove the starch in
the form of a slurry from the wash water.  This crude starch  slurry  is
then shipped to a starch processor for further refining.

SilSStiiQS  ~  After  peeling  and  slicing   the  potato, the pieces are
blanched to deactivate the enzymes, to remove surface air, to  partially
cook to form a grease barrier on the particle and if necessary to remove
excessive  sugars.   Blanching  also  can  be used to effect a degree of
sterilization.  Either steam or water is used  for  blanching  potatoes.
Steam is used when it is necessary to minimize leaching; water blanching
is  employed  when it is necessary to remove constituents such as sugars
from the potato pieces.  It is common practice to arrange the  blanchers
for  series  flow  of  the  potato  pieces  and parallel flow of the hot
blanching water.  For dehydrated potato products, the potato pieces  are
water- blanched, water-cooled, and then steam-blanched or cooked prior to
mashing and mixing.

Product Styles

Following  the  blanching process, the potatoes can be further processed
into products of two major categories:  frozen and dehydrated.
Frozen  Potato  Products   (French __ Fries,, __ Hash __ BrownA ___ §££_•.]_- In
manufacture   of  frozen  potato  products,  many  processors  add  back
ingredients after blanching and prior to frying and cooking.  The frying
is accomplished in a continuous belt unit at a temperature  of  300°  to
350°F.  Following frying, the potato pieces are quick frozen in a tunnel
freezer,  then  inspected,  sorted  and  sized  prior  to  packaging and
warehousing.  The only waste loads which are generated from this portion
of the process are wastes from the fryer-scrubber, clean-up of the fryer
and freezer belts, freezer thawing, cooling water, etc.


Dehydrated Potato Products __ (Granules,  Flake stn Slices)   -  The  potato
slices  or  dices  which  are  dehydrated as individual pieces are dried


                                   30

-------
following  blanching  in  an  atmospheric  recirculated  air  tunnel  or
conveyor  drier.    If  granules  or flakes are to be processed,  then the
blanched potato pieces are mashed and conditioned  prior  to  drying  as
flakes on a drum drier (flaker)  or as granules in a fluid bed drier.
                                   31

-------

-------
                               SECTION IV

                        INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION

CATEGORIZATION

In  developing  waste water effluent limitation guidelines and standards
of performance for  the  Canned  and  Preserved  Fruits  and  Vegetables
Industry,  a  judgment  must  be  made  as  to  whether  limitations and
standards are appropriate for different segments (subcategories)   within
the  industry.  The first phase of the study is limited to processors of
apple products (except caustic peeled and dehydrated  products),   citrus
products  (except  pectin  and  pharmaceutical  products) and frozen and
dehydrated potato products.  Other commodities  will  be  studied  in  a
subsequent  study.   In  order  to  identify any such subcategories, the
following factors were considered.

         1.   Raw material
         2.   Products and by-products
         3.   Production processes     ,
         U.   Age of plant
         5.   Size of plant
         6.   Plant location
         7.   Waste treatability


After considering each of these  factors,  it  was  concluded  that  the
segment  of  the  Canned  and  Preserved  Fruits and Vegetables industry
included in this study  consisted  of  three  different  raw  materials:
apples,   citrus,   and  potatoes.   The  apple  and  potato  processing
industries were further subdivided into  two  subcategories  each.   The
subcategorization  selected  for  the  purpose of developing waste water
effluent limitations guidelines and standards are as follows:


         1.   Apple Processing:  Apple Juice
         2.   Apple Processing:  Apple products except juice
         3.   Citrus Processing:  All products
         4.   Potato Processing:  Frozen products
         5,   Potato Processing:  Dehydrated products

 The differences in raw waste characteristics for the five subcategories
are given in Table 5.   The  rationale  for  this  subcategorization  is
detailed throughout the remainder of this section.
                                   33

-------
                                                               TABLE  5

                                              DISTRIBUTION  OF  WASTE LOAD  BY  SUBCATEGORY
PRODUCT STYLE

APPLE PROCESSING
  Apple Juice
  Apple Products
  except juice
                                Flow
     1/kkg
AVERAGE(RANGE)
 2880(1880-3540)

 5360(1380-14800)
     gal/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)
CITRUS PROCESSING
  All Products   10120(710-24940)
                  2425(170-5980)
POTATO PROCESSING
  Frozen Products 11300(4090-15510)  2710(975-3725)
  Dehydrated
  Products         8761(6530-12010)  2100(1565-2880)
                                                                        BOD
    kg/kkg
AVERAGE(RANGE)
     Ib/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)
        Suspended Solids
    kg/kkg              Ib/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)     AVERAGE(RANGE)
690(450-850)
1290(330-3550)
2.05(1
6.4(3.
.6-2.
4-10.
55)
1)
4
12
.1(3
.8(6
.2-5.
.8-20
1)
.2)
0.3(0
0.8(0
.15-0
.35-1
.40)
.05)
0.6(0.3-0.8)
1.6 (0.7-2.1)
                   3.2(0.45-8.5)
                   6.4(0.9-17.0)
                   1.3(0.02-7.95)
                   2.6(0.04-15.9)
                                     22.9(4.45-36.95)    45.8(8.9-73.9)

                                     11.05(7.75-15.2)    22.1(15.5-30.4)
                                                        19.4(5.1-45.5)      38.8(10.3-91.0)

                                                         7.35(3.8-12.15)    14.7(7.6-24.3)

-------
                                     TABLE  6
                     EFFECT OF LOCATION FOR VARIOUS  APPLE  PLANTS
                            (OTHER THAN JUICE  ONLY PLANTS)
                                                          BOD
LOCATION

East

West
NUMBER
PLANTS

  6

  3
       kg/kkg
 AVERAGE(RANGE)

 5.75(1.4-8 .5)

 6.5 (3.4-10.1)
     Ib/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)

11.5(2.8-17.0)

13.0(6.8-20.2)
                                                         FLOW
East

West
  6

  3
       1/kkg
AVERAGE(RANGE)

 2290(1790-2790)

 2640(1190-6050)
    gal/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)

 550(430- 670)

 630(285-1450)
                                       37

-------
                                                                  TABLE 7
                                               EFFECT OF RAW MATERIAL AT  VARIOUS  CITRUS  PLANTS
                                                                     FLOW
                                                                                                                   BOD
RATIO OF
GRAPEFRUIT /ORANGES
0.50 -- 1.00
0. 20
0.15
0.00
— 0
— 0
— 0
.49
.19
.14
NUMBER
PLANTS
4
6
2
3
1/kkg
AVERAGE (RANGE)
5675(1630-9090 )
8220(2085-16180)
14330(9590-19060)
7260(1360-8010)
gal/T
AVERAGE (RANGE)
1360( 395-2180)
1975( 500-3880)
3435(2300-4570)
1740( 325-1920)
kg/kkg
AVERAGE (RANGE)
3.1 (0.7-6.7)
3
1
4
.75(1
.95(1
.05(1
.4-6
.6-2
.3-8
.4)
.3)
.25)
Ib/T
AVERAGE (RANGE
6.2(1
7.5 (2
3.9(3
8.1(2
.4-13.4)
.8-12.8)
.2- 4.6)
.6-16.5)
Ul
CD

-------
                                                     TABLE 8
                            EFFECT  OF  RAW MATERIAL MIX AT CITRUS PLANT 123  (MARCH,  1970)
GRAPEFRUIT/ORANGES

          0

          0

          0

          21

          36

          54

          57

          59

          65
     CAPACITY
kkg/Day      Tons/Day

 1870        2065

 1480        1630

  420          465

 1890        2080

 1970        2170

 1430        1580

 1620        1780

 1170        1290

 1220         1345
                                                                                BOD
                                                                                                         BOD
V o / Tl ^ v
K. g / U a. y
5830
13250
235
10340
10310
2450
11480
2100
3680
Ib/Day
12845
29190
515
22770
22710
5405
25280
4635
8105
kg/kkg
3.1
8.95
0.55
5.45
6.15
1.7
7 .1
1.8
3.0
Ib/T
6.2
17.9
1.1
10.9
12.3
3.4
14.2
3.6
6.0

-------
                                     TABLE 9


                    EFFECT OF LOCATION FOR VARIOUS CITRUS PLANTS


                                                           BOD
                        NUMBER                    kg/kkg            Ib/T
LOCATION                PLANTS              AVERAGE(RANGE)     AVERAGE(RANGE)

Florida                  25                 3.05(0.45-8.5)     6.1(0.9-17.0)

California                2                 5.3 (2.35-8.25)   10.6(4.7-16.5)

-------
                                            TABLE 10
LOCATION

West

East
NUMBER
PLANTS

  9

  3
                              EFFECT  OF  LOCATION FOR VARIOUS POTATO PLANTS
                                       (FROZEN POTATO PRODUCTS)
                 FLOW
       1/kkg              gal/T
   AVERAGE(RANGE)    AVERAGE(RANGE)
12490(10350-15520)

10210( 9640-10890)
2990(2480-3720)

2450(2310-2610)
                                 BODS
                       kg/kkg             Ib/T
                  AVERAGE(RANGE)      AVERAGE(RANGE)
25.25(12.3-36.95)  50.5(24.6-73.9)

21.9 (11.0-29.25)  43.8(22.0-58.5)

-------
Products and By-Products

There  is  not  a  primary  product  that  relates  apples  to citrus to
potatoes.  The primary product from apples is  applesauce;  the  primary
product  from  citrus is juice; and the primary product from potatoes is
frozen french fries.

The differences in primary product styles  emphasize  the  diversity  of
industry  practices  within the apple,  citrus, and potato segment of the
industry.  Never-the-less, it is important to compare waste  loads  from
various  products  and  product mixes to determine whether plants can be
grouped on a basis of similar raw waste characteristics.

The apple product styles considered included slices, sauce and juice  or
cider.   The  processing  of  slices or sauce is similar up to the final
step of either canning, freezing  or  dehydrating.   The  difference  in
contributions of the final operation to waste water production and waste
characteristics  is  small.  Table 11 compares the waste characteristics
for various apple product styles.  Three  apple  juice  plants  have  an
average  BOD  of 2.05 kg/kkg (4.1 Ib/T).  The average BOD for five other
apple products and product mixes were similar.  The average  BOD  values
ranged  from a low of 2.05 kg/kkg (4.1  Ib/T) to a high 6.85 kg/kkg (13.7
Ib/T).  While these BOD values are  similar  to  each  other,  they  are
significantly  different  from the BOD from juice processing.  The water
usages are similar regardless of apple product or product  mix  although
one  flow  value  is  high  due to excessive water usage at one of three
plants in the group.   Thus, similarity of flow and BOD allow  all  apple
products  except juice to be grouped in a single subcategory.  The large
BOD differences of these plants  with  juice  plants  requires  separate
categories.

The  citrus  product styles considered included juice and segments.  Oil
recovery and peel processing to cattle feed are considered  co-products.
Some plants usually produce only juice. The waste peel problem is met by
shipping  the peel to other processors for conversion to cattle feed or,
in rare cases, the peel is disposed of as solid waste.  Citrus  segments
are manufactured as a specialty product along with the normal production
of  citrus juice.  The better quality fruit is used in the processing of
segments while  the  poorer  quality  of  fruit  is  directed  to  juice
manufacture.   The  conversion  of  the  citrus peel to cattle feed also
solves an otherwise difficult disposal problem.  The recovery of  citrus
oil is widely practiced in the industry.  This oil is recovered from the
surface  of  the  peel as a cold-pressed oil.  Highly contaminated waste
streams are produced as part of the oil recovery process, and care  must
be  taken to keep oil out of biological treatment systems.  It is common
practice in the larger plants to recover oil/water waste as a sludge and
dispose of it through the waste heat evaporator.   Although  the  citrus
peel  manufactured into cattle feed is considered a by-product, there is
a strong economic incentive to produce this product.
                                   42

-------
Table 12 compares the BOD for various citrus products  and  product  and
co-product  mixes.   Seven  different product styles have an average BOD
from 3.15 to 3.5 kg/kkg (6.3 to 7.0 Ib/T).   The water  usages  are  also
similar  for  the  various  products considering the wide range in data.
Thus, the similarity of raw waste characteristics among  various  citrus
products and co-products confirm a single citrus processing category.

Within  potato  processing,  two  products  were  considered: frozen and
dehydrated products.  It was shown earlier that processing of frozen  or
dehydrated  apples  was  similar up to the final operation and that only
minor waste differences occur.  There are,  however, differences  between
dehydrated and frozen potato processing  (See Sections III and V).  Table
13  compares the BOD and flow for frozen potato products with dehydrated
products.  There are significant  differences  in  BOD  11.05  and  22.9
kg/kkg  (22.1 and U5. 8 Ib/T) .


Three  plants  producing  both  frozen   and  dehydrated styles were also
considered.  At one plant complete 1972 data was available.  The  annual
raw  potato  mix to frozen and dehydrated products was used to calculate
the waste load using the average BOD for frozen and dehydrated  products
(Table  13).   The  calculated  BOD  value  of  14.95 kg/kkg  (29.9 Ib/T)
compared satisfactorily with its actual value of 13.8 kg/kkg  (27.6 Ib/T)
(Table 13).  Thus,  the  waste  characteristics  indicate  two  separate
categories for potato processing.

Table  5  summarizes  the raw waste load and water usage for each of the
five product subcategories determined above.  The citrus processing  BOD
is  similar  to  the  BOD from the two apple subcategories but different
from the two  potato  subcategories.   The  citrus  processing  flow  is
similar  to  the  water  usage  from  the  two  potato subcategories but
different from the two apple subcategories.   This  data  confirms  that
five  subcategories  are  needed  for the purpose of developing effluent
limitation guidelines and standards.

Production Processes

Industrial processing practices within the fruit and vegetable  industry
are  diverse and produce different waste loads.  However, final products
relate directly to the processes employed and since final products  have
been  previously  used  for  subcategorization, the many differences and
similarities  in  production  processes  support   the   five   industry
subcategories.  There are a few processing differences that occur within
these  subcategories  and  these  must   be considered to determine their
effect on raw waste loads and categorization.

In apples, two different peelers are used.  The mechanical  peelers  are
the  most  popular.   The  peeler can be adjusted to remove a greater or
lesser percentage of the fruit imperfections and the resulting peel  and
core  can  be  collected  and  used in the production of juice.  Caustic


                                   43

-------
peelers are also used by apple processors.   The  peel  loss  is  not  as
great  in  caustic  peeling  when  compared  to mechanical peeling.   The
resulting peel waste, however, cannot be  utilized  in  juice  or  cider
manufacture.   However, sufficient data is not available to evaluate the
effect of caustic peelers on  waste  waters  from  the  apple  industry.
Therefore, apple processors utilizing caustic peelers will be considered
in a later study.

In  the citrus industry there are variations in the extracting equipment
used.  Large plants may in fact use more than one style of machine in  a
given process step.  Citrus waste loading data does not show differences
attributable  to  the  different  machines.   Another  process variation
within the citrus industry is the utilization of waste heat evaporators.
Many large citrus plants use the exhaust gases from the  meal  dryer  to
supply  heat  for  the  concentration (recovery)  of high strength wastes
(such as press liquor) in the waste heat evaporator.   Table 14  compares
the  average  BOD  from  plants  with  waste  heat evaporators to plants
without the evaporator.  The result is interesting in that  the  average
BOD  is  a  little  higher  when  the  waste heat evaporator is present.
However, the similarity in the average and BOD range  is  sufficient  to
confirm  the citrus categorization without regard to presence or absence
of the waste heat evaporator.

Other than variations in production processes which are associated  with
product  style,  the only process step exhibiting significant variations
in waste production in potato processing is that  of  peeling.   Peeling
methods  may  be  placed  in  four  groups; wet lye, dry lye, steam, and
abrasion.  Several historical  publications  have  associated  different
waste  loadings  with different peeler types.  However, recent equipment
developments such as a low water  usage  scrubber  used  for  separating
softened  peel  have  resulted  in  lower  waste loads than older peeler
installations using water sprays for peel removal.


Table 15 attempts to differentiate various peeling  methods  from  total
raw  waste  characteristics.   Limited data indicates that BOD effluents
from wet caustic systems can be reduced by a low  water  usage  scrubber
and  that caustic systems followed by a USDA scrubber can reduce the BOD
further.  However, the BOD and water  usage  data  in  Table  15  cannot
differentiate  peeler  methods.  Therefore, further subcategorization by
peeler method is not possible.

Thus, production processes are  either  associated  with  final  product
style   or   do   not   have  an  important  impact  on  categorization.
Accordingly,   production   processes   support   the   five    industry
subcategories developed earlier.
                                   1414

-------
Age of Plant

The  age  of  a  plant is somewhat difficult to define.  Some processors
give the date of the founding of the  company,  which  may  bear  little
relationship to the age of the processing equipment.  The average age of
the  old plus the new process equipment is more meaningful, although the
average of very old and very new  equipment  is  less  meaningful.   The
industry   is  competitive,  so  that  older  units  that  prove  to  be
inefficient are usually replaced.  No correlation was found between  any
measures of plant age and waste character or water usage.

Size of Plant

The  size  of  an  apple,  citrus,  and potato plant is important from a
technical as well as an economical standpoint.  A small  plant  may  not
have as many end-of-process treatment alternatives as a large plant, but
may  have more in-plant control alternatives than a large complex plant.
The importance of size has been realized in the  fruits  and  vegetables
industry and size has been thoroughly considered in this categorization.

Table  16 compares waste character and water usage for apple plants with
capacity less than 9.1 kkg per hour  (10 T/hr.) and capacity greater than
9.1 kkg/hr.  (10 T/hr).  Only apple plants whose only  product  is   juice
are  omitted.   The  BOD  for the two plant sizes are very close 5.9 and
6.15 kg/kkg  (11.8 and 12.3 Ib/T) .  The ranges of BOD are  also  similar.
There  is  a  large  difference  in  water  usage but this difference is
attributable  to  a  single  plant  with  high   water   flows.    Thus,
similarities in raw waste load suggest apple plant size does not have an
impact on categorization.

Table  17 compares various citrus plant sizes with waste character  (BOD)
and  water  usage.   The  initial  comparison  is  between  plants  with
capacities   greater   or  less  than  320  kkg/day   (350  T/day).   The
differences  in BOD 3.2 and 3.3 kg/kkg (6.4  and  6.6  Ib/T)   and  water
usage  8,390  and  10,600 1/kkg (2010 and 2540 gal/T) are not considered
significant especially in view of the large ranges of BOD and flow data.
The second comparison is between plants with a capacity of 910  to  2000
kkg/day  (1000  to  '2200 T/day) and plants with a capacity less than 910
kkg/day  (1000 T/day) or a  capacity  greater  than  2000  kkg/day   (2200
T/day) .   Again, the variability of the data is large and the similarity
of average BOD and flow values suggest citrus plant size does  not  have
an important impact on categorization.

Table  18 compares various potato plant sizes with waste character  (BOD)
and  water  usage.   Frozen  and  dehydrated  products  are   considered
individually.   Comparisons  for  frozen  potato products include plants
with capacity greater than and less than 360  kkg/day   (400  T/day)  and
also  450  kkg/day  (500 T/day).  Neither the differences in BOD or water
usage appears to be important.  The variability  of  the  data  and  the
impact  of a single plant is shown by the high average BOD (25.65 kg/kkg


                                   45

-------
(51.3 Ib/T) )  for plants with capacity less than 360 kkg/day (400  T/day)
and  low BOD 20.35 kg/kkg (40.7 Ib/T)  for plants with capacity less than
450 kkg/day (500 T/day).  Comparisons  for  dehydrated  potato  products
include plants with capacity greater than and less than 360 kkg/day (400
T/day)   as  well  as  450  kkg/day  (500  T/day).   There  are  apparent
differences in  BOD  and  flow  for  small  and  large  plants  but  the
variability of BOD and flow data as well as the limited data base (seven
plants)   must  be considered.  Also, higher flows are observed at plants
with lower BOD values and lower flows with plants  with  higher  BOD  so
that  treatment  design  differences which would influence capital costs
are less important.  In summary, no  correlation  exists  between  waste
characterization  and  water  usage  data  and size of dehydrated potato
plants.

It is therefore concluded that size of plant is not a satisfactory basis
for further industry subcategorization.

Plant Location

It is  reasonable  to  expect  that  plant  location  could  affect  the
selection  of  waste  treatment alternatives for any plant in the fruits
and vegetable industry.  If the technical and  economic  feasability  of
achieving  an  effluent  reduction  is dependent on plant location, then
additional subcategories must be established.  In the earlier discussion
of raw material, it was determined that geographical  location  did  not
affect  the  raw  waste  loading for either apples or citrus or potatoes
(See Tables 6, 9 and 10).  However,  in  this  section  availability  of
land, climate, and of high quality water is evaluated to determine their
effect  on   effluent  reduction  for  apple,  citrus, or potato plants.
Spray or flood irrigation is used  throughout  the  apple,  citrus,  and
potato  subcategories.   Irrigation requires relatively large amounts of
land , but where inexpensive land of acceptable character is  available,
spray  irrigation  may be the least expensive solution to waste disposal
problems.  Biological systems such as activated sludge require much less
land than spray irrigation, but the amount of  land  required  could  be
difficult and expensive to acquire for a plant located in an urban area.
In  general,  however,  plants  located  in  urban  areas  are served by
municipal sewers.  Land availability  requirements  will  influence  the
choice  of  treatment  technology  to be used in a particular situation.
However, sufficiently high  levels  of  treatment  are  achievable  with
treatment processes which are not land-intensive.  Thus, availability of
land  does  not  seriously  affect  the  achievement  of a high level of
effluent reduction for apple, citrus, or potato plants.
                                   46

-------
                                     TABLE 11
           AVERAGE (RANGE) OF BOD AND FLOW FOR VARIOUS APPLE PRODUCT  STYLES
PRODUCT STYLE
                     FLOW
NUMBER        1/kkg           gal/T
PLANTS   AVERAGE(RANGE)  AVERAGE(RANGE)
                                                       BOD
                                            kg/kkg           Ib/T
                                         AVERAGE(RANGE)  AVERAGE(RANGE)
Juice
Sauce
Sauce
Apple
Only
Only
& Juice
Products
3
3
3
9
2880(1880-3540 )
3400(1380-6050)
1690(1190-14800)
3920(1190-14800)
690(450- 850)
815(330-1450)
405(285-3550)
940(285-3550)
2
5
6
6
.05(1
.35(3
.85(5
.0 (1
.6- 2
.4- 7
.8- 8
.4-10
.55)
.5 )
.5 )
.1 )
4
10
13
12
.!( 3.
.7( 6.
.7(11.
.0( 2.
2- 5.1)
8-15.0)
6-17.0)
8-20.2)
(except Juice Only)
All Apple
 Products

Slices with
Apple Products
12    3660(1190-14800)   875(285-3550)


 3    6635(1790-14800)  1595(430-3550)
                                          5.0  (1.4-10.1)   10.0(2.8-20.2)
                                          5.85(1.4-10.1)   11.7(2.8-20.2)

-------
                                               TABLE 12
                 AVERAGE(RANGE) OF BOD AND FLOW FOR VARIOUS CITRUS PRODUCT  STYLES
PRODUCT STYLE
Segments Only
NUMBER
PLANTS
Citrus Products
 without Segments   19

Citrus Products
 with Segments       6

Citrus Products
 without Oil         5

Citrus Products
 with Oil           22

Citrus Products
 without Feed        9

Citrus Products
 with Feed          18

All Products        27
                                         FLOW
                                  1/kkg
                            AVERAGE(RANGE)
    gal/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)
             BOD
   kg/kkg            Ib/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)     AVERAGE(RANGE)
           7455(4340-10570)   1790(1040-2535)    3.5 (2.65-4.35)    7.0(5.3- 8.7)


          10160( 710-24950)   2440( 170-5980)    3.15(0.45-8.5 )    6.3(0.9-17.0)


          10850(4380-19180)   2600(1050-4600)    3.3 (1.4 -5.6 )    6.6(2.8-11.2)


           7570(4340-10570)   1820(1040-2535)    3.35(1.45-5.6 )    6.7(2.9-11.2)


          10690( 710-24950)   2560( 170-5980)    3.2 (0.45-8.5 )    6.4(0.9-17.0)


           7570(1630-24950)   1820( 390-5980)    3.15(0.7 -6.4 )    6.3(1.4-12.8)
                            11380( 710-24740)   2730( 170-5930)

                            10110( 710-24950)   2425( 170-5980)
                                                 3.25(0.45-8.5 )    6.5(0.9-17.0)

                                                 3.2 (0.45-8.5 )    6.4(0.9-17.0)

-------
                                             TABLE 13
                AVERAGE  (RANGE) OF BOD AND FLOW FOR VARIOUS POTATO PRODUCT  STYLES
PRODUCT STYLE
Frozen Products
                        FLOW
NUMBER        1/kkg              gal/T
PLANTS    AVERAGE(RANGE)    AVERAGE(RANGE)
 13
                                                     BOD
                                           kg/kkg          Ib/T
                                      AVERAGE(RANGE)   AVERAGE(RANGE)
11320(4090-15510)   2710( 980-3720)  22.9 (4.45-36.95)  45.8( 8.9-73.9)
Dehydrated Products
          8770(6530-12010)  2100(1565-2880)  11.05( 7.75-15.2)  22.1(15.5-30.4)
Frozen & Dehydrated
     Products         3
          9260(6380-12800)  2220(1530-3070)  13.8(13.65-13.95)  27.7(27.3-27.9)
All Potato Products  23
         10270(4090-15510)  2460( 980-3720)  18.1 (4.45-36.95)  36.2( 8.9-73.9)

-------
                        TABLE 14
EFFECT OF WASTE HEAT EVAPORATOR FOR VARIOUS CITRUS PLANTS
                                        BOD
WASTE HEAT
EVAPORATOR
Present
Absent
Present
Absent
NUMBER
PLANTS
10
17
10
17
kg/kkg
AVERAGE (RANGE)
3.25(0.45-8.5 )
3.2 (0.7-8.25)
FLOW
1/kkg
AVERAGE (RANGE)
10500( 710-19970)
9800(1360-24950)
Ib/T
AVERAGE (RANGE)
6.5(0.9-17.0)
6.4(1.4-16.5)
gal/T
AVERAGE (RANGE)
2520(170-4790)
2370(325-5980)
                           50

-------
                                             TABLE 15
                   AVERAGE (RANGE) OF BOD AND FLOW FOR VARIOUS POTATO PEELERS
                                      (FROZEN PRODUCTS ONLY)
PEELER TYPE
Wet Caustic
Wet Caustic
NUMBER
PLANTS
5
& 2
FLOW
1/kkg
AVERAGE (RANGE)
12120(10430-14560)
11890(10350-13430)
gal/T
AVERAGE (RANGE)
2900(2500-3490)
2850(2480-3220)
                                                                               BOD
                                                                     kg/kkg
                                                                 AVERAGE(RANGE)
                                                                 Ib/T
                                                            AVERAGE(RANGE)
                                                               26.05(15.1 -36.95)   52.1(30.2-73.9)

                                                               26.5  (20.75-32.25)   53.0(41.5-64.5)
USDA Scrubber
Dry Caustic &
USDA Scrubber
12810(10100-15520)    3070(2420-3720)
2 8. 7 ((25. 45-31. 95)  57.4(50.9-63.9)

-------
                                              TABLE  16
                   AVERAGE (RANGE) OF BOD AND FLOW  FOR  VARIOUS  APPLE PLANT SIZES
                                   (OTHER THAN JUICE  ONLY  PLANTS)
  SIZE
NUMBER
PLANTS
  Less  than
  9.1 kkg/hr (10TPH)   4

  Over
  9.1 kkg/hr (10TPH)   5
               FLOW
    1/kkg                Gal/1
AVERAGE(RANGE)       AVERAGE(RANGE)
               BOD
     kg/kkg             Ib/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)    AVERAGE(RANGE)
         6360(17?5-14810*)    1520(430-3550*)     6.15(3.4-10.1)    12.3(6.8-20.2)
         1960(1190-3340  )
                      470(285-800   )     5.9  (1.4- 8.5)     11.8(2.8-17.0)
  *Single  very high water usage responsible for difference
ui
N)

-------
                                                 TABLE 17
                       AVERAGE (RANGE) OF BOD AND FLOW FOR VARIOUS  CITRUS  PLANT SIZES
PLANT SIZE

320 kkg/day
(350 TPD) or less
                         FLOW
NUMBER         1/kkg             gal/T
PLANTS     AVERAGE(RANGE)    AVERAGE(RANGE)
                                                                                              BOD
     kg/kkg
AVERAGE(RANGE)
     Ib/T
AVERAGE(RANGE)
          8390(1360-24745)    2010(325-5930)     3.3  (0.7  -8.25)     6.6(1.4-16.5)
Over 320 kkg/day
(350 TPD)
 21      10600( 710-24950)    2540(170-5980)     3.2  (0.45-8.5 )     6.4(0.9-17.0)
Less than 910 kkg/day
(1000 TPD)
          8180(1360-24745)    1960(325-5930)     3.0  (0.7 -8.25)     6,0(1.4-16.5)
910 kkg/day-2000 kkg/day
(1000 TPD-2200 TPD)
 12      10520(2090-24950)    2520(500-5980)     3.8  (0.7 -8.5 )     7.6(1.4-17.0)
Over 2000 kkg/day
(2200 TPD)
         11100( 710-19070)    2660(170-4570)     2.65(0.45-6.55)     5.3(0.9-13.1)

-------
                             TABLE 18
AVERAGE  (RANGE)  OF BOD AND  FLOW FOR VARIOUS  POTATO PLANT  SIZES
                          FLOW
                                                                            BOD
PLANT SIZE
NUMBER 1/kkg
PLANTS AVERAGE (RANGE)
gal/1
AVERAGE (RANGE)
kg/kkg Ib/T
AVERAGE (RANGE) AVERAGE (RANGE)
FROZEN POTATO PRODUCTS
360 kkg/day
(400 TPD) or less
Over 360 kkg/day
(400 TPD)
450 kkg/day
(500 TPD) or less
Over 450 kkg/day
(500 TPD)
4 11725 ( 9640-14560)
9 11140( 4090-15520)
6 10600( 4090-14560)
7 11930(10100-15520)
2810(2310-3490)
2670( 980-3720)
2540( 980-3490)
2860(2420-3720)
25.65(11.0 -36.95) 51.3(22.0-73.9)
21.65( 4.45-35.8 ) 43. 3( 8.9-71.6)
20.35( 4.45-36.95) 40. 7( 8.9-73.9)
25.05(12.3 -35.8 ) 50.1(24.6-71.6)


360 kkg/day
(400 TPD) or less
Over 360 kkg/day
(400 TPD)
450 kkg/day
(500 TPD) or less
Over 450 kkg/day
DEH.YDRATED
3 9350( 7450-11810)
4 8350( 6530-12020)
4 10015( 7450-12020)
3 7090( 6530- 7760)
POTATO PRODUCTS
2240(1785-2830)
2000(1565-2880)
2400(1785-2880)
1700 (1565-1860)

8.6 ( 7.75- 9.45) 17.2(15.5-18.9)
12.9 (10.4 -15.2 ) 25.8(20.8-30.4)
10.25( 7.75-15.2 ) 20.5(15.5-30.4)
12.1 (10.4 -15.2 ) 24.2(20.8-30.4)

-------
Climate can affect the performance of  apple,  citrus  or  potato  waste
water  treatment  facilities.   Biological  processes  are  affected  by
temperature.  Low temperatures tend to reduce the rate of  reduction  of
BOD5,  and  activity may essentially cease where the waste water reaches
freezing temperatures.  However, trickling filters and other  biological
devices  have  been  successfully  operated in freezing weather (Section
VII) , particularly in potato processing  (PO-128) .

Climate can also affect the rate of evaporation and the total amount  of
net evaporation from ponds.  This may affect the size of ponds or drying
fields required for a given loading, but will rarely preclude their use.
Thus,  climate does not seriously affect the achievement of a high level
of effluent reduction for apple, citrus, or potato plants.

The availability of inexpensive high quality water is not a  problem  at
the  present  time  at  most apple, citrus, or potato processing plants.
Only one or two isolated  cases  can  be  found  where  plentiful  water
supplies  are  not  available,  although  some processors are located in
areas of expensive water.  These processors  are  usually  more  careful
about  water conservation than processors  with plentiful water supplies
who have little incentive to conserve water.  Nevertheless, these plants
without plentiful supplies of  water  are  not  at  a  serious  economic
disadvantage because of water costs.

In  the future, water conservation is expected to be much more important
as a means of reducing the cost of solving waste effluent  problems  and
saving  a  natural  resource.  Thus, it appears that the availability of
water has no  serious  effects  on  the  achievement  of  high  effluent
reductions  in  the  apple,  citrus,  or  potato  industry.  In summary,
neither availability of land  nor  climate  nor  availability  of  water
seriously  affect  the feasability of achieving a high level of effluent
reduction.  Accordingly, it is not necessary  to  further  subcategorize
the  apple,  citrus,  or  potato  industry  due  to  effects  from plant
location.

Waste Treatability

Liquid wastes generated in the processing of apples and potatoes contain
principally biodegradable organic matter in soluble and suspended  form.
As   detailed  in  Section  VII,  practicable  treatment  processes  are
available to reduce the BOD contained in these wastes to levels suitable
for discharge.  Also, described in  Section  VII  are  in-plant  control
systems   which   result   in  high  levels  of  waste  reduction.   The
availability  of  such  treatment  and  control   processes   makes   it
unnecessary to subcategorize based on waste treatability.

The   wastes   generated   by   the   citrus  industry  are  essentially
biodegradable,  but  pose  special  considerations  in  the  design  and
operation  of  the treatment processes discussed in Section VII.  Citrus
oil, which occurs in the skin and elsewhere in the fruit is biologically


                                   55

-------
digested only with difficulty.   In  the  operation  of  standard  waste-
treatment processes (e.g., activated sludge),  special care must be taken
to  maintain a low concentration of oil because of its adverse impact on
microorganisms.  Close control of plant operating conditions is required
to avoid filamentous growth and the production of a sludge that is  most
difficult   to   dewater.   Despite  these  difficulties,   it  has  been
demonstrated that such processes as activated  sludge, trickling  filter,
aerated  lagooning,  alternating  aerobic  and anaerobic ponds and spray
irrigation can be expected to treat wastes from apple, citrus or  potato
processing plants, and subcategorization on the basis of treatability is
not necessary.
                                   56

-------
                               SECTION V

                 WATER USAGE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION


                      WASTE WATER CHARACTERIZATION

Water is extensively used in all phases of the food processing industry.
For  example, it is used as one of the following:   (1) a cleaning agent
to remove dirt and foreign material,  (2)   a  heat  transfer  medium  for
heating   and   cooling,  (3)  a  solvent  for  removal  of  undesirable
ingredients from the product,  (4)  a carrier  for  the  incorporation  of
additives  into  the  product,  and   (5)   a  method  of transporting and
handling the product.

Many of the steps used in the process of canning and freezing fruits and
vegetables are common to the industry as a whole, and the  character  of
the  waste waters are similar in that they contain biodegradable organic
matter.  Typically, the fruit  or  vegetable  is  received,  washed  and
sorted  to  prepare  it  for subsequent processing.  Commodities such as
apples, citrus and potatoes are then usually peeled when the end product
style is in a solid form (slices,  cubes,  or  powder).   If  the  final
product  is  a  juice  or  liquid  product, the peel is not removed from
either the citrus or the apples.  Subsequent process steps following the
peel  removal  in  which  water  may  be  used  are  trimming,  slicing,
blanching,   cooling,  concentrating  and  can  washing/cooling.   Water
transport may be used in one or more parts of the process,  and  cleanup
is common to all processes.

Although  the steps used in processing the various commodities display a
general similarity, there are variations in the equipment  used  and  in
the amount and character of the waste waters produced.

This  section  presents data relating to cooling and process water usage
and waste  characterization  for  each  of  the  industry  subcategories
established  in  Section  IV.   The  available  data from plants in each
subcategory were  evaluated  to  determine  current  practices  in  each
commodity as well as each subcategory.

Toward the end of the section, unit process data is compiled in order to
determine plant water usage and waste characterization representative of
a synthesized plant with minimum water usage.

The  parameters  used  to  characterize  the raw effluent were the flow.
Biochemical  Oxygen  Demand   (BOD),  and  suspended  solids   (SS).    As
discussed  in Section VI, BOD5_ and SS are generally considered to be the
best available measure of the waste load.
                                   57

-------
Water Use and Waste Characterization

Table 19 lists raw  waste  loadings  for  BOD  and  SS  from  12  plants
representing  the  apple processing industry.  These twelve plants range
in size from 3,700 to 43,100 kilograms/hour  (4.1 to 47.5 tons per hour).
The water usage of these plants varied from  1190  liters  per  thousand
kilograms  (285  gallons  per  ton)  to  14,800 1/kkg (3550 G/T) with an
average flow of 3,660 1/kkg  (875 G/T).  The  plant  using  14,800  1/kkg
(3550  G/T)   was  far  removed  from the other with the next closest one
using 6,050 1/kkg (1450 gallons per ton).  The BOD ranged  from  1.4  to
10.1  kilograms  per  thousand  kilograms  (2.8 to 20.2 Ibs per ton)  and
again the high water user had the highest BOD.  The average BOD for  the
12  plants  was  5.0 kg/kkg  (10.0 Ib/ton).   Suspended solids ranged from
0.15 to 1.05 kg/kkg  (0.3 to 2.1  Ib/ton)   with  the  average  being  0.5
kg/kkg (1.0 Ib/ton).  Data from plants utilizing processes excluded from
this  study (caustic peelers) or plants processing products not included
in this effort  (dehydrated apples)  are not represented in Table 19.

The average Ibs of BOD per ton for various product styles was  discussed
in  Section  IV  (See Table 11).  The BOD average ranged from 2.05 kg/kkg
(4.1 Ib/ton)  for juice to 6.85 kg/kkg  (13.7 Ib/ton) for  the  sauce  and
juice  group.   The BOD averages for all the groups compared favorably to
the BOD of 5.0 kg/kkg  (10.0 Ib/ton) for  all  apple  products  with  the
exception  of the plants producing juice.  The flow averages ranged from
1690 to 6,635 1/kkg  (405 to 1595 G/T) with the  average  for  all  apple
products being 3,660 1/kkg  (875 G/T).
                                   58

-------
                                    TABLE 19
                        LIST OF APPLE INDUSTRY WASTE LOAD
(AP)
CODE
126
ISA
136
140
139
121
114
103
107
141
133
128
CAPACITY
PRODUCT STYLE
SA & SL
SA
JUICE
SL
SA & SL & JUICE
SA
SA & JUICE
SA & JUICE
SA & JUICE
JUICE
JUICE
SA
kg/hr
8.6
5.0
9.1
6.3
31.0
15.9
43.1
21.4
15.9
12.5
4.5
3.7
T/hr
9.
5.
10.
7.
34.
17.
47.
23.
17.
13.
5.
4.
5
5
0
0
2
5
5
6
5
8
0
1
FLOW
1/kkg
1790
2790
1880
14800
3340
1380
1190
2130
1750
3210
3540
6050
gal/T
430
670
450
3550
800
330
285
510
420
770
850
1450
BOD
kjg/kkg
6
3
1
10

7
8
6
5
2
2
5
.05
.4
.6
.1

.5
.5
.25
.8
.0
.55
.0

Ib/T
12.1
6.8
3.2
20.2

15.0
17.0
12.5
11.6
4.0
5.1
10.0
SS
kg/kkg

0.95
0.35
0.35
0.70
-
-
.3
.35
.15
.40
1.05

Ib/T
_
1.9
0.7
0.7
1.4
-
-
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.8
2.1
(All Product Styles)
   AVERAGE           14.8
>lo. Samples            12
(APPLE JUICE)
   AVERAGE
No. Samples
8.7
  3
      16.3
        12
9.6
  3
(APPLE Products Except Juice)
   AVERAGE            7.9    8.7
No. Samples             5      5
          3660
            12
2880
   3
                 5360
                    5
        875
         12
690
  3
                 1290
                    5
         5.0
          12
2.05
   3
                 6.4
                   5
      10.0
        12
4.1
  3
               12.8
                  5
       0.5
0.3
  3
              0.8
                3
      1.0
        9
0.6
  3
             1.6
               3
SA - Apple Sauce
SL = Apple Slice

-------
Factors Affecting Waste Water

The  condition  of the raw fruit has an important bearing on the quality
of the waste water.  Fruit condition varies during the processing season
because at the start of the season freshly picked  fruit  is  processed,
while  at  the  end of the season, the fruit has been stored for several
months.  The waste water quality can be expected to vary  from  year  to
year as well, in response to yearly changes in fruit quality.

The type of peeling employed has a marked effect on waste water quality.
In particular, caustic peeling produces a higher BOD and SS loading than
mechanical  peelers.   Variations  can also be expected among mechanical
peelers.  It should be noted, however, that higher waste water  loadings
do  not  necessarily  imply  higher  fruit  loss.   Also  the waste load
generated by mechanical peeling falls to the floor, or  is  returned  by
the equipment and eventually appears in the cleanup water.

Water  usage can, also, be expected to affect waste water quality.   Data
indicate that decreased water usage tends  to  concentrate  the  organic
materials in the water.  This effect is desirable since the reduction in
effluent volume reduces the costs of disposal or treatment.

In  Section  IV  the  differences in plant size  (See Table 16)  and plant
location  (See Table 6) were determined to have no significant effect  on
waste  water  character.   One  of  the most important factors affecting
waste water quantity is the attitude  of  the  management  and  workers.
Where water has been cheap and waste disposal has not been considered to
be  an  important problem, water usage can be excessive.  As an example,
plants AP-134 and AP-128 both produce sauce,  but  the  water  usage  is
2,790  1/kkg  (670 G/T) and 6,050 1/kkg (1,450 G/T) respectively.  There
are no readily explainable reasons for the difference.

Water transport adds to water usage, particularly where the water is not
recycled.  One type of mechanical peeler requires the apples to  be  fed
to  the  peeler  by  water  transport.   The use of this type of peeler,
therefore, requires more water than a manual feed peeler.

The majority of plants, especially the smaller ones, currently appear to
be using once-through cooling water in the  cooking  and  cooling  step.
They  also  do  not  segregate  can-wash  and  can-cooling water.  Water
consumption can be reduced by recirculating cooling water.

It has been found that the use of high-pressure pumps for supplying  the
cleanup water reduces the amount of water required.  Substantial savings
in  cleanup  water  can,  also, be achieved by a practice of turning off
hoses when not in use.  A plant operator has offered  the  opinion  that
about one half of the clean-up water could be saved, but no quantitative
data are available.
                                   60

-------
Plant age is defined in this report as the average age of the processing
equipment.  Process equipment, even in long established companies, tends
to  be  relatively new or in new condition.  Older equipment tends to be
less efficient and, because the  industry  is  competitive,  inefficient
equipment is usually replaced.


                                 Citrus

Water Use And Waste Characterization

Waste  waters  from  citrus processing plants contain organic carbon and
matter in suspended and dissolved form.  The  quantity  of  fresh  water
intake  to  plants  ranges  between  710  and 24,950 liters per thousand
kilograms (170 and 5,980 gallons per ton) of raw material.  Fresh  water
use  is highly contingent upon in-plant conservation practices and reuse
techniques and averages approximately 10,110 1/kkg (2425 G/T)  of  citrus
processed.   The  nature and amounts of these water reuses as influenced
by in-plant controls and operational practices have a substantial effect
on resulting waste water quantities and characteristics.   Reduction  in
water  use  with  resulting  minimum  waste water volumes promises fewer
problems  in  waste  handling  and  disposal,  and  greater  economy  of
treatment.

About two-thirds of the total solids in citrus juices are sugars and the
same  may be said of the waste water.  Because of this citrus wastes are
highly putrescible.   Citrus  wastes  contain  pectic  substances  which
interfere  with settling of the suspended solids.  Primary clarification
of citrus waste water is not as effective as  with  most  other  wastes.
Citrus  waste  water  contains  a small amount of the essential oil that
occurs mostly in the fruit peel.  This oil is bacteriostatic but usually
does not interfere with treatment procedures unless it accumulates in an
anaerobic sludge digester.  Citrus wastes are deficient in nitrogen  and
phosphorus   compounds;   treatment  by  biological  procedures  may  be
accelerated by adding these nutrients.  Citrus waste  water  usually  is
somewhat acid because of the citric acid it contains.  However, alkaline
materials  used  in  cleaning  the  equipment  and  lye-bath  water from
sectionizing operations tend to make the waste water  alkaline,  and  at
times very strongly so.

The  volume  of  citrus  waste  water  fluctuates through the harvesting
season which usually begins in October and ends in June.  The production
of frozen orange concentrate is a continuous operation, running  twenty-
four   (24)  hours  per  day  until  it  becomes  necessary  to clean the
equipment.  On the other  hand,  the  other  processing  operations  are
mostly  a  one or two shift operation daily, and may shutdown completely
on weekends or holidays, depending on fruit supply  and  market  demand.
The  volume  of  waste water changes markedly when the production run is
over and clean-up operations begin.
                                   61

-------
The strength of citrus waste water, also, shows  considerable  variation
depending  upon  the processing operations that are running at the time.
Cleaning of equipment at the end of the production run  will  alter  the
strength  of  the  waste  water  significantly.   The  strength  may  be
increased at the beginning of clean-up, then  lowered  as  the  cleaning
progresses.   The  pH  may  change from mildly acid to strongly alkaline
during this time.  This is especially true when evaporators are "boiled-
out" or the lye baths of the sectionizing operations are discharged.

The changes in  strength,  volume,  and  pH  are  such  that  biological
treatment  of  the  waste  is rendered difficult unless fluctuations are
leveled out.  This is accomplished by a surge tank with suitable  mixing
facilities  placed  ahead of the treatment plant or with treatment plant
design to handle these fluctuations.

Table 20 lists actual raw waste loadings for BOD and SS from  27  plants
representing the citrus processing industry.  These plants range in size
from  27  to  5,710 kkg/day  (32 to 6300 tons/day).  The products include
juice or segments only; juice or segments and oil; juice, oil, and feed;
juice, segments, and feed; juice and segments; and juice, segments,  oil
and  feed.  The water usage ranges from 710 to 24,950 1/kkg  (170 to 5980
G/T) .  The BOD range from a low of 0.45  to  8.5  kg/kkg   (0.9  to  17.0
Ib/ton)   with  an  overall  average  of  3.2  kg/kkg  (6.4 Ib/ton) .  The
suspended solids ranged from 0.02 to 7.95 kg/kkg  (0.04 to  15.9  Ib/ton)
with  an  average  of  1.3  kg/kkg   (2.6 Ib/ton).  Plants with both land
treatment systems and secondary treatment systems were used.

In Section IV (See Table 12) , BOD and flow were  discussed  for  various
product styles.  The BOD ranged from 0.45 to 8.5 kg/kkg  (0.9 to 17.0 Ibs
per ton) for citrus products without segments, citrus products with oil,
and  citrus  products  with  feed  respectively;  their  respective  BOD
averages were 3.15, 3.2  and  3.25  kg/kkg   (6.3,  6.4  and  6.5  Ib/T).
Segments  had  a  BOD  of  3.5 kg/kkg  (7.0 Ib/ton) which was the highest
average of the group, but only  2  plants  were  represented.   The  BOD
averages  of the different groups varied from 3.15 to 3.5 kg/kkg  (6.3 to
7.0 Ib/ton) which compares very well with the 3.2  kg/kkg   (6.4  Ib/ton)
for  the  27  plants  products  all  types of products.  The water usage<
ranged from 710 to 24,950 1/kkg  (170 to  5980  G/T)  with  the  averages
ranging  from 7455 to 11,380 1/kkg  (1790 to 2730 G/T), which compares to
the 10,110 1/kkg  (2425 G/T) for the average of the total 27 plants.
                                   62

-------
                                  TABLE 20
(ci)
CODE PRODUCT STYLE
137
139
101
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
114
115
116
118
119
122
123
125
126
127
128
129
130
133
143
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
S
J
S
J
J
J
J
J
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&

&

&
&
&
&

0
0 &
0 &
0 &
S
0 &
0 &
0
S &
0 &
0 &
0 &
0 &
0 &
S &
S &
0 &
0
0 &

0 &

0 &
S &
S &
0


F
F
F

F
F

0 & F
F
F
F
F
F
F & 0
F
F

F

F

F
0 & F
0


AVERAGE
No.
of
Samples
LIST OF CITRUS
CAPACITY
kkg/day
125
1000
190
320
1130
2270
2090
1090
3410
2860
2860
1840
2450
1840
1225
770
5710
1020
3810
27
5080
225
285
1730
1140
1020
980
1720
27
T/day
140
1100
210
350
1250
2500
2300
1200
3760
3150
3150
2025
2700
2025
1350
850
6300
1125
4200
32
5600
250
315
1910
1260
1125
1080
1900
27
INDUSTRY WASTE
FLOW
1/kkg gal/1
1630
9090
1360
7550
9590
10010
9590
4380
16180
12430
8010
19970
17010
7260
8630
7130
19060
2085
6960
10570
710
4340
24730
19180
4380
24940
6210
10,120
27
390
2180
325
1810
2300
2400
2300
1050
3880
2980
1920
4790
4080
1740
2070
1710
4570
500
1670
2535
170
1040
5930
4600
1050
5980
1490
2425
27
LOAD
BOD
kg/kkg
2
6
8
0
5
2
2
0
5
2
1
8
6
0
3
1
1
6
1
4
0
2
1
3
1
2
2
3

.35
.7
.25
.7
.6
.6
.3
.7
.0
.65
. 3
.5
.55
.95
.15
.45
.6
.4
.6
.35
.45
.65
.35
.2
.4
.3
.75
.2
27
Ib/T
4.
13.
16.
1.
11.
5.
4.
1.
10.
5.
2.
17.
13.
1.
6.
2.
3.
12.
3.
8.
0.
5.
2.
6.
2.
4.
5.
6.

7
4
5
4
2
2
6
4
0
3
6
0
1
9
3
9
2
8
2
7
9
3
7
4
8
6
5
4
27
SS
kg/kkg
0.02
2.7
1.05
0.17
1.55
--
1.55
0.36
1.31
—
0.25
7.95
1.2
—
—
0.65
—
1.25
0.9
—
0.02
0.40
—
—
1.15
—
—
1.3
17
Ib/T
0.
5.
2.
0.
3.
-
3 _
0.
2.
-
0.
15.
2.
-
-
1.
-
2.
1.
-
0.
0.
_
-
2.
-
-
2.

04
4
1
34
1

1
72
62

50
9
4


3

5
8

04
79


3


6
17
J = Juice
S = Segment
0 = Oil
F = Peel Products
P = Pectin

-------
Factors Affecting Waste Water

Table 7 which is discussed in Section IV gives the ratio  of  grapefruit
to  oranges and the resulting raw waste loadings and water usage.   Also,
discussed in Section IV is Table 8 that shows the raw product mix  at  a
single  plant  for  one  month.   As these tables illustrate there is no
correlation in waste  loads  when  different  ratios  of  grapefruit  to
oranges are processed.  Plant location (See Table 9)  was also determined
to  be  an  insignificant  variable.  The climate is very similar in the
principal growing areas.  Although citrus may be  held  in  storage  for
brief  periods in California, the fruit is usually processed as received
from the field in Florida.  Approximately 90 percent of the citrus grown
in California goes to the fresh market.  No significant change in  waste
loads could be tied to these differences.

The  type of juice extractor used has a pronounced effect on waste water
quality.  If the extractor liberates  the  oil  at  the  time  of  juice
extraction,  and the oil is not collected, but allowed to become part of
the waste effluent, a much more degraded effluent will result.

The quantity of waste water from the oil/peel products process is  small
but contains a high concentration of contaminants.  This material can be
satisfactorily  disposed  of  by  spray irrigation when mixed with other
effluent steams but is difficult to treat in activated sludge or similar
biological systems.  This material can, also, be added directly  to  the
peel  before  it is dried or sent to the molasses evaporators.  As shown
in  Table  14,  availability  of  a  waste  heat  evaporator  does   not
significantly affect the raw waste loading.

Plant age is defined in this report as the average age of the processing
equipment.   Processing  equipment,  even in long established companies,
tends to be relatively new or in new condition.  Older  equipment  tends
to   be  less  efficient,  and  because  the  industry  is  competitive,
inefficient equipment is usually replaced.  In all plants  visited,  the
processing equipment was determined to be relatively new on the basis of
visual inspection.  As a result of this, no difference can be attributed
to effluent quantity or quality due to plant "age."

Perhaps  the most important factor affecting waste water quantity is the
attitude of the management and workers.  Where water has been cheap  and
waste disposal has not been considered to be an important problem, water
usage  can  be excessive.  Water transport also adds to water usage.  In
many cases this  water  can  be  recycled.   Barometric  condensing  and
cooling waters, which are relatively clean, can be recycled if a cooling
tower  or  large  pond  were included in the circuit.  This could reduce
water usage by 30 to 70 percent depending on the plant.

Neither waste water quality or quanity are  influenced  by  plant  size.
Small  plants   (less than 910 kkg  (1,000 tons) of raw material processed
                                   64

-------
per day)  produced essentially the same quality  and  quantity  of  waste
water as large plants.   (See Table 17) .
                               Potatoes

Water Use and Water Characterization

Table  21  gives  the  raw  loadings  for  BOD  and  SS  from  23 plants
representing the  frozen  and  dehydrated  potato  processing  industry.
These  23  plants  range in size from 180 to 1630 kkg  (200 to 1800 tons)
per day. The BOD ranged from 4.45 to 36.95 kg/kkg (8.9 to  73.9  lb/ton)
with  an average  of  18.1 kg/kkg (36.2 lb/ton).  Suspended solids ranged
from 3.8 to 45.5 kg/kkg  (7.6 to 91.0 lb/ton) with  an  average  of  15.9
kg/kkg  (31.8 lb/ton).  Water usage ranged from 4090 to 15,510 1/kkg (980
to 3720 G/T)  with an  average of 10,270 1/kkg (2460 G/T).

Table  13  lists  the  BOD  and flows for various potato product styles.
Frozen products with  data from 13 plants had  an  average  BOD  of  22.9
kg/kkg   (45.8  lb/ton) with a range of 4.45 to 36.95 kg/kkg  (8.9 to 73.9
lb/ton)  and an average flow of  11,320  1/kkg  (2710  G/T) .   Dehydrated
products  with  data  from  7  plants had an average BOD of 11.05 kg/kkg
(22.1 lb/ton)  with a  range of 7.75 to 15.2 kg/kkg (15.5 to 30.4 lb/ton).
The average flow was  8770 1/kkg (2100 G/T) .  Three plants producing both
frozen and dehydrated products had a average BOD of  13.8  kg/kkg   (27.7
lb/ton)  and an average flow of 9260 1/kkg  (2220 G/T) .


Factors Affecting Waste Water

The  quality  of the  waste water is affected by the condition of the raw
product.  Sometimes early in the processing season,  the  waste  loading
will  go  up  due  to freezing  in the fields.  Potatoes shrink or lose
weight during storage.  This weight loss is composed of water loss  from
the tubers, carbon dioxide loss and decay losses as a result of rotting.
The  amount  of  these losses are determined by storage conditions, such
as:   (1)  temperature,  humidity,  evaporating  power   of   the   air,
composition  and  movement of the air; and  (2)  maturity and condition  of
the potatoes at the time of storage.  Usually the  longer  the  potatoes
are  stored,the  higher will be the waste loading and many plants show a
marked increase in waste  loading  toward  the  end  of  the  processing
season.


In Section IV, the differences in size and location of potato processing
plants   (See  Tables  10  and 18)  were determined to have no significant
effect on waste water character.  One of the important factors affecting
waste water quantity  is the attitude  of  the  management  and  workers.


                                   65

-------
Where water has been cheap and waste disposal has not been considered to
be an important problem, water usage can be excessive.

                   Effluent Analyses By Unit Process


The  following  raw  waste  characteristics have been tabulated from the
best available in-plant unit process waste characteristics.   Total  raw
waste effluent values can be calculated, but caution must accompany such
a  tabulation.   The  tabulations should not be used to develop effluent
limitation guidelines.  The waste characteristics of primary concern are
BOD5 (five-day biochemical oxygen demand)  and  SS  (suspended  solids).
The  following  tabulations summarize BOD5, SS and water usage values by
process  steps  for  apples,  citrus,  and  potatoes.    They  have  been
synthesized  from available data acquired through in-plant sampling with
some supplemental in-plant data acquired from processors.  In only a few
cases was complete in-plant data available.  Information from  10  apple
plants, 20 citrus plants, and 15 potato plants was used to develop these
tabulations.    The   tabulations  are  not  used  to  develop  effluent
guidelines.   The  purpose  of  this  presentation  is  to  show   where
substantial  water  savings can be realized and where substantital waste
reductions can be accomplished.  They should  not  be  used  to  develop
effluent limitations.


Washing,  as  listed in Table 22, includes receiving and sorting as well
as fruit cleaning.  The apples are dumped into a water filled  tank  and
are  washed  with  water sprays after leaving the tank or the associated
water transport system.  Mechanical peeling, slicing and deaeration  are
treated  as  separate  process steps.  Cooking and cooling waters can be
kept separate and are shown as individual values.   Cleanup   (floor  and
equipment)  normally  occurs  in a separate work shift, following one or
two processing shifts.

Although it is not yet general practice in  the  industry,  some  plants
recycle  the water used for can cooling through a cooling tower or spray
pond.  When recycling, the small amount of spray water used to clean the *
cans following cooking is kept separate from the cooling water in  order
to  keep  organic  material  out  of  the  cooling  water.   In this and
subsequent tabulations, the can wash water is included in the water used
for cooking.  We estimate that the cooling  water  requirements  can  be
reduced  to  about   5  percent of the once- through requirement of 1,182
1/kkg  (283 G/T) or to a level of 58  1/kkg  (14 G/T) as used in Table  22.
The  latter  figure  is  used  for the cooling step in apple processing.
Seven of ten plants contributing data listed in Table 22  are  primarily
sampled  plants  processing  stored  fruit  near  the end of the canning
season.  The ten plants make different apple products and product  mixes
and  range  in  size  from less than 3.6 kkg/hr  (U T/hr) to more than 28
kkg/hr  (31 T/hr).  As shown on  the  accompanying  water  flow  diagrams
Figures  4-6,  the   production  of each  product style  (sauce, slices and


                                   66

-------
juice)  employs  a  different  set  of  operations.   Water  usage   and
characterization  can  be determined for the production of slices, sauce
and juice.  Water usage for the three product styles (sauce, slices  and
juice)  are presented in Figures 4-6.  The process steps employed in the
manufacture of sauce are washing, peeling,  slicing,  cooking,  cooling,
transport  and  cleanup.   The  process  steps  for  slices are washing,
peeling, slicing, deaerating, cooking, cooling, transport  and  cleanup.
The  production  of juice involves only washing (including receiving and
sorting), transport, cooling and cleanup.  Data  from  about  20  citrus
plants  processing different citrus products and co-products contributed
to the tabulation given in Table 23.  Fruit cleaning, as used  in  Table
23,  includes  washing, as well as receiving and sorting.  The citrus is
sometimes stored in bins and upon leaving the bins if washed with  water
sprays  and/or roller brushes with sprays and sometimes detergent. Juice
extraction may be accomplished by slicing the citrus in half and reaming
each half simultaneously.  After extraction, the peel and  the  majority
of  the  pulp  are  separated  from  the  juice  and may, or may not, be
processed for citrus  oil  and  other  by-products.   Depending  on  the
extractor,  oil may or may not be liberated from the peel at this point.
The juice is next passed through a  finisher  and  may  then  be  either
processed   into   single   strength    (S.S.),    which  involves  juice
pasteurization/homogenization and can  cooling,  or  concentrated  which
involves evaporation of the juice.  The majority of the cleanup normally
occurs in a separate work shift, following one, two, or two and one-half
processing shifts.

Oil/peel-pulp  by-products  are  manufactured from plants that have some
type of juice operation.  Additional water flows  involved  include  the
waste heat evaporator condensate, the waste heat evaporator's barometric
condensate,  the  waste heat evaporator's scrubber effluent, and the oil
lean residue from the d-limonene residue separator.

The production of segments involves waste water  from  peeling,  caustic
treating, washing, cooking, cooling and cleanup.

By  referring to Figure 7, it is possible to develop water usage figures
for plants making various product combinations.  Water use  figures  for
juice  and  oil  processing,  segment processing and juice, oil and peel
product processing can be determined.  The figures are the summation  of
the  water  flows  from  each  of  the process stops required to produce
juice, oil, segments and peel products with minimum water usage.

There  is  a  degree  of  variability  for   water   usage   and   waste
characterization  among  the  products  and  product  combinations.  The
majority of this variability is attributable  to  differences  in  plant
operation  and  plant  management  and difference in availability of raw
material, water, and waste treatment facilities.  Minor  differences  in
size,   age  and  location  of  plants  also  contribute  to  the  total
variability.   Even  without   consideration   of   these   sources   of
variability,  there  is  sufficient similarity for water usage and waste


                                   67

-------
character among the product combinations to support  a  single  category
for the citrus industry.
Fifteen   potato  plants  processing  frozen  and/or  dehydrated  potato
products contributed to the waste characterization given in Table 24.
In each of these potato  processing  subcategories,  there  are  several
processing  steps  using  large  quantities of water which are common  to
both categories.

For example, it is common practice to use  water  hoses  to  remove the
potatoes  from storage and direct them into a water transport system for
delivery to the process area.  In an exemplary water  usage  plant, the
water  which  is  used  to  receive  and  clean  the potatoes is usually
segregated from the process  water.   The  receiving/cleaning  water  is
recycled  through  a  settling basin where there is sufficient retention
time to allow the solids to settle out in the basin.  The make up  water
to  this  closed system is added by water sprays which are positioned  to
rinse the potatoes as they enter the process.

Three methods of peeling are in current industrial use within the frozen
and dehydrated potato processing industry: dry caustic, conventional wet
caustic and steam.  With the conventional wet caustic and steam  peeling
systems,  large quantities of water were used for removal of the treated
peel.  This results in large waste loads appearing in  the  plant  waste
effluent discharge as can be seen in Table 24.

During  the  slicing  step, large quantities of water are used to remove
any starch adhering to the surface of the pieces.  This  water  is  also
used to convey the pieces to the blanching step.

Water  blanching  is  required  for  both frozen and dehydrated products
since a large amount of the leachables must be removed from  the  potato
pieces  during  the  blanching  step.  In the case of frozen products, a
three step series  blanching  system  is  used.   While  for  dehydrated
products  the  water  blanching step is followed by a water cooling step
and then a cooking step.

The frozen products are usually french fried while the majority  of  the
dehydrated products are dried in a flake or granule form.

As  shown  on  the  accompanying  water flow diagrams  (Figures 8-9), the
production of dehydrated and frozen products employs  different  process
steps.  Water usage and waste characterization can be determined for the
production  of  both  products.   As  mentioned earlier, the tabulations
should  not  be  used  to  develop  waste  water   effluent   limitation
guidelines.    The   tabulations   are  presented  only  to  show  where
substantial water savings can be realized and  where  substantial  waste
reductions can be accomplished.


                                   68

-------
                                     TABLE 21
                      LIST OF POTATO INDUSTRY WASTE LOADINGS
(PO)
CAPACITY
CODE PRODUCT STYLE kkg/day T/day
131
132
110
116
125
130
101
102
103
108
109
111
112.
115
136
107
113
122
127
128
123
129
114
F
F & D
F
F
F
F
F & D
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
D
D
D.
D
F
F & D
D
F
D
360
430
320
450
340
540

1630
540
630
1040
725
910
220
590
540
500
340
450
135
230
180
450
400
475
350
500
375
600

1800
600
700
1150
800
1000
240
650
600
550
375
500
150
250
200
500
FLOW
1/kkg
11800
8590
14560
12510
10880
10430
12800
15510
10090
10340
13430
11260
12510
8760
7760
7010
6530
11800
4090
6380
7460
9630
12010
gal/T
2830-
2060
3490'
3000
2610
2500
3070
3720
2420
2480-
3220
2700
3000
-2100
-I860
- 1680
-1565
-2830
980-"
1530
-1790
2310
- 2880
BOD
k&/kkg
25
13
36
15
29
35
13
31
25
32
20
16
12
8
10
10
15
9
4
13
7
11
15
.4
.9
.95
.1
.25
.8
.95
.95
.45
.25
.75
.9
.3
.6
.4
.75
.2
.45
.45
.75
.75
.0
.2
Ib/T
50.8'
27.8
73.9-
30. 2'
58.5
71.6
27.9
63.9'
50.9-
64.5-
41.5-
33.8-
24.6-
•17.2
•20.8
21.5
30.4
18.9
8.9'
27.5
15.5
22.0-
30.4
SS
kg/kk^
6
11

8
22
27
11
45
12
29
23



12
9


5
11
3
12

.55
.75
—
.9
.1
.8
.2
.5
.6
.3
.85
—
--
—
.15
.8
—
--
.1
.8
.8
.5
--

Ib/T
13.1
23.5
—
17 .8
44.2
55.6
22.4
91.0
25.2
58.6
47.7
—
--
—
24.3
19.6
—
__
10.3'
23.6
7.6
25.0-
--
  (All Product  Styles)

     AVERAGE            550     610
  No. Samples            23      23
       i
  (FROZEN PRODUCTS)

     AVERAGE            625     690
 "lo. Samples             13      13

'  (DEHYDRATED PRODUCTS)

     AVERAGE            410     450
 "Jo. Samples              7       7
10270  2460
   23    23
11300  2710
   13    13
 8760  2100
    7     7
18.1   36.2  15.9    31.8
   23    23    16       16
22.9   45.8  19.4    38.8
  13     13    10      10
11.05  22.1   8.6    17.2
    773       3
 F = FROZEN PRODUCTS
 n = DEHYDRATED PRODUCTS
                                          69

-------
                                        TABLE 22
                                         APPLES
               Water Usage and Waste Characterization in Apple Processing
                      Water Usage
        BOD5
Process Step

Washing
Peeling
   Mechanical
Slicing
Deaeration
Cooking
Cooling (1)
Transport
Clean-up
1/kkg

  142

  104
  638
   71
  267
   58
   58
1,558
 G/T

 34

 25
158
 17
 64
 14
 14
372
kg/kkg

 0.09

 0.16
 2.49
 2.21
 0.14
 0.02
 0.02
 1.90
Ib/T

0.18

0.31
4.97
4.42
0.27
0.03
0.03
3.80
   Suspended Solids
kg/kkg         Ib/T
 0.03

 0.015
 0.182
 0.12
 0.05
 0.005
 0.005
 0.30
 .06

0.03
0.36
0.24
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.60
(1) 95% recirculated

-------
                APPLES
                                                                                  SCREENING-
                                                                                      T                 T
                                                                                WASTE EFFLUENT        SOLIDS
                                                                                      TO                TO
                                                                             TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL    WASTE
'lx WASH WATER - DUMPED
 ;'  EVERY 8 HRS
'''2> PEEL & CORE REMOVAL
 V  INCLUDING TRANSPORT
<3^ SLICING INCLUDING
 ;.  SLICE WASHING
<4> DEAERATING
'o> CLEAK-UP V-ATER
TOTAL WATER
RECEI
•-WAS:-
*
V


'
VING x\
ING 	 •*/ ly
r
kkg GPT
142 34
104 25
638 153
71 17
1552 • 372
                                                       PEELING
                                                       CORING -
                                                     -f» SLICING  -
                                                          I
                                                          I
                                                     .DEAERATING
                                                          i
                                                                    -?- 3
                   2507
                                   601
                                                                                      PACKAGING
                                                                                      FREEZING
                                                                                    TO CONSUMER
               FIGURE  4
                                       WATER FLOW DIAGRAM - APPLE SLICES  (FROZEN)

-------
                                                                                        SCREENING'
                             APPLES
                                                       WASTE EFFLUENT        SOLIDS
                                                             TO                TO
                                                    TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL    WASTE
                           RECEIVING
                          e> WASHING —
WASh WATER
PEEL & CORE REMOVAL,  &
SLICING INCLUDING  TRANSPORT
COCKING
CAN COOLING RECIRCULATED
TO COOLING TOWER
CIE.-.N-UP WATER
 801
 267

  58
1552
GPT

 34

192*
 64

 14
372
                                                                       PEELING
                                                                     >- CORING
                                                      /\
                                                    ->/2
   FILLING
-*- COOKING •
         TOTAL  WATER
                               2821
       676**
                                                                                         -COOLING.
                                                                                             I
                                                                                        TO CONSUMER
Caustic Peeling   1127 1/kkg (270 Gal/Ton)
                                    V;ATER FLOW DIAGRAM  - APPLE .SAUCE

-------
                                                                            SCREENING-
                      APPLES
                                                                         WASTE EFFLUENT        SOLIDS
                                                                               TO                TO
                                                                      TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL    WASTE
                     RECEIVING
                     - WASHING -
                                                GRINDING
                                                    I

                                                PRESSING
   WASH WATER
   INCLUDING TRANSPORT
2} CLEAN-UP
              1/kkg   GPT
                200    48
              1,552   372
                                                FILTERING
                                                FINISHING
TOTAL WATER   1,752   420
PASTEURIZING

      I
  FILLING
      |
TO CONSUMER
                FIGURE 6
                                          WATER FLOW DIAGRAM - APPLE Juice

-------
                                               TABLE  23
                                                CITRUS
                       Water Usage and Waste Characterization In Citrus Processing


                                 Water Usage              BODS                Suspended Solids
Process Steps                 1/kkg        (G/T)     kg/kkg   (Ib/T)            kg/kkg      (Ib/T)

Fruit Cleaning                  303        ( 73)      0.08   (0.16)             0.04       (0.07)
Extracting                      389        ( 93)      0.40   (0.79)             0.27       (0.54)
Pasteurizing/Homogenizing        62        (15)          0(0)                0       (   0)
Cooling (1)
  Juice Products                221        ( 53)      0.03   (0.05)             0.02       (0.03)
  Segments                                           0.01   (0.02)             0.01       (0.02)
Juice Condensing                400        ( 96)      0.06   (0.12)             0.02       (0.03)
Barometric Condensing  (2)
  Juice Products                 50        ( 12)      0.07   (0.13)             0.09       (0.17)
  Waste Heat Evaporator          71        ( 17)      0.15   (0.29)             0.09       (0.18)
Peeled Fruit Washing            129        ( 31)      0.04   (0.07)             0.01       (0.01)
Caustic Treatment                 1        (0.3)      0.01   (0.02)             0.01       (0.01)
Centrifuging                    144        ( 35)      3.07   (6.14)             0.51       (1.02)
Container Washing                75        ( 18)          0                        0(0)
Waste Heat Evaporator
 Condensate                     334        ( 80)      0.33   (0.66)             0.11       (0.22)
Waste Heat Evaporator
 Scrubber Effl.                 351        ( 84)      0.22   (0.43)             0.08       (0.15)
Oil Lean Residue From
 Separator                      126        ( 30)      0.16   (0.32)             0.25       (0.49)
Boiler Slowdown                  60        ( 14)      0.01   (0.02)             0.01       (0.02)
Regeneration Brine               13        (3)          0(0)                0       (0)
Cleanup
  Juice Products                705        (169)      0.16   (0.32)             0.16       (0.31)
  Segments                      371        ( 89)      0.36   (0.72)             0.07       (0.13)
  Peel Products                 484        (116)      0.07   (0.14)             0.11       (0.22)

(1)  90% recirculated
(2)  2%  cooling tower blowdown

-------
                                                                   CITRUS
                                                              RECEIVING/SORTING
                                                             fc-FRUIT CLEANING
                                                                     i
                                             »t. yy
                                             -*<$>
                             EXTRACTING-
t    l~-
                                                WATER-OIL  EMULSION —
                              FINIShlNG-
                                                                        j
                                                                                                -PEEL-
                                                                                                                   ~l
      CONCENTRATED JUICE        i       SINGLE STRENGTH

               J
       JUICE CONDENSATE

                 CONDENSER

                         — —1   FINISHING—SLUDG:
                                ICENTRIFUGIKG
                                 COLD PRESSED
                                                                                  .'DGE-»-l
                                                                                                                    PEhLIMG

                                                                                                            CAUSTIC •: .••i.AT.Xhl."

                                                                                            TOSOLIljS FROM
                                                                                              WASTE TREATMENT    S
                                                                                              SCREENING
      ••CONTAINER WASHING-

                I	
                                              PACKAGING

                                     —^CONTAINER WASHING

                                       	» COOLING
                J             >i  \_UJ-"-' rtvc»o3ijU
                JRIZING—»«Q3\      OIL
                                           .PASTEURIZING
                                                  1

                                          	I
                                                                               i 'J U'J.« -r-'ji'lr-K
                           rO  COWSUI'-ER-
          CLEANING

      TRACT1NG CLEANUP



COSAKOiTSIC CONDENSER

<^>CON7AINER WASHING
     • CAUSTIC  TREATKENT/WASHIKG

<1^> COOLING

 REGENERATION BRINE

<.'ii> CLiA:;UP  (JUICE PRODUCTS)
    WASTE HSAT  EVAPORATOR
    SCR'-'53ER  tPFLULKT
   > "nASTE iiEAT  EVAPORATOR CONCENSATE   334

   >V:AETE HEAT  EVAPORATOR
    BARPKETRIC  CCNTENSER
1/k.kg
305
38B
401
50
75
63
221
130
63
13
705
371
351
334
71
125
G/T
73
93
96
12
18
15
53
31
15
3
169
89
84
80
17
30
                                                                                    -.
                                                                                  -- j
                                                                         SCRUBBER
                                                                            WATER — WASTL ht/iT

                                                             J
                                                                                                          OIL
                                                             WASTE EFFLLEi.'T TI'.iiAT:-U;:;T
                                                                                                        TKLA1.ILi-"i  fJt*
>iij> WATER, OIL  SLT.M^VTi^N'

^. C^T.v.^P  (PE-^ PRODUCTS)

    TC7AL V.'ATER     4,150  1/kkg     994 G/T

                                FIGURE 7    V;ATER FLOW DIAGRAMS - JUICE,OIL,SEGMENTS,  AND PEEL PRODUCTS

-------
                                        TABLE 24
                                        POTATOES
              Water Usage and Waste Characterization In Potato Processing


                           Water Usage                  BOD5               Suspended Solids
Process Steps           1/kkg       G/T         kg/kkg       Ib/T          kg/kkg       Ib/T

Washing                 1,102        264        0.676         1.35          1.383       2.76
Peeling
  Dry Caustic           1,448        347        7.325        14.62          9.569      19.1
  Wet Caustic           3,000        719       20.245        40.41         28.662      57.2
  Steam                 2,391        573       15.215        30.37         13.427      26.8
Trimming                  793        190        0.777         1.55          0.26        0.52
Slicing
  Dehydrated              764        183        0.296         0.59          0.701       1.4
  Frozen                1,519        364        2.630         5.25          1.303       2.6
Blanching
  Dehydrated              175         42        0.701         1.40          0.601       1.2
  Frozen                1,043        250        5.461        10.9           2.104       4.2
Cooling                   668        160        1.172         2.34
Cooking                   448        117        1.192         2.38
Dewatering                513        123        0.471         0.94          0.351       0.70
Fryer Scrubber            417        100          -             -             -
Fryer Belt  Spray         417        100          -             -             -           -
Refrigeration           1,602        384          -
Transport Water           292         70        0.261         0.52
Cleanup                   951        228        2.725         5.44

-------
                               POTATOES
SWASH WATER
PEELING
>J (DRY CAUSTIC)
<3> TRIMMING
<$> SLICING
& BLANCHING
<©> COOLING
 COOKING
<8> TRANSPORT WATER
 CLEAN-UP
TOTAL (Not
Including Washing)
TOTAL '

1/kkg
1,102
1,448
793
764
175
668
448
292
951
5,579
RECEIVING >\
PEELING
—— . . r*» fnT?V PATTr>LTTP^ ,,...,. c-rw
t
I
_— __ .,,.. j^TIUMMIIJC ' " C**(
i
GPT |
264 1
.1
183
42
160
117
70
228
1,337
                                                                                           SCREENING•
   WASTE EFFLUENT       SOLIDS
         TO               TO
TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL   WASTE
.(Including Washing) 6 , 681  1,601
                                                                                          -s^ COOLING
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I

                                                                                            •COOKING
                                                                                                 i
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                             MASKING
                                                                                             FLAKING
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                             PACKAGING
                                                                                            TO CONSUMER
                                       WATER FLOW DIAGRAM  - DEHYDRATED POTATO FLAKES

-------
                 POTATOES
RECEIVING
> WASHING • •• •
1
CAUSTIC)
3ER
= RAYS
\~ WATER
IER
/^

1/kkg
1,102
1,448
793
1,519
1,043
•513
417
417
1,602
292
951
WAST
TRSATME
i
	 '"-PEELING CAUSTIC f-' 2
i
	 >~ TRIMMING 	 i.-/ 3\
	 ^- SLICING 	 _/4\
. /
	 *_ BLANCH ING 	 t- 5\
	 F-DEWATERING 	 s~x6\
>•
GPT I
?r>4 *
247
190 FRY
364
250 	 »-FRYE
123
100 " '
100
384
70
228
                                                                                             EFFLUENT
                                                                                             TO
                         SOLIDS
                           TO
                         'CASTE
 <1>WASH WATER
 <2>PEELING CD!
 <-3/TRII-LMING
 (4;SLICING
 <5VBLANCHING
 <(6>DEWATERING
 <,,7.>FRYING SCRUBBER
 <8>FRYER BELT SPRAYS
 \§>REFP.IGERA:
dCl- TRANSPORT
.
        j

      iCKAGING

-------
                               SECTION VI


                   SEIECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS

WA ST E_WATER_PARAMETERS OF MAJOR SIGNIFCANCE

A  thorough  analysis of the literature, industry data and sampling data
obtained from this study, and EPA  Permit  data  demonstrates  that  the
following  waste  water parameters are of major pollutional significance
for the apple, citrus and potato processing segment of  the  canned  and
preserved fruits and vegetables industry:

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day, 20° C., BOD5)
Suspended Solids  (SS)
PH
Rationale^for_Selection of Major Parameters

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

This  parameter  is  an  important  measure  of  the  oxygen utilized by
microorganisms in the aerobic decomposition of the wastes at 20°C over a
five day period.   More  simply,  it  is  an  indirect  measure  of  the
biodegradability  of  the  organic pollutants in the waste.  BQD5 can be
related to the depletion of oxygen in  a  receiving  stream  or  to  the
requirements for waste treatment.

If  the  BOD5  level  of the final effluent of a processing plant into a
receiving body is too high, it will reduce the dissolved oxygen level in
that stream to below a level that will  sustain  most  fish  life;  i.e.
below  about  U  mg/1.   Many  states  currently  restrict  the  BOD15 of
effluents to below 20 mg/1 if the stream is small in comparison with the
flow of the effluent.  A limitation of 200 to 300 mg/1 of BOD5 is  often
applied  for  discharge  to  municipal  sewer, and surcharge rates often
apply if the BOD.5 is above the designated limit.

Suspended Solids

This parameter measures the suspended material that can be removed  from
the  waste  waters by laboratory filtration, but does not include coarse
or floating  matter  than  can  be  screened  or  settled  out  readily.
Suspended solids are a visual and easily determined measure of pollution
and  also  a measure of the material that may settle in tranquil or slow
moving streams.  A high level of suspended solids is  an  indication  of
high organic pollution.
                                   79

-------
pH

pH  is  an  important parameter for providing in-process quality control
for recycling of process water.  Biological  treatment  systems  operate
effectively  at  a  pH  range between 6.0 and 9.0.  These systems can be
rendered ineffective by intermittent dumping of highly acidic or  highly
alkaline wastes such as caustic tanks used for peeling.


          for Selection of Minor Parameters
Chemical Oxygen Demand  (COD)

COD  is   another  measure  of oxygen demand.   It measures the amount of
organic and some  inorganic  pollutants  under  a  carefully  controlled
direct chemical oxidation by a d ic hr ornate- su If uric acid reagent.  COD is
a  much more rapid measure of oxygen demand than BODj> and is potentially
very useful.

COD  provides  a  rapid  determination  of  the  waste  strength.    Its
measurement  will indicate a serious plant or treatment malfunction long
before the BOD5 can be run.  A given plant  or  waste  treatment  system
usually  has  a relatively narrow range of COD:BOD5. ratios, if the waste
characteristics are fairly constant, so experience permits a judgment to
be made concerning plant operation from COD values.   In  the  industry,
COD  ranges from about 1.6 to 10 times the BODjj; the ratio may be to the
low end of the range for raw wastes, and near  the  high  end  following
secondary  treatment when the readily degraded material has been reduced
to very low levels.

In summary, BOD and COD measure organic matter which  exerts  an  oxygen
demand.  Both COD and BOD are useful analytical tools for the processor.
However,   no   COD   effluent  limitations  are  required  because  BOD
limitations have been established.
Total Dissolved Solids  (TDS)

The dissolved solids in waste water are mainly  inorganic  salts.   They
are   particularly  important  as  they  are  relatively  unaffected  by
biological treatment processes and can accumulate in water recirculation
systems.  Failure to remove them may lead to an increase  in  the  total
solids  level of ground waters and surface water sources.  The dissolved
solids in  discharge  water,  if  not  controlled,  may  be  harmful  to
vegetation and may also preclude various irrigation processes.  There is
not sufficient data available to establish effluent limitations for TDS,
but at land treatment systems TDS must be managed to insure satisfactory
performance  without damage to the physical properties of the soil or to
the quality of the ground waters.


                                   80

-------
Alkalinity

The measure of alkalinity is an indicator of bicarbonate, carbonate  and
hydroxide  present  in the waste water.  The alkalinity of water appears
to have  little  sanitary  significance.   Highly  alkaline  waters  are
unpalatable,  and  may adversely affect the operation of water treatment
systems.  However, pH limitations require  the  control  of  alkalinity,
thus, no alkalinity limitations are needed.

Ammonia Nitrogen and Other Nitrogen Forms

Neither apple, citrus or potato effluents contain significant quantities
of  nitrogen.   The  three  most  common forms of nitrogen in wastes are
organic, ammonia and nitrate.  Organic nitrogen  will  break  down  into
ammonia,  nitrogen  and  nitrate.   When  ammonia nitrogen is present in
effluent waste water,  it  may  be  converted  to  nitrate  nitrogen  by
oxidation.  When ammonia and nitrates are added to ponds and lakes, they
contribute  to  euthrophication.   Since  fruit and vegetable wastes are
generally deficient in nitrogen, no nitrogen limitations are required.

Total Phosphorus

Phosphorus, like nitrate,  is  linked  directly  to  the  eutrophication
process  of  lakes and streams.  Sampling shows no significant levels of
phosphorus in apple, citrus or potato  waste  water.   When  applied  to
soil,  phosphorus  does  not  exhibit  a  runoff potential because it is
readily absorbed tenaciously on soil particles.  In this case,  movement
of  phosphorus  to  ground water is essentially precluded and runoff can
only occur if actual erosion of the soil takes place.  Since  fruit  and
vegetable  waste  waters  are  generally  deficient  in  phosphorus,  no
phosphorus limitations are needed.

Fecal Coliforms

Significant numbers of fecal coliforms are generally not found in apple,
citrus or potato waste  waters  unless  sanitary  waste  is  mixed  with
process  waste.   In order to insure that the bacteriological quality of
waste waters does not create a problem all  sanitary  wastes  should  be
handled separately from process waste waters.  Because coliforms are not
a major constituent of the raw waste water and because in-plant reuse of
water,  waste water retention and land disposal minimize bacteriological
problems, fecal coliform effluent limitations are not required.


Temperature

The temperature of effluent waste water is important, since  release  of
water  at  elevated temperatures into  surface or ground water formations
could result in damage to the micro-ecosystems.  The design of treatment
facilities is  also  dependent  upon  the  plant  effluent  temperature.


                                   81

-------
However,  high temperature wastes are not associated with apple,  citrus,
or potato processing.  Thus, guidelines for temperature are not needed.
                                   82

-------
                              SECTION VII


                    CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

                              INTRODUCTION

The characterization of the waste  effluents  has  provided  a  specific
description  of  the  waste  streams  resulting from the food processes,
involving identification of the origin of the various waste  streams  in
the  process, as well as waste water quality and quantity.   This permits
identification of the process steps which are the major contributors  to
the  flow  and  waste  loadings  of  the  total  waste  effluent stream.
Comparisons can be made between similar  or  alternative  operations  in
other  processing  facilities that perform the same function but produce
differing  amounts  of  waste.   The  data   provide   information   for
consideration  of  in-plant  separation  of  the  most significant waste
streams for separate treatment within  the  processing  plant  and  also
provide  valuable  insight into the properties of the wastes present and
indication of their treatability.


                          IN-PLANT TECHNOLOGY


Waste characterization studies cannot be adequately discussed without  a
basic conception of the sources of wastes generated in apple, citrus and
potato  processing.   A  discussion of the eight basic sources of wastes
are presented herein.  It must be realized, that there are many  process
variations  within production operations and all eight waste sources may
or may not be present.  However, when required by production  operations
each process is present regardless of size, age, or location of plant.

Harvesting

This operation can be defined as removal of the product from its growing
environment,  its  collection  and  its transportation to the processing
plant.  The present systems of picking  include  combinations  of  human
effort  and  machine utilization with a gradual, but steady, increase in
the latter.  The increased  use  of  mechanical  means  of  picking  has
increased  the  amounts  of  soil  and  organic solids included with the
product, and has resulted in a  higher  organic  load  from  damaged  or
spoiled  raw  products.   This  trend  has also increased the amounts of
water necessary for washing and cleaning the product.   Current  studies
have  suggested the possibility of relieving the waste load at fruit and
vegetable processing plants by field washing  techniques.   The  use  of
economically   feasible  and  aesthetically  acceptable  procedures  for
sorting, cleaning and sanitizing these  crops  in  the  field  has  many
potential  advantages.   Rejected  raw  product,  plant materials, field
soil, and wash waters remain in the field,  waste disposal there can  be


                                   83

-------
by  methods  both simpler and less costly than the methods available for
waste materials hauled into urban communities.

This technique is only suitable for the raw material which needs  to  be
processed  right after harvesting.  For example,  the tomato industry has
applied this technique very successfully.   But  as  far  as  the  three
discussed  commodities,  only  citrus  has the possibility to adapt this
method.  Apples and potatoes both are usually placed into storage  after
harvesting for processing later in the season; and storage of wetted raw
crops  will  increase  the  possibility  of spoilage.  The technique, if
applied to citrus, would reduce water and waste loadings  only  a  small
amount.  Therefore it is not practical to apply field washing techniques
for these commodities.

Raw Material Cleaning

After  harvesting,  the raw material (such as apples or potatoes)  either
is placed into storage or goes directly to the processing plant.   Fruit
is  often  given  a  preliminary  washing  to  remove  soil  and organic
materials before preparing for processing.  A common method is  to  drop
the  product  directly  into water which acts as a cushion for unloading
the fruit.  The raw material is separated from  much  of  the  remaining
leafy  and  stem material, soil residues, seeds,  and pesticide residues.
After this initial wash, the raw material cleaning operations contribute
minor pollutants to the waste water.

Apples and potatoes are stored for processing later in the  season.   If
the  storage  house  is  located in a different area from the processing
plant, the raw material could be washed as it is withdrawn from  storage
and  sorted  for  the  fresh  market.   This  way, the waste load at the
processing plant could te reduced.

In the case of potatoes, the increased mechanization of  harvesting  has
increased  the  quantity  of  soil  or  dirt  pickup  at harvest.  These
increased  soil  loads  can  require  more  thorough  water  washing  or
alternate  cleaning  systems.   Therefore,  if  the washing is done at a
storage  site  removed  from  the  processing  plant,  it   could   save
approximately 8 percent of the total water usage at the processing plant
and eliminate the need or at least reduce the size of the silt pond.

Peel Removal

In  the  case  of the fruits, apple and citrus, where it is necessary to
remove the peel, the conventional system employs a mechanical  means  of
peel removal.


In  citrus  processing,  the  manufacture of segments involves a hot lye
treatment to remove the rag and membrane from  the  whole  peeled  fruit
prior to sectionizing.  This hot alkaline treatment, also, results in an


                                   8U

-------
excessive waste effluent load.  Less than 15 percent of the total citrus
harvest is sectionized and receives a caustic treatment.

The  peeling  of  potatoes generates higher waste loads than those which
are produced by either the apple or citrus peeling operations.    In  the
potato processing industry, excluding potato chip manufacture,  there are
two generally accepted methods of peel treatment, caustic and steam.  In
the  case  of  the caustic, either a hot dip or hot spray contact can be
used.  In the dry caustic system, the alkaline solution  is  baked  into
the skin of the potato prior to peel removal.

Water sprays or rubber abrading  (USDA development)  are the two principal
means of removing the loosened peel following treatment.  If the peel is
removed  by  water  sprays,  then  the  waste effluent load in the water
system is increased; however, if the loosened peel is removed by  rubber
abrading  and  brushing  with  added  water,  the peel is collected as a
slurry and may be disposed of as animal feed.  Different  treatment  and
peel  removal  operations do not significantly affect the waste effluent
load based on data from Section IV.  However, information  from  vendors
and  other  sources  indicates that peeling represents 20 percent of the
effluent flow, over 50 percent of the BOD and over 60 percent of the SS.
In addition, when the USDA scrubbers are utilized, peel wastes are  only
half as great.

Almost  all frozen potato products, french fries, hash browns,  etc., are
caustic treated prior to peeling.  The caustic  system   (either  wet  or
dry)  is  used  because  of  the  thorough  peeling  required  for these
products.  Dehydrated potato products are peeled with either the caustic
or steam peel system.


Sorting, Trimming & Slicing

Sorting and grading operations may take place at various points  in  the
process  prior  to  packaging  and  may occur more than once in the same
process.  The primary purpose of these operations  is  to  remove  those
pieces with undesirable blemishes or grade or sort for size and shape.

Separations  as  to  quality of the product are most often done by hand,
while size separations are done by mechanical means.  Wastes from  these
operations  consist  of  whole pieces, miscellaneous organics and juice.
Trimming operations are defined as the removal of unwanted  portions  of
the  product.   These wasted portions consist of blemishes, cores, pits,
and peels.  Blemish removal  is  done  by  hand  and  results  in  waste
products  consisting of pieces and juice.  Cores and pits are most often
removed mechanically.

In the processing of apples, the water exposed to the  interior  of  the
fruit,  apple  slices or dices, as they are cut, washed, or transported,
can be recirculated for a given period of operation, thus  allowing  the


                                   85

-------
soluble  and  suspended solids to build up in the water system.   When it
is necessary to replace this  water  because  of  product  quality,   the
contaminated  water  can be further concentrated by evaporation and then
used as a vinegar stock.   Of  course,   the  above  system  really  only
applies  to  the  manufacture  of  apple  slices.  In the manufacture of
sauce, the apple pieces are cut and dropped directly  into  the  cooker,
thus, as in the manufacture of cider, little BOD5 is generated.

In  the  sorting  or  trimming  process, only in the citrus sectionizing
process does the interior of  the  fruit  contact  the  water  used  for
fluming.

In  the  processing  of  the potato, the cutting (slicing)  of the potato
frees quantities of starch which is washed from the potato  pieces  into
the  wash  or  slicing  water.   If  this water is maintained at ambient
temperatures and recirculated within  the  system,  it  is  possible  to
remove  with  cyclones  a  concentrated  stream of crude starch as it is
built up in the recirculated water.  This starch slurry can be  sold  to
potato  starch  processors  as  a  starting  raw  material.  This system
(removal of starch from slicing and washing water)   is  currently  being
employed on a small scale by several potato processors.

Transport

Various  means  have  been  adopted  for  conveying  fruit  or vegetable
products at unloading docks into and through the process  plant.   These
include  fluming,  elevating, vibrating, screw conveyor, air propulsion,
negative air, hydraulic flows and jet or air blast.  Among them,  flume,
belt,  and  pump transport systems are the most common means.  Water, in
one way or another, has been  extensively  used  in  conveying  products
within  plants  because it has been economical and because it serves not
only as conveyance but, also, for  washing  and  cooling.   It  is  also
assumed  that  there was some sanitary significance for both product and
equipment.  Therefore, flume transport requires much greater  quantities
of  water  than  either  of  the  other  two common methods and produces
correspondingly greater waste volumes, as well as resulting  in  greater
leaching of organics into waste stream, such as sugars and acid from cut*
apples, and starch from cut potatoes.  Since the extent of leaching is a
function  of  contact time in the fluid, it would behoove the processor,
from a loss-minimization standpoint, tc keep product detention  time  in
such  flumes  to  a  minimum.   Usually the transport water is reused by
recycling.

Pumping, employing a high percentage of recirculated  water,  is  almost
always  used  for  transporting these three commodities.  The increasing
importance of waste water treatment has focused attention  on  alternate
conveying systems.  Air conveying eliminates the use of water, but it is
only  suitable  for  raw materials  of small size and not easily damaged,
such as peas.  Air conveying  is not practical for the three  commodities
under consideration.  Most likely,  a mechanical belt system will replace


                                    86

-------
many  of  the  flume  systems.   A  small amount of chlorinated water is
needed  to  spray  on  the  belt  for  sanitation  purposes  during  the
operation.   Also,  it  is necessary, through the use of brushes, vapors
and water sprays, to prevent the buildup  of  organic  material  in  the
conveyor system.

In  many instances, the transport water is also used to cool the product
after blanching or to wash the pieces after a cutting  operation  or  to
prevent  oxidation  of the product.  In this manner, the transport water
serves a dual or multi-purpose function.   Thus,  the  particular  water
transport  system  must  be  carefully  evaluated before conversion to a
mechanical conveying system.

Blanching

The blanching of vegetables and some fruits  for  canning,  freezing  or
dehydrating has several purposes:

     1.  Elimination of intercellular air to reduce or
         eliminate subsequent oxidation.

     2.  Removal of starch and the inactivation of enzymes.

     3.  Destruction of bacteria.

     4.  Improvement of product texture.

     5.  Reduction of color loss in subsequent operations.

Vegetables  are  blanched  either  in  water  or  in  steam  at  various
temperatures and times.  Water blanching is generally  used  for  canned
vegetables and steam blanching for frozen or dehydrated vegetables.

Vegetables  are  water  blanched prior to canning in order to remove air
and to leach solubles for clarity of brine.  These are factors appearing
in the USDA grades of canned vegetables.  For freezing and  dehydrating,
destruction  of  enzymes  is more important.  Blanching in water removes
more solubles, including minerals, sugars and vitamins, than does  steam
blanching.   Steam  blanching  will in many instances use less water and
have a greater yield of  product  than  water  blanching  because  of  a
reduced amount of leaching that takes place.

In  European  food  processing  plants,  the  blancher  water  is  often
recirculated to permit a buildup of  soluble  solids  within  the  water
system.   This procedure will decrease the product loss, but it can also
adversely affect the removal of undesirable leachables from the product.

The pollution loads from blanching are  a  significant  portion  of  the
total  pollution  load  in  the effluent stream during the processing of
                                   87

-------
certain vegetables.  The blanching of potatoes may  contribute  over  20
percent of the BOD waste load.

In addition to the conventional hot water and steam blanching methods,  a
number  of alternative methods have been explored in an effort to reduce
the waste  water  volume  derived  from  this  process.   Fluidized  bed
blanching  and  IQB (individual quick blanching)  have been investigated,
but  neither  appears  to  have  the  potential  for   almost   complete
elimination  of  waste  water.   Hot air blanching has received periodic
interest, but the requirement of recirculating large volumes of air and,
also, the high energy costs have hindered the commercial development  of
this  concept.  More recently, microwave and hot gas blanching (based on
the direct use of hot natural gas combustion products as the major  heat
source)   have  shown  premise  for  substantially reducing the volume of
waste water while  providing  commercially  acceptable  blanching.   The
capital  costs  of  microwave  blanching  are  too  high  for a seasonal
operation.   Blanching  is  not  required  in  many  apple  and   citrus
operations  and  the  low  water  volume methods discussed would be less
applicable to products such as potatoes, where a desirable  function  of
hot  water  blanching  is  the  removal of some of the leachable soluble
solids.

Another possibility which was considered was to not only to clean,  but,
also,  to blanch the vegetable products at decentralized locations close
to harvest areas.   The  blanched  product  then  would  be  cooled  and
transported to a centralized plant for either canning or freezing.  This
processing  concept  has the advantage of using spray irrigation for the
disposal of the blanching waste load to areas  which  are  more  readily
available and acceptable.

Can Rinsing and Cooling

The  product is transported to the canning department where it is placed
in containers  which  are  then  filled  with  juice,  syrup  or  brine.
Spillage  of  product  and  liquid  are  the  major waste sources in the
packing operation.

To seal the containers under vacuum, open cans are heated to expel  air.
Additionally, some products are cooked in the can in continuous cookers.
After  such heat-producing treatment, the sealed cans must be cooled and
water from a  recirculated  water  system  is  commonly  used  for  this
purpose.   Little  organic  contamination  of the water occurs, but very
large volumes are required.  From 11 to 26 percent of  the  plant  water
flow may  be required in the can cooling operation.

Cleanup

Wastes  resulting  from periodic house cleaning are generated from every
portion of the process.  Due to their short term and  transient  nature,
they are  almost impossible to characterize individually.


                                   88

-------
In  a typical apple, citrus or potato processing plant up to 35  percent
of the total waste load may originate from the clean-up operations.  The
amount and strength of wastes generated in clean-up will depend upon the
age, condition and layout of the plant as well as the specific operating
practices employed.  Some of the many techniques used to  control  waste
generation   from  clean-up  activities  are  listed  below.   Most  are
presently used  in  the  food  processing  industry;  each  of  them  is
applicable.

1.  High pressure nozzles with specially designed nozzels to
    minimize water use.

2.  Automatic shut-off on clean-up hoses so that water flow
    stops when the hose is put down.

3.  Automatically timed clean-up cycles where the water flow
    shuts down after predetermined interval.

4.  Automatic cleaning of conveyers, piping and other equip-
    ment wherever possible.

5.  The use of squeeges in place of water for cleaning up
    spilled solids.

6.  Cleaning gutters of solids promptly before solubles can
    be leached into the water.

7.  Pulling the drain bracket only after cleanup has been
    completed.

8.  Separation of flows from various cleanup operations.

9.  Automatic monitors that alert plant management to
    increases in waste flow for strength attributable to
    improper cleanup practices.

10. One plant has an employee whose full-time responsibility
    is to monitor cleanup operations and to minimize water
    use and waste generation.

11. The use of special cleanup crews, specifically trained
    for this function.

12. Minimum use of water and detergent, consistent with
    cleaning requirements.

The  clean-up for apple processing is much higher than for either citrus
or potatoes.  This is attributed to the method  of  operations  used  in
apple  processing  where  there is often excessive spillage of wastes on
the floor from mechanical peelers.  This waste is  periodically  cleaned


                                   89

-------
up  once  or  twice  a shift.  There are low waste loads attributable to
mechanical peeling and this load represents  only  the  transport  water
associated  with this process step.  Much of the waste load is generated
after shutdown of operations when the plant is cleaned up.

In the case of  potatoes  and  citrus,  the  processing  plants  usually
operate  nearly  24  hours  per  day.  Consequently,  there  is a tendency
toward continuous clean-up, rather than a separate clean-up shift as  in
the case of apples.

In-Plant Reuse of Water

A  number  of  studies  have  been  made in the food processing industry
related to the possible in-plant reuse of water.  The results  of  these
studies indicate that the acceptability of procedures for reuse of water
in processing operations requires such consideration as:

1.  Water is an excellent solvent and is readily modified,
    chemically, physically, and microbiologically for its
    intended use.  A particular use may or may not render
    water suitable for upstream application, such as fruit
    or vegetable washing.  Recovered downstream, the water
    may be suitable for further use only when given enough
    treatment to be considered as a potable water.

2.  The soil, organic or heat loads, in the used water may
    be such that considerable treatment is necessary to
    render it suitable for reuse.

Water  recirculation  using  cooling  towers is a common method of water
conservation in food packing plants.  Cooling  tower  blow-down  can  be
used  for  supply  water  with  the various subprocesses, and evaporator
waters may be reused for processes such as initial washing.

Perhaps the most extensive work on feasibility in  reuse  of  water  has
been done with "counter-current" flow systems.  An example is the use of
cooling  water  to  wash products following blanching, and this water in
turn used for initial washing of incoming raw product or  the  blanching
of the product and then washing the incoming raw material.  Consideration
has  been  given  to  segregation of various waste waters in the process
plant for immediate reuse or reuse after suitable treatment for  certain
operations.   Due to bacteriological and product quality considerations,
the treatment required for reuse of the water may be relatively  simple,
such  as  chlorination  and  screening,  or,  may become quite involved,
requiring sedimentation, flocculation,  and  filtration  or  other  unit
operations.

Multiple  use   of  water  is  being applied in commercial processing of
fruits and vegetables.  This has unquestionably  permitted  conservation
of  water and greater efficiency in the treatment required for the total


                                   90

-------
plant effluent.  However, in some instances it has not reduced the total
amounts of organics being generated per ton of product.

In some citrus processing plants, the recycling  of  can-cooling  water,
barometric  condenser water, refrigeration cooling water, water for pump
seals, and cooling water for heat exchangers are all being  successfully
recycled.  There  are  two  factors to be considered in conditioning any
waste water for reuse:

1.  The economic factor, that is, the cost of fresh water
    versus the cost of treating and recirculating it for
    reuse, and the cost of disposal of waste water following
    its use.

2.  The acceptability of the treated water for its intended
    use.  The costs for treatment of water depend on the
    condition of the water and the treatment required to
    recondition it.  If the water has acquired salt, sugar,
    starch, acids, or other organic or suspended materials,
    extensive treatment may be necessary.  On the other hand,
    such treatment may be necessary anyway to reduce the
    total effluent degradation, or because such effluent can-
    not be discharged into either municipal systems or
navigable water systems without treatment.

A reduction in water use  within  the  process  plant  does  not  always
reflect  immediately  an  equivalent  reduction  in the waste load being
generated.  Accordingly, a few  processors  may  not  realize  immediate
benefits  from  a water reuse program.  However, as more stringent waste
effluent limitations are set and  the  industry  moves  closer  to  zero
discharge  of  pollutants, the reduction in the water usage will reflect
in lower investment and operating costs for disposal of wastes.

Many of the in-plant controls described above are presently practiced at
apple, citrus and potato plants.  From Section V  (Tables   19-21),  there
are  several plants that have exemplary raw waste loads. An apple sauce,
slice, and juice plant has a raw waste BOD of 1.4  kg/kkg   (2.8  Ib/ton)
compared  to  the average of 5 kg/kkg  (10 Ib/ton) .   A citrus juice, oil
and feed processing plant has a water  usage  of  only  710  1/kkg  (170
gal/ton) ,  BOD  of  0.45 kg/kkg  (0.9 Ib/ton) and SS of 0.02 kg/kkg  (0.04
Ib/ton).  These values compare with average flow values of  10,120  1/Jckg
(2425 gal/ton) , average BOD of 3.2 kg/kkg (6.4 Ib/ton) and average SS of
1.3  kg/kkg   (2.6  Ib/ton).   A frozen potato plant has a water usage of
4090 1/kkg (980 gal/ton) and a BOD of 4.45 kg/kkg  (8.9 Ib/ton)   compared
with average values of 11,300 1/kkg  (2710 gal/ton) and 22.9 kg/kkg "(45.8
Ib/ton).   Thus, there are processors achieving high levels of pollutant
reduction through in-plant waste management techniques.

The exemplary raw waste loads described above are applicable to the best
available technology economically achievable.  However, exemplary  waste


                                   91

-------
water  treatment systems currently operational at processing plants have
been used to determine the best available level of  effluent  reduction.
While  these  in-plant  controls are not required to meet the standards,
their utilization is encouraged.

                       WAgTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY


PRELIMINARY TREATMENT SYSTEMS

In modern cannery practice there has been an almost  uniform  acceptance
of  the  need  for  separating  solid wastes from the principal effluent
waste stream.  Treatment  processes  employed  in  this  separation  are
physical   in   nature   and  include  screening,  plain  sedimentation,
hydroclones and flotation.  These processes are applicable to all apple,
citrus or potato plants regardless of size, age or location.

Flow Equalizing Tank

Flow equalization facilities consist  of  a  holding  tank  and  pumping
equipment  designed to reduce the fluctuations in flow of waste effluent
streams.  They can be economically  advantageous  whether  a  processing
plant  is  treating  wastes  or discharging into a city sewer after some
pretreatment.  The equalizing tank stores waste water either for recycle
or to feed the flow uniformly to treatment facilities throughout  a  24-
hour day period.

Screening

Screening is the most widely accepted method of preliminary treatment of
cannery  wastes.   Ordinarily,  its  cost  is  nominal  relative  to the
benefits derived in the  reduced  load  on  waste  treatment  or  sewage
facilities.  However, it is not usually considered as an economic method
of  solids separation when high degrees of removal are required.  Recent
improvements in the fabrication of screen cloths are permitting  smaller
particulate  matter  to be removed.  Also, the introduction of synthetic
cloths  (polyester, nylon, polyethylene) has resulted in low  maintenance
costs.   Screens  utilizing synthetic cloth with 5 to 10 micron openings
are commercially available and have a good resistence to blinding.

Three types of screens have been  used  for  screening  food  processing
wastes:   stationary,  revolving, and vibrating.  Most of the screens in
current use are of the rotary type, but the vibrating screens have  been
favored  because they tend to have fewer clogging problems, to provide  a
drier screenings discharge, and to produce more compact solids.

Nearly all processing  plants  use  some  form  of  screening.   Primary
screens are usually equipped with a screen cloth in the size range of 20
to  40  mesh.   However,  because  of  the  industrial preference to use
relatively simple, standard equipment, there has been a gradual shift in


                                   92

-------
the direction of stationary wedge-wire screens with an  equivalent  mesh
opening.   This  does  not represent any real change with respect to the
removal of solids for waste control.

Stationary aScreens - The primary function of a stationary screen  is  to
separate or "free" the solids from the transporting fluids.  This can be
accomplished  in  several  ways, and in most older concepts only gravity
drainage is involved.  A concave screen has  been  designed  using  high
velocity  pressure-feeding.  This design employs bar interference to the
slurry which cuts off thin layers of the flow over the  curved  surface.
This  method  can  very  effectively handle slurries containing fatty or
sticky fibrous suspended matter.  Openings between the bars or wires  of
0.025 to 0.15 cm (0.010 to 0.060 inches)  meet normal screening needs.

£2£§£Y._5creens - One type of barrel or rotary screen, driven by external
rollers,  receives  the  waste  water at one open end and discharges the
solids at the other open end.  The  liquid  flows  outward  through  the
screen   (usually  stainless steel screen cloth or perforated metal)  to a
receiving box and effluent piping mounted below the screen with  a  line
of  external spray nozzles directed on the screen.  This type is popular
and may be useful in removing solids from waste streams  containing  low
solids concentrations.

Vibrating	Screens - The effectiveness of vibrating screens depends on a
rapid motion.  They operate between 900 rpm and 3600 rpm; the motion can
either be circular, straight line, or three  dimensional,  varying  from
0.08  to  1.27 cm  (1/32 to 1/2 inch) total travel.  The speed and motion
are selected by the screen manufacturer for the particular application.

Most important in the selection of a proper vibrating screen is the  use
of  the  proper cloth.  The capacities of vibrating screens are based on
the percent of open area of the cloth.  The cloth is selected  with  the
proper combination of strength of wire and percent of open area.  If the
waste  solids  to  be  handled are heavy and abrasive, wire of a greater
thickness and diameter should be used to assure long life.  However,  if
the  material  is  light  or  sticky  in  nature,  the durability of the
screening surface may be the smaller consideration.  In such a  case,  a
light  wire  may  be  necessary  to provide an increased percent of open
area.

The effectiveness of screening the raw waste load from a food processing
plant is illustrated by the following examples:

1.   A 24-mesh oscillating screen removed 60 percent of
     the suspended solids from a potato-carrot waste
     effluent.

2.   A 28-mesh rotary screen removed 79 percent of the
     suspended solids from a tomato processing waste
     effluent.


                                   93

-------
There is a good deal of experimentation under way in  the  direction  of
better  solids  removal  equipment  which  uses  finer mesh screens.  An
example of this new technology is the micro-screen.   The impact on  this
development on waste loads is difficult to assess at this time.  The use
of  fine mesh screens such as the micro-screen will  require some sort of
pre-screening ahead of it to act as an insurance or  protective device.

Grease Removal (Catch Basins)

Most waste treatment plants do not  possess  the  facilities  to  handle
large amounts of grease.  Adequate grease trapping should be provided at
the  processing  plant  and,  in  some  cases,  emulsion breaking may be
required to remove the oil and grease.

The presence of grease and related wastes often causes  severe  problems
in  the waste treatment facility.  In one instance,  the processing plant
was producing french fried products, and many of the wastes generated in
this process were highly  emulsified,  compounding  the  grease  removal
problem.   Improved  grease trapping facilities at various points in the
plant were necessary to correct the problem.

In the past twenty years, with waste  treatment  gradually  becoming  an
added  economic  incentive,  catch  basin  design has been improved, the
concern shifting toward overall effluent quality improvement and  toward
by-product  recovery.  Gravity grease recovery systems will remove 20 to
30 percent of the BOD5, 40 to 50 percent of the suspended solids and  50
to 60 percent of the grease  (hexane solubles).

Most  gravity  grease  recovery  basins  (catch basins) are rectangular.
Flow rate is the most important criterion for design; 30 to  40  minutes
detention time at one hour peak flow is a common sizing factor.  The use
of  an  equalizing tank ahead of the catch basin obviously minimizes the
size requirement for the basin.  A shallow basin - up to 1.8m  (6 feet) -
is preferred.  A "skimmer" skims the grease and scum off  the  top  into
collecting  troughs.   A  scraper  moves the sludge at the bottom into a
submerged hopper from which it can be pumped.

Usually two identical catch basins, with a common wall, are desirable so
operation can continue if one is down for maintenance or  repair.   Both
concrete and steel tanks are used for the catch basin.

Flotation

A  high  percentage of the solids in carbonaceous food processing wastes
can be removed by vacuum flotation.  When  wastes  are  subjected  to  a
short  period  of  aeration  with  0.185 to 0.37 cubic meters of air per
thousand liters  (0.025 to 0.05 cubic feet of air per  gallon)  of  waste
effluent,  then  passed  on to a compartment where the large air bubbles
can escape, and  finally the  liquid is sent to a holding tank where it is
subjected to a vacuum of about 0.27 to 0.33 atmospheres  (8-10 inches  of


                                   94

-------
mercury).   The  solids  quickly  rise  to the surface with the released
small bubbles forming  a  relatively  dense  mat  which  is  removed  by
mechanical skimmers.

There  are  three  process  alternatives  varying by the degree of waste
water that is pressurized and into which the compressed  air  is  mixed.
In  the  total  pressurization  process the entire waste water stream is
raised to full  pressure  for  compressed  air  injection.   In  partial
pressurization,  only  a part of the waste water stream is raised to the
pressure of the compressed air for subsequent mixing.   In  the  recycle
pressurization  process,  treated  effluent  from  the flotation tank is
recycled for mixing with the compressed air and then, at  the  point  of
pressure  release,  is  mixed  with  the  influent  waste  water.   This
alternative has a side-stream of influent entering the  retention  tank,
thus  reducing the pumping required in the total pressurization process.
Operating costs may vary slightly, but performance is essentially  equal
among the alternatives.

Improved  performance  of  the  air  flotation  system  is  achieved  by
coagulation of the suspended matter prior to treatment.  This is done by
pH adjustment or the addition of coagulant chemicals, or both.   A  slow
paddle mix will improve flocculation.

Since  there are only a few installations of flotation units in the food
processing industry, it must be  recognized  that  experience  with  the
application of this technique is limited.

One  example of a flotation unit is in the treatment of tomato and peach
waste water.  Flows of 285,200 liters/square meter (7,000 gallons/square
foot) of surface area per day were attained in this pilot  installation,
while removing 50 to 80 percent of the suspended solids.

Sedimentation

Sedimentation without prior chemical treatment has been used in the food
processing  industry.   For  example,  a waste flow of 720,000-1,665,000
liters per day (190,000-440,000 gallons  per  day)  was  settled   (after
screening)  in two concrete settling tanks 15.2 meters (50 feet) long by
3.7 meters  (12 feet) wide by 0.9 meters  (3 feet) deep with  a  detention
time  of  about 1.5 hours.  The settled sludge was allowed to accumulate
to a depth of about 30.5 cm  (12 in) over a 3 to 7  day  period  and  was
then  removed  and  hauled  to  fields for disposal.  Later improvements
provided for continuous mechanical  sludge  removal  from  the  settling
tanks.

Sedimentation  was used in this instance to reduce the solids loading on
another part of the treatment process.  It was found that  sedimentation
prior  to  lagooning lessened the odor from lagoons.  Primary sedimenta-
tion has been found to reduce the BOD5 between  50  to  80  percent  and
                                   95

-------
reduce  the  suspended  solids   between  30  to  75%,   depending on the
characteristics of the waste water.

An example of a dual  sedimentation  system  is  the  potato  processing
industry  where  it is general practice to utilize primary sedimentation
of the plant effluent and  a  separate  sedimentation  system  for  silt
water.   Potato  wash  water  is  reused  after  it has been pumped to a
clarifier or holding pond for removal of settleable solids.

If settling tanks are used, the settled solids  must  be  collected  and
withdrawn  from  the bottom of the tank.  In municipal sewage treatment,
the solids are continually collected by mechanical means through  chain-
driven wooden scrapers moving slowly along the bottom of the rectangular
ta nk.


Centrifugal Separation

The centrifugal separation of cannery waste solids has not received wide
acceptance  in  the food processing industry, apparently because of both
high capital cost and high power cost.   In  some  instances  horizontal
bowl  centrifuges have been installed and in other instances hydroclones
have been employed.

Hydroclones are experiencing  the  greater  degree  of  acceptance  than
centrifuges  because of low initial cost and operating cost.  Currently,
they are not only being installed on waste effluent  streams  to  remove
some  of the organic solids but also on in-plant potato processing flows
to recover crude starch slurries.

Centrifuges can probably remove at least  as  much  BOD5  and  suspended
solids as does primary sedimentation.  One potato processor has reported
a BOD reduction of 1700 mg/1 through the use of hydroclones in the waste
effluent stream leaving the plant.

CHEMICAL TREATMENT

pH Adjustment

Caustic  is  often  used  in  peeling  potatoes  and apples.  The use of
caustic may raise the pH of the  total  effluent  enough  to  disrupt  a
biological  treatment,  in  which  case  the  pH  is  adjusted  to avoid
"slugging" the system with caustic.  Although high  pH  accompanies  lye
peeling,  processors handle peel wastes in a manner that does not affect
the value of the solid waste as feed for livestock.  Fruitr tomator  and
root  crops  peeled  in other ways may yield an effluent with neutral or
low pH.  Drastic fluctuations in pH occur when  lye  peeling  tanks  are
dumped periodically and smaller fluctuations may result from the caustic
solutions  used  in  plant  cleanup.   The  pH of the waste water can be
adjusted by the addition  of  an  acid,  for  instance,  sulfuric  acid.


                                   96

-------
Another  situation requiring pH adjustment can arise when fruits contain
acid and pectin, such as citrus or apples.  In some  biological  systems5
trouble  is encountered with bulking sludges associated with filamentous
growth.  Increasing the pH, for instance by adding lime, may correct the
problem.

Biological systems function at their optimum  when  the  pH  is  neutral
(i.e.  7.0), and they will operate effectively at a pH range between 6.0
and 9.0.

Chlorination

Chlorination is, also, used for odor control  and  is  chiefly  used  in
municipal  water treatment as a disinfectant and partially to reduce the
BOD5 of the treated effluent.  (Biological processes should be relied on
to provide BOD5  reduction,  rather  than  chlorination).   Chlorine  is
available  in  powdered  form,  as liquefied chlorine, and in solutions.
Adding  chlorination  to  a  treatment  process  presents  the  need  to
construct chlorine handling facilities consisting of storage, phase con-
version,  mixing, and detention facilities for effluent.  Since chlorine
is a hazardous substance, special  safety  precautions  in  storage  and
handling  are required.  Dose rates for chlorine for domestic sewage are
usually in the range of 3 to 15 parts per million with  detention  times
up  to  one hour in duration.  Dosage should be high enough to provide a
chlorine  residual  in  the  effluent  to  assure   protection   against
pathogenic bacteria.

Chlorination  is  used  to  inhibit  algae  growth.   This is of special
importance for correcting one type of bulking  sludge  problem  in  some
activated sludge plants.

Chlorination  may  also be used for disinfection and to oxidize residual
organic material.  It is practiced on treated wastewaters to  a  limited
degree.   This  practice  can be expected to become common to permit the
recycle of highly purfied waters.

Chlorine, also, provides a residual  protection  against  bacteria  that
other  disinfectants,  such as ozone or bromine, do not provide.  Actual
chlorination  rates  should  be  based  on  laboratory  testing  of  the
effluent.

Nutrient Addition

Cannery  waste  water  is  generally  deficient  in  both  nitrogen  and
phosphorus from the standpoint of the ratio of these elements to organic
matter  that  is  required  for  optimum  biological  treatment.    This
situation  can  be  corrected by adding ammonia and phosphoric acid, for
example, to the waste water before biological treatment.  The  chemicals
should be added after initial screening and settling to avoid their loss
to the solids removed in these steps.


                                   97

-------
Chemical Coagulation and Precipitation

Chemical  precipitation  of  cannery  wastes  has been used with varying
degrees of success.  Investigators have reported reductions in  BOD5  as
high as 89 percent.  In almost all instances lime was the coagulant used
whether singularly or in conjunction with another coagulant or coagulant
aid.   Doses of coagulants required were much higher for food processing
wastes  than  those  required  for  domestic  sewage  alone,  since  the
suspended  solids  concentrations  in  food  processing  wastes are much
higher than domestic wastes.

Most chemical precipitation  processes  in  use  are  batch  type;  some
continuous  processes  have  also been reported.  With the fill and draw
technique, a minimum of two  tanks  is  required  for  treatment.   This
system has the advantage of permitting easy handling of large volumes of
sludge.   The  continuous  flow  system has the disadvantages of minimum
flexibility  in  maintaining  optimum  dosages  and  its  inability   to
accommodate removal of large sludge volumes.

It  has  been  reported  that  chemical  precipitation gave smaller BOD5
removals than  biological  filtration,  but  that  it,  also,  had  some
advantages  compared  to trickling filters.  Biological filters required
time to  develop  a  satisfactory  filter  flora  and  had  to  be  used
continuously;   whereas,   chemical   precipitation  could  be  utilized
immediately and intermittently.  This is  particularly  advantageous  in
the seasonal canning industry.

In  some  processing  plants,  lime  and  alum  were  added to the waste
effluents from pea processing prior to screening.  This resulted in a 42
percent BOD5 removal and an 81 percent removal of the suspended solids.

Miscellaneous Chemical Additives

Chemical additives may also be added to waste waters to control  foaming
and  to control odors and to enhance solid settling characteristics such
as is  accomplished by coagulating agents.
PRIMARY TREATMENT SYSTEMS

The typical primary treatment system operating in  the  food  processing
industry  consists of a clarifier and rotary vacuum filter to remove and
dewater the settled sludge from the  waste  effluent  stream.   Chemical
precipitation  may  be used for those waste sludges that are not readily
settleable, and suspended solids may be removed from  effluents  by  the
addition of an air flotation unit.
                                   98

-------
Settling, Sedimentation and Clarification

A   substantial   portion   of  the  suspended  solids  that  cannot  be
conveniently removed by screening can  be  separated  by  sedimentation,
settling   or   clarification.    Settling   consists   of  providing  a
sufficiently large tank or pond so that the velocity  of  the  water  is
reduced.  The forces arising from density differences between the solids
and  the  water  can  then  act  and  the solids can settle.  Clarifiers
operate on the same principle  with  the  addition  of  mild  mechanical
agitation  to  assist  in  the  settling  process and the removal of the
settled solids.  As an initial step preceding  biological  treatment,  a
combination  of screening and clarification can be expected to remove 50
to 80 percent of the waste water BOD5.  With the addition  of  chemicals
for coagulation BOD5 removals range from 25 percent to 40 percent of raw
influent and suspended solids removal range from 40 percent  to 7056.  It
is,  also, found that sedimentation prior to lagooning lessened the odor
from lagoons.  Clarifiers are, also, used as a  part  of  the  activated
sludge  process,  serving  to separate sludge for return to the aeration
step or to anaerobic digestion.  Settling ponds or Clarifiers are, also,
used as a final step in biological systems for  the  removal  of  solids
prior  to  discharge  of  the  treated wastewater.  In the processing of
apple or citrus waste effluents, the presence of pectin often  restricts
the  removal  of  solids  by clarification.  Therefore, sedimentation is
less frequently  practiced  in  these  industries  than  in  the  potato
industry.

Rotary Vacuum Filtration

The settled solids removed from the bottom of the clarifier, in the form
of a sludge, are pumped to the rotary vacuum filter, where the slurry is
concentrated  by  removal  of  water which is returned to the clarifier.
The outside surface of the filter cylinder  is  covered  with  a  filter
medium   (cloth).   The  lower  portion of the filter is suspended in the
liquid slurry.  As the drum rotates, the vacuum  maintained  within  the
cylinder forces fluid into the cylinder leaving a layer of solids on the
outside  filter  medium.   As the filter rotates, the solids are scraped
off from the  cloth.   This  method  has  been  widely  used  in  solids
thickening for both industrial and municipal wastes.

The  dewatered solids are then discarded by one of the ultimate disposal
techniques or used for animal feeds, and the water is recycled  back  to
the clarifier.

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS

The  treatment of waste effluents by biological methods is an attractive
alternative when a high proportion of the biodegradable material  is  in
the  soluble form, as is the case in the canned and preserved fruits and
vegetables industry.  These methods  are  applicable  in  this  industry
irrespective of plant size, age or location.


                                   99

-------
Many types of microoganisms remove organic materials from liquid wastes.
Those  most  commonly  used in treatment systems are heterotrophs, which
utilize organic carbon for their energy and growth.    Some  are  aerobic
and require molecular oxygen for converting wastes to carbon dioxide and
water.    Others  are  anaerobic  and  grow  without  molecular  oxygen.
Anaerobic microorganisms grow more slowly than aerobes and produce  less
sludge  per  unit  of  waste  treated  than  do  aerobic microorganisms.
Anaerobes, also, release acids and methane, and their action on  sulfur-
containing  wastes  may  create  odor problems.  Some microorganisms are
facultative; that is, they can grow in either an  aerobic  or  anaerobic
environment.

The biological treatment of food processing wastes often lacks necessary
nutrients  in  the  waste to sustain desirable biological growth.  Added
nutrients, most often nitrogen and sometimes phosphorus, may be required
for  efficient  biological  treatment   of   food   processing   wastes.
Processing  wastes  generally  requires  the addition of nitrogen before
successful  biological  treatment.   Often  this  can  be   economically
accomplished by the addition of nutrient-rich wastes from another source
for combined treatment.

A discussion of the various methods of biological treatment is presented
in the following sections.

Activated Sludge

In this case the active biota is maintained as a suspension in the waste
liquid.   Air,  supplied  to  the  system by mechanical means, mixes the
reaction medium and supplies the microorganisms with the oxygen required
for their metabolism.  The microorganisms grow and feed on the nutrients
in the inflowing waste  waters.   There  are  fundamental  relationships
between  the  growth  of  these microorganisms and the efficiency of the
system to remove BODJ5.

A number of activated sludge systems have been designed,  all  of  which
have  their  own  individual  configurations.   Basically, these designs
consist of some type cf pretreatment, usually primary sedimentation, and
aeration, followed by sedimentation which will allow the sludge produced
to separate, leaving a clear effluent.  Portions of the  settled  sludge
are  recirculated  and  mixed with the influent to the aeration section,
usually, at a proportion ranging between 10 to  100  percent,  depending
upon the specific modification ot the basic activated sludge process.

The  goal  of these plants is to produce an actively oxidizing microbial
population which will also produce  a  dense  "biofloc"  with  excellent
settling  characteristics.   Usually,  optimization  of  floe growth and
overall removal is necessary since very active microbial populations  do
not always form the best floes.
                                   100

-------
Activated  sludge  treatment  plants  are  capable  of removing 90 to 95
percent or  better  of  the  influent  BOD5  from  fruit  and  vegetable
processing plants.

Activated  sludge  systems  will  remove  over  95 percent BOD5 in apple
processing wastes; however, nitrogen has to be added to avoid bulking of
the activated sludge.  Nitrogen is usually added as anhydrous ammonia or
ammonium sulfate in amounts sufficient to  obtain  a  carbon:   nitrogen
ratio of 30:1 in the waste stream.

For  treating  potato  processing  wastes,  a  mixed  liquor  system  is
satisfactory, affording BOD5 removals as high as  95  percent.   Contact
stabilization,  removed only about 80 percent of BOD5_ and a modification
may not be considered satisfactory  unless  the  processor  reduces  the
waste loadings by in-plant modifications.

When  settled  sludge  was  reaerated,  90-95  percent  BOD5 removal was
obtained as long as the BOD5 loading was less than 50 to 70 kg(Ib)  BOD5
per  day  per  100 kg(lb) of sludge solids.  This rate decreased to less
than 70 percent BOD5 removal when the loading rate approached 200 kg(lb)
per day per 100 kg(Ib) of sludge solids.  Ihe  sludge  formed  at  these
higher rates was less stable and bulking became a problem.

The  treatment  of  citrus  wastes  using  a  step aeration type system,
obtained up to 97 percent BOD5 removal  (averaging 90 percent removal) at
loadings of 2.6-4.2 kg of BOD5 per cubic meter per day  (0.16 to 0.26 Ibs
of BOD5 per cubic foot per day).  No addition of nitrogen was  necessary
at  these  loading rates.  Higher loading rates were followed by bulking
primarily  caused  by  Sphaerotilus.   Temperatures  above   36°C   were
detrimental  and  at  43°C  were  lethal  to  the  system.  Conventional
activated sludge methods for the treatment of citrus wastes, 30-50  mg/1
nitrogen and 5-10 mg/1 phosphorus had to be added to obtain higher rates
of BOD5 removal and sludge with good settling characteristics.

The  extended  aeration  modification of the activated sludge process is
similar to the conventional activated sludge process,  except  that  the
mixture  of  activated  sludge  and  raw  materials is maintained in the
aeration chamber for longer periods of time.  The common detention  time
in  extended  aeration  is  one  to  three  days, rather than six hours.
During this prolonged contact between the sludge and raw waste, there is
ample time for organic matter to be adsorbed by the sludge and also  for
the organisms to metabolize the removal of organic matter which has been
built  up  into  the  protoplasm of the organism.  Hence, in addition to
high organic removals from the waste waters, up to  75  percent  of  the
organic  matter of the microorganisms is decomposed into stable products
and consequently less sludge will have to be handled.

In extended aeration, as in the conventional activated  sludge  process,
it  is necessary to have a final sedimentation tank.  Some of the solids
                                   101

-------
resulting from extended aeration are rather finely divided and therefore
settle slowly, requiring a longer period of settling.

The long detention time in the extended aeration tank  makes it  possible
for nitrification to occur.  If it is desirable for this to occur,  it is
necessary  to have sludge detention times in excess of three days.   This
can be accomplished by regulating the amounts  of  sludge  recycled  and
wasted  each  day.  Oxygen enriched gas could be used  in place of air in
the aeration tanks to improve overall performance.   This  would  require
that  the  aeration  tank  be  partitioned and covered, and that the air
compressor and dispersion system  be  replaced  by  a   rotating  sparger
system,  which  costs  less to buy and operate.  When  co-current, staged
flow and recirculation of gas  back  through  the  liquor  is  employed,
between  90 and 95 percent oxygen utilization is claimed.  Although this
modification of activated sludge has not been used  in  treating  apple,
citrus  or  potato  processing wastes, it is being used successfully for
treating other organic wastes


Activated sludge in its varied forms is  an  attractive  alternative  in
cannery  waste  treatment.  Conventional design criteria is not directly
transferrable from municipal  applications.   However,  high  levels  of
efficiency  are  possible  at  the  design loadings normally employed in
treating other types of  high  strength  organic  wastes.   The  general
experience  has  been  that biological solids separation problems can be
avoided:  if the  dissolved  oxygen  concentration  remains  above  zero
throughout  the  aeration  basin,  if  management minimizes very strong,
concentrated waste releases, and if sufficient amounts of  nitrogen  are
available  to maintain a critical nitrogen:  BOD5> ratio.  This ratio has
been recommended to be 3 to 4 kg(lb)  N per 100 kg(lb)  of  BOD5  removed.
Numerous  cases  have  been reported of successful combined treatment of
cannery and domestic wastes by activated sludge and  its  modifications.
Activated  sludge  systems  require  less room than other high reduction
biological systems, but  have  higher  equipment  and  operating  costs.
Properly  designed  and  operated  systems  can  treat cannery wastes to
achieve high BOD reductions.

Biological Filtration  (Trickling Filter)

The trickling filter process has found application in treatment of  food
processing  wastes.   Very  tall filters employing synthetic media, high
recirculation, and forced air circulation have been used to treat strong
wastes in the 300-4000 mg/1 BOD5 range.

The purpose of the biofilter system is to change soluble organic  wastes
into  insoluble  organic  matter  primarily  in the form of bacteria and
other higher  organisms.   As  the  filter  operates,   portions  of  the
biological growth slough off and are discharged as humus with the filter
effluent.  Usually, some physical removal system is required to separate
                                    102

-------
this  insoluble  organic material which can be treated by other suitable
methods, usually anaerobic fermentation in a sludge digestor.

Trickling filters are usually constructed as circular  beds  of  varying
depths  containing  crushed  stone,  slag,  or  similar  hard  insoluble
materials.  Liquid wastes are distributed over this bed  at  a  constant
rate  and allowed to "trickle" over the filter stones.  Heavy biological
growths develop on the surface of  the  filter  "media"  throughout  the
depth of the filter and, also, within the interstitial spaces.

The  biological  film  contains  bacteria;  (Zooglea,  Sphaerotilus, and
Beggiatoa) ; fungi (Fusarium, Geotrichum, Sepedonium) ; algae, both  green
and  blue-green  (Phormidium,  Ulothrix,  Mononostrona); and a very rich
fauna of protozoa.   A grazing fauna is,  also,  present  on  these  beds
consisting  of  both  larval  and  adult  forms  of worms (Oligochaeta),
insects  (Diptera and coleoptera, among others), and  spiders  and  mites
(Arachnida) .

A common problem with this type of filter is the presence of flies which
can  become  a  severe  nuisance.   Insect  prevention  can  usually  be
prevented by chlorinating the influent or by periodically  flooding  the
filter.


Recirculation  of  waste  water flows through biological treatment units
are often used to distribute the load of impurities imposed on the  unit
and  smooth  out  the applied flow rates.  Trickling filter BOD5 removal
efficiency is  affected  by  temperature  and  the  recirculation  rate.
Trickling  filters  perform  better  in  warmer  weather  than in colder
weather.  Recirculation of effluent increases BOD5 removal efficiency as
well as keeping reaction type rotary  distributers  moving,  the  filter
media moist, organic loadings relatively constant, and increases contact
time with the biologic mass growing on the filter media.

Furthermore,  recirculation  improves distribution, equalizes unloading,
obstructs entry and  egress  of  filter  flies,  freshens  incoming  and
applied  waste  waters, reduces the chilling of filters, and reduces the
variation in time of passage through the secondary settling tank.

Trickling filter BODjj removal efficiency is  inversely  proportional  to
the  BODE>  surface loading rate; that is, the lower the BODJ5 applied per
surface area, the higher the  removal  efficient.   Approximately  10-90
percent BOD reduction can be attained with trickling filters.

Anaerobic Processes

Elevated  temperatures   (29°  to  35°C  or  85°  to  95°F)  and the high
concentrations typically found in apple, citrus or  potato  wastes  make
these   wastes   well  suited  to  anaerobic  treatment.   Anaerobic  or
faculative microorganisms, which function in the  absence  of  dissolved


                                   103

-------
oxygen,  break down the organic wastes to intermediates,  such as organic
acids and alcohols.  Methane bacteria  then  convert  the  intermediates
primarily  to carbon dioxide and methane.  Also, if sulfur compounds are
present, hydrogen sulfide may be  generated.    Anaerobic  processes  are
economical  because  they  provide  high  overall  removal  of  BOD5 and
suspended solids with no power cost (other than pumping)   and  with  low
land  requirements.   Two  types  of  anaerobic  processes are possible:
anaerobic lagoons and anaerobic contact systems.

Anaerobic lagoons are  used  in  the  industry  as  the  first  step  in
secondary treatment or as pretreatment prior to discharge to a municipal
system.   Reductions  of  85 percent in BOD5 and 85 percent in suspended
solids can be achieved with these lagoons.  A usual arrangement  is  two
anaerobic  lagoons  relatively  deep  (3  to 5 meters, or about 10 to 17
feet), low surface-area systems with typical waste loadings  of  240  to
320  kg  BOD5/1000 cubic meters (15 to 20 Ib BOD5/1000 cubic feet)  and a
detention time of several days.

Plastic covers of  nylon-reinforced  Hypalon,  polyvinyl  chloride,  and
styrofoam  can  be  used  on  occasion  to  retard  heat loss, to ensure
anaerobic conditions, and hopefully to retain obnoxious odors.  Properly
installed covers provide a convenient method for collection  of  methane
gas.

Influent  waste water flow should be near, but not on, the bottom of the
lagoon.  In some installations, sludge is recycled  to  ensure  adequate
anaerobic seed for the influent.  The effluent from the lagoon should be
located  to prevent short-circuiting the flow and carry-over of the scum
layer.


Advantages of an anaerobic lagoon system are:  initial low cost, ease of
operation, and the ability  to  handle  shock  waste  loads,  and,  yet,
continue  to provide a consistent quality effluent.  The disadvantage of
an anaerobic lagoon is odor although odors are  not  usually  a  serious
problem at well managed lagoons.

Anaerobic  lagoons  used  as  the first stage in secondary treatment are
usually followed by aerobic  lagoons.   Placing  a  small,  mechanically
aerated  lagoon  between  the  anaerobic and aerobic lagoons is becoming
popular.  It is currently popular to  install  extended  aeration  units
following the anaerobic lagoons to obtain nitrification.

The  anaerobic  contact system requires far more equipment for operation
than do anaerobic  lagoons, and consequently, is not  as  commonly  used.
The  equipment  consists  of:  equalization tanks, digesters with mixing
equipment, air or vacuum gas stripping units,  and  sedimentation  tanks
 (clarifiers) .   Overall  reduction  of  90  to  97  percent  in  BOD and
suspended solids is achievable.
                                   104

-------
Equalized waste water flow is introduced into  a  mixed  digester  where
anaerobic  decomposition  takes  place  at a temperature of about 33° to
35°C (90° to 95°F).  BOD5 loadings into the digester are between 2.4 and
3.2 kg/cubic meter (0.15 and 0.20 Ib/cubic foot), and the detention time
is between three and twelve hours.  After gas  stripping,  the  digester
effluent  is  clarified  and  sludge is recycled at a rate of about one-
third the raw waste influent rate.   Sludge  at  the  rate  of  about  2
percent of the raw waste volume is removed from the system.

Advantages  of  the anaerobic contact system are high organic waste load
reduction in a relatively  short  time;  production  and  collection  of
methane  gas  that  can  be  used  to maintain a high temperature in the
digester and also to provide auxilary  heat  and  power;  good  effluent
stability to waste load shocks; and application in areas where anaerobic
lagoons   cannot   be   used   because   of  odor  or  soil  conditions.
Disadvantages of anaerobic contractors are high initial and  maintenance
costs and some odors omitted from the clarifiers.

Anaerobic  contact  systems  are  usually  used  as  the  first stage of
secondary treatment and can be followed by the same systems that  follow
anaerobic lagoons or trickling filter roughing systems.

Other Aerobic Processes

Aerated  lagoons  have been used successfully for many years in a number
of installations for treating apple, citrus, or potato wastes.  However,
with recent tightening  of  effluent  limitations  and  because  of  the
additional   treatment  aerated  lagoons  can  provide,  the  number  of
installations is increasing.

Aerated lagoons  use  either  fixed  mechanical  turbine-type  aerators,
floating propeller-type aerators, or a diffused air system for supplying
oxygen  to  the waste water.  The lagoons usually are 2.4 to 4.6 m  (8 to
15 feet) deep, and have a detention time  of  two  to  ten  days.   BOD5
reductions  range  from  40 to 60 percent with little or no reduction in
suspended solids.  Because of this, aerated lagoons approach  conditions
similar to extended aeration without sludge recycle.


Advantages  of  this system are that it can rapidly add dissolved oxygen
(DO) to convert anaerobic waste waters  to  an  aerobic  state;  provide
additional  BOD5_  reduction;  and  require  a relatively small amount of
land.  Disadvantages are the power requirements  and  that  the  aerated
lagoon,  in  itself,  usually  does not reduce BOD5 and suspended solids
adequately to be used as the final stage in a high performance secondary
system.  Aerated  lagoons  are  usually  a  single  stage  of  secondary
treatment  and  should  be  followed  by  an aerobic  (shallow) lagoon to
capture suspended solids and to provide additional treatment.
                                   105

-------
Aerobic lagoons (or stabilization lagoons or oxidation ponds), are large
surface area, shallow lagoons, usually 1 to 2.3 m deep (3  to  8  feet),
loaded  at  a  BODJjj rate of 22-56 kilograms per hectare (20 to 50 pounds
per acre).  Detention times will vary from several days to six or  seven
months; thus, aerobic lagoons require large areas of land.

Aerobic lagoons serve three main functions in waste reduction:

1.  Allow solids to settle out.

2.  Equalize and control flow.

3.  Permit stabilization of organic matter by aerobic and facultative
    microorganisms and also by algae.

Actually, if the pond is quite deep, 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 feet), so that
the  waste  water near the bottom is void of dissolved oxygen, anaerobic
organisms may be present.  Therefore, settled solids can  be  decomposed
into   inert  and  soluble  organic  matter  by  aerobic,  anaerobic  or
facultative  organisms,  depending  upon  the  lagoon  conditions.   The
soluble  organic  matter  is, also, decomposed by microorganisms causing
the most complete oxidation.  Wind action assists in carrying the  upper
layer of liquid (aerated by air-water interface and photosynthesis)  down
into   the  deeper  portions.   The  anaerobic  decomposition  generally
occurring in the bottom converts solids to  liquid  organics  which  can
become nutrients for the aerobic organisms in the upper zone.

Algae  growth is common in aerobic lagoons; this currently is a drawback
when aerobic lagoons are used for final  treatment.   Algae  may  escape
into  the  receiving  waters,  and  algae  added to receiving waters are
considered a pollutant.  Algae in the lagoon, however, play an important
role in stabilization.  They use CO2,  sulfates,  nitrates,  phosphates,
water  and  sunlight to synthesize their own organic cellular matter and
give  off  free  oxygen.   The  oxygen  may  then  be  used   by   other
microorganisms  for  their metabolic processes.  However, when algae die
they release their organic matter in the  lagoon,  causing  a  secondary
loading.   Ammonia  disappears  without  the appearance of an equivalent
amount of nitrite and nitrate in aerobic lagoons.  From  this,  and  the
fact  that  aerobic lagoons tend to become anaerobic near the bottom, it
appears that some denitrification is occurring.

High winds can develop a strong  wave  action  that  can  damage  dikes;
Riprap,   segmented  lagoons,  and  finger dikes are used to prevent wave
damage.  Finger dikes, when arranged appropriately, also  prevent  short
circuiting  of  the  waste  water  through  the lagoon.  Rodent and weed
control, and dike maintenance are all essential for  good  operation  of
the lagoons.

Advantages  of  aerobic  lagoons  are that they reduce suspended solids,
oxidize organic matter, permit flow control  and  waste  water  storage.


                                   106

-------
Disadvantages are the large land required,  the algae growth problem,  and
odor problems.

Aerobic  lagoons  usually  are the last stage in secondary treatment  and
frequently follow anaerobic or aerated lagoons.   Large  aerobic  lagoons
allow plants to store waste water discharges during periods of Ligh flow
in  the  receiving  body  of water or to store for irrigation during  the
summer.  These lagoons are particularly popular  in  rural  areas  where
land is available and relatively inexpensive.

Rotating Biological Contactor

The rotating biological contractor (RBC)  consists of a series of closely
spaced flat parallel disks which are rotated while partially immersed in
the  waste  waters  being  treated.   A  biological  growth covering  the
surface of the disk adsorbs dissolved  organic  matter  present  in  the
waste  water.   As  the  biomass  on the disk builds up, excess slime is
sloughed off periodically and is removed in  sedimentation  tanks.    The
rotation  of  the  disk  carries a thin film of waste water into the  air
where it  absorbs  the  oxygen  necessary  for  the  aerobic  biological
activity  of  the  biomass.   The disk rotation, also, promotes thorough
mixing and contact between the biomass and the waste  waters.   In many
ways  the RBC system is a compact version of a trickling filter.  In  the
trickling filter the waste waters flow over the media  and,  thus,   over
the  microbial flora; in the RBC system, the flora is passed through  the
waste water.

The system can be staged  to  enhance  overall  waste  water  reduction.
Organisms  on the disks selectively develop in each stage and are,  thus,
particularly adapted to the composition of the waste in that stage.  The
first couple of stages might be used for removal  of  dissolved  organic
matter,  while the latter stages might be adapted to other constituents,
such as nutrient removal.

The major  advantages  of  the  RBC  system  are:   its  relatively  low
installed cost, the effect of staging to obtain dissolved organic matter
reductions,   and   its   good  resistance  to  hydraulic  shock  loads.
Disadvantages are:  that the system should be housed  to  maintain  high
removal  efficiencies  and  to control odors.  Although, this system has
demonstrated its  durability  and  reliability  when  used  on  domestic
wastes,  it  has  not  yet  been fully tested to treat apple, citrus, or
potato processing wastes.

Rotating biological contactors could be  used  for  the  entire  aerobic
secondary  system.  The number of stages required depends on the desired
degree of treatment and the influent strength.  Typical applications   of
the  rotating  biological  contactor,  however, may be for polishing  the
effluent from anaerobic processes and from  roughing  trickling  filters
and  as  pretreatment prior to discharging wastes to a municipal system.
                                   107

-------
A BOD5 reduction of over 90 percent is  achievable  with  a  multi-stage
RBC.

PERFORMANCE OF VARIOUS SECONDARY TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Table  25  shows  BOD5 and SS removal efficiencies for various secondary
biological treatment systems used  to  treat  wastes  from  apple  (AP),
citrus   (CI)   and potato (PO) processing systems.   These systems are all
in operation and many show high degrees of BOD5 and SS reduction.  Three
other multiple aerated lagoon systems are, also, operating but  are  not
included  because  raw waste data is not available.  Some of the systems
process wastes from each subcategory within a  commodity  and  therefore
treatment  effectiveness  is  applicable  to each commodity subcategory.
The range in processing plant capacity for  the  systems  listed  varies
from less than 453.5 kkg/D (500 T/D)  to 5,442 kkg/D (6,000 T/D).

The  most  commonly  used treatment systems are multiple aerated lagoons
and activated sludge.  Each system has been used to  treat  waste  water
from the processing of apples, citrus, and potatoes.

Table  25  lists  three apple plants utilizing three different treatment
systems, each of which has at least 95 percent BOD5 removal.  There  are
four  citrus  plants utilizing four different treatment systems, each of
which has at least 95 percent BOD5  removal.   There  are  three  potato
plants utilizing three different treatment systems, each of which has at
least 95 percent BOD5 removal.

Reliability, operability and consistency of operation of the waste water
treatment  processes  found  to be most frequently used in the fruit and
vegetable industry can be high if appropriate  designs  and  operational
techniques are employed.  The end-of-pipe treatment utilizing biological
systems  is  a  well established technology that requires attention to a
limited number of variables to insure a high degree of reliability.

The most important operational aspects of these biological  systems  are
equipment reliability and attention to operating detail and maintenance.
Spare  aeration  equipment   (usually floating surface aerators) improves
the possibility of consistent operation;however, many treatment  systems
have an adequate overcapacity already installed as insurance against the
results  of  equipment  failure.   It  is  desirable  to  install  spare
equipment at critical points, for example, sludge return pumps.  Perhaps
of equal importance is a design that permits rapid and easy  maintenance
of malfunctioning equipment.

Therefore, control of the biological treatment plant and the consistency
of  the results obtained are largely a matter of conscientious adherence
to well-known operational and maintenance procedures.  Automatic control
of biological treatment plants is far from a practical point.   Although
in-line   instrumentation  for  measurement  of  pH,  dissolved  oxygen,
temperature, turbidity and so  on,  can  improve  the  effectiveness  of


                                   108

-------
operation,  its  use  is  minimal in the industry's existing waste water
treatment plants.  Nevertheless, no  practical  in-line  instrumentation
can  replace  the  judicious  attention  to  operational  details  of  a
conscientious crew of operators.

An activated sludge system which is permitted to operate at  a  constant
P:M ratio all year round and with minimum operational changes would have
a  natural  variation as shown in Section IX by the solid line in Figure
10.  A similar system with careful  operational  control  would  have  a
controlled  monthly  average variation as shown by the points.  Although
the mean  value  is  the  same,  the  amount  of  natural  variation  is
controlled  by  the  operator  through  aeration  rate,  control,  sludge
recycling and F:M ratio adjustments.   These  adjustments  can  be  made
daily so that monthly averages can be held within the desired limits.

Although,   a  well-operated  and  properly  designed  facility  can  be
controlled within +25 percent of the  average  on  a  monthly  operating
basis.  A system with minimal operational control or an allowance of +50
percent  of  the  averages on a monthly basis has been used to calculate
the maximum monthly effluent limitation.

r>p>a from a well operated and properly designed activated sludge  system
at  PO-128  demonstrates  that a 50 percent allowance is justified.  The
annual average BOD5 and TSS are 0.7 kg/kkg (1.4 Ib/ton) and  0.9  kg/kkg
(1.8  Ib/ton)  respectively; the maximum monthly BODS and TSS discharges
are  1.04  kg/kkg   (2.08  Ib/ton)  and   1.32   kg/kkg   (2.63   Ib/ton)
respectively.   Thus,  the  maximum  montly discharges are less than the
averages on a monthly basis plus 50 percent.
                                   109

-------
                            TABLE 25
              EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS SECONDARY
                 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
SECONDARY TREATMENT SYSTEM
                                 BOD5.
                              REDUCTION
                               PERCENT
                    SS
                REDUCTION
                 PERCENT
MULTIPLE AERATED LAGOONS
     AP   121
     CI   105 & 109
     CI   106
     CI   118
     PO   110
                                 98
                                 98
                                 89
                                 87
                                 98
                   79
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
     AP   140
     CI   123
     PO   101
     PO
     PO
107
128
99
97
73
71
94
35
56
28
29
94
ANAEROBIC & AEROBIC LAGOONS
     CI   108
     PO   109
                                 99
                                 95
                   12
                   93
TRICKLING FILTERS
     PO   127
                                 85
                   92
TRICKLING FILTER & AERATED LAGOONS
     AP   103
     CI   127
                                 96
                                 98
                   87
                   80
ACTIVATED SLUDGE & AERATED LAGOONS
     CI   119
     PO   128
                                 98
                   95
                                 110

-------
ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEMS


A discussion of advanced treatment methods is presented in this section.
For the most part, these methods are applicable to the treatment of  the
waste  streams  after  secondary  treatment  involving  the  use of some
combination of  biological  treatment  for  reduction  of  BOD5  and  of
settling ponds or equipment for reduction of suspended solids.

Many  of  the technologies discussed do not, in themselves, constitute a
complete treatment process, but would become part of a complete process.

In  evaluating  the  treatment  methods  applicable  to  effluents  from
secondary  treatment  operations,  it  is  assumed  that all particulate
solids greater than 20 microns have been removed from the waste effluent
stream.

Carbon Adsorption

The reduction of tastes and odors in water supplies by adsorption of the
offending substances on activated carbon is probably the most  important
direct use of adsorption technology in water treatment.  Columns or beds
of  granular  activated  carbon  are  employed:    (1)  for concentrating
organic pollutants from water for  purposes  of  analysis  or,   (2)  for
removal  of  the  pollutants.   Some  of  the removal of color-producing
substances and other pollutants from water during coagulation  may  also
be the result of adsorption.

The  fixed  bed  or  countercurrent  operation is the most effective and
efficient way of using the activated  carbon.   The  influent  comes  in
contact  with  the  adsorbent  along  a  gradient  of  mounting residual
activity until the most active  carbon  gives  a  final  polish  to  the
effluent stream.

Partial  regeneration  of  carbon  by  thermal  volatilization  or steam
distillation  of  organic  adsorbates   is   possible,   but   available
regeneration procedures will have to be improved or new ones invented if
adsorption  is  to  become a widely useful operation in water treatment.
The use of multi-hearth furnaces such as used in the sugar refineries is
a possibility.  Difficulties  and  costs  of  regeneration  explain  why
powdered activated carbon continues to be widely used.

Granular  activated  carbon  can  replace  other  filtering materials in
structures not unlike  present-day  rapid  filters.   Beds  of  granular
activated  carbon  can,  in fact, be made to perform as both filters and
adsorbents.  However, activated carbon filters must be  somewhat  deeper
than  sand  filters, even though they may be operated at somewhat higher
rates of flow per cubic meter  (square foot) of bed.  For adsorption, the
rate of flow per cubic meter  (cubic foot) rather than per  square  meter
                                    111

-------
(square  foot)   of  bed  is,  understandably,  the important parameter in
practice.

Distillation

This unit process has received wide attention  as a  method  of  removing
water  from  saline  solutions where fresh water is in short supply.  It
differs from most other waste treatment processes in that the  recovered
water  is  pure  and may be recycled indefinitely.  Little work, if any,
has been done so far in transferring this new  technology  to  fruit  and
vegetable processing wastes.

It  is  not  likely  to  be used in waste treatment, because the process
either uses a lot of fuel  (as in a single step  flash)   or  has  a  high
capital cost (as in a multiple flash)  or a combination of both.

Electrodialysis

Water  can  be  desalinized electrochemically  by electrodialysis through
membranes selectively permeable to cations or  anions.  Dialysis  is  the
fractionation  of  solutes  made  possible by  differences in the rate of
diffusion of specific solutes through porous  membranes.   Semipermeable
membranes   are   thin   barriers   that  offer  easy  passage  to  some
constituents.  High selective membranes have been  prepared  by  casting
ion-exchange  resins  as  thin  films.   Dialytic  processes  are common
separation techniques in  laboratory  and  industry.   The  recovery  of
caustic  soda  from industrial wastes, such as viscose press liquor from
the rayon industry and mercerizing solutions,   is  an  example  of  con-
tinuous-flow dialysis.

Electrodialysis  is  only  applicable  to  saline solutions of which are
readily ionized and is not  applicable  to  the  separation  unionizable
soluble  organics  that  exist  in  effluents   from biological treatment
systems.

Eutectic Freezing

Eutectic freezing operates at the eutectic temperature of  the  incoming
water.  Down to the eutectic point, only ice is formed.  At the eutectic
point, ice crystals nucleate and grow independently of salt crystals and
other  substances  in  the  water.   Further  removal  of  heat does not
continue to lower the temperature.  Both ice and sludge freeze, and they
can then be separated because the  ice  floats  and  the  frozen  sludge
sinks.

The  freezing  breaks  down  the  sludge  and  destroys its waterbinding
capacity  which,  in  turn,  permits  better  sludge  dewatering.   Both
functions,  the  removal  of  water  in the form of ice crystals and the
concentration  of  sludge  by  freezing  have  been  demonstrated  in  a
laboratory scale only as water-inorganic salt systems.


                                   112

-------
Filtration

Two  types of filtration will be considered in this discussion:  (1)  sand
(slow and rapid)  and  (2) diatomaceous earth.  A slow sand  filter  is  a
specially  prepared bed of sand or other mineral fines on which doses of
waste water are  intermittently  applied  and  from  which  effluent  is
removed  by  an under-drainage system.  The solids removal occurs mainly
at the surface of  the  filter.   BOD  removal  occurs  primarily  as  a
function of the degree of solids removal although some biological action
occurs in the top inch or two of sand.  Effluent from the sand filter i3
of a high quality with BOD and suspended solids concentrations very low.

Slow sand filters require larger land areas than rapid filter facilities
on  the  order  of five times  (or more)  as much land; however, slow sand
filters may operate up to 60 days without cleaning, whereas  rapid  sand
filters are usually cleaned by backwashing every 24 hours.

Slow  sand filters require no extra preparatory water treatment prior to
filtration, although it is recommended, whereas, rapid sand filters  are
designed   to   remove  the  remainder  of  solids  after  treatment  by
coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation.  Construction costs of slow
sand filters are relatively high due to  the  large  area  requirements;
however,  operating  and maintenance costs are relatively low since slow
sand filters may operate for long durations.  Rapid sand filters have  a
relatively  low  construction  cost  due to their low area requirements;
however, operating and maintenance costs are relatively high since  they
cannot  operate  for  long  periods  of  time without backwashing.  Food
processing wastes are likely to cause clogging of the filters after only
a short period of operation unless adequate treatment precedes them.

Rapid filters are subject to a variety of ailments, such as: cracking of
the bed, formation of mud balls, plugging of portions of  the  bed,  jet
actions  at  the  gravel-sand  separation  plane,  sand  bails, and sand
leakage into the under-drain systems.  Usually  these  problems  can  be
minimized  or  eliminated  by  proper  design and plant operation.  Sand
filters are well noted for their efficient removal of  bacteria,  color,
turbidity, iron and large microorganisms.

Diatomaceous  earth  filters  have  found  use as:   (1) mobile units for
water purification in the field and  (2)  stationary  units  for  swimming
pools  and  general  water  supplies.   The  filter medium is a layer of
diatomaceous earth built up on a porous septum.  The resulting  pre-coat
is  supported  by  the  septum,  which serves also as a drainage system.
Water is strained through the pre-coat unless the applied water contains
so much turbidity that the unit will maintain itself only if  additional
diatomaceous  earth,  called  body feed, is introduced into the incoming
water and preserves the open texture of the layer.

Skeletons of diatoms 0.5 to 12 units in size  compose  the  diatomaceous
earth mined from deposits.  Pre-coating requires 0.49 to 2.44 kg  (0.1 to


                                   113

-------
this should not be necessary if the sand filter and/or carbon adsorption
system  is  used upstream of the ion exchange system.   The effluent from
the first ion exchange column is further treated by a  weak cation  resin
to  reduce  the final dissolved salt content to approximately five mg/1.
The anion resin in this process is regenerated with aqueous ammonium and
the cation resin with an aqueous sulfuric  acid.   The  resins  did  not
appear  to  be susceptible to fouling by the organic constituents of the
secondary effluent used in this experiment.

Other types of resins can be used for nitrate and phosphate removal,  as
well  as color bodies, COD, and fine suspended matter.  Removal of these
various constituents can range from 75 to 97 percent,  depending  on  the
constituent.

The  cycle  time on the ion exchange unit will be a function of the time
required to block or to take up the ion exchange sites available in  the
resin contained in the system.  Blockage occurs when the resin is fouled
by  suspended matter and other contaminants.  The ion  exchange system is
ideally located at the end of the waste water  processing  scheme,  thus
having the highest quality effluent available as a feed water.

The  organic  nature  of  most  food  processing  waste effluents is not
conducive to the employment of ion exchange technology as  a  method  of
treating waste effluent.  Ion exchange has found its greatest acceptance
in the treatment of inorganic contaminants and in public waterworks.


Microscreening

Microscreening  has  been  a  viable  solids-removal  process for twenty
years.  A microscreen consists of a  rotating  drum  with  a  screen  or
fabric constituting the periphery.  Feedwater enters the drum internally
and  passes  radially through the screen with the concomitant deposition
of solids on the inner surface of the screen.  At the top  of  the  drum
pressure, jets of water are directed onto the screen to remove deposited
solids.   This  backwash  stream  of  dislodged  solids and washwater is
captured in a receiving hopper inside the drum and flows out through the
hollow axle of the unit.  In  order  to  reduce  slime  growths  on  the
screen,  an  ultraviolet lamp is continually operated in close proximity
to  the  screen.   The  driving  force  for  the  system  is  the   head
differential  between  the  inside and outside of the screen.  As solids
are removed on the screen a mat is  formed  which  improves  the  solids
removal  efficiency  and also results in increased head loss through the
screen.  The maximum head loss is usually  limited  to  0.15  meters  (6
inches)  in  order  to  prevent  screen damage.  In order to prevent the
limiting head loss from  being  exceeded,  drum  speed  and  wash  water
pressure  are increased.  In newer units automatic controls handle these
adjustments.
                                   116

-------
One type of microscreen displayed efficiencies in removal of solids from
55  to  73  percent,  while  another  type  showed  57  to  89   percent
efficiencies  in  tabulation of average removals.  Due to differences in
feed character  and  operational  techniques,  the  data  could  not  be
compared.   Individual  studies  demonstrated the effects of a number of
design, maintenance and operational factors on the  performance  of  the
unit:

Design

1.  Approximately one-half of the wash water applied to the
    screen actually penetrates and is removed as the waste
    stream with dislodged solids.

2.  The waste stream is usually returned to the end of the
    main plant.

3.  It is desirable tc have gravity flow from the clarifier
    to the microscreener to avoid shearing of the more
    fragile solids.

4.  Total head loss through the system is only 0.30 to 0.46
    meters  (12 to 18 inches) .

5.  Prechiorination should be avoided in order to protect
    the screen.

6.  Chloride concentrations exceeding 500 mg/1 (0.0021 Ib/gal)
    may cause corrosion problems.

7.  Microscreens do not successfully remove floe particles
    resulting from coagulation by chemicals such as aluminum
    sulfate.

Maintenance

1.  Screens for the pressure washing system tend to clog,
    mainly due to grease in the effluent.

2.  Most units will require frequent (approximately once a
    week) cleaning with a hypochlorite solution which entails
    a few hours of removal from service in order to clean
    the fabric.

3.  High iron or manganese concentrations in the feed may
    necessitate an occasional acid wash of the screen to
    destroy the resulting film buildup.
                                    117

-------
Operation

1.  Minimum drum speeds consistent with head loss limitations
    will give the greatest removal of suspended solids.

2.  Higher pressures for the jet washing system are more
    beneficial than greater quantities of water.

3.  High solids loadings can cause severe reductions (up to
    two-thirds design capacity)  in throughput as well as
    acceleration of slime buildup.

Nitrification-Denitrification

Nitrification-denitrification  is  a  two-step  process  used  to remove
nitrogen from treated waste waters.

In the first step, after most of the  carbonaceous  materials  has  been
removed from the waste water, ammonia nitrification occurs in an aerated
system with the subsequent production of nitrites and nitrates.

The  next  step, denitrification, occurs in the absence of oxygen and is
responsible for converting nitrates to  nitrogen  and  nitrogen  oxides.
The  reaction rate is increased by adding a biodegradable carbon source,
such  as  methanol.   The  wastewater  from  the  second  step  is  then
transferred  to  another  aeration  pond where the nitrogen and nitrogen
oxide gases are removed.

Over the range of operating temperatures, denitrification can maintain a
90  percent  removal  of  total  nitrogen.    The   optimum   efficiency
temperature  was  found  to be 30°C for most aerobic waste systems, with
efficiency drops at both higher and lower temperatures.

The system has been demonstrated on a  pilot  plant  scale,  but  it  is
premature to draw conclusions as to the effectiveness and reliability of
the nitrification-denitrification process in a full-scale operation.

Ozonation

If  ozone  is to be employed effectively and efficiently as a deodorant,
decolorant and disinfectant of drinking water, its physical and chemical
properties  in  water  solution  and  their  influence   on   pathogenic
microorganisms  need  to  be  known  over  the  full  range  of possible
exposures.

Only in the absence of organic matter does  ozone  follow  the  laws  of
ideal,  i.e., nonreacting, gases in water.  The distribution coefficient
of ozone between air and water,  i.e.,  the  ratio  of  the  equilibrium
concentration  of  ozone in the liquid phase to that in the gas phase at
like temperature and pressure, is then about 0.6 at 0°C and 0.2 at  20°C.


                                   118

-------
Increasing either the total  pressure  of  the  system  or  the  partial
pressure  of ozone in the air raises the concentration of ozone in water
in direct proportion of these pressures.  In the presence of  oxidizable
substances,  their  nature  and  concentration  in water rather than the
distribution coefficient govern the amount of entering ozone.

As a disinfectant, ozone is said to  possess  an  all-or-none  property,
implying  that  it produces essentially no disinfection below a critical
concentration  but  substantially  completes  disinfection  above   that
concentration.

Because  the  absorption  of  ozone  from  the  air into the water to be
disinfected is a matter of  contact  opportunity,  contactcamber  design
aims  at a maximization of  (1)  effective interface, (2)  driving force or
concentration of  differential,  and  (3)  time  of  exposure  with  due
consideration of advantages to be gained by countercurrent operation.

As  a  rule,  capital  and  running  cost  of ozonation equipment cannot
compete  with  those  of  comparable  chlorination  equipment  for   the
treatment  of  a  given  water  unless  ozone is called upon and able to
remove objectionable odors and tastes and reduce the color of the  water
more  effectively than chlorine in combination with activated carbon and
coagulants.  Ozone, also, leaves no residual, thereby becoming unable to
safeguard the treated water from future pathogenic contamination.

Reverse Osmosis

Osmotic pressure drives water molecules  through  a  permeable  membrane
from a dilute to a concentrated solution in search of equilibrium.  This
natural  response  can  be  reversed  by  placing  the  salt water under
hydrostatic pressures higher than the osmotic pressure.

A good deal of experimentation has been carried out  in  an  attempt  to
apply  membrane processes including reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration and
electrodialysis to the treatment of industrial wastes.  Reverse  osmosis
has the capability of removing dissolved and suspended materials of both
organic and inorganic nature from waste streams.  However, organic-laden
streams  tend  to  foul  reverse osmosis membranes resulting in substan-
tially decreased throughput.

At present, none of these  membrane  processes  appear  to  have  direct
application  to  the  treatment  of  the  food  processing  wastes under
consideration here.   These  processes  are  relatively  expensive  when
applied  to  the  large  volumes of waste generated and the heavy solids
concentrations in food processing waste water.   A  primary  problem  is
that  the rate of pure water production in reverse osmosis has been low,
and, thus, has not been economically acceptable.

Recent developments of the spiral or hollow tube reverse osmosis systems
permit large membrane areas to be incorporated into a small space,  thus


                                   119

-------
permitting  large volumes of water to be treated.   The use of either the
spiral or hollow tube system requires that all particles larger than  10
to  20  microns  be  removed  from  the waste stream before entering the
reverse osmosis system.

Another problem with this system is the bacterial  growth on or near  the
membrane and its damaging effect on the membrane.

Because  chlorine damages the membranes presently  available, the chlori-
nation of the water cannot occur before the reverse osmosis step.

Reverse osmosis units are, also, sensitive to  both  alkaline  and  high
temperature fluids.  It is desirable to avoid both conditions if reverse
osmosis is to be used.

Solvent Extraction

This  widely  used  process  could  theoretically  be employed to extract
soluble organics from treatment wastes by employing a selective solvent.
Since the solvents, themselves, are likely to have solubilities in water
comparable to the concentration of the organics present, it is  unlikely
that this process would have utility in food processing.

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration  uses  a membrane process similar to reverse osmosis for
the  removal  of  contaminants  from  water.   Unlike  reverse  osmosis,
Ultrafiltration  is  not impeded by osmotic pressure and can be effected
at low pressure differences of 1.3-7.8  atmospheres   (5-100  psi).   The
molecular   weight   range  of   materials  that  might  be  removed  by
Ultrafiltration  is  from  500  to  500,000.   This  would  remove  such
materials  as  some  microorganisms, starches, gums, proteins and clays.
Ultrafiltration is finding applications in the food  industry  in  sugar
purification,  whey  desalting,  and fractionation.  It can be used as a
substitute for thickeners, clarifiers and flocculation  in  waste  water
treatment.   In addition to removal of the above contaminants from waste
water, it can, also, be applied to sludge dewatering.

A.t the present time, because of high capital and operating  costs,  this
system has not found acceptance in the treatment of waste effluents.


ULTIMATE DISPOSAL METHODS

Percolation and Evaporation Lagoons

The  liquid  portion  of  cannery wastes can be "completely" treated and
discharged through percolation and evaporation lagoons.  These ponds can
be sized according to the annual flow,  so  that  the  inflow  plus  the
incidentally  added  water  are equal to the percolation and evaporation


                                   120

-------
losses.  There is, theoretically, no surface outflow in the usual sense.
Percolation and evaporation lagoons are subject to many of the  problems
of ponds discussed previously.

The  food  processing  and the biological solids grown in the pond are a
major operating problem.  The soil interstices  will  eventually  become
biologically sealed, causing percolation rates to be greatly diminished.
Unless remedial action is taken, the pond becomes largely an evaporation
lagoon.   To  prevent this, annual scarification and solids removal will
generally be required.

There are two major objections to  percolation-evaporation  ponds.   The
first  is  that  under  almost any loading conditions the ponds may turn
septic, with odor problems resulting.  Secondly, there is the  potential
for  long-range damage to aquifers, since objectionable and biologically
resistant organics may be carried into  the  groundwater  by  continuous
percolation.

Spray Irrigation

Spray  irrigation  is  another  method  currently  utilized  by the food
industry for disposal of its wastes.  The  design  of  such  systems  is
rapidly  becoming a highly scientific operation.  Numerous cases of both
unsatisfactory   results   and   trouble-free   experience   have   been
encountered.  Apparently such systems must be designed with a great deal
of flexibility to handle unforeseen problems.  The hydraulic and organic
characteristics  of the soil profile must be considered in the design as
well as the rates of waste degradation.  The need  to  properly  balance
nutrient  loads to insure adequate microbiological activity and adequate
growth of plants without undue losses of nutrients to ground waters must
be considered.   Other  important  design  considerations  include  crop
management  insuring  proper  crops  and  corp  sequences  and  climatic
conditions considering evapotranspiration rates, precipitation and  cold
weather operation.

Currently,  a  study  is  being  conducted  by  the USDA to evaluate the
practice of land disposal of potato waste  water.   Several  plants  are
involved  including  PO-102,  PO-114, PO-115, PO-116, PO-121, PO-122 and
PO-124.  Their sizes range from  220  kkg/day   (240  T/day)  with  water
usages  from  8760-15510  1/kkg  (2100-3720 gal/T) and BOD from 8.6-31.95
kg/kkg  (17.2-63.9 Ib/T) .

The application rates being  studied  range  from  approximately  95-168
kilograms  organic  matter  per hectar per day  (85 to 150 pounds organic
matter per acre per day).   Water  applications  will  range  from  9-37
thousand  cubic  meters  per hectar per year  (3 to 12 acre feet per acre
per year) for existing disposal sites.   Nitrogen  in  waste  water  may
range  from  50  to 125 ppm total N  (much of it is organic), but through
decomposition and mineralization, it should  be  converted  to  nitrate.
The  fields are planted with grass and other crops that can be harvested


                                   121

-------
to remove some of the nitrogen, phosphorus and  other  plant  nutrients.
To   remove   the  excess  nitrogen  above  plant  growth  requirements,
denitrification may  be  needed  to  minimize  ground  water  pollution.
Further study will be done in this area.


Spray  irrigation consists essentially of spraying the liquid waste on a
field at as high a rate and with as  little  accompanying  nuisances  or
difficulties  of  operation as possible.  Pretreatment of waste water to
remove solids is suggested in order to prevent  clogging  of  the  spray
nozzles.  This preliminary treatment in preparation for spray irrigation
has undoubtedly already reduced the BOD of the waste water.

Wastewater  disseminated by spray irrigation percolates through the soil
and the organic matter in the waste undergoes a biological  degradation.
The  liquid  in the waste stream is either stored in the soil or leached
to a groundwater.  Approximately 10 percent of the waste  flow  will  be
lost   by  evapotranspiration  (the  loss  due  to  evaporation  to  the
atmosphere through the leaves of plants).

Spray irrigation presents an ideal method for disposal of liquid cannery
wastes when a combination of suitable features exists.   These  features
include:

1.  A large area of relatively flat land available at an
    economical price.

2.  Proximity of the disposal area to the cannery.

3.  Proper type of soil to promote optimum infiltration.

4.  Absence of a groundwater underlying or nearby the dis-
    posal area which is being or could be used as a public
    water supply.

5.  Absence of any suspended matter in the waste water of
    such a nature so as to cause clogging of the spray
    nozzles.

6.  Maximum salt content in waste water of 0.15 percent.

7.  Proper combination of climatic conditions conducive
    to cover crop growth, percolation and evaporation,
    i.e., sunny and relatively dry climate.

In  actual  practice,  cannery  wastes   (after  adequate  screening) are
usually retained in a "surge  tank"  of  sufficient  volume  to  provide
continuous  operation of sprays.  The impounded screened waste is pumped
to a header pipe and a series of lateral aluminum or  lightweight  lines
                                    122

-------
under  ample  pressure to provide each sprinkler with similar volumes of
waste for application to the land.

The amount of waste water reaching groundwater is variable quantity  and
rather difficult to predict.  In some cases it might be expected that no
usable  groundwater  would  be involved.  Considerable study seems to be
needed in evaluating this potential problem.

The following factors must be evaluated in  designing  a  land  disposal
system:

1.  The site should be relatively level and well covered
    with vegetation.  A sloping site may be considered for
    controlled runoff to a receiving water.

2.  The soil should be light in texture and have a high
    sand or gravel content.  Some organic matter may be
    beneficial, but high clay content is detrimental.

3.  Spray testing and soil analyzing prior to full-scale
    irrigation is recommended.

4.  Soil cultivation should be practiced to prevent com-
    paction.

5.  Groundwater levels at the spray site should be at least
    10 feet below the surface to allow for proper decomposi-
    tion of the waste as well as more rapid percolation.

With the proper equipment and controlled application of the waste, spray
irrigation  will  completely  prevent  stream pollution, will not create
odor problems, and is usually less expensive than other methods of waste
disposal.  The amount of land required may not, at present, be  reliably
predetermined.   Since a cover crop will provide 85-90 percent more soil
absorption, the type crop used is extremely important.  A  typical  seed
mixture for cover crop is:

              Mammoth clover          19X
              Ladino-Alsac Mixture    25X
              Alta-fescue             25%
              Redtop                  18%
              Orchard grass           13%

This  mixture  is  sowed at the rate of 16 pounds per acre to produce as
dense a cover crop as possible at the time of waste water application.

Different types of soils will give varying infiltration rates.   It  has
been  shown  from  soil descriptions the permeability of each soil layer
has the following ranges of permeability.
                                   123

-------
    Soil Type

Trace fine sand
Trace silt
Little silt (coarse and fine)

Some fine silt
Little Clayey silt
Fissured clay-soils
Organic soils

Some clayey silt
Clay-soils dominating
Range of Coefficient of Permeability, K

m/min	               ft/min
0.3 - 0.06
0.24 - 0.012
0.0036 - 0.006

0.00024 - 0.00012
1.0 - 0.2
0.8 - 0.04
0.012 - 0.002

0.0008 - 0.0004
0.00006 and lower
0.00002 and lower
Thus, trace fine  sand  would  be  more  suitable  for  spray  or  flood
irrigation  than  clay  soils  because  of higher rates of permeability.
There are, of course, other factors which must be considered.


Many of the more recently constructed ultimate disposal systems consists
of a combination of lagoons and land disposal.  In this type  of  system
large  lagoons  (ponds)   having  retention  times of 30 days or more are
constructed to receive the waste effluents.  If odor becomes  a  problem
because  of  location, then sufficient aeration equipment is provided to
reduce or eliminate the odor.  The waste effluent is  removed  from  the
pond or lagoon and directed to spray irrigation.

Soil  fertility,  crop  production, and soil conservation considerations
must, of necessity, be used as an ultimate basis  for  regulating  land-
spreading operations if the system is to remain continuously effective.

Wet Oxidation

The development and continuing perfection of oxidation methods for waste
sludges  and slurries that produce oxidized residues has been one of the
major breakthroughs in waste treatment practice.  Such residues are  not
putrescible  and  the  processes  produce  little  air  pollution.   The
processes require thickening as pretreatment and greater  concentrating.
Furthermore, the process oxidation takes place in the presence of liquid
water  at  400-600°F  and  usually at high pressures of 18-103 atm  (250-
1,500 psi).  The process may be operated on a continuous or batch  basis
and solids volume is greatly reduced and putrescibility nonexistent.

The  current  accepted  practice  in  the food processing industry is to
separate the solids from the waste effluent streams for  use  as  cattle
feed  and  in  this manner receive some economic benefit.  However, if a
Ss.c 0x3 -X  _ion system for wasi - disposal of solids is used, then it would
be desirable to leave as many of the organic solids in the  effluent  as
                                   124

-------
possible.   This  waste effluent is oxidized and then separated into two
waste effluent streams, one which is clean water (condensation)  and  the
second  high  in oxidized solids.  It is this reason that has restricted
or prevented the application of this  process  to  the  food  processing
industry.

Wet  oxidation reduces the COD by about 80 percent to less than 20 mg/1,
and 90 percent of the volatile solids are removed.   The effluent  liquor
has  a  BOD  between  5,000  and 9,000 mg/1.  The residual solids can be
dewatered by vacuum filtration or disposed of in lagoons or drying beds.

Fungal Digestion

A considerable amount of work has been done on the use of fungi  in  the
continuous  oxidation  of  food processing wastes.   Fungi Imperfect! can
convert organic matter into a mycelium with a sufficiently high  protein
content  for  use  as an animal feed supplement.  The work that has been
done  involves  principally  wastes  from  corn   and   pea   processing
operations.   However,  consideration  has  been  given  to applying the
process to other food industry wastes.  While  fungal  digestion  cannot
presently  be considered as a fully proven process, its further develop-
ment could result in a significant new  process  approach  for  treating
cannery  wastes with the production of a by-product with economic value.
There is one drawback existing in the development of this system,  which
is  the difficulty to harvest the finer mycelium.  Therefore, more study
is needed to be done in this area  in  order  to  reduce  this  cost  of
separation.  New materials of construction which permit the construction
of  more  durable and finer mesh screen cloths will make this separation
economically feasible in the near future.
                                   125

-------

-------
                              SECTION VIII


           COST, ENERGY, AND OTHER NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS


                              INTRODUCTION

This section will discuss  and  summarize  the  cost  of  treatment  and
control technologies described in Section VII and will estimate the cost
incurred   in   applying  various  combinations  and/or  permutation  of
pollution control technologies to  achieve  best  practicable  and  best
available  effluent reductions.  The sequence of treatment components is
given in Table 27 for each effluent reduction level for each of the five
subcategories.   Best  practicable  effluent  reduction  is   attainable
through  the  application of secondary biological treatment  (Levels B or
E)  or land treatment  (Level D) .  Best available  effluent  reduction  is
attainable  through the application of additional biological or advanced
treatment  (Level C or F  or  G).   The  subsequent  analysis  will  also
describe   energy  requirements  and  the  non-  water  quality  aspects
(including sludge disposal) of the levels of technology.

The  information  presented  in  Sections  VII  and  VIII  provide   the
background   for   the  rationale  supporting  the  effluent  guidelines
presented in Sections IX, X and XI.

                    IN-PLANT CONTROL COSTS


Raw Material Cleaning

One possibility for reducing processing plant waste loads is to  do  the
raw material cleaning in the field.

In  the  case  of  apples and potatoes, this is not a practical approach
because most of the harvest goes into  storage prior to processing.

In the case of citrus, it is practical to consider field washing of  the
fruit  when it is picked.  The presently used washing equipment could be
assembled in a portable module along  with  a  recirculated  wash  water
system.   The  fruit would be washed as it is loaded into the trucks for
transportation to the processing plant.

Since there is only a small waste load generated in washing good quality
fruit, the only real benefit which would be derived from cleaning in the
field is a  reduction  in  the  volume  of  water  used  by  the  citrus
processor,  and,  thus,  there  would  be a smaller quantity of water to
treat or dispose of by land irrigation.
                                    127

-------
The equipment cost for field washing would be equal to or  greater  than
that  already  installed  in  the  processing plant for washing as it is
received.

Thus, the requirement of  field  washing  citrus  is  rejected  for  the
following reasons:

    1.  The processor would not have close control of
        the washing/cleaning procedure.

    2.  There would be no cost benefit to the processor.
        The cost of field washing would offset the cost of
        treating the additional quantities of wash water at the
        processing plant.

    3.  The processor presently has available water from
        other processing areas available for fruit washing.


Peel Removal

The peel is normally removed from apples by the use of mechanical knives
which  can  be  adjusted  to remove the desired amount of imperfections.
Mechanical peeling has a high labor cost and creates a large cleanup  of
solid  wastes  which  adhere  to  equipment  surfaces and spill onto the
floor.  While it is hoped these solids will be collected  and  processed
into   additional   products,  no  change  from  mechanical  peeling  is
recommended.

Citrus segment processing employs only mechanical peeling.   The  peeled
fruit  is  treated with caustic to remove rag and segment membranes.  No
change is recommended.


Potatoes are treated with steam, wet lye or dry caustic systems prior to
peel removal.  In  Section  IV  processing  plant  effluent  differences
attributable to peeler system were negligable.  However, if water sprays
are  used  to  remove  the peel after treatment, the waste effluent load
must be higher than if water sprays are not used.

If the treated peel is removed by  rubber  abrading  and  brushing  with
added  water, this waste load does not enter the waste effluent from the
plant.  Information  from  vendors  indicates  that  a  rubber  abrading
installation  might  achieve  approximately  a  25 per cent reduction in
water usage, a 40 per  cent  reduction  in  BOD5,  and  a  65  per  cent
reduction in suspended solids.

Therefore,  it  is  recommended   (but not required) that the water spray
system for the removal of treated peelings be replaced with  the  rubber
abrading system with minimal water usage for brushing.


                                   128

-------
Capital  costs  for  an  installation  in  a 589.6 kkg/day (650 ton/day)
potato processing plant  are  estimated  to  be  $120,000  while  annual
operating cost is estimated to be $12,000.
Sorting, Trimming and Slicing

Sorting,  trimming and slicing generate wastes for all three commodities
that are directly attributed to the cutting of the fruit  or  vegetable.
For  example,  the larger the percentage of blemishes to be removed, the
greater the amount of cutting, and the higher  the  BOD5  load  released
(excluding  the  blemish).   Some water volumes can be reduced, but this
will not reflect in a reduction  in  the  total  waste  load,  but  will
produce a more concentrated waste effluent.

There are no in-plant changes which could appreciably reduce waste loads
in   sorting,  trimming  and  slicing,  with  the  exception  of  potato
processing, where raw starch could be recovered as a concentrated slurry
by the use of hydroclcnes.  This application  is  experimental  and  its
practicability may depend on the value of the recovered starch.


Transport

Replacement  of  water  transport  systems  with mechanical conveyors is
recommended except where the water is, also, serving some other function
such as washing or cooling the product.  It  is  difficult  to  estimate
this replacement cost since the size of the processing plants as well as
the   amount  of  conveying  within  each  plant  varies  widely.   Each
processing plant may have to be evaluated separately.


Blanching

Apple slices are blanched two to six minutes at82C (180  F)  prior  to
canning.   Steam  blanching is preferred to water blanching resulting in
the use of reduced quantities of water.  Hot-water blanching of potatoes
is preferred because of the large amount of  leachables  which  must  be
removed  during  this  process  step.   Steam  or  experimental  hot-gas
blanching does not have  the  ability  to  remove  large  quantities  of
solubles from the product.

No blanching is used in citrus processing.
                                   129

-------
Cleanup

Cleanup  is  one of the largest uses of water for all three commodities.
This usage may be reduced considerably by adopting the  good  management
practices previously listed.

The  capital cost of adopting this practice is nominal.   Operating costs
should not increase significantly, since the added labor cost,  if  any,
would  be  largely  offset  by  a  reduction in water cost and treatment
costs.


In-Plant Reuse of Water

The reuse of water within a food processing plant may be put into one of
two categories:  (1)  water which comes in direct contact with the  fruit
or  vegetable  and  (2)  water which contacts the product in an indirect
manner.
                 Conservation of water which is in direct  contact  with
theproductcan be effected by imposition of a counter flow system.  For
example,  the  water  that  is  used to cool the product after blanching
might be sequentially used in the blanching step and  then  possibly  in
the  washing/  cleaning step.  It has been estimated that one-third less
water is used in a counter flow system than in  a  recirculation  system
where  the  water is recirculated within a given portion of the process.
There is, also, less danger of bacteria growth in a once-through counter
flow system than a recirculation system.

Indirect Contact;  Some typical uses of water which does not contact the
product directly are can cooling, barometric condenser, heat exchangers,
refrigeration system, etc.  All of these cooling systems can use a lower
quality water than that which contacts the fruit or vegetable and, since
this cooling water normally has a low BOD content, it is  more  amenable
to  recirculation  and  reuse.   Cooling  towers  or ponds are generally
employed for removal of heat in the recirculation of water.

The citrus industry is the largest user of cooling water  and  therefore
offers  the  greatest  potential for water savings.  Very little process
water comes in direct contact with the fruit  (fruit washing and  segment
rinsing) .   Thus,  the  major  portion of the water (cooling water) in a
citrus plant could be reused with the addition of either cooling  towers
or ponds.  It is, therefore, recommended that cooling towers or ponds be
utilized  to  recirculate  cooling  waters.   Capital  costs for cooling
towers for a 3630 kkg/day  (4000 ton/day) plant are estimated from  plant
CI-135  to  be  $75,000  and  annual operating costs are estimated to be
$7,500.   These  costs  are  based  on  actual  industry  cooling  tower
construction  costs  in  1971  dollars  based on typical small and large
citrus plants.


                                   130

-------
Each processing plant, whether it is apples, citrus  or  potatoes,  must
make  its  own  economic assessment on in-plant water reuse.  Since most
plants have  wide  variation  in  their  processing  methods  and  plant
layouts, each reuse of water must be evaluated on the following factors:

1.  Cost of in-plant treatment.

2.  Cost of fresh water.

3.  The effect of reused water on product quality.

               WASTE EFFLUENT TREATMENT AND CONTROL COSTS

This  section develops capital costs and operating costs for six  (Levels
B-G) levels of waste effluent treatment for both large and small typical
plants within each of the five  subcategori.es.   In  addition,  we  have
estimated  that total U.S. investment required to meet each of these six
levels of treatment for each of the five subcategories as  well  as  the
pertinent  apple, citrus, and potato segment of the canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables industry.

Effectiveness of Waste Treatment Systems

Table 26 presents typical waste load reductions that may be expected  by
the  application  of  various  treatment systems to organic wastes.  The
systems include those that we have previously classified in Section  VII
as preliminary, primary, biological (secondary), advanced and ultimate.


Parameters for Cost Estimating

The  raw  water  usage  and  raw  waste  loading  used  as the basis for
estimating costs are those listed as average industry practice for  each
of  five subcategories as previously set forth in Section V (Tables 19  -
21).  Plants in each of the subcategories have been segmented  into  two
groups represented by a typical small plant or by a typical large plant.
The  typical  small  plants  are 91 kkg/day  (100 ton/day) for both apple
subcategories, 180 kkg/day (200 ton/day) for dehydrated potato products,
and 360 kkg/day  (400 ton/day) for citrus  and  frozen  potato  products.
The  typical  large plants are 450 kkg/day  (500 ton/day) for apple juice
only, 540 kkg/day  (600 ton/day)  for  dehydrated  potato  products,  910
kkg/day  (1000 ton/day) for apple products except apple juice  and frozen
potato products, and 3630 kkg/day  (4000 ton/day) for citrus products.
                                   131

-------
                           TABLE 26

    EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
    Treatment System

Flotation

Flotation with pH
  control & Flocculants
  added
Sedimentation
Aerated Lagoons
Aerobic Lagoons
Shallow Lagoons
Trickling Filter
Anaerobic & Aerobic
  Lagoons
Anaerobic, Aerated, &
  Aerobic Lagoons
Anaerobic Contact
  Process
Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration
Chlorination
Sand Filter

Microscreen

Electrodialysis

Ion Exchange
Carbon Adsorption

Chemical Precipitation
Reverse Osmosis

Spray Irrigation
Flood Irrigation
Ponding & Evaporation
Application

Preliminary

Preliminary
Primary
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological

Biological

Biological

Biological
Biological
Advanced
Advanced

Advanced

Advanced

Advanced
Advanced

Advanced
Advanced

Ultimate
Ultimate
Ultimate
  Waste Load Reduction

BOD 30% Removal
SS  80% Removal
BOD 30% Removal
SS  80% Removal

BOD 50 to 80% Removal
BOD 50 to 99% Removal
BOD 50 to 99% Removal
BOD 50 to 99% Removal
BOD 70 to 90% Removal
BOD 95% Removal

BOD 99% Removal

BOD 90 to 95% Removal

BOD 90 to 95% Removal
BOD 90 to 95% Removal
Disinfectant
BOD to 5-10 mg/1
SS  to 3-8 mg/1
BOD to 10-20 mg/1
SS  to 10-15 mg/1
Total Dissolved Solids
    90% Removal
Salt 90% Removal
BOD to 98% as Colloidal
    Organic
Phosphorus 85-95% Removal
Salt to 5 mg/1
TDS to 20 mg/1
Complete
Complete
Complete
                                132

-------
Levels of Treatment Technology

For  the purpose of determining the cost effectiveness of various levels
of treatment it was necessary to select practical treatment  systems  to
achieve these levels.  The system design used to obtain a given level of
treatment  varies from subcategory to subcategory and there are numerous
combinations of treatment steps that will  achieve  the  same  level  of
treatment.   In  general the treatment systems consist of one or more of
the  following  five  classes  of  treatment  technology:   preliminary,
primary, secondary, advanced, and ultimate disposal.


Preliminary	Treatment;   Screens are preliminary treatment and are used
to remove solids from the waste effluent streams as they are  discharged
from  the  processing plant.  The screening of the waste effluent stream
from a food processing plant is normally the first step in the treatment
system and is the most economical method of removing large solids.   This
removal of solids protects other equipment from plugging or  damage  and
reduces  the  size  of  other  solids handling units.  There are various
types of screens which are used in these plants.  The  vibrating  screen
equipped with a 20 to UO mesh screen cloth is generally used.  In recent
years  because  more municipal sewer assessments are based on the amount
of suspended solids in the effluent  and,  also,  because  of  increased
emphasis on reuse of process water, there has been a concerted effort on
the part of the food processor to use finer and finer mesh screens.

Primary,	treatment:   Primary  treatment is, also, used to remove solids
from  the  waste   effluent   streams.    Primary   treatment   includes
sedimentation   units   with  and  without  sludge  disposal  to  remove
settleable solids not removed in the preliminary screening.  A clarifier
of either circular or rectangular design is  used  for  the  removal  of
floatable  and  settleable  solids.   These clarifiers are equipped with
mechanical scrapers to assist in the removal of solids  that  settle  to
the  bottom  or  float on the top.  The volume of solids that is removed
from the clarifier is further concentrated by a rotary vacuum filter  or
a  centrifuge.   The concentrated solids can, usually, be sold as animal
feed.  Design criteria for estimating cost of primary systems  for  each
typical  size  of  each  subcategory  are primarily waste water flow and
suspended solids loading  (See Tables 19-21).


Primary treatment is  not,  generally,  used  in  the  apple  or  citrus
industry.   If  a  primary  treatment  system  is present at an apple or
citrus plant, it is, usually, designed without sludge disposal.  In  the
potato  processing  industry,  primary  treatment  with clarifier sludge
concentration is necessary and practicable because of the high suspended
solids loading.  It is common practice in the potato industry to utilize
dual primary clarifiers.  One clarifier, is used to recover solids  from
the  process  waste water,  Another clarifier is used to settle silt and
remove mud from the raw potato wash  water.   The  process  waste  water


                                   133

-------
solids are collected and concentrated by a rotary vacuum filter.   In the
cost  figures  given  in  Table  28, dual clarifiers and a rotary vacuum
filter are included in  the  sedimentation  with  sludge  recovery  cost
estimates for both frozen and dehydrated potato plants.


Secondary	(Biologica1}  Treatment;   Biological treatment is a secondary
treatment system which is employed for a high reduction of BOD from  the
waste  effluent  stream.  To achieve this high reduction in BOD a number
of different biological systems may  be  employed:  biological  filters,
activated  sludge,  aerated  lagoons,  anaerobic  lagoons,  and  shallow
lagoons.

Biological  treatment  systems  are  best  practicable  technology   and
multiple combinations of biological treatment systems are best available
technology.   The  design  parameters  for  these  treatment systems are
primarily total waste water flow and BOD  loading   (See  Tables  19-21).
The  estimation of cost for each typical system size in each subcategory
are based on these criteria.
Sand  filtration,  carbon  adsorption,  microsGreening,  ion   exchange,
electrodialysis,   reverse   osmosis  and  ultra  filtration  have  been
considered  for  the  further  reduction  in  BOD  and  the  removal  of
undesirable  soluble  components  from  the waste stream to permit water
recycle  or  reuse.   The  advanced  treatment  was  considered  as   an
additional component to the best practicable biological treatment system
to attain best available effluent reduction.


Ultimate	Disposal:  For the zero discharge of pollutants, land disposal
is a technology  currently  being  used  by  apple,  citrus  and  potato
processors  when   sufficient  and suitable land is available.  Both land
flooding and spray irrigation are accepted methods of disposal and  have
been  used as the  basis of cost estimates.  The primary design parameter
for  irrigation  systems  is  waste  water  flow   (See  Tables   19-21).
Evaporative ponds  and percolation lagoons are, also, an accepted form of
ultimate  disposal  but  have  not  been  used in ultimate disposal cost
estimates.

Effluent Reduction Levels


The classes of waste treatment  systems  discussed  above  are  suitable
waste treatment systems which will perform when properly operated within
the  design  parameters and limitations of the system for apple, citrus,
or potato processing wastes.  Best  practicable  effluent  reduction  is
attainable  through  the  application  of secondary biological treatment
 (Levels B or E) or through ultimate disposal by  land  treatment   (Level


                                   134

-------
D) .    Best  available  effluent,  reduction  is  attainable  through  the
application of advanced treatment (Levels C or P or G).

All  apple,  citrus,  and  potato  subcategories  regardless  of   waste
treatment  or  disposal  method  utilize  screens  to remove particulate
solids from the waste effluent as it leaves the plant.   The  higher  the
percentage of solids which are removed at this point the lower the waste
load  entering  the  treatment  system.   Screening  is Level A effluent
reduction for each typical size in each subcategory.  Screening is  also
used in all other effluent reduction levels (Levels B - G).

Primary  treatment is not used as universally as screening.  Only in the
case of the two potato subcategories is it necessary to  employ  primary
sedimentation  with  sludge  disposal  prior to any biological treatment
system or prior to land treatment.  Dual primary clarifiers and a rotary
vacuum filter are in the potato sedimentation with sludge disposal  cost
estimates.  Thus, reduction levels B through G for frozen and dehydrated
potato products utilize primary sedimentation.

As  discussed  earlier  in  the  section under "In-Plant Reuse of Water"
cooling towers or ponds are very important in handling the large cooling
water volumes in the citrus industry.  Thus, effluent reduction levels B
and C and E through G for  the  citrus  processing  subcategory  utilize
cooling towers.

There  are  several  different  biological  systems  used  to  fully  or
partially achieve effluent levels  B  and  C  and  E  through  G.   Some
biological  treatment systems are dependent upon long retention times to
achieve the desired waste load reduction;  some  are  not.   Large  land
areas  may  be  required  to  accommodate some of these systems but only
limited  area  requirements  are  needed  if  mechanical  separation  or
collection devices such as centrifuges and filters are utilized.  Higher
energy,  maintenance,  and  capital  costs  are required with mechanical
equipment to attain  comparable  levels  of  waste  reduction.   Aerated
lagoons with and without settling, aerobic/anaerobic lagoons, and 30 day
shallow  lagoons  are  biological  systems used to attain Levels B and C
effluent reduction.


Effluent  levels  E,  F  and  G  utilize  activated  sludge   (secondary)
treatment.  Level G, also, employs an aerated lagoon.  Effluent levels F
and  G  utilize  advanced  treatment  technology  in  the  form  of sand
filtration following secondary treatment.  This polishing filter removes
most of the remaining BOD  and  suspended  solids.   Very  low  effluent
levels are possible.

Level  D  reduction  is  attained  through the use of screening, primary
sedimentation  (potato  only),  and  a  shallow  lagoon  before  ultimate
disposal  through land treatment.  Spray or flood irrigation is the form
                                   135

-------
of land treatment used.  The availability  of  suitable  and  sufficient
land are limits to the utilization of this technology.

The  six effluent reduction levels for each subcategory are described in
detail in Table 27 by listing the sequence of waste  effluent  treatment
technologies  utilized  to attain each level of effluent reduction.   For
example, effluent reduction Level B for the apple juice  subcategory  is
attained  through  preliminary screening followed by two aerated lagoons
(no settling)  in series.


Investment and Annual Operating Costs - Model Plant


The estimated investment to obtain the various treatment levels is shown
for both small and large plants for each of the  five  subcategories  in
Tables  30-34.   These  costs  are generated from Tables 28 and 29 which
list investment  and  annual  cost  for  various  preliminary,  primary,
secondary,  advanced  and ultimate treatment systems for small and large
plants.  The annual operating  costs  corresponding  to  the  investment
costs  are  also  shown  in these tables.  Investment costs for specific
waste treatment systems are dependent  on  the  waste  water  flow,   BOD
loading  and  suspended  solids  loading.   The  investment  costs  were
calculated on the basis of raw waste effluent  data  from  Tables  19-21
with information supplied, from food processing equipment manufacturers,
engineering  contractors  and consultants.  Costs compare satisfactorily
with investment costs collected  individually  from  apple,  citrus  and
potato  processors.   All  costs  are  reported  in August 1971 dollars.
Percentage factors were added to the basic system  estimate  for  design
and  engineering   (105?) and for contingencies and omissions  (15%).  Land
costs were estimated to be $4940 per hectare ($2000 per acre).

Variations exist in plant water flows and  BOD5  loadings;  there  exist
inherent  inaccuracies  in  cost estimating which could reflect an error
approaching 20 to 25 percent.

The components  of  annual  cost  include  capital  cost,  depreciation,
operation  and  maintenance  costs,  and  energy  and  power costs.   The
capital interest costs are assumed to be 8 percent,  depreciation  costs
are  assumed to be 5 percent and taxes and insurance are assumed to be 3
percent of the investment.


Investment and Annual Operating Costs - Subcategory


The total investment costs  for  each  alternative  treatment  level  is
calculated  for  each  of  the  five  subcategories  in  Table  35.   The
investment cost are given for both  typical  small  plants  and  typical
large plants.  The total annual costs for small and large plants in each


                                   136

-------
subcategory  are included in the tabulation.  Also, each treatment level
includes screening (Level A) .

The  total  investment   (or  total  annual)   costs  are  calculated   by
multiplying  the treatment level's capital cost ($1000) times the annual
raw material processed by the subcategory  typical  plant  (million  kkg
(ton)   /  year)   and by dividing by the capacity  (kkg  (ton)/ day) and by
the processing season (day/year) .   There are assumptions with regard  to
season  and  annual  raw  material  processed.  The season for apples is
assumed to be 50 days/year, 216 days/year for citrus, and 240 days/ year
for potatoes.  With regard to the annual raw  material  processed,  0.36
and 1.09 million kkg (0.4 and 1.2 million tons) of the annual apple crop
are  assumed  to  be  processed to apple juice and apple products except
juice respectively.  The 6.4 million ton potato crop is  assumed  to  be
processed  equally into frozen and dehydrated products.  This assumption
is possible because the model  plants  processing  frozen  products  are
almost  twice as large as the dehydrated potato model plants.  A further
assumption is that annual raw  material  is  processed  equally  by  the
typical  small  plant  and  by  the  typical  large  plant  within  each
subcategory.  In this rationale, economic impacts for both small  plants
and large plants are thereby considered.

The  total  investment  costs  for  achieving  each  level  of  effluent
reduction are listed for each subcategory and each industry in Table 36.
The total annual costs are listed in Table 37.  The total investment and
annual costs from Table 35 are summed to calculate these total costs for
Tables 36 and 37.  The assumptions are that_all plants  are  subject  to
each treatment level and that no present treatment facilities exist.

The cost impact on the apple, citrus, and potato industry as a result of
applying  each  level  of  effluent reduction is given in Table 38.  Two
assumptions have been made to develop this table.  First, all plants are
not subject to each level of effluent reduction.  For each commodity,  a
percentage  of  the industry was found to be disposing of their waste to
municipal systems, a percentage through land treatment and a  percentage
by secondary treatment techniques.  The results of our apple, citrus and
potato processing survey are indicated below:

                 Municipal       Secondary           Land
Industry         Treatment       Treatment        Treatment
Apple               26              20                54

Citrus              12              32                56

Potato              10              33                57
                                   137

-------
These  secondary  treatment  factors  are  applied to effluent reduction
Levels B, C, E, F and G.  The land  treatment  factors  are  applied  to
Level  D.  The municipal treatment factors are not applied because these
plants are outside the scope of this effort.

The second assumption is that treatment facilities  do  exist  and  that
only  a  portion  of the industry subject to  an effluent reduction level
will have to either construct facilities or upgrade existing facilities.
It was assumed that one-third of the industry would need to construct or
upgrade facilities to achieve Levels B, D, and E and ninty-nine  percent
of the industry would need to construct additional facilities to achieve
Levels  C,  F  and G.  These factors are applied to the capital costs in
Table 36.


The result of  Table  38  is  that  the  capital  investments  for  each
subcategory  can be related to each level of  effluent reduction.  Levels
B and E are the effluent reduction attainable through the application of
best practicable control technology currently available.   Levels  C,  F
and  G are the effluent reductions attainable through the application of
the best available control technology economically achievable.  Table 39
is a tabulation of the total annual costs for each subcategory  to  meet
each level of effluent reduction.

The  investment costs of meeting Levels B and D by 1977 are $2.2 million
for apples, $6.2 million for citrus and $8.68 million for potatoes for a
total industry cost of $17.1 million.  The investment  cost  of  meeting
similar  levels  of  effluent  reduction  through  application  of  more
expensive treatment technology represented by Levels E and D by 1977 are
$4.7 million for apples, $10.0 million for citrus, and $11.4 million for
potatoes for a total industry cost of $26.10   million.   The  investment
costs of meeting Levels B, C, and D by 1983 are $3.7 million for apples,
$12.0  million  for  citrus,  and $13.4 million for potatoes for a total
industry cost of $29 million.  The investment cost  of  meeting  similar
levels  of  effluent  reduction  through  application  of more expensive
treatment technology represented by Levels E, F or G, and D by 1983  are
$6.1 or $ 6.7 million for apples, $12.3 or $14.1 million for citrus, and
$13.5  or $15.1 million for potatoes for a total industry cost of $32 or
$36 million.

Therefore, the total industry  (apple,  citrus,  and  potato)  investment
costs  to  meet  1977  levels  of effluent reduction range from $17.1 to
$26. 1 million and the total industry costs to meet 1977 and 1983  levels
of effluent reduction range from $29 to $36 million.
                                   138

-------
                                                     TABLE 27
        EFFLUENT  TREATMENT SEQUENCE BY SUBCATEGORY  TO ACHIEVE VARIOUS  LEVELS  OF EFFLUENT REDUCTION
                            APPLE JUICE
        APPLE PRODUCTS   CITRUS PRODUCTS  DEHYDRATED        FROZEN
        (EXCEPT JUICE)                    POTATO  PRODUCTS  POTATO PRODUCTS
E.
V
0
I
A
R
R
N
R
N
ATMENT COMPONENT LEVEL LEVEL
(SEQUENTIAL) BCDEFG BCDEFG
EL A SCREENING 111111 111111
LING TOWER
MARY SEDIMENTATION
EROBIC/AEROBIC LAGOON
ATED LAGOON (SETTLING) 2 2
ATED LAGOON
0 SETTLING) 23 23
ATED LAGOON
0 SETTLING) 34 34
ALLOW LAGOON
30 day retention) 2 52
LEVEL
BCDEFG
111111
222222

3
3 4
4 5

6 3
LEVEL
BCDEFG


222222
3 3
4 4
5
6
7 3
LEVEL
B C D E
1111
2222
3 3
4 4
5
6
7 3
F G
1 1
2 2





ACTIVATED SLUDGE

AERATED LAGOON
 (NO SETTLING)

SAND FILTRATION

SPRAY IRRIGATION
222


    3

  3 4
222


    3

  3 4
333


    4

  4 5
333


    4

  4 5
333


    4

  4 5

-------
                        TABLE  28

             INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL  COSTS
PRELI MINARY,  PRIMARY & BIOLOGICAL  WASTE TREATMENT  SYSTEMS
WASTE TREATMENT
SYSTEM
Prel inn nary
- Screen
Pri mary
- Sedimentation w/
Sludge Disposal
- Sedimentation w/out
Sludge Disposal
Biologi cal
- Shallow Lagoon w/
30-Day Retention
- Shal 1 ow Lagoon w/
90-Day Retention
- Aerated Lagoon
w/Settl i ng
- Aerated Lagoon
w/out Settling
- Anaerobic/Aerobic
Pondi ng
- Trickling Filter
- Acti vated SI udge
- Spray Irrigation
w/Runoff

Prel i mi nary
- Screen
Pri mary
- Sedimentation w/
Sludge Disposal
- Sedimentation w/out
Sludge Disposal
Biological
- Shal low Lagoon w/
30-Day Retention
- Shallow Lagoon w/
90-day Retention
- Aerated Lagoon
w/Settl i ng
- Aerated Lagoon
w/out Settling
- Anaerobic/Aerobic
Ponding
- Trickling Filter
- Acti vated SI udge
- Spray Irrigation
w/ Runoff
APPLE
PRODUCTS
($1,000)
CAPITAL ANNUAL

2.0

48.0

25.0


15.0

50.0

27.0

15.0

70.0

130.0
240.0
25.0



5.2

150.0

70.0


50.0

105.0

93.0

65.0

160.0

540.0
595.0
100.0


1 .0

7.2

3.0


2.0

7.0

9.2

5.4

17.0

4.0
8.5
12.0



2.8

22.5

12.5


6.5

13.0

19.8

15.8

34.0

23.0
30.5
28.0

SMALL PLANTS
APPLE
JUICE
($1,000)
CAPITAL ANNUAL

1.0

50.0

10.0


10.0

19.0

10.0

6.0

16.0

250.0
151 .0
14.0

LARGE

2.2

62.0

24.0


15.0

45.0

34.0

22.0

50.0

170.0
270.0
320.0


.3

4.5

1 .5


1.0

6.3

5.8

2.0

.32

3.0
5.0
7.5

PLANTS

.8

9.3

3.9


2.5

7.0

11 .2

6.6

11 .0

6.0
11 .0
13.5

CITRUS
JUICE, OIL.SEG.
& PEEL PRODUCTS
($1,000)
CAPITAL ANNUAL

6.2

190.0

92.0


63.0

126.0

114.0

81 .0

212.0

680.0
725.0
144.0



19.2

678.4

384.0


240.0

492.8

504.0

352.0

787.2

3,024.0
2,960.0
758.4
140

3.5

28.0

15.9


8.0

15.0

22.8

18.4

44.8

30.0
39.0
33.5



12.8

121 .9

72.0


28.0

46.7

76.2

54.7

142.1

132.8
174.4
86.4

POTATOES
DEHYDRATED
($1,000)
CAPITAL ANNUAL

3.3

95.0

44.0


30.0

75.0

60.0

40.0

115.0

300.0
400.0
55.0



6.9

200.0

103.0


72.0

142.0

130.0

92.0

250.0

780 .0
805.0
168.0


1 .6

14.0

7.5


3.8

10.5

14.0

11 .0

20.0

13.0
17.0
20.0



4.0

32.0

18.0


9.0

16.3

25.0

20.0

52.0

35.0
44.0
37.0

POTATOES
FROZEN
($1,000)
CAPITAL ANNUAL

6

176

90


63

125

113

80

210

670
720
140



11

345

195


124

243

245

175

450

1 ,480
1 ,470
359


.2

.0

.0


.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0
.0
.0



.0

.0

.0


.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0
.0
.0


3.5

27.5

16.5


7.8

15.0

22.2

18.0

44.0

30.0
36.0
33.0



6.7

60.0

35.5


14.7

24.5

39.2

35.0

83.0

67.0
85.0
49.0


-------
                                        TABLE 29
                              INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS
                   ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS & ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
WASTE TREATMENT
    SYSTEM
Chlori nati on
Chemical Secondary
  Treatment
Sand Filtration
Mi croscreeni ng
Nitrogen Removal
Activated Carbon
Ultrafiltration
Ultimate Disposal
  fiased on Flow)
  (Based on BOD5)
Chlori nati on
Chemical Secondary
  Treatment
Sand Filtration
Mi cros creeni ng
Nitrogen Removal
Activated Carbon
Ultrafiltration
Ultimate Disposal
  (Based on Flow)
  (Based on BOD5)
APPLE
PRODUCTS
($1,000)
CAPITAL ANNUAL
2
100
38
11
38
72
200
32
11
.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.41
22.5
7.9
3.1
3.3
3.6
51.0
8.0
2,8
SMALL PLANTS
APPLE
JUICE
($1,000)
CAPITAL ANNUAL
1 .3
40.0
24.0
6.0
22.0
36.0
110.0
15.0
2.8
.24
11.0
5.8
1.7
1.3
1.7
34.0 1
3.8
0.7
CITRUS
JUICE, OIL.SEG. POTATOES POTATOES
& PEEL PRODUCTS .DEHYDRATED FROZEN
($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
CAPITAL ANNUAL CAPITAL ANNUAL CAPITAL ANNUAL
13.95
675.0
111.1
69.5
112.0
420.0
,060.0
242.3
76.8
2.5
107.0
15.3
15.8
15.3
22.5
207.0
60.6
19.2
5.8
260.0
61 .0
26.5
60.0
175.0
440.0
88.8
21 .5
.95
49.0
10.1
7.0
7.0
9.0
100.0
22.2
5.4
13
620
107
65
105
410
995
223
65
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.9
.3
2.3
98.0
14.9
14.9
14.75
21.5
195.0
56.0
16.3
LARGE PLANTS
10
500
92
52
93
330
800
144
144
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1 .8
83.0
13.5
12.5
12.5
17.0
165.0
36.0
36.0
5.5
250.0
62.5
27.0
60.0
180.0
450.0
75.2
14.2
1.0
48.0 3
10.25
7.0
7.0
9.0 1
100.0 5
18.8 1
2.0
64.8
,328.0
419.2
244.8
438.4
,408.0
,088.0
,508.3
768.0
11.52
448.0
46.7
40.8
40.8
84.0
896.0
377.1
192.0
15.0
750.0
120.0
78.0
121 .0
480.0
1 ,180.0
276.2
71 .7
2.7
113.0
16.2
17.0
17.0
26.0
230.0
69.1
17.9
31
1 ,580
212
140
220
820
2,450
660
163
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.5
5.9
217.5
24.5
24.75
24.75
47.0
445.0
165.1
40.9
                                             141

-------
                                         TABLE 30

           INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS BY EFFLUENT REDUCTION LEVEL  FOR  APPLE  JUICE  (Sole Product)
           SUBCATEGORY FOR TYPICAL SMALL PLANT (100 TPD)  AND LARGE  PLANT  (500 TPD)
TREATMENT COMPONENT




LEVEL A: SCREENING

PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION

SHALLOW LAGOON
 (30 day retention)

AERATED LAGOON
 (Settling)

AERATED LAGOON
 (No Settling)

ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC LAGOON

ACTIVATED SLUDGE

SAND FILTRATION

SPRAY IRRIGATION
                                              COST OF EFFLUENT  REDUCTION  ALTERNATIVE  ($1,000)


                                     LEVEL B         LEVEL  C         LEVEL D         LEVEL  E
                                                               LEVEL  F
                 LEVEL G
Smal1   Large     Smal1   Large    Srnal1   Large    Smal1   Large    Sinai 1   Large    Smal1   Large

  1.0     2.2       1.0     2.2      1.0     2.2      1.0     2.2      1.0     2.2      1.0     2.2
                                10.0    15.0
                 10.0    34.0
 12.0   44.0      12.0    44.0
                                              151.0   270.0
151.0  270.0

 24.0   62.5
  6.0   22.0




151.0  270.0

 24.0   62.5
                                15.0    75.2
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
     ($1000)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST ($1000)
13.0   46.2     23.0     80.2    26.0    92.4   152.0    272.2


 4.3   14.0     10.0     25.2     5.1    22.1     5.3     11.8
 176.0  334.7    182.0 356.7


  11.1   22.05    13.1  28.$

-------
                                        TABLE 31

          INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS BY EFFLUENT REDUCTION LEVEL FOR APPLE PRODUCTS EXCEPT JUICE (ONLY)
          SUBCATEGORY FOR TYPICAL SMALL PLANT (100 TPD)  AND LARGE PLANT (1,000 TPD)
TREATMENT COMPONENT

LEVEL A:  SCREENING

PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION

SHALLOW LAGOON
(30 day retention)

AERATED LAGOON
(Settling)

AERATED LAGOON
(No Settling)

ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC LAGOON

ACTIVATED SLUDGE

SAND FILTRATION

SPRAY IRRIGATION
   LEVEL B

Smal1   Large

 2.0     5.2
30.0  130.0
                                                    COST OF EFFLUENT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE ($1,000)


                                                   LEVEL C        LEVEL D        LEVEL E        LEVEL F
                                                                              LEVEL G
Smal1   Large   Smal1   Large   Smal1   Large   Smal1   Large   Smal1   Large

        5.2
 2.0



15.0


27.0
                       50.0


                       93.0
30.0  130.0
2.0
5.2
2.0
5.2
2.0
5.2
                                             2.0
5.2
               15.0   50.0
                                             240.0  595.0   240.0  595.0

                                                             38.0   92.5
                                                            15.0   65.0




                                                           240.0  595.0

                                                            38.0   92.5
                               32.0   144.0
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT         32.0  135.2
($1,000)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST (-$1,'000)       11 .-8   34-4
                74.0   278.2    49.0   199.2   242.0  600.2   280.0  692.7   295.0  757.7


                42.2    60.7    11.0    45.3     9.5   33.3    17.4   46.8    22.8   79.2

-------
                                                        TABLE 32
                       INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS BY EFFLUENT REDUCTION LEVEL FOR CITRUS PRODUCTS
                       SUBCATEGORY FOR TYPICAL SMALL PLANTS (400 TPD) AND LARGE PLANT (4,000 TPD)
TREATMENT COMPONENT


LEVEL A:  SCREENING

PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION

COOLING TOWER

SHALLOW LAGOON
(30 day retention)

AERATED LAGOON
   (Settling)

AERATED LAGOON
(No Settling)

ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC LAGOON

ACTIVATED SLUDGE

SAND FILTRATION

SPRAY IRRIGATION
                                   LEVEL B
                                                       COST OF EFFLUENT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE ($1,000)

                                                  LEVEL C        LEVEL D        LEVEL E        LEVEL F        LEVEL G
Small    Large  Small   Large  Small   Large   Small   Large  Small   Large  Small    Large
   6.2
19.2   6.2
19.2   6.2
          212.0  787.2
19.2   6.2
  50.0     75.0                   50.0     75.0   50.0

           63.0  240.0    63.0   240.0


 114.00   504.0  114.0   504.0


  81.0    352.0   81.0   352.0
                                               725.0
19.2   6.2
                                              75.0  50.0
                                              2960 725.0

                                                   111.1
19.2   6.2
                                                             75.0  50.0
                                                                                        19.2
                                                             75.0
                                                     81.0   352.0



                                              2960  725.0   2960

                                             419.2  111.1   419.2
                                242.3    1508.3
TOTAL CAPITAL  INVESTMENT       251.2    950.2  526.2  1977.4  311.5   1767.5  781.2   3054.2 892.3   3473.4  973.3  3825.4
      ($1,000)
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
     ($1,000)
  49.7    151.2  102.5   321.3    72.1     417.9  47.5   194.7  62.8    241.4    81.2    296.1

-------
                                          TABLE 33

         INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS BY EFFLUENT REDUCTION  LEVEL  FOR  FROZEN  POTATO  PRODUCTS
         SUBCATEGORY FOR TYPICAL SMALL PLANT (400 TPD)  AND  LARGE  PLANT  (1000 TPD)

                                            COST OF EFFLUENT REDUCTION  ALTERNATIVE  ($1000)
TREATMENT COMPONENT
LEVEL A: SCREENING
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
SHALLOW LAGOON
(30 day retention)
AERATED LAGOON
(Sett! ing)
AERATED LAGOON
(No Settling)
ANEROBIC/AEROBIC LAGOON
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SAND FILTRATION
SPRAY IRRIGATION
LEVEL B LEVEL
Small Large Small
6.2 11.0 6.2
176.0 345.0 176.0
63.0
113.0 245.0 113.0
160.0
210.0 450.0 210.0



C LEVEL D LEVEL E
Large Small Large Small Large
11.0 6.2 11.0 6.2 11.0
345.0 176.0 345.0 176.0 345.0
124.0 63.0 124.0
245.0
350.0
450.0
720.0 1470

223.9 660.3
LEVEL F LEVEL G
Small Large Small Large
6.2 11.0 6.2 11.0
176.0 345.0


80.0 175.0

720.0 1470 720.0 1470
107.0 212.0 107.0 212.0

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
      ($1,000)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST
      ($1,000)
505.2 1051.0   728.2  1525.0   469.1  1140.3    902.2  1826.0    1009.2  2038.0    1089.2  2213.0


100.7  188.9   144.5   273.6      94.8   246.5     67.0   151.7      81.9   176.2      99.9   211.2

-------
                                   TABLE 34
INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS BY EFFLUENT REDUCTION LEVEL FOR DEHYDRATED POTATO PRODUCTS
         SUBCATEGORY FOR TYPICAL SMALL PLANT (200 TPD)  AND LARGE PLANT (600 TPD)
                               LEVEL B
           COST OF EFFLUENT  REDUCTION  ALTERNATIVE  ($1,000)

                LEVEL  C          LEVEL  D          LEVEL  E
LEVEL F
LEVEL G
TREATMENT COMPONENT
LEVEL A: SCREENING
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
SHALLOW LAGOON
(30 day retention)
AERATED LAGOON
(Setting)
AERATED LAGOON
(No Settling)
ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC LAGOON
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SAND FILTRATION
SPRAY IRRIGATION
Capital Annual Capital
3.3 6.9 3.3
95.0 200.0 95.0
30.0
60.0 130.0 60.0
80.0
115.0 250.0 115.0



Annual
6.9
200.0
72.0
130.0
184.0
250.0



Capital Annual Capital Annual Capital Annual Capital Annual
3.3 6.9 3.3 6.9 3.3 6.9 3.3 6.9
95.0 200.0 95.0 200.0 95.0 200.0 95.0 200.0
30.0 72.0

40.0 92.0

400.0 805.0 400.0 805.0 400.0 805.0
61.0 120.0 61.0 120.0
88.8 276.2
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT      273.3   586.9   383.3   842.9   217.1    555.1    498.3  1011.9   559.3  1131.9  599.3  1223.9
     ($1000)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
      ($1000)
49.6   113.0    75.4   162.0     41.6    114.1     32.6     80.0     42.7     96.2    53.7    116.2

-------
                           r— O CO OI CO M    r-

                           r— CsJr— Or-CM    •^f
                                                                           co in r
                                                                     r** to o &> r
                      1O CM «* r- f1^ i
                      CM CO l£ O r-
                     LD o r** en r^ CT*
                     CM CO CM CO O CM
                           oooooo    oooooo
                           I**. O O r- *

                           r— KT CM CM
                                                CM o> CM «^ cn *r
                                                         r— O I"-.
 CM CO O r— LO LO

 «*• CT1 LO COO CT»
1^. O P^-r-

1O ^J- LO r— OO 1O
                      LO >— CT» CT> CM
                      l£> LO CO O «fr f
                           OOOOOO
o
o
LU
r~
<
O
CO
         z o
      _J LU   *
      < 3E O
      I— I— O
      o to o
      (-UJ   -
         S» i—
         Z*r>
         -j o:
         <. f
         HH LU
      »ee>-
      ffUl^.
      on-x
         *c o
=>
o
         2 o:
         o >•
1C- *r *)• CO CO LO
ro to r— i— to co
O O O CM CM CM
CM CM •«• CO «• CO
LO en o o o CM
o Or- tor- r-
oooooo
oooooo
CM CM CM CM CM CM

OOOOOO
LO LO LO LO LO LO
CM »a- en o i— en
to ro ro CM ro o
i — ro CM r*s co en
«t CO CO •* O O
co co co o to *
ro co LO en ro LO
CM ro ro
oooooo
oooooo
oooooo
oooooo
oooooo
to to to to to to

oooooo
LO LO LO LO LO LO
CM i— en <* oo en
to to to oo oo LO
«• en 03 Tt to oo
r- r-. "O- r- r- o
CM LO »— en ro ro
CM to to r— ro r-
r- CM i— ro 
                                                   O.
                                                LU 0)
                                                _J U
                                                Q- X

                                                O. LU
u
=>
a
o
a:
a.
O
I—
f
r-
o to
a- r-
   o
                     Nl O
                     o ce
                     o£ a.
                        a
                     ao
                     LU a:
                     i-o.

                     ai o
                                                                                                              LU O
                                                                                                              O O.
                                                                          147

-------
TABLE 36  TOTAL SUBCATEGORY AND INDUSTRY INVESTMENT COST FOR EACH LEVEL
                          OF EFFLUENT REDUCTION
SUBCATEGORY
      TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR EFFLUENT REDUCTION LEVEL
                                         ($1,000,000)
      LEVEL  LEVEL  LEVEL  LEVEL  LEVEL  LEVEL
SIZE    B      C      D      E      F      G
APPLE JUICE
(SOLE PRODUCT)
TOTAL
APPLE PRODUCTS
(EXCEPT JUICE)
TOTAL
CITRUS PRODUCTS

TOTAL
FROZEN POTATO
PRODUCTS
TOTAL
SMALL
LARGE

SMALL
LARGE

SMALL
LARGE

SMALL
LARGE

0.52
0.37
0.89
3.84
1.62
5.46
12.21
4.62
16.83
8.39
6.00
14.39
0
0
1
8
3
.92
.64
.56
.88
.34
12.22
25
9
35
12
10
.57
.61
.18
.09
.16
2T.25
1.04
0.74
1.78
5.88
2.39
8.27
15.14
8.59
23.73
7.79
7.59
15.36
6.08
2.18
8.26
29.04
7.20
36.24
37.97
14.84
52.81
14.98
12.16
27.14
7
2
•
•
04
68
9.72
33
8
41
43
16
60
16
13
30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
60
31
91
37
88
25
75
57
32
7
2
lo
35
9
44
47
18
65
18
14
32
.28
.85
.13
.40
.09
.49
.30
.59
.89
.08
.74
.82
DEHYDRATED
   POTATO
   PRODUCTS
     TOTAL

APPLE TOTAL

CITRUS TOTAL

POTATO TOTAL

INDUSTRY TOTAL
SMALL  9.10
LARGE  6.51
      15.6!
12.76   7.23 16.59  18.62  19.96
 9.36   6.16 11.23  12.56  13.59
22.12  13739" 27.82  31.18  33.55

13.78  10.05 44.50  51.63  54.62

35.18  23.73 52.81  60.25  65.89

44.37  28.77 54.96  61.50  66.37

93.33  62.55 152.27 173.38 186.88
                                    148

-------
TABLE 37  TOTAL SUBCATEGORY AND INDUSTRY ANNUAL COST FOR EACH LEVEL OF
                           EFFLUENT REDUCTION

                            TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR EFFLUENT REDUCTION
                                      LEVEL  ($1,000,000)
                          LEVEL  LEVEL  LEVEL  LEVEL  LEVEL  LEVEL
SUBCATEGORY       SIZE      B      C      D      E      F      G
APPLE JUICE
(SOLE PRODUCT)
TOTAL
APPLE PRODUCTS
(EXCEPT JUICE)
TOTAL
CITRUS PRODUCTS

TOTAL
FROZEN POTATO
PRODUCTS
TOTAL
DEHYDRATED
POTATO
PRODUCTS
SMALL
LARGE

SMALL
LARGE

SMALL
LARGE

SMALL
LARGE


SMALL
LARGE
0.17
0.11
0.28
1.42
.41
1.83
2.42
.73
3.15
1.67
1.26
2.93

1.65
1.25
.40
.20
0.60
5.09
.73
5.82
4.98
1.56
6.54
2.40
1.82
4.22

2.51
1.80
.20
.18
0.38
1.32
.54
1.86
3.50
2.03
5.53
1.57
1.64
3.21

1.39
1.27
.21
.09
0.30
1.14
.40
1.54
2.31
.95
3.26
1.11
1.01
2.12

1.09
.89
.44
.18
0.62
2.09
.56
2.65
3.05
1.17
4.22
1.36
1.17
2.53

1.42
1.07
.52
.23
0.75
2.74
.95
3.69
3.95
1.44
5.39
1.66
1.41
3.07

1.79
1.29
      TOTAL

APPLE TOTAL

CITRUS TOTAL

POTATO TOTAL
 2790"  ¥73T   2.66   T798"   2.49   3.08
 2.11  6.42   2.24

 3.15  6.54   5.53

 5.83  8.53   5.87
1.84   3.27   4.44

3.26   4.22   5.39

4.10   5.02   6.15
INDUSTRY TOTAL
11.09 21.49  13.64   9.20  12.51  15.98
                                      149

-------
TABLE 38   TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT TO MEET EACH LEVEL OF EFFLUENT
                                  REDUCTION

                          CAPITAL INVESTMENT    ($ Million)        TOTAL
EFFLUENT APPLE
LEVEL JUICE
B
C
D
E
F
G
(1977)
(1983)
(1977)
(1977)
(1983)
(1983)
.06
.19
.32
.55
.84
.92
APPLE
PRODUCTS
.36
1.70
1.47
2.39
3.51
4.02
CITRUS
PRODUCTS
1
7
4
5
7
9
.78
.59
.39
.58
.94
.72
FROZEN
POTATOES
1.
4.
2.
2.
4.
4.
57
14
89
96
00
82
DEHYDRATED
POTATOES
1.
3.
2.
3.
4.
4.
70
83
52
03
13
90
INVESTMENT
BY LEVEL
5
17
11
14
20
24
.47
.45
.59
.51
.42
.38
                                   150

-------
TABLE 39   TOTAL ANNUAL COST TO MEET EACH LEVEL  OF  EFFLUENT REDUCTION
                            ANNUAL COST      ($ Million)         TOTAL
EFFLUENT
LEVEL
B
C
D
E
F
G
(1977)
(1983)
(1977)
(1983)
(1983)
(1983)
APPLE
JUICE
.02
.08
.07
.02
.08
.11
APPLE CITRUS FROZEN DEHYDRATED
PRODUCTS PRODUCTS POTATOES POTATOES
.12
.91
.33
.09
.29
T43
.33
1.40
1.02
.34
.64
1.01
.32
.74
.60
.23
.36
.54
.32
.78
.50
.22
.39
.58
ANNUAL COST
BY LEVEL
1.11
3.91
2.52
0.90
1.76
2.67
                                    151

-------
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS


El e c tr i c al En er qy

Electricity  is  required  in  the  treatment  of food processing wastes
primarily for pumping  and  aeration.   The  aeration  horsepower  is  a
function  of  the  waste  load and the horsepower for pumping depends on
waste water flow rate.

The fruit and vegetable processing industry as a whole is  not  a  large
consumer  of electrical energy.  We estimate that the average power cost
per ton of raw material processed is on the order of $0.50, and on  this
basis  the  total  power  bill  in 1973 for apple, citrus and potato was
about 16,400,000 tons x $0.50/ton or $8,200,000/yr.

Although power requirements for waste treatment systems at  some  plants
may  approach 20 percent of the total power consumption, it is estimated
that the average contribution  of  waste  treatment  systems  at  apple,
citrus and potato processing plants is considerably less than 10 percent
of the total at present and should not exceed 10 percent in the future.

Thermal Energy

Thermal   energy   costs  roughly  equal  electrical  energy  costs  for
operations within the  industry.   Waste  treatment  systems  impose  no
significant  addition  to  the  thermal  energy  requirement  of plants.
Wastewater can be reused in cooling and  condensing  service  if  it  is
separated  from  the  process  waters  in nonbarometric type condensers.
These heated waste waters improve the effectiveness of  anaerobic  ponds
which  are  best  maintained  at  32°C  (90°F) or more.  Improved thermal
efficiencies are  coincidentally  achieved  within  a  plant  with  this
technique.

tfastewater  treatment costs and effectiveness can be improved by the use
of energy and power conservation practices and techniques in each plant.
The waste load increases with increased water use.   Reduced  water  use
therefore  reduced the waste load, pumping costs, and heating costs, the
last of which can be  further reduced by water reuse  as  suggested  pre-
viously.
                                   152

-------
NON-WATER POLLUTION CONSIDERATIONS
Solid Wastes

The  disposal  of  most of the solid wastes from the fruit and vegetable
processing  industry  is  directed  toward  animal  feed.   Solid  waste
consists  of  cull fruits and vegetables, discarded pieces, and residues
from various processing operations.  For example,  the  net  energy  and
total  digestible  nutrient  content of dried potato pulp is very nearly
the same as U.S. No. 2 corn.  One  exception  of  waste  utilization  as
animal  feed  occurs when excessive amounts of pesticides have been used
during the growing season and the wastes are contaminated.  If  this  is
the case, the wastes are then used for fertilizer or land fill.

Screening  devices  of  various  designs and operating principles remove
large-scale solids such as peel, pulp, cores, and seeds prior  to  waste
water  treatment.   These  solids  are  then  either  processed  for co-
products, sold for animal feed, or land filled.

The solid material, separated during waste water  treatment,  containing
organic and inorganic materials, including those added to promote solids
separation,  is  called sludge.  Typically, it contains 95 to 98 percent
water prior to dewatering or drying.   Some  quantities  of  sludge  are
generated  by both primary and secondary treatment systems with the type
of system influencing the quantity.   The  following  table  illustrates
this :
   Treatment

   Dissolved air flotation

   Anaerobic lagoon


   Aerobic and aerated lagoons

   Activated sludge

   Extended aeration

   Anaerobic contact process
 Sludge  Volume  as  Percent  of
 Raw Wastewater Volume

 Up to 10%

(Sludge  accumulation  in  these
(lagoons is  usually not  suffi-
(cient to require  removal  at
(any time.

 10  -  15%

  5  -  10*

 approximately  2%
The   raw  sludge  can  be  concentrated,  digested,  dewatered,  dried,
incinerated, land-filled, or spread in sludge holding  ponds.   In  most
cases, as stated previously, the sludge goes to animal feed.

Sludge  from  air  flotation  with  polyelectrolyte  chemicals added has
proven difficult to dewater, and thereby, presents problems in  disposal
                                    153

-------
by   any  of  the  aforementioned  handling  processes.    Also,   certain
polyelectrolyte chemicals rendered  the  sludge  inadequate  for  animal
consumption.

Sludge  from  secondary  treatment  systems  is  normally  dewatered  or
digested sufficiently for hauling and sale as animal feed or  fertilizer
or for land fill.  The final dried sludge material can be safely used as
an effective soil builder.  Prevention of runoff is a critical factor in
plant-site  sludge  holding  ponds.   Costs  of  typical sludge handling
techniques for each secondary treatment system generating enough  sludge
to  require handling equipment are already incorporated in the costs for
these systems.

silt water from cleaning root commodities such as  potatoes  is  usually
handled  separately  from  the  food processing water which goes through
secondary treatment.  The silt water being relatively  free  of  organic
matter  goes  to silt settling ponds.  Silt accumulated in the bottom of
the ponds is removed annually and disposed  of  by  adding  it  to  pond
dikes.   These  ponds  are generally abandoned after useful performance,
with new ponds being established.

In  addition  to  the  solid  wastes  generated  as  a  result  of  food
processing,  solid  waste  is  also generated in terms of trash normally
associated with activities.  This material may be  disposed  of  at  the
plant  site  or  collected  by  the  local municipality with disposal by
incineration or sanitary land fill.  The solid wastes or trash comprises
packaging  materials,  shipping  crates,  and  similar  dry  combustible
materials.

Sanitary  wastes  are  usually handled by a separate system in the plant
(in most cases municipal) and consequently are not involved in the  food
processing waste water treatment.  The sanitary wastes are of low volume
and  quite  efficiently  treated  in  standard  sanitary waste treatment
facilities.

Air_Pollution

Odors are the only significant air pollution problem  related  to  waste
water  treatment  in  the  fruit  and vegetable canning industry.  Fetid
conditions  usually  occur  in  anaerobic  environments  within  aerobic
systems.  It is generally agreed, however, that anaerobic ponds will not
create  serious  odor  problems  unless  the process water has a sulfate
content.  Sulfate waters are a localized  condition  varying  even  from
well  to well in a specific plant.  The anaerobic pond odor potential is
somewhat unpredictable as evidenced by  a  few  plants  that  have  odor
problems  without  sulfate waters.  In these cases a cover and collector
of the off-gas from the pond controls odor.  The off-gas is then flared.
The change in  weather  in  the  spring  in  northern  climates  may  be
accompanied by an increase of odor problem.
                                   15U

-------
other  potential  odor generators in the waste water treatment are tanks
and process equipment for the anaerobic contact  process  that  normally
generate  methane.   However,  with the process restricted to a specific
piece of equipment it is not difficult to confine and control  odors  by
collecting  and  flaring the off-gases.  These gases' high heating value
makes it economical and standard practice to recover the heat for use in
the waste water treatment process.

Odors have been  produced  by  some  air  flotation  systems  which  are
normally  housed  in  a  building, thus localizing, but intensifying the
problem.  Minimizing the unneccessary delay of disposal of any skimmings
or grease-containing solids has been suggested.

Odors can best be controlled by elimination of conditions that  generate
odors.   Using  low  sulfate  process  water, careful screening of waste
water to remove organic solids,  shallow  holding  ponds  (approximately
0.45  meters  optium  (1.5 feet), and alkaline pH conditions aid in odor
reduction.  Also, certain types  of  bacteria  have  been  found  to  be
particularly  well  suited to control odor problems.  Controls for odors
once emanated remain largely unproven at this time.

Other air pollutants such as fog from cooling towers or  the  pollutants
associated  with  the  combustion  of  fossil  fuel  are  common  to all
industrial processes are not judged to be significant  problems  in  the
food processing industry.

Noise

The  only  material  increase in noise caused by a waste water treatment
system is that caused by the installation of an air flotation system  or
aerated lagoons with air blowers.  Large pumps and an air compressor are
part  of an air flotation system.  Such a system is normally housed in a
low-cost building; thus, the  substantial  noise  generated  by  an  air
flotation system is confined and perhaps amplified by installation prac-
tices.   All  air  compressors,  air  blowers, and large pumps in use on
intersively aerated treatment systems, and other  treatment  systems  as
well,  may produce noise levels in excess of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration standards while the industry should consider these
standards  in  solving  its  waste  pollution  problems  they  are   not
considered to be serious problems in the food processing industry.
                                   155

-------

-------
                              SECTION IX

               EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
                APPLICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
                     TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

                              INTRODUCTION

The  waste  water effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1,
1977 specify the degree of effluent  reduction  attainable  through  the
application   of  the  Best  Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently
Available.  Best Practicable Control Technology Currently  Available  is
based  upon  the  average  of the best existing performance by plants of
various  sizes,  ages,  and  unit  processes   within   the   industrial
subcategory.   This  average  is  not based upon a broad range of plants
within the canned and preserved  fruits  and  vegetables  industry,  but
based upon performance levels achieved by exemplary plants.

Consideration has, also, been given to the following:

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

    The size and age of equipment and facilities involved;

    The processes employed;

    The engineering aspects of the application of various types
    of control techniques;

    Process changes;

    Non-water quality environmental impact(including energy
    requirements) .

Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available emphasizes
treatment  facilities  at  the  end of canning, freezing, or dehydrating
process but includes the control technologies within the process  itself
when  the  latter  are  considered  to  be  normal  practice  within the
industry.

A further consideration  is  the  degree  of  economic  and  engineering
reliability   which  must  be  established  for  the  technology  to  be
"currently available."  As a result  of  demonstration  projects,  pilot
plants  and general use, there must exist a high degree of confidence in
the engineering and economic practicability of  the  technology  at  the
time of commencement of construction of the control facilities.
                                   157

-------
        EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
         BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

The waste water effluent limitation guidelines for the apple, citrus and
potato  segment  of  the  canned  and  preserved  fruits  and vegetables
industry are based on the information contained in Section  III  through
VIII  of  this  report.  This industry segment consists of processors of
the following  products:  apple  products  (except  caustic  peeled  and
dehydrated  products); citrus products (except pectin and pharmaceutical
products) ;and  all   frozen   and   dehydrated   potato   products.    A
determination  has  been  made  that  the quality of effluent attainable
through the application  of  the  Best  Practicable  Control  Technology
Currently  Available  is  as  listed  in Table 40.  These guidelines are
developed  from  the  average  performances   of   exemplary   secondary
biological treatment systems (listed in Table 41).

A  biological  treatment  system  which  is  permitted  to  operate at a
constant food to  microorganism  ratio  throughout  the  year  and  with
minimum operational changes would have a natural variation of 50 percent
as explained in Section VII and as demonstrated by the performance of an
activated  sludge  plant  at  PO-128.   A  similar  system  with careful
operational control and proper design can be operated within 25  percent
of  the  average on a monthly operating basis.  A system without optimum
operational control has  been  used  to  account  for  normal  treatment
variation.   Thus, a factor of 50 percent has been used to calculate the
maximum 30 day effluent limitation.  A further allowance of  100  percent
has  been  applied  to  a maximum 30 day effluent limitation in order to
develop the maximum daily effluent limitation.

Land disposal is widely practiced  in  the  industry  and  is  a  highly
effective  technology for treating wastes from plants processing apples,
citrus and potatoes.  In the development of the recommended  guidelines,
serious  consideration  was given to making land disposal and consequent
zero discharge mandatory in all  instances  where  appropriate  land  is
economically  available to the processor.  The recommended guidelines in
Table 40 do not make zero  discharge  through  land  disposal  mandatory
because   of   the  difficulty  of  defining  "economically  available".
However, land treatment should be selected in cases where suitable  land
is available.
               IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL

                     TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE'


Best  Practicable  Control  Technology Currently Available for the apple
 (except caustic peeled  and dehydrated products)  citrus   (except  pectin
and   pharmaceutical    products)  and  potato   (dehydrated  and  frozen)


                                    158

-------
processing segments of the canned and preserved  fruits  and  vegetables
industry  includes preliminary screening, primary settling (potato only)
and biological secondary  treatment.   Strict  management  control  over
housekeeping  and  water  use  practices can produce a raw waste load as
cited in Section V for apples, citrus and potatoes   (See  Tables  19,20,
21).  No special in-plant modification is required.

The stated guidelines for the two apple subcategories can be achieved by
applying  the  Best  Practicable  Control Technology to the  appropriate
apple subcategory raw waste load developed in Section V (See Table  19).
The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available in the apple
industry  includes  screening  and  secondary biological treatment.  The
recommended effluent limitation guidelines for 1 July 1977 for the apple
products (except juice) subcategory are the  average  of  the  exemplary
biological  treatment  systems.   The  BODS  effluent  limitation is the
average of the BODJ5 discharge  (listed on Table 41)   from  the  secondary
biological  treatment  systems at AP-140, AP-121, AP-108, AP-103, AP-102
and AP-101.  The suspended solids effluent limitation is the average  of
the  TSS  discharges  from  AP-140,  AP-121,  AP-108 and AP-103.  The 50
percent factor discussed previously is applied to  these  BOD5  and  TSS
annual  limits  to calculate the maximum thirty day averages  (Table 40).
The exemplary biological treatment systems  used  by  these  plants  are
activated  sludge,  anaerobic  plus  aerobic  lagoons,  multiple aerated
lagoons and trickling filter  plus  aerated  lagoons.   The  recommended
effluent  limitation  guidelines  for  1  July  1977 for the apple juice
subcategory are calculated from the apple products  effluent  limitation
with  raw  waste effluent data from Table 19.  The apple juice raw waste
BOD is only one-third as large as the apple products BOD and  the  apple
juice  suspended  solids is only one-half as large as the apple products
SS.  Thus, the calculated apple juice subcategory limitations are almost
one-half  the  apple  products  (except   juice)   subcategory.    These
limitations  are  being  met  by  AP-140,  AP-121,  and  AP-103.  AP-102
processes apple juice.
                                   159

-------
                                TABLE 40

                       MAXIMUM THIRTY DAY AVERAGE

                    RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATION
                       GUIDELINES FOR 1 JULY 1977

PLANT SUECATEGORY  (1)        BODS             SUSPENDED SOLIDS
                          J£2/JSJS3~ lb/T       JSH/kJiS     Ib/T

APPLES:  Apple Juice       0.30    0.60        0.40      0.80

APPLES:  Apple Products
         Except Juice      0.55    1.10        0.70      1.40

CITRUS:  Juice, Oil, Segments
         Peel Products     0.40    0.80        0.85      1.70

POTATOES:  Frozen Products 1.40    2.80        1.40      2.80

POTATOES:  Dehydrated
           Products        1.20    2.40        1.40      2.80


(1) For all subcategories pH should be between 6.0 and 9.0


The stated guidelines for the citrus  subcategory  can  be  achieved  by
applying   the   Best  Practicable  Control  Technology  to  the  citrus
subcategory raw waste load developed in Section V  (See Table  20).   The
Best  Practicable  Control  Technology Currently Available in the citrus
industry includes cooling towers for the recirculation of  weak  cooling
water  which  is currently segregated from the high BOD wastes which are
treated with preliminary screening and secondary  biological  treatment.
The  recommended  effluent limitation guidelines for 1 July 1977 for the
citrus products  subcategory  are  based  on  the  performances  of  the
exemplary  biological systems treating citrus wastes.  The BODJ5 effluent
limitation is the maximum BOD5 discharge (listed on  Table  41)   of  the
secondary  biological  treatment  systems at CI-127, CI-118, CI-105, CI-
106,  CI-108,  CI-123  and  CI-119.   The  suspended   solids   effluent
limitation is the average of the TSS discharges from CI-127, CI-118, CI-
105, CI-106, CI-108, CI-123 and CI-119.  The maximum thirty day averages
(Table  40)  are  calculated  from  these  annual averages by applying a
factor of 50 percent.  The exemplary biological treatment  systems  used
by  these  plants  are activated sludge, anaerobic plus aerobic lagoons,
trickling filter plus aerated lagoons,  multiple  aerated  lagoons  plus
activated sludge and aerated lagoons.

The  stated  guidelines for the two potato subcategories can be achieved
by applying the Best Practicable Control Technology to  the  appropriate


                                   160

-------
subcategory  raw  waste load developed in Section V  (See Table 21).   The
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available  in  the  potato
industry  is  screening,  primary treatment (silt and process water)  and
secondary biological treatment.   The  recommended  effluent  limitation
guidelines  for  1  July 1977 for the frozen potato products subcategory
are based on  the  performances  of  the  exemplary  biological  systems
treating  potato  wastes.   The  BOD5 effluent limitation is the maximum
BOD5  discharge  (listed  on  Table  41)   of  the  secondary  biological
treatment  systems  at  PO-110, PO-128 and PO-127.  The suspended solids
limitation is the maximum TSS discharge from  PO-127  and  PO-128.    The
maximum  thirty day averages (Table 40) are calculated from these annual
averages by applying a factor of 50 percent.  The  exemplary  biological
treatment  systems  used by these plants are activated sludge, trickling
filters,  and  multiple  aerated  lagoons.   The  recommended   effluent
limitation  guidelines  for  1  July  1977  for  the  dehydrated  potato
subcategory are based on the raw  waste  data  in  Table  21  and  their
performances of the exemplary biological systems treating potato wastes.
The BOD5 and suspended solids effluent limitations for dehydrated potato
products  are  less  than  the  limitations  for  frozen potato products
because of the substantial difference in the raw waste  loads  from  the
two potato subcategories (Table 21) .  The BOD5_ limitation for dehydrated
potato products is the average of the BOD discharge  (listed on Table 41)
of  PO-110,  PO-128  and  PO-127.  The TSS limitation is the maximum TSS
discharge from PO-128 and  PO-127.   The  maximum  thirty  day  averages
(Table  40)  are  calculated  from  these  annual averages by applying a
factor of 50 percent.   PO-128  processes  dehydrated  potato  products.
Both PO-128 and PO-127 are Canadian potato processors.


Thus,  the  effluent  guidelines  are presently being achieved by apple,
citrus and potato plants in each  subcategory  by  secondary  biological
treatment.   Many other plants are also achieving the guidelines through
land  treatment.   Both  spray  irrigation  and  flood  irrigation   are
currently  practiced  successfully.   With  this  technology  and proper
management, there is no discharge of pollutants to navigable waters.

                    RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF

                  BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

                          CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Age And Size Of Equipment And Facilities

The industry has generally modernized its plants as new methods that are
economically attractive have been introduced.  No  relationship  between
age of plant and effectiveness of its pollution control was found.   (See
Section  IV.)  Also, size was not a significant factor, even though some


                                   161

-------
plants vary widely in size.   Small plants  are  not  mechanized  to  the
extent  of  some  larger  plants in the industry; still they are able to
achieve at least as effective control as larger plants.  This is  partly
because  the  small-scale  operation permits more options for small low-
cost in-plant equipment that are  not  available  to  larger  operations
because of the immense volume of materials concerned.
Total Cost Of Application In Relation To Effluent Reduction Benefits

Based  on  the information contained in Section VIII of this report, the
combined small and large apple, citrus and potato processors must invest
$5.47 million  (Level  B)  in  construction  of  biological  systems  and
modifications  to  existing systems and $11.59 million (Level D)  in land
and construction of  land  treatment  facilities  (See  Table  38).   If
activated sludge is the biological system utilized,  the cost could be as
high  as  $14.5  million (Level E)  plus land treatment costs.  Thus, the
total  investment  cost  to  achieve  the  best   practicable   effluent
limitations  is  approximately  $17  million  but  could  be high as $26
million.  This $17 million investment amounts to a cost of  about  $3.40
per  annual  ton  of  processing  capacity  and about 1.4 percent of the
estimated industry investment of $1.2 billion.

The cost increase to the consumer would be approximately 2.3 percent  of
the retail price of the products.

The  total  U.S.  investment  does  not  include  costs  for  processors
discharging  to  municipal  sewers,  but  it  does  include   processors
utilizing land treatment.
Engineering Aspects Of Control Technique Applications

The  specified  level  of  technology is practicable because it is being
practiced by plants in all subcategories with multiple aerated  lagoons,
activated  sludge,  anaerobic  plus  aerobic lagoons, trickling filters,
trickling filters plus aerated lagoons or activated sludge plus  aerated
lagoons.    With  screening,  primary  treatment   (potato  only)  and  a
biological system, 6 apple, 7 citrus, and 3 potato plants are  presently
achieving  a  BOD5  discharge  of less than 1 kg/kkg (2 Ib/T) and twelve
apple, citrus, and potato plants are presently achieving a BOD discharge
of less than 0.25 kg/kkg   (0.5 Ib/T) (See Table 41).

Four apple plants including one juice  processing  plant  are  presently
meeting  the  1977  guidelines for BOD and SS with biological treatment.
It must be  noted  that  two  biologically  treated  effluents  are  not
discharged   but   are  disposed  of  through  land  treatment  systems.
Activated sludge,  anaerobic  plus  aerobic  lagoons,  multiple  aerobic


                                   162

-------
lagoons,  and  trickling  filters plus aerated lagoons are the exemplary
biological treatment systems.

Five citrus products plants are presently meeting  the  1977  guidelines
for  BOD  and  SS.  Two additional citrus processors are meeting the BOD
limitations only.  Multiple aerated lagoons, anaerobic/aerobic  lagoons,
aerated  lagoon  with  trickling  filter  and  activated  sludge are the
exemplary treatment system,  of  these  seven  plants,  five  would  not
require cooling towers or ponds for barometric cooling waters.

Two Canadian potato processing plants are able to achieve high levels of
effluent reduction for BOD5 and suspended solids through the utilization
of exemplary secondary biological treatment systems.  An American potato
processing  plant  is  able to achieve high levels of effluent reduction
for BOD5.  Each of these three secondary  biological  treatment  systems
achieve at least the effluent reduction required through the application
of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available on a seasonal
average.   The  discharge  from the secondary biological system treating
frozen and dehydrated potato processing wastes  from  plant  PO-128  was
able  to achieve the effluent reduction required through the application
of the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently  Available  at  all
times  during  their  44  week  1972  processing  season.  Their maximum
monthly BOD5 and TSS discharges, which are 1.04 kg/kkg  (2.08 Ib/ton) and
1.32 kg/kkg  (2.63 Ib/ton)  respectively,  are  less  than  the  effluent
limitations  for  either  frozen  or  dehydrated  potato  products.  The
discharge from the secondary biological system  treating  frozen  potato
processing  wastes  from  plant  PO-127  has  been  able  to achieve the
effluent  reduction  required  through  the  application  of  the   best
practicable technology from December 1972, through December 1973.  Their
maximum  monthly  BOD5  and  TSS  discharges,  which are 1.2 kg/kkg (2.4
Ib/ton) and 0.55 kg/kkg  (1.1 Ib/ton) respectively,  are  less  than  the
effluent   limitations   for  frozen  potato  products.   The  exemplary
treatment systems are activated sludge, trickling filters, and  multiple
aerated  lagoons.   (Another treatment system consisting of anaerobic and
aerobic lagoons included in  earlier  reports  was  omitted  because  of
inaccurate  operating  data.  With proper management along with reliable
quality control, this system may demonstrate that it is exemplary.)

Thus,  biological  treatment  has  been  shown  to  be  practicable  and
currently available technology for achieving the 1977 guidelines for the
apple,  citrus  and  potato industry.  In addition the guidelines can be
achieved by land treatment through spray irrigation or flood  irrigation
or other ultimate disposal technologies as described in Section VII.
                                   163

-------
                                TABLE 41
                        EFFLUENTS FROM SECONDARY
                           TREATMENT SYSTEMS
PLANT
AP-140
AP-121
AP-108
AP-103
AP-102
AP-101

CI-127
CI-118
CI-105 (3)
CI-106
CI-109
CI-108
CI-123
CI-119

PO-128 (1)
PO-128 (2)
PO-110
PO-127
CAPACITY
 (kkg/D)

   50
  125
  145
  170
  220
  235

  225
  750
 2250
 2100
 2900
 3400
 3800
 5700

  140
  140
  320
  365
BOD5 DISCHARGE
0.10
0.15
0.95
0.22
0.07
0.63

0.05
0.20
0.05
0.25
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.19

0.70
0.10
0.95
0.60
                                   0.20
                                   0.29
                                   1.90
                                   0.44
                                   0.13
                                   1.25

                                   0.10
                                   0.39
                                   0.10
                                   0.49
                                   0.10
                                   0.08
                                   0.10
                                   0.38

                                   1.40
                                   0.20
                                   1.90
                                   1.20
                                                 SS DISCHARGE
                    0.23
                    0.09
                    1.35
                    0.04
                    ----
                    2.40

                    0.08
                    1.55
                    0.05
                    0.33
                    0.05
                    1.15
                    0.40
                    0.16

                    0.90
                    0.35

                    0.40
                                                          0.46
                                                          0.18
                                                          2.70
                                                          0.08
                                                          ----
                                                          4.79

                                                          0.16
                                                          3.10
                                                          0.10
                                                          0.66
                                                          0.10
                                                          2.30
                                                          0.80
                                                          0.31

                                                          1.80
                                                          0.70

                                                          0.80
    (1)  After screening, primary, activated sludge
    (2)  After (1) and three aerated lagoons (to receiving waters)
    (3)  Common treatment system  (CI-109)


Approximately  50 percent of the apple plants and apple plant production
utilize land  treatment  to  dispose  of  their  wastes.   At  least  10
additional  apple  plants  are presently achieving an effluent reduction
greater than required by the application of the Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available through land treatment.  Approximately 50
percent of the citrus and potato plants and about 50  percent  of  their
production  utilize land treatment to dispose of their wastes.  Thus, at
least 20 additional citrus plants and twelve  additional  potato  plants
are  currently  achieving an effluent reduction greater than required by
the application of the Best  Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently
Available.
                                   164

-------
Process Changes

No  major  in-plant  changes  will  be needed by most plants to meet the
limits  specified.   Many  plants  will  need  to  improve  their  water
conservation  practices  and housekeeping, both responsive to good plant
management control.


Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact

The major impact when the option of a biological type of process is used
to achieve the limits will be the problem of  sludge  disposal.   Nearby
land  for  sludge  disposal  may  be  needed  but  in  many cases sludge
conditioning will allow the sludge solids to  be  treated  and  sold  as
animal feed.

Another  problem  is  the  odor  that  emits periodically from anaerobic
lagoons or localized anaerobic environments within aerobic lagoons.  The
odor problem can usually be  avoided  with  well  operated  systems  and
proper in-plant waste management.

There  is  also  a  potential  detrimental  impact  on soil systems when
application of waste to soil is not managed adequately.  Management must
assure that land treatment systems are maintained commensurate with crop
need and soil tolerance.


Factors To Be Considered In Applying BPCTCA Limitations

1.  Land treatment by spray irrigation, or equivalent
    methods providing minimal discharge should be encouraged.

2.  Limitations are based on 30 day averages (See Table 40) .
    Based on performance of biological waste treatment
    systems at exemplary plants, the maximum
    daily limitations should not exceed the maximum 30 day average
    limitations by more than one hundred percent for the
    apple juice and apple products, citrus products and
    the frozen and dehydrated potato products subcategories
    (See Table 42) .

3.  The nature of biological treatment plants is such that on the
    order of one week may be required to reach the daily maximum
    limitation after initial start-up at the beginning of the
    processing season.
    These values may be omitted when computing average
    thirty day limitations.

4.  If a plant produces products in more than one subcategory, for
    instance apple juice and apple sauce or frozen and dehydrated


                                   165

-------
    potato products,  the effluent limitations should be set
    by proration on the basis of the percentage of the total
    raw material being processed to each product.

5.   The production basis which is recommended for applying
    these limitations is the daily average production of the
    maximum thirty consecutive days.
                      166

-------
                                            TABLE 42

                                      MAXIMUM DAILY AVERAGE
                                 RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATION
                                   GUIDELINES FOR JULY 1, 1977


       PLANT SUBCATEGORY (1)                                  BODS                SUSPENDED SOLIDS
                                                        kg/kkg     Ib/T           kg/kkg     Ib/T

APPLES:  Apple Juice                                     0.60      1.20            0.80      1.60

APPLES:  Apple products except juice                     1.10      2.20            1.40      2.80

CITRUS:  Juice, Oil, Segment,
         Peel Products                                   0.80      1.60            1.70      3.40

POTATOES:  Frozen Products                               2.80      5.60            2.80      5.60

POTATOES:  Dehydrated Products                           2-40      4.80            2.80      5.60

(1)  For all subcategories pH should range between 6.0 and 9.0 at any time.

-------

-------
                               SECTION X


               EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
              APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
                        ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE

                              INTRODUCTION


The effluent limitations which must be achieved no later  than  July  1,
1983  are  not  based  on  an  average of the best performance within an
industrial subcategory, but are determined by identifying the very  best
control  and  treatment  technology  employed by a specific point source
within the industrial category or subcategory, or by one industry  where
it  is readily transferable to another.  A specific finding must be made
as to the availability cf control measures and  practices  to  eliminate
the  discharge  of  pollutants,  taking  into  account  the cost of such
elimination.

Consideration must also be given to:

    The age of the equipment and facilities involved;

    The process employed;

    The engineering aspects of the application of various types
    of control techniques;

    Process changes;

    The cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting
    from application of the technology;

    Non-water quality environmental impact  (including energy
    requirements).


Also, Best Available Technology Economically Achievable  emphasizes  in-
process  controls  as well as control or additional treatment techniques
employed at the end of the production process.

This level of technology considers those  plant  processes  and  control
technologies which, at the pilot plant, semi-works, or other level, have
demonstrated both technological performances and economic viability at a
level sufficient to reasonably justify investing in such facilities.  It
is  the  highest  degree of control technology that has been achieved or
has been demonstrated to be capable of being designed  for  plant  scale
operation  up  to  and including "no discharge" of pollutants.  Although
economic factors are considered in this development, the costs for  this


                                   169

-------
level  of  control  are  intended  to  be the top-of-the-line of current
technology, subject to limitations imposed by economic  and  engineering
feasibility.   However, there may be some technical risk with respect to
performance and with respect to certainty  of  costs.    Therefore,   some
industrially  sponsored  development  work  may  be  needed prior to its
application.
         EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
        OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE

The effluent limitation guidelines for  the  apple,  citrus  and  potato
segment  of  the canned and preserved fruits and vegetables industry are
based on the information contained in section III through VIII  of  this
report.   This  industry segment consists of processors of the following
products;  apple  products  (except  caustic   peeled   and   dehydrated
products); citrus products (except pection and pharmaceutical products);
and  frozen  and  dehydrated  potato products.  A determination has been
made that the quality of effluent attainable through the application  of
the  best  available  technology economically achievable is as listed in
Table 43.  The technology to achieve these goals is generally available,
although the advanced treatment techniques may not have yet been applied
to a processing plant at full scale.

It was pointed out in Section  IX  that  land  treatment  was  a  highly
effective  technology for treating apple, citrus and potato wastes.  The
considerations of land treatments made in Section IX for 1977 apply here
for 1983 alternatives.  Where suitable land is available, irrigation  is
an option that not only is recommended from the discharge viewpoint, but
also will usually be more economical than the system otherwise required.
                                   170

-------
                                TABLE 43
                       MAXIMUM THIRTY DAY AVERAGE
       RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES FOR 1 JULY 1983

PL AN T SU SCAT EGORY ( 1 1                   BOD£          SUSPENDED SOLIDS
                                                              lb/T
APPLES:  Apple Juice               0.10   0.20       0.10    0.20

APPLES:  Apple Products
         Except Juice              0.10   0.20       0.10    0.20

CITRUS:  Juice, Oil, Segments
         and Peel Products         0.07   0.14       0.10    0.20

POTATOES:  Frozen Products         0.17   0.34       0.55    1.10

POTATOES:  Dehydrated Products     0.17   0.34       0.55    1.10

(1)   For all subcategories pH should be between 6.0 and 9.0

(2)  For all subcategories most probable number (MPN)
    of fecal coliforms should not exceed 400 counts per 100 ml.
                  IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE
                   TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE

The  best  available  technology  economically  achievable for the apple
 (except caustic peeled and dehydrated products), citrus   (except  pectin
and pharmaceutical products) and frozen and dehydrated potato processing
segment  of  the  canned  and  preserved  fruits and vegetables industry
includes the preliminary  screening,  primary  settling,  and  secondary
biological   treatment   listed   under  the  Best  Practicable  Control
Technology Currently Available.  In  addition,  it  includes  additional
secondary  treatment  such as more aerated lagoons or advanced treatment
such as a sand filter following secondary treatment.   Disinfection  is,
also, included.

Management  controls  over  housekeeping and water use practices will be
stricter than  required  for  1977.   However,  no  additional  in-plant
controls  will  be  required to achieve the specified levels of effluent
reduction.  The following paragraphs describe several in-plant  controls
and  modifications  that  provide  alternatives  and  trade-offs between
controls and additional effluent treatment.   In  many  cases  they  are
economically more attractive than additional treatment facilities.
                                   171

-------
    1.    Recycle  of  raw  material  wash  water.    Solids   removal   and
         chlorination  are  required.   This   step  is  presently being
         practiced at a few potato plants and will soon be  practiced  in
         the citrus industry.

    2.    Utilization of low water usage peel  removal equipment.   Some of
         this equipment is being used,  such as the rubber  abrading   and
         brushing system used  for the removal of  potato peel.

    3.    Removal  of  solids  from   transport   and   slicing   waters.
         Hydroclones  or  liquid  cyclones can recover starch particles
         from potato cutting  water  and  apple  particles   from  apple-
         slicing  waters.   The hydroclones can,  also, be used to remove
         solid material from total plant waste waters.  Up  to 50 percent
         total BOD removal is  possible.  The  system is  presently being
         used   on   a  limited  basis  in the  potato  industry.    Its
         applicability may vary from plant to plant.

    4.    Improved mechanical cleaning of  belts  to  replace  belt  wash
         water.

    5.    Recirculation of all  cooling water through  cooling  towers  or
         spray  ponds.   Cooling  waters  include barometric water,  can-
         cooling water, bottle chilling water, etc.

    6.    Practice of extensive dry cleanup to replace washing and, where
         possible, use of continuous dry cleanup  and materials  recovery
         procedures.   Push-to-open  valves  need  to  be  used wherever
         possible.  Spray nozzles can  be  redesigned  for   lower water
         flow.  Automatic valves that close when  the water  is not in use
         should be installed.


The stated guidelines for the  two apple subcategories can be achieved by
adding  aerated lagoons and/or shallow lagoons and/or a sand filter  plus
disinfection  (chlorination) to the best practicable control  technology.
The  recommended  effluent limitation guidelines  for 1 July 1983 for the
apple juice and apple products  (except juice) subcategories are based on
the performances of the best secondary biological systems treating apple
wastes.  The BOD5 effluent limitation is based on  the  BOD5  discharge
from  the  treatment  system  at  plant  AP-102 and the suspended solids
effluent limitation is based on  the  maximum  TSS  discharge  from   the
treatment  systems at plant AP-121 and AP-103. As described previously,
these annual averages are converted to maximum  thirty  day  limitations
(Table  43)  by applying a factor of 50 percent.   The guidelines for the
citrus  subcategory  can  be  attained  through  the  addition   of    an
anaerobic/aerobic  lagoon and shallow lagoon  or an aerated  lagoon and/or
a sand filter plus disinfection  (chlorination) to the  best  practicable
control   technology  currently  available.   The  recommended  effluent
limitation  guidelines  for  1  July   1983  for  the   citrus   products


                                   172

-------
subcategory  are  based  on  the  performances  of  the  best  secondary
biological systems treating citrus wastes.  The BODS effluent limitation
is based on the average  BODS  discharges  (listed  on  Table  41)   from
treatment  systems  at  plant  CI-127,  CI-105,  CI-108 and CI-123.  The
suspended solids limitation is based on the maximum TSS  discharge  from
the  treatment  systems  at plant CI-127 and CI-105.  The maximum thirty
day averages (Table 43) are calculated from  these  annual  averages  by
applying  a  factor  of  50  percent.  The guidelines for the two potato
subcategories can be achieved by adding an aerated lagoon and a  shallow
lagoon  or  an  aerated  lagoon and/or sand filtration plus disinfection
(chlorination)   to  the  best  practicable  control   technology.    The
recommended  effluent  limitation  guidelines  for  1  July 1983 for the
frozen and dehydrated potato products subcategories  are  based  on  the
performances  of  the  best secondary biological systems treating potato
wastes.  The BODS effluent limitation is based on the BOD  discharge  to
receiving  waters  from  the  treatment  system  at  plant  PO-128.  The
suspended solids limitation is based on the  average  TSS  discharge  to
receiving  waters  from  treatment  systems  at plant PO-128 and PO-127.
Both PO-128 and PO-127  are  Canadian  potato  processing  plants.    The
maximum  thirty day averages (Table 43) are calculated from these annual
averages by applying a factor of 50 percent.   The  guidelines  for  all
five  subcategories  can  also be achieved by land treatment if suitable
land is available  (See Section IX).   Screening  and  primary  treatment
(potato  only),  a  shallow mixing lagoon and spray irrigation achieve a
minimal waste water discharge.


RATIONALE  FOR  THE  SELECTION  OF  BEST  AVAILABLE  CONTROL  TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE


Age And Size Of Equipment And Facilities

Neither  size  nor age was found to affect the effectiveness of the best
available technology economically achievable.  In-plant control  can  be
managed  quite  effectively in older plants even though the technologies
required for reducing the raw waste loads to  low  levels  may  be  more
costly  to install in older plants.  For example, rerouting of sewers to
segregate waste streams could be difficult and costly.

The smaller operations have more low cost in-plant waste water reduction
alternatives than larger plants where immense  quantities  of  materials
are  involved.   It is anticipated that many small plants will find land
disposal  the  best  alternative.   Municipal  treatment  is,  also,  an
alternative in many cases.
                                   173

-------
Total Cost Of Application In Relation To Effluent Reduction Benefits

Based  on  information  contained  in  Section  VIII of this report, the
industry as a whole would have to invest about between  $5.9  and  $11.7
million above that required to meet the 1977 standards.  This investment
is  in  new  construction  of  secondary  biological  or  advanced waste
treatment facilities.  The total investment cost including land and land
treatment costs to achieve the  best  practicable  effluent  limitations
(Section  IX)  ranged from $17 to $26 million.  The total investment cost
including land to  achieve  the  best  practicable  and  best  available
effluent  limitations  is  $29  to  $36  million.   This  $12.7  million
investment to achieve the best available effluent reduction amounts to a
cost of approximately $2.30 per annual ton of  processing  capacity  and
approximately  1.0  percent of the estimated industry investment of $1.2
billion.  The combined  cost  of  the  best  practicable  and  the  best
available  technology  amounts  to a cost of between $5.70 and $7.20 per
annual ton of processing  capacity  and  between  2.4  percent  and  3.0
percent of the estimated industry investment.


The  cost to the consumer would be about 1.6 percent of the retail price
of the products to achieve best available technology only  or  the  cost
for both best practicable and best available technology would be between
3,8 percent and 4.8 percent of the retail price of the products.

All  plants  discharging  to  streams  can  implement the best available
technology economically achievable; the technology is  not  affected  by
different processes used in the plants.

Engineering Aspects Of Control Technique Application

The  specified  level of technology is achievable.  Biological secondary
treatment is practiced throughout the apple, citrus and potato  industry
and sand filtration is practiced in at least one potato plant  (England).
With  present  biological  treatment  systems without advanced treatment
methods such as sand filtration, at least one apple,  citrus  or  potato
plant  in each of the five subcategories is presently achieving the high
levels of effluent reduction required by the  application  of  the  Best
Available  Control  Technology  Economically  Achievable  (See Table 41).
For  example,  the  maximum  monthly  discharges  from  the   biological
treatment  system  at  PO-128  are 0.14 kg/kkg (0.28 Ib/ton) of BOD5 and
0.50 kg/kkg  (1.00 Ib/ton)  of  TSS;  these  values  are  less  than  the
effluent limitations for potato processing  (Tabel 43).

No  unique  in-plant  control  technology  is  required to achieve these
standards.  However, many of the in-plant controls outlined above  under
"Identification   of   the   Best   Available   Technology  Economically
Achievable" have been  utilized  to  achieve  high  levels  of  effluent
reduction.   An  apple sauce, slice, and juice plant has a raw waste BOD
of 1.4 kg/kkg  (2.8 Ib/T) compared to the average of over  5  kg/kkg   (10


                                   174

-------
Ib/T)  (See Table 19) .  A citrus juice, oil and feed processing plant has
a  water  usuage  of only 710 1/kkg (170 gal/T), BOD of 0.45 kg/kkg (0.9
Ib/T)  and suspended solids of 0.02 kg/kkg  (0.04  Ib/T).    These  values
compare  with  average flow values of 10,110 1/kkg (2425 gal/T), average
BOD of 3.2 kg/kkg  (6.4 Ib/T)  and average SS of 1.3 kg/kkg (2,6 Ib/T) See
Table 20).  >A frozen potato procesor has a water usage  of  4,090  1/kkg
(980  gal/T)  and  a BOD of 4.45 kg/kkg  (8.9 Ib/T) compared with average
values of 11,320 1/kkg (2710 gal/T) and 22.9 kg/kkg   (45.86  Ib/T)   (See
Table  21).  Thus, in-plant controls exist as alternatives to additional
secondary biological treatment.

There is an additional 50 percent of  the  industry  that  is  presently
using  land  treatment.   Thus,  over  40 plants are presently achieving
effluent reductions  required  by  1983  guidelines  and  many  have  no
discharge  of  pollutants  to navigable waters.  This technology is used
with  and  without  holding  ponds  in  Idaho,  Washington,  California,
Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  New  York and Florida.  Most other states also
have land treatment of the fruit and vegetable industry.   Application of
technology for greatly reduced water use will facilitate land  disposal.
Experience  has  shown  that  good management practices assure that land
disposal and irrigation systems can be maintained commensurate with crop
need and soil tolerance.

Process Changes

No in-plant changes will be needed by most plants  to  meet  the  limits
specified.    Some   available  techniques  which  may  be  economically
attractive are outlined in the "Identification  of  the  Best  Available
Technology Economically Achievable," paragraph above.

Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact

The  non-water  quality  impacts  will essentially be those described in
Section IX.  It is  concluded  that  nc  new  serious  impacts  will  be
introduced.

Factors To Be Considered In Applying Level II Guidelines

1.  Land treatment by spray irrigation, or equivalent methods  providing
    minimal discharge should be encouraged.

2.  Limitations are based on 30 day averages  (See Table 43).   Based  on
    performance  of  biological  waste  treatment  systems  at exemplary
    plants, the maximum daily limitations should not exceed the  maximum
    30  day average limitations by more than one hundred percent for the
    apple juice and apple  products,  citrus  products  and  frozen  and
    dehydrated potato products subcategories  (See Table 44).

3.  The nature of biological treatment plants is such that on the  order
    of  one  week may be required to reach the daily maximum limitations


                                   175

-------
after initial start-up at the beginning of  the  processing  season.
These  values  may  be  omitted  when  computing  average thirty day
limitations.

If a plant produces products  in  more  than  one  subcategory,  for
instance,  apple  juice  and  apple  sauce  or frozen and dehydrated
potato products, the effluent limitations should be set by proration
on the basis of the percentage  of  the  total  raw  material  being
processed to each product.
                                176

-------
                                             TABLE 44

                                      MAXIMUM DAILY AVERAGE
                                 RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATION
                                   GUIDELINES FOR JULY 1, 1983
         PLANT SUBCATEGORY (1)


APPLES:  Apple Juice

APPLES:  Apple products except juice

CITRUS:  Juice, Oil, Segment,
         Peel Products

POTATOES:  Frozen Products

POTATOES:  Dehydrated Products
      BOD5
kg/kkg    Ib/T
0.14      0.28

0.34      0.68

0.34      0.68
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
kg/kkg     Ib/T
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.40
0-40
 0.20      0.40

 1.10      2.20

 1.10      2.20
(1)  For all subcategories pH should range between 6.0 and 9.0 at any time.

(2)  For all subcategories must probable number (MPN)  of fecal coliforms
     should not exceed 400 counts per loo ml.

-------

-------
                               SECTION XI
                    NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD
                              INTRODUCTION.


The effluent limitations that must be achieved by new sources are termed
performance  standards.   The  New Source Performance Standards apply to
any source for which construction starts after the  publication  of  the
proposed regulations for the Standards.  The standards are determined by
adding  to  the  consideration underlying the identification of the Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available  a  determination  of
what higher levels of pollution control are available through the use of
improved  production  processes  and/or  treatment techniques.  Thus, in
addition to considering the best  in-plant  and  end-of-process  control
technology, New Source Performance Standards are based on an analysis of
how  the  level  of  effluent  may be reduced by changing the production
process itself.   Alternative  processes,  operating  methods  or  other
alternatives are considered.  However, the end result of the analysis is
to   identify   effluent  standards  which  reflect  levels  of  control
achievable through the use of improved production a particular (as  well
as  control  technology),  rather  than prescribing a particular type of
process or technology which must be employed.  A  further  determination
made  is  whether  a  standard  permitting  no discharge of pollutant is
practicable.

Consideration must also be given to:

    Operating methods;

    Batch, as opposed to continuous, operations;

    Use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw materials;

    Use of dry rather than  wet  processes   (including  substitution  of
    recoverable solvents for water);

    Recovery of pollutants as by-products.
                                   179

-------
             EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE FOR NEW SOURCES


The effluent limitation for new sources is the same as that for the best
available  technology  economically  achievable  (see  Section X).  This
limitation is achievable in newly constructed plants.

The in-plant controls  and  waste  treatment  technology  identified  in
Section X are available now and applicable to new plants.   Land disposal
remains  the  most  desirable  disposal  method.    The land availability
requirements for treatment can be considered in site selection for a new
plant.  Thus, land treatment will probably be the  most  attractive  new
source alternative.

The  new  source technology is the same as that identified in Section X.
The conclusion reached in Section  X  with  respect  to  Total  Cost  of
Application  in Relation to Effluent Reduction Benefits, the Engineering
Aspects of Control Technique  Application,  Process  Changes,  Non-Water
Quality  Environmental  Impact, and Factors to be Considered in Applying
Level II Guidelines, apply with equal force  to  these  New  Performance
Standards.


                       PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS


Large  quantities  of  three constituents of the waste water from plants
within the apple, citrus or potato processing industry have  been  found
which could interfere with, pass through, or, otherwise, be incompatible
with  a  well  designed  and operated publicly owned activated sludge or
trickling filter waste water treatment plant.  Waste water  constituents
include caustic solutions from peeling operations such as lye dip potato
peelers, D'limonene from citrus peel processing operations, and oil from
frying  operations.   Adequate control methods can and should be used to
keep significant quantities of these materials out of the waste water.
                                   180

-------
                              SECTION XII


                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The  Environmental  Protection  Agency   wishes   to   acknowledge   the
contributions  of  Mr.   Paul  Miller.   His professional excellence and
valuable judgment are appreciated as are the contributions of Mr.  Ching
Yung.

Appreciation is expressed for the interest of several individuals within
the  Environmental  Protection  Agency:   Ken  Dostal and George Keeler,
OR5D; Gene McNeil, Region IV;  George  Webster,  Ernst  Hall  and  Allen
Cywin,  EGD.   Special  thanks  are  due  Richard  Sternberg  and Harold
Thompson and the many secretatries who typed and retyped this  document:
Cynthia  Wright,  Pat  Johnson,  George  Webster,  Bettie Rich, Vannessa
Datcher, Jan Beale, and Karen Thompson.

Acknowledgment is made of the active cooperation of  industry  personnel
who provided information essential to the study.
                                   181

-------

-------
                              SECTION XIII
                               REFERENCES
BOOKS

1.  Besselievre, Edmund B.r The Treatment of Industrial
    Wastes, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1969.

2.  Gulp, Russell L. and Gulp, Gordon L., Advanced Waste-
    water Treatment, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
    York, 1971.

3.  Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, Jr., Industrial Water Pollut.ion
    Control, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1966.

4.  Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, Jr., Water Quality Engineering
    for Practicing Engineers. Barnes and Noble, Inc., New
    York, 1970.

5.  Fair, Gordon M., Geyer, John C., and Okun, Daniel A.,
    Wate r and Wastewater Eng ineeringx t Vol. ^ 2 f „_ Water M Purifi-
    cation and Wastewater Treatment and Disposal, John
    Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 1968.

6.  Lock, Arthur, Practical Canning, 3rd Edition, Food
    Trade Press, London, 1969.

7.  Mancy, K. H. and Weber, W. J., Jr., Analysis of Indus-
    trial Wastewater , John Wiley 6 Sons, New York,  1971.

8.  Talburt, William F. and Smith, Ora, Potato Processing,
    2nd Edition, The AVI Publishing Co., Inc., Westport,
    Connecticut, 1967.

9.  Tressler, Donald K. and Joslyn, Maynard A., Fruit and
    Vegetable Juice Processing Technology. 2nd Edition,
    The AVI Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, Connecticut, 1971,

10. Weber, Walter J., Jr., Phvsicochemical Processes for
    Water Quality Control, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
    York, 1972.

11. Agricultural Statistics 1972, United States Department
    of Agriculture  (USDA), U. S. Government Printing Office,
    Washington, D.C., 1972.
                                    183

-------
12•  The Almanac of the Canning, Freezing, and Preserving
    Industries |972, 57th Edition, Edward E. Judge and Sons,
    Inc., Westminster, Maryland.

13.  The Almanac of the Canning^ Freezing, and Preserving
    Industries 1971, 56th Edition, Edward E. Judge and Sons,
    Inc., Westminster, Maryland.

14.  1972 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 23, Water;
    Atmospheric Analvsis, American Society for Testing and
    Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

15.  Canners Directory 1969-70, National Canners Association,
    Washington, D.C.

16•  The Directory of the Canning^ Freezing, and Preserving
    Industries_197.2;7J, 4th Biennial Edition, Edward E.
    Judge and Sons, Inc., Westminster, Maryland, 1972.

17.  Frozen Food Pack Statistics 1972, American Frozen Food
    Institute, Washington, D.C.

18.  Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972, Execu-
    tive office of the President, Office of Management and
    Budget, Statistical Policy Division, Washington, D.C.

19.  Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
    Wastewater, 13th Edition, American Public Health Asso-
    ciation, American Water Works Association, and Water
    Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C. 1971.

20.  Water Quality and Treatment, The American Water Works
    Association, Inc., 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
    New York.
PUBLICATIONS

1.  Allen, Thomas S. and Kingsbury, Robert P., The Physio-
    logical Design of Biological Towers, 28th Annual Purdue
    Industrial Waste Conference, May 2, 1973.

2.  Cochrann, M. W., Burn, R. J., and Dostal, K. A.,
    Cannery Wastewater Treatment with Rotating Biological
    Contactor and Extended Aeration, Pro. Element 1 B2037,
    EPAORM, USGPO, Washington, oTcT, April 1973.

3.  Dostal, K.A., Aerated Lagoon Treatment of Food Pro-


                                    184

-------
    cessing Wastes, EPAWQO, Project No. 12060, USGPO,
    Washington, D.C. , March 1968.

4.   Dostal, K. A., Secondary Treatment of Potato Processing
    Wastes, EPAWQO/"project No. 12060, USGPO, Washington,
    D.~C., July 1969.

5.   Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., Woodward, Charles, Lawler, John, and
    Spinna, Robert, Study of Fruit and vegetable Processing Waste
    Disposal Methods in the Eastern Region, USDA, Contract No.
    12-14-100-482 (73), September 1958.


6.   Eilero, R. G. and Smith, R., Wastewater Treatment Plant
    Cost Estimating Program, EPAWQO, Cincinnati, Ohio,
    April"1971.

7.   Esvelt, L. A., Aerobic Treatment of Fruit. Processing
    Wastes, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
    USDI, Grant No. 12060, October 1969.

8.   French, R. T., Company, Aerobic Secondary Treatment of Potato
    Processing Wastes, EPAWQO, Project No. 12060, EHV, WPRD 15-01-68,
    Washington, D. C., December  1970.


9.   Guttormsen, K. and Carlson, D. A., Current Practice in
    Potato Processing Waste Treatment, FWPCA, USDI, Grant
    No. WP-01486-01, October 1969.

10. Law, J. P., et al. Nutrient Removal From Cannery Wastes
    by Spray Irrigation of Grassland, FWPCA, USDI, Water Pollution
    Control Research Service 16080, Washington, D.C.,
    November  1969.

11. Mercer, W. A. and Somers, I. I., Chlorine in Food Plant
    Sanitation. Western Research Lab.7 National Canners
    Association  (NCA) , Berkeley, California.

12. Stevens, Michael R., Elazar, Daniel J., and Schlesinger,  Jeanne,  Green
    Land-Clean Streams, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple
    University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1972.

13. Winter Garden Citrus Products Cooperative, Complete Mix Activated
    Sludge Treatment of Citrus Process Wastes. EPAORM, Grant  No. 12060,  EZY,
    Washington, D.C., August 1971.

14. Gallup, James D., Investigation of Filamentous Bulking in the Activated
    Sludge Process, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, August, 1971.
                                    185

-------

-------
                              SECTION XIV

                                GLOSSARY
The  definitions  given herein are not intended to be complete and exact
scientific or engineering definitions, but are correct as generally used
or understood in the Food Processing Industry.


Acid:  Mostly citric acid in  citrus  fruit;  expressed  as  percent  by
weight or milligrams per 100 ml.

Activated_Sludge:  Sludge floe produced in raw or settled waste water by
the  growth of bacteria and other organisms in the presence of dissolved
oxygen and accummulated in sufficient concentration  by  returning  floe
previously formed.

Activated Sludge Process;  A biological waste water treatment process in
which  a  mixture  of  waste  water and activated sludge is agitated and
aerated.  The  activated  sludge  is  subsequently  separated  from  the
treated  waste  water   (mixed  liquor)  by  sedimentation  and wasted or
returned to the process as needed.

Aeration:  The bringing about of intimate contact between air and  waste
water  by  bubbling  air  through the liquid, mechanically agitating the
liquid to promote surface absorption of air, or spraying the waste water
in the air.

Aerator:  A device used to  promote  aeration.   Typically  of  a  motor
driven propeller design; however, many types are available.

Aerobic:  Living or active only in the presence of free oxygen.

Air	Pollution:   The  presence  in  the  atmosphere  of one or more air
contaminants in quantities,  of  characteristics,  and  of  a  duration,
injurious   to   human,  plant,  animal  life,  or  property,  or  which
unreasonably interfered with the comfortable enjoyment thereof.

Alcjae;  Major group of lower plants, single  and  multi-celled,  usually
aquatic and capable of synthesizing their foodstuff by photosynthesis.

Alkalinity;   The  capacity  of  water  to  neutralize acids, a property
imparted by the water's content of carbonates, bicarbonates, hydroxides,
and occasionally borates, silicates, and phosphates.  It is expressed in
milligrams per liter of equivalent calcium carbonate.

Ariaerobic:  Living or active in the absence of free oxygen.
                                   187

-------
                  er :  A type of condenser which  allows  vapors  to  be
condensed  at  a pressure of less than one atmosphere.  Because it has a
long vertical bottom pipe, the pipe is often called a barometric leg.
jy:°I°2ical_Filter:  A b6^ °f gravel, broken stone, special  plastic,  or
other  medium  through  which  waste  water  flows  or  trickles  and is
stabilized by the biological action of bacteriological growths living on
the filter media.  Also called a trickling filter.

Biological Oxidation:  The process  whereby,  through  the  activity  of
living  organisms in an aerobic environment, organic matter is converted
to more biologically stable matter.

Biological Stabilization:  Reduction in 'the net energy level or  organic
matter  as  a  result  of  the  metabolic activity of organisms, so that
further biodegradation is very slow.

Biol o3ical__Treatment :  Organic waste treatment in which bacteria  and/or
biochemical action are intensified under controlled conditions.

Slowdown:   A  discharge from a system, designed to prevent a buildup of
some material, as in a bciler to control dissolved solids.

BOD;  Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5-day) .   The  quantity  of  oxygen
used in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specified time,
(usually  5  days) ,  at  a  specified  temperature,  and under specified
conditions.

S£ix:  A scale for indicating  percent sugar by weight  in  a  juice  or
solution.  10° Brix = 10 percent sugar by weight.

Carbon ___ Adsorption:   The  separation  of  small  waste  particles  and
molecular species, including color and odor contaminants, by  attachment
to  the  surface  and  open pore structure of carbon granules or powder.
The carbon is usually "activated", or made more  reactive  by  treatment
and processing.

Category. __ and __ Subcateqory;   Divisions  of  a particular industry which
possess different traits that affect raw waste water quality.

Caustic:  Capable of destroying  or  eating  away  by  chemical  action.
Applied to strong bases such as NaOH.
         § :   A  mechanical device in which centrifugal force is used to
separate solids  from   liquids  and/or  separate  liquids  of  different
densities.

Chemical _ Precipit at ion :   A  waste treatment process whereby substances
dissolved in the waste  water stream are rendered insoluble  and  form  a
solid phase that settles  out or can be removed by flotation techniques.


                                   188

-------
Chlorination;   The  addition  of minute amounts of chlorine to water or
treated waste water to kill bacteria contained therein.
                £d.L citrus Peel (Dried! ;  Chopped peel, seeds and  other
non- juice  parts  of"~the fruit that have been limed and dried for cattle
feed.

£IS£i£i£Sii2D 5  The process of removing  undissolved  materials  from  a
liquid.    Specifically,   removal  of  solids  either  by  settling  or
filtration.

Clarifier:  A settling basin for separating settlable solids from  waste
water.

Cm;  Centimeter.

Coagulant;   A  material,  which,  when added to liquid wastes or water,
creates a reaction which forms insoluble floe particles that adsorb  and
precipitate  colloidal  and suspended solids.  The floe particles can be
removed by sedimentation.  Among the  most  common  chemical  coagulants
used in sewage treatment are ferric sulfate and alum.

Coagulation;   The  destabilization and initial aggregation of colloidal
and finely divided suspended matter by the addition  of  a  floe-forming
chemical or by biological process.

COD;   Chemical  oxygen demand.  Its determination provides a measure of
the oxygen demand equivalent of that portion of matter in a sample which
is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.   Obtained  by
reacting the organic matter in the sample with oxidizing chemicals under
specified conditions.

Cold __ Pressed __ Oil;  Essential oil from citrus peel obtained without the
use of heat.

£2ii£°.£!D_b§t e£ia ;  Bacteria perdominantly inhabiting the  intestines  of
man or animal, but occasionally found elsewhere. Their presence in water
is evidence of contamination by fecal material.

Com]D,letely. __ Mixed __ Activated __ Sludcfe;   Treatment  system  in  which the
untreated waste water is instantly mixed throughout the entire  aeration
basin.

Cooling __ Tower;   A  device  for cooling water by spraying in the air or
trickling over slats .

£2i3Di§££J3££®Qi •  Flow of wash or process water in opposition to flow  of
product so that the product encounters increasingly cleaner water.

Cull;  Product rejected because of inferior quality.


                                   189

-------
    £S£i°li:  Removal of oxygen from products (juices or apple slices) to
prevent adverse effects en properties of the products.

Decant __ Water:   Water  from  which a top layer of D-limonene is skimmed
off,  obtained  usually  from  molasses  evaporator  condensate  (citrus
process) .

2§Hi££i£i£^£i°Ii:   Tne  process  involving the facultative conversion by
anaerobic bacteria of nitrates into nitrogen and nitrogen oxides.

De^ilincj:  Removal of oil from produce juices.

De^sludge:  A centrifuge designed to remove the coarse particles from  a
peel oil emulsion.

Detention __ Time:  Period of time required for a liquid to flow through a
tank or unit.

Digestion:  The biological decomposition of organic  matter  in  sludge,
resulting in partial gasification, liquefaction, and mineralization.

Disintegrate;   To  break  or  reduce into component parts or particles,
e.g., the rupture of potato cells for starch processing.

SiSSSiXS^—^il—IliSfe^iSB1  A process involving the compression of air and
liquid, mixing  to  super- saturation,  and  releasing  the  pressure  to
generate  large  numbers  of minute air bubbles.  As the bubbles rise to
the surface of the water, they carry with them small particles that they
contact.  The process is particularly effective for grease removal.

D-limonene:  Major constituent of peel oil.  Sometimes used synonymously
with stripper oil.

Dr ai n^ti le :  Pipes of various materials with perforations or open  joints
laid in  underground  trenches  and  fills  to  collect  and  carry  off
subsurface water.

Effluent:   Wastewater  or other liquid, partially or completely treated
or untreated, flowing out of  a  process  operation,  processing   plant,
reservoir, basin, or treatment plant.
              § :  A physical separation process which uses membranes and
applied voltages to separate ionic species from water.

En^yjne:   A  catalyst produced by living cells that accelerates  specific
transformation of material, as in the digestion of food.

Esse ntia l_Oi 1 :  The oil  in citrus peel, peel oil.
                                    190

-------
                 Applies to lake or pond - becoming  rich  in  dissolved
nutrients, with seasonal oxygen deficiencies.

E¥§2°J£!iiy.§ __ Condensers;   Equipment used to condense hot vapors wherein
water is circulated over coils containing the vapors.  Part of the water
evaporates in the air, enhancing the cooling effect.

Evaoorator:  Equipment used to remove water from juice or press  liquor,
usually by boiling in a vacuum, and condensing the vapors.

Evapgtransgir ation :   Water  withdrawn from the soil by evaporation and
plant transpiration.

Exhaust:  Heating of food in cans prior to closing the cans to force air
out of the containers.

Extended_AeratiQn;  A form of the activated sludge process  except  that
the retention time of waste waters is one to three days.

Facultat ive__Bacte ri a :   Bacteria  which  can  exist and reproduce under
either aerobic or anaerobic conditiors.

Facultative __ Decomposition:   Decomposition   of   organic   matter   by
facultative microorganisms.

Facultative __ Pond;   A  combination  aerobic- anaerobic  pond  divided by
loading and thermal stratification into aerobic surface,  and  anaerobic
bottom, strata.

Feed:  A material which flows into a containing space or process unit.

ESLSQSH^siii0!!1  Changes in organic matter brought about by microorganisms
growing in the absence of air.

Filtrate;  Liquid after passing through a filter.

Filtration;   Removal  of  solid particles from liquid or particles from
air or gas stream  by  passing  the  liquid  or  gas  stream  through  a
permeable membrane.

Fl.oc:   A  mass  formed by the aggregation of a number of fine suspended
particles.
               Tne process of forming larger masses from a large  number
of finer suspended particles.

Floe __ Skimmings;  The flocculent mass formed on a quieted liquid surface
and removed for use, treatment, or disposal.
                                    191

-------
Pluming:  In-plant transportation of product or waste  material  through
water conveyance.

Industrial	Wastewater:   Flow  of  waste  liquids from industries using
large volumes of water from processing industrial products, such as food
processing plants.

Influent:  A liquid which flows into a containing space or process unit.

i2S_S2£ll5Q2§:  A reversible chemical reaction  between  a  solid  and  a
liquid  by  means of which ions may be interchanged between the two.  It
is in common use in water softening and water deionizing.

Kg:  Kilogram or 1,000 grams, metric unit of weight.

Kjeldahl_Nitrogen:  A measure of the total amount  of  nitrogen  in  the
ammonia and organic forms in waste water.

KWH:  Kilowatt-hours, a measure of total electrical energy consumption.

Lagoon:   A  large  pond  used  to hold waste water for stabilization by
natural processes.

Leach:  To subject to the action of percolating water or other liquid in
order to separate soluble components.  To cause water or other liquid to
percolate through.

Leaching:  The removal of  soluble  constituents  from  soils  or  other
materials by percolating water.

Lime:   Calcium  oxide,  a  caustic white solid, which forms slaked lime
 (calcium hydroxide) when combined with water.  It is used for pH control
and other waste treatment pruposes.

Lye;  A strong alkaline solution.  Caustic soda  (sodium  hydroxide)  is
the most common lye.

Lv.e	Dump:  The spent water from the lye bath that is used to remove the
inner membrane  of  sectionizing  fruit.   The  spent  lye  solution  is
discharged periodically.

Lv.e	Rin.se:  The rinse water used to remove from the fruit, lye solution
carried out of the lye bath in sectionizing operations.

M:  Meter, metric unit of length.

Make-up Water;  Fresh water added to process  water  to  replace  system
losses.

Mean:  The average value of a number of observed data.


                                    192

-------
MGD:  Million gallons per day.

Ma/1:  Milliongrams per liter; approximately equals parts per million; a
term used to indicate concentration of materials in water.

Microstrainer/microscreen:    A   mechanical   filter  consisting  of  a
cylindrical surface of  metal  filter  fabric  with  openings  of  20-60
micrometers in size.

Mixed	Liquor	[ML]_:  A mixture of sludge and waste water in a biological
reaction tank undergoing biological degradation in an  activated  sludge
system.

Molasses;   A  dark-colored  syrup  containing  non-sugars  produced  by
evaporating press liquor and other strong wastewater to about 70 percent
dissolved solids.  Molasses is used as commercial cattle feed or in  the
manufacture  of  monosodium  glutamate, a food flavoring agent, alcohol,
yeast, citric acid and other products.

mm:  Millimeter = 0.001 meter.

Municipal Treatment:  A city or community-owned  waste  treatment  plant
for municipal and, possibly, industrial waste treatment.

Neutralize:   To  adjust  the  pH  of a solution to 7.0  (neutral) by the
addition of an acid or a base.

Nitratex_Nitrite:  Chemical compounds that include the  NO  -   (nitrate)
and  NO -  (nitrite) ions.  They are composed of nitrogen and oxygen, are
nutrients for growth of algae and other plant life,  and  contribute  to
eutrophication.

Nitrif_j.cation:   The  process  of  oxidizing  ammonia  by  bacteria into
nitrites and nitrates.

No_Dis>charc[e:  No discharge of effluents to a water course.  A system of
land disposal with no runoff or total recycle of the waste water may  be
used to achieve it.

Non-Water	Quality;   Thermal,  air,  noise  and all other environmental
parameters except water.

Nutrients;  Compounds that promote biological growth,  e.g.,  phosphorus
and  nitrogen.   Usually  undesirable in treated effluent; however, they
are required in  proper  proportions  for  successful  biological  waste
treatment.

Organic	Content:   Synonymous  with  volatile  solids  except for small
traces of some inorganic materials such as calcium carbonate which  will
lose weight at temperatures used in determining volatile solids.


                                   193

-------
Oxidation Lagoon;  Synonymous with aerobic or aerated lagoon.

Oxidation Pond:  Synonymous with aerobic lagoon.

Oxygen __ UB£ake_Ra£e:  Oxygen utilization rate or rate at which oxygen is
used by bacteria in the decomposition of organic matter.
            The highest average daily flow occurring throughout a period
of time.

Percolation;  The movement of water through the soil profile.

£>H:  A measure of the relative acidity or alkalinity  of  water.   A  pH
value  of  7.0  indicates  a  neutral condition;  less than 7 indicates a
predominance of acids, and greater than 7, a  predominance  of  alkalis.
There  is a 10-fold increase (or decrease) from one pH unit level to the
next, e.g., 10-fold increase in alkalinity from pH 8 to pH 9.

£2iisher;  A centrifuge designed to separate peel oil from its emulsion.
            A substance which taints, fouls, or otherwise renders impure
or unclean the recipient system.
            Tne presence of pollutants in a system sufficient to degrade
the quality of the system.
              ® __ Chemicals;   High  molecular  weight  substances  which
dissociate  into  ions  when in solution; the ions either being bound to
the molecular structure or  free  to  diffuse  throughout  the  solvent,
depending  on  the sign of the ionic charge and the type of electrolyte.
They are often used as flocculation agents  in  waste  water  treatment,
particularly along with dissolved air flotation.


Pomace;   Pulpy  substance  of  fruit  and vegetables after grinding and
juicing.

Ponding;  A waste treatment technique involving the actual holdup of all
waste waters in a confined space with evaporation  and  percolation  the
primary mechanisms operating to dispose of the water.
      Parts per million, a measure of concentration, expressed currently
as mg/1.

Precipitation;   The  phenomenon  that  occurs  when a substance held in
solution in a liquid passes out of solution into solid form.
                   liquid obtained when citrus peel is chopped,  treated
with lime, and pressed or squeezed.
                                   194

-------
Pre treatment;   Wastewater  treatment  located  on  the  plant  site and
upstream from the discharge to a municipal treatment system.
       ^igJfg 3'¥ea'tmgryt :  In -plant by-product recovery and  waste  water
treatment  involving  physical  separation  and recovery devices such as
catch basins, screens, and dissolved air flotation.

Process:  A series of actions or operations conducted to an end.
Process E^f^ugnt^or.^ Discharge ;  The volume  of  water  emerging  from  a
particular use in the plant.

Process __ Water;   Water which is used in the internal juice streams from
which sugar is ultimately crystallized.

Proteiijase:  An enzyme which hydro lyzes proteins.

RjLW_Tgn:  One ton of unprocessed commodity.

Raw_Waste:  The waste water effluent from  the  in-plant  primary  waste
treatment system.

B§£y,£l§:   Tne  return of a quantity of effluent from a specific unit or
process to the feed stream of that same unit.  This would also apply  to
return of treated plant waste water for several plant uses.


Refir ejeatati ve_gajtjEie ;  A sample of the same composition as the thing it
represents.

Retort;   The  heating  of  canned  foods after closing to sterilize the
product.

S§2Z§£S§_2§212Si§:  Tne physical separation of  substances  from  a  water
stream  by  reversal of the normal osmotic process; i.e., high pressure,
forcing water through a semi -permeable membrane to the pure  water  side
leaving behind more concentrated waste streams.

Sand _ Filter:   A  filter  device  incorporating  a  bed  of  sand that,
depending on  design,  can  be  used  in  secondary  or  tertiary  waste
treatment.

Scalder __ Discharge:   Hot  water used to soften the peel of fruit before
sect ionizing.

Sc al ding :  Treatment with steam at high temperatures.

Screening!  The removal of  relatively  coarse  floating  and  suspended
solids from waste water by straining through racks and screens.
                                    195

-------
Secondary __ Treatment;   The  waste  treatment following primary in-plant
treatment, typically involving biological waste reduction systems.

Sedimentation:  The falling or settling of solid particles in a  liquid,
as a sediment.

Semi perm eabl e __ Membrane:   A thin sheet- like structure which permits the
passage of solvent but is impermeable to dissolved substances.

S e tt leab le_S olids :  Suspended solids which will settle in  sedimentation
basins (clarifiers) in noriral detention times.

Sett ling Tank;  Synonymous with "Sedimentation Tank".
          Water  after  it  has  been  fouled by various uses.  From the
standpoint of source it may be a combination of  the  liquid  or  water-
carried  wastes  from  residences, business buildings, and institutions,
together with those from industrial and agricultural establishments, and
with such groundwater, surface water, and storm water as may be present.

Shock_Load:  A quantity of waste water or pollutant that greatly exceeds
the normal discharged into a treatment system, usually occurring over  a
limited period of time.

Sizincj:  The process of cutting and trimming the product.
          (1)  The  accumulated  solids  separated from liquids, such as
water or waste water, during  processing,  or  deposits  on  bottoms  of
streams  or  other bodies of waters.   (2) The precipitate resulting from
chemical treatment, coagulation, or  sedimentation  of  water  or  waste
water.

Slurry.:  A mixture of water with finely divided suspended solids.

Solute:  A dissolved substance.
        Term  used  to signify waste water treatment systems that have a
low pH value.  The acid condition is favorable to  growth  of  organisms
which produce foul smelling by-products, hence is undesirable.

Standard __ Deviation;   A  measure of the variation of data values around
the mean.

Stoichigmet ric^Amoun t :  The amount of a substance involved in a specific
chemical reaction, either as a reactant or as a reaction product.

Strength:  The relative total concentration in effluent of BOD, COD, TSS
 (albuminoids, amino acids, pectins and sugars) , alkalinity and acidity.
                                   196

-------
SS:  Suspended Solids.   (1) Solids that either float on the surface  of,
or  are in suspension in water, waste water, or other liquids, and which
are largely removable by laboratory  filtering.    (2)  The  quantity  of
material removed from waste water in a laboratory test, as prescribed in
"Standard  Methods  for  the  Examination  of  Water and Wastewater" and
referred to as nonfilterable residue.

St rijojDer _Oi 1:   Mostly  d-limonene  obtained  from  molasses  evaporator
condensate by decantation.

Substrate:   Raw  waste feed on which a microorganism grows or is placed
to grow by decomposing the waste material.

§iik§ir.sl££_B§!Bo.y£i:  Tne "total BOD in plant effluent, minus  the  soluble
BOD in plant effluent, divided by the total influent BOD.

Sulf itincr;   Exposing  sized  fruit  to  sulfur  dioxide  atmosphere  or
solution for stabilizing color, flavor, and texture.

SUESJEDi&lDt:  The layer floating above the surface of a layer of solids.


Surcharge:  An additional  service charge  imposed  upon  industry  by  a
municipality  for discharge of waste water to the municipal sewer system
in excess of some previously specified volume and/or character.

Surface	Water:   The  waters  of  the  United  States   including   the
territorial seas.


Sy,rup:  Water solution of  sugar, usually sucrose.

Tertiary	Waste	Treatment:   Waste  treatment  systems  used  to  treat
secondary  treatment  effluent  and  typically  using  physical-chemical
technologies to effect waste reduction.  Synonymous with "Advanced Waste
Treatment".

Total	Dissolved	Solids  (TDS) :  The total amount of dissolved material,
organic  and  inorganic,   contained  in  water  or  wastes.    Excessive
dissolved  solids  can  make  water  unsuitable  for industrial uses and
unpalatable for drinking.

TOG:  Total organic carbon.  A test expressing waste  water  contaminant
concentration in terms of  the carbon content.

Total Suspended solids  (TSS11 ;  See Suspended Solids.

Trickling Filter;  See Biological Filter.

Vector:  A carrier of pathogenic organisms.


                                   197

-------

-------
                                     APPENDIX A
                      APPLES - INFORMATION FROM PROCESSING PLANTS
Plant
Code

AP-101
AP-102

AP-103
 Plant Capacity
kkg/hr    (T/hr)
 29.02
 27.21

 21.41
32.0
30.0

23.6
AP-104
AP-105
AP-106
AP-107
AP-108
AP-109
AP-110
AP-111
AP-112
AP-113
AP-114
AP-115
AP-116
AP-117
AP-118
AP-119
AP-120
AP-121
AP-122
AP-123
AP-124
AP-125
AP-126
AP-127
13.
20.
24.
15.
18.
-
-
4.
2.
7.
43.
13.
38.
25.
1.
-
—
15.
4.
21.
20.
-
8.
-
61
41
31
87
14


08
72
26
08
97
91
94
36


9
54
77
41

61

15.
22.
26.
17.
20.
-
-
4.
3.
8.
47.
15.
42.
28.
1.
-
—
17.
5.
24.
22.
-
9.
-
0
5
8
5
0


5
0
0
5
4
9
6
5


5
0
0
5

5

Products

Sauce & Juice
Sauce & Juice

Sauce, Juice & Vinegar

Sauce & Slices
Sauce, Slices & Juice
Slices & Vinegar
Sauce & Juice
Sauce, Slices & Juice
Slices
Sauce
Pie Filling
Slices
Slices & Sauce
Sauce, Juice & Vinegar
Sauce & Juice

Sauce & Juice
Slices, Sauce, Juice
      & Vinegar
Slices
Sauce & Juice
Sauce
Sauce
Sauce
Slices & Sauce
Juice
Sauce
Slices & Sauce
Slices
Method of Treatment

Aerated Lagoon
Land Disposal Spray Irrigation
  after Secondary Treatment
Land Disposal Spray Irrigation
  after Secondary Treatment
Land Disposal Spray Irrigation
Land Disposal Spray Irrigation
                                                       Lagoons

                                                       Municipal Sewer
                                                       Land Disposal Irrigation
                                                       Municipal Sewer
                                                       Land Disposal Irrigation
                                                       Land Dispodal Spray Irrigation
                                                         & Municipal Sewer
                                                       Land Disposal Spray Irrigation
                                                       Land Disposal Spray Irrigation

                                                       Municipal Sewer
                                                       Aerated Lagoons
                                                       Land Disposal Spray Irrigation
                                                       Land Disposal Spray Irrigation
                                                       Municipal Sewer
                                                       Land Disposal Ponds
                                                       Municipal Sewer
                                                       Municipal Sewer

-------
        (Continued)
        APPLES - INFORMATION FROM PROCESSING PLANTS
ro
o
o
Plant
Code

AP-128
AP-129
AP-130
AP-131
AP-132
AP-133
AP-134
AP-135
AP-136
AP-137
AP-138
AP-139
AP-140
AP-141
AP-142
                  Plant Capacity
                 kkg/hr    (T/hr)
 4.54
 3.63

 5.44
 4.54
 4.99
 4.08

 1.81
 4.54
31.00
 6.36
12.50
10.88
                            4.1
                            5.0
                            4.0

                            6.0
                            5.0
                            5.5
                            4.5
                            2,
                            5
34.2
 7.0
13.8
12.0
Products

Sauce
Vinegar
Sauce
Dehydrated Pieces
Sauce & Juice
Juice
Sauce
Slices
Juice
Slices & Juice
Slices & Dices
Sauce, Slices & Juice
Slices
Juice
Dehydrated Slices
Method of Treatment

Municipal Sewer
Land Disposal Irrigation
Land Disposal Irrigation
Land Disposal System
Aseptic Pond (Closed)
Aseptic Pond (Closed)
Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer
Activated Sludge
Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer

-------
                      CITRUS - INFORMATION FROM PROCESSING PLANTS
ro
o
Plant
Code
CI-101
CI-102
CI-103
CI-104
CI-105
CI-106
CI-107
CI-108
CI-109
CI-110
CI-111
CI-112
CI-113
CI-114
CI-115
Plant Capacity
kkg/D (T/D)
145.8
1,229.0
317.5
1,133.8
2,267.5
2,086.1
1,088.4
3,412.1
2,875.1
2,875.1
1,836.8
326.5
3,673.4
2,448.9
1,836.8
160.5
1,335.0
350.0
1,250.0
2,500.0
2,300.0
1,200.0
3,762.0
3,150.0
3,150.0
2,025.0
360.0
4,050.0
2,700.0
2,025.0
                                  Products

                                  Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
                                    By-Products
                                  Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
                                    By-Products,
                                  Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
                                    By-Product,
                                    Pectin/Pharmaceuticals
                                  Juice, Segments
Juice, Oil/Peel
  By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel
  By-Products
Juice, Oil
Juice, Segments
  Peel-Pulp By-
Juice, Oil/Peel
  By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel
  By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel
  By-Products
Juice
Juice, Segments
  Peel-Pulp By-
Juice, Oil/Peel
  By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel
  By-Products
-Pulp

-Pulp


,  Oil/
Products
-Pulp

-Pulp

-Pulp
                                                 , Oil/
                                                 Products
                                                 -Pulp
                                                 -Pulp
                           Method of Treatment

                           Municipal Sewers,

                           Land Disposal Irrigation & Ocean
                             Brine Line
                           Land Disposal Irrigation
Aerated Tanks, Clarifier,
  Trickling Filter
Aerated Lagoon &
  Land Disposal Irrigation
Aeration, Clarification

Land Disposal Irrigation
Activated Sludge
  Land Disposal Irrigation
Aerated Lagoon &
  Land Disposal Irrigation
Municipal Sewer &
  Land Disposal Irrigation
Lagoons, Land Disposal Irrigation

Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer

Land Disposal Irrigation

Land Disposal Irrigation
                                                              (Continued)

-------
o
ro
      (Continued)
      CITRUS  -  INFORMATION  FROM

      Plant      Plant  Capacity
      Code      kkg/D      (T/D)
                          PROCESSING PLANTS
                             Products
CI-116  1,224.5   1,350.0

CI-117    571.4     630.0

CI-118    743.7     820

CI-119  5,714.1   6,300.0

CI-120    308.4     340.0

CI-121  3,174.5   3,500.0

CI-122  1,020.4   1,125.0

CI-123  3,809.4   4,200.0

CI-124    408.2     450.0
CI-125     29.0      32.0
CI-126  5,079.2   5,600.0

CI-127    226.8     250.0
CI-128    285.7     315.0

CI-129  1,732.4   1,910.0

CI-130  1,142.8   1,260.0
CI-131    689.3     760.0
      CI-132     453.5
                    500.0
Juice, Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice, Segments
  Peel-Pulp By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice, Oil

Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice
Segments
Juice, Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Segments
Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice, Segments, Oil/
  Peel-Pulp By-Products
Juice, Segments, Oil
Juice, Oil, Pectin

Juice, Oil
Method of Treatment

Municipal Sewer

Land Disposal Irrigation

Aerated Lagoons

Aerated Lagoons

No  Treatment

Land Disposal Irrigation

Land Disposal Irrigation,
  Municipal Sewer
Aeration, Clarification

Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer
No Treatment

Trickling Filter, Aeration
Land Disposal Irrigation

Activated Sludge

Land Disposal Irrigation
Land Disposal Irrigation &
  Oil Brine Line
Municipal Sewer
                                                             (Continued)

-------
       (Continued)
       CITRUS  -  INFORMATION FROM PROCESSING PLANTS
o
co
Plant
Code

CI-133
CI-134
CI-135
CI-136
CI-137
CI-138
CI-139

CI-140
CI-1A1

CI-142
CI-143

CI-144

CI-145
CI-146

CI-147
CI-148
CI-149
                 Plant Capacity
                kkg/D     (T/D)
               1,020.4   1,125.0
                 530.6
                  86.2
                 127.0
  585.0
   95.0
  140.0
1,100.0
Products

Juice, Oil
Juice, Oil
Peel-Pulp By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
Juice, Oil
Juice
Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
  By-Product
Juice
Juice, Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice, Oil
Juice, Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice, Oil/Peel-Pulp
  By-Products
Juice
Segments

Peel-Pulp  By-Products
Juice, Segments
Juice, Oil
Method of Treatment

No Treatment
Municipal Sewer

Land Disposal Irrigation
Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer
Land Disposal Irrigation

Land Disposal Irrigation
Aerobic & Anaerobic Digestion
  Municipal Sewer
Land Disposal Irrigation
Land Disposal Irrigation

Land Disposal Irrigation

Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer
  Land Disposal Irrigation
Land Disposal Irrigation
Municipal Sewer
Municipal Sewer

-------
                         POTATOES - INFORMATION FROM PROCESSING PLANTS
ro
Plant
Code
PO-101
PO-102
PO-103
PO-104
PO-105
PO-106
PO-107
PO-108
PO-109
PO-110
PO-111
PO-112
Plant Capacity
kkg/D (T/D)
1,133.8
1,633.6
544.2
435.4
-
-
544.2
634.9
1,043.1
317.5
725.6
907.0
1,250
1,800
600
480
-
-
600
700
1,150
350
800
1,000
Products
French Fries, Dehydrated
Flakes & Granules
French Fries, Dehydrated
Flakes & Granules
French Fries
Dehydrated Products
Dehydrated Products
French Fries
Dehydrated Granules &
Slices
French Fries
French Fries
French Fries &
Hash Browns
French Fries &
Potato Wedges
French Fries, Hash
Method of
Activated
Spray
Activated
Spray
Activated
-
-
-
Activated
Activated
Activated
Treatment
Sludge &
Sludge &
Sludge



Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Land Disposal
Land Disposal







Aerated Lagoon
Land Disposal Spray
Land Dispc
>sal Ponds
Irrigation

                                      Browns & Dehydrated Flakes
                                                             (Continued)

-------
     (Continued)
     POTATOES - INFORMATION FROM PROCESSING PLANTS
ro
o
in
Plant
Code
PO-113
PO-114
PO-115
PO-116
PO-117
PO-118
PO-119
PO-120
PO-121
PO-122
PO-123
PO-124
PO-125
PO-126
PO-127
PO-128
Plant C
kkg/D
498.9
453.5
217.7
453.5
562.3
127.0
72.6
272.1
272.1
340.1
226.8
294.8
340.1
90.7
453.5
136.1
      PO-129
181.4
(T/D)



 550



 500



 240





 500



 620



 140



   80



 300



 300



 375



  250



  325



  375



  100



  500



   150





   200
                 Products



                 Dehydrated Granules



                 Dehydrated Granules



                 Dehydrated Flakes





                 Frozen  French Fries



                 Frozen  French Fries



                 Frozen  French Fries



                 Frozen  French Fries



                 Frozen  French Fries



                 Dehydrated



                  Dehydrated



                  Dehydrated



                  Dehydrated



                  Frozen French Fries



                  Starch



                  Frozen French Fries



                  Frozen French Fries  &

                     Dehydrated Products



                   Frozen French  Fries
Method of Treatment



Land Disposal Spray Irrigation



Land Disposal Flood Irrigation



Activated Sludge

  Land Disposal Spray  Irrigation



Municipal Sewer


Land  Disposal  Spray  Irrigation



Activated  Sludge



Activated  Sludge



 Aerated Lagoons



 Municipal Sewer


 Land Disposal Spray Irrigation



 Anaerobic Pond



 Municipal Sewer



 River


 Land Disposal  Spray  Irrigation



 Activated  Sludge,  Aerated Lagoon



 Trickling  Filter





  Aerobic Lagoon

-------
(Continued)
POTATOES - INFORMATION FROM PROCESSING PLANTS
CT>
Plant
Code
PO-130
PO-131
PO-132
PO-133
PO-134
PO-135
PO-136
Plant C
kkg/D
544.2
362.8
430.8
163.3
45.4
312.9
589.6
apaci
(T/;
600
400
475
180
50
345
650
Products

Frozen French Fries

Frozen French Fries

Dehydrated Granules

Dehydrated Flakes

Sealed Plastic Bag

Dehydrated Flakes

Dehydrated Flakes,
  Granules & Dices
                                                       Method of Treatment

                                                       Land Disposal Spray  Irrigation

                                                       Land Disposal Spray  Irrigation

                                                       Land Disposal Spray  Irrigation

                                                       Land Disposal Spray  Irrigation

                                                       Aerated Lagoons

                                                       Municipal Sewer

                                                       Activated Sludge Land Disposal
                                                         Spray

-------
           APPLES - PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION BY SIC CODE
SIC PRODUCT CODE
2033
    0 00
    0 02
    1
    1 12
    1 13

    1 14

    1 61

    4
    4 11
    4 85

    4 89

    4 91
2034
    0 00
    0 02
    1

    1 21
2037
    0 00
    0 02

    1
    1 55
    1 95
PRODUCT

Canned Fruits and Vegetables
  For companies with 10 or more employees
  For companies with less than 10
    employees

Canned Fruits (except baby foods)
  Apples, excluding pie mix
  Applesauce - 372 gm. to 511 gm.
              (13.1 oz. to 18 oz.)
  Applesauce - other sizes

Canned fruit pie mix - apple

Canned fruit juices & concentrates
  Apple juice
  Fruit juices, concentrated, hot pack
    - 116 gm. to 119 gm.(4.1oz. to 7oz.)
  Fruit juices, concentrated, hot pack
    - Other sizes and bulk
  Fruit juices, fresh, to be kept under
    refrigeration

Dehydrated Fruits and Vegetables and
    Soup Mixes
  For companies with 10 or more employees
  For companies with less than 10
    employees

Dried fruits and vegetables, except soup
    mixes
  Apples

Frozen Fruits and Vegetables
  For companies with 10 or more employees
  For companies with less than 10
    employees
Frozen fruits, juice and ades
  Apples and applesauce
  Apple frozen fruit juice concentrate
Source:  Standard Industrial Classification Manual  (1972,
         Office of Management and Budget, Government
         Printing Office)
                             207

-------
           CITRUS - PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION BY SIC CODE
SIC PRODUCT CODE
2033
    0 00
    0 02

    1
    1 31
    1 34

    4
    4 31
    4 42

    4 43

    4 51
    4 53
    4 85

    4 89

    4 91
2037
    0 00
    0 02

    1
    1 81

    1 82

    1 83
    1 85
    1 86

    1 87
Canned Fruits and Vegetables
  For companies with 10 or more employees
  For companies with less than 10 employees

Canned Fruits (except baby foods)
  Grapefruit Segements
  Fruit for Salad - Citrus

Canned Fruit Juices & Concentrates
  Grapefruit Juice
  Orange Juice Single Strength
    1.14 kg to 1.7 kg (40.1 oz. to 60 oz.)
  Orange Juice Single Strength
    Other Sizes
  Grapefruit-Orange Juice Blend
  Grapefruit-Pineapple Juice Blend
  Fruit Juices, Concentrated, Hot Pack
    (116 gm to 119 gm (4.1 oz. to 7 oz.)
  Fruit Juices, Concentrated, Hot Pack
    Other Sizes and bulk
  Fruit Juices, Fresh, to be kept under
    refrigeration

Frozen Fruits arid Vegetables
  For companies with 10 or more employees
  For companies with less than 10 employees

Frozen Fruits, Juices and Ades
  Orange Juice-116 gm to 199 gm
               (4.1 oz. to 7 oz.)
  Orange Juice-287 gm to 369 gm.
               (10.1 oz. to 13 oz.)
  Orange Juice - Other Sizes
  Lemonade-116 gm to 199 gm (4.1 oz. to 7 oz.)
  Lemonade-287 gm to 369 gm
           (10.1 oz. to 13 oz.)
  Lemonade - Other Sizes
Source:  Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1972)
         Office of Management and Budget, Government
         Printing Office
                               208

-------
          POTATOES - PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION BY SIC CODE
SIC PRODUCT CODE
2033
2034
0 00
0 02

2

2 74

^

0 00
0 02

1

1 31

1 35
2037
    0 00
    0 02

    2
    2 47
2046

2099
PRODUCT

Canned Fruits and Vegetables
  For companies with 10 or more employees
  For companies with less than 10 employees

Canned Vegetables (except hominy and
    mushrooms)
  White potatoes

Dehydrated Fruits and Vegetables and
    Soup Mixes
  For companies with 10 or more employees
  For companies with less than 10 employees

Dried Fruits and Vegetables, Except Soup
    Mixes
  Potatoes - consumer size - 454 gm.  (1 Ib)
    and under.
  Potatoes - commercial size - over 454 gm.
    (1 Ib)

Frozen Fruits and Vegetables
  For companies with 10 or more employees
  For companies with less than 10 employees

Frozen Vegetables
  Potatoes & Potato Products (french  fried
    patties, puffs, etc.)

Wet corn milling - Potato Starch

Food Preparations, Not Elsewhere Classified
  Potato Chips
Source:  Standard Industrial Classification Manual    (1972)
         Office of Management and Budget, Government  Printing
         Office
                            209

-------
                               DATA SUMMARY
                             APPLE PROCESSING
1.  Average Daily Plant Processing Capacity
        Tons of Fruit/Hr.        	
2.  Plant Categorization
        Canned
          a.  Sliced
          b.  Sauce
        Frozen
          a.  sliced
          b.  Diced
          c.  sauce
        Dehydrated
          a.  Sliced
          b.  Diced
        Juice
          a.  Cider or Juice
          b.  Vinegar Stock
3.  Process Equipment
        Type of Peeling
          Manufacturer
        Type of Slicing
          Manufacturer
                                                 Total
                                                          100%
                                              Type  of Coring 	
                                               Manufacturer 	
                                              Type  of Finishing
                                               Manufacturer
                                 210

-------
                                 DATA SUMMARY
                              CITRUS PROCESSING


 1«  Average Daily Plant Processing Capacity

           Tons of Fruit/Day 	

 2.  Plant Categorization

           a.  Single Strength Juice  	.

           b.  Chilled Juice          	

           c.  Chilled Segments       	

           d.  Concentrated Juice
                                                                Total  100%
           e.   Oranges

           f.   Grapefruit

           g.   Lemons and Limes
                                                                Total   100%
                             WASTE  EFFLUENT  DATA

 3.   In-Plant  & Post Treatment  (End-of-Pipe) Waste Effluents
Line
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Gal/Min












Percent
Recycled












BOD












COD












Temp.
°P












PH












Total
Solids



'








Suspended!
Solids >
i
•

1
i
i
i
»
..... (
t
!
!
See page No.  Three for additional Line Nos.
                                        211

-------
                               DATA SUMMARY
                            POTATO PROCESSING
1.  Average Daily Plant Processing Capacity



        Location of Plant
        Tons of Potatoes/Day _



2.  Plant Categorization



        a.  Frozen



              French Fries



              Hash Browns



              Preformed Shapes



        b.  Dehydrated



              Granules



              Flakes



              Chips



              Cubes



        c.  Canned



              Whole



              Sliced



        d.  Other
                                                       Total    100%
                                   212

-------
DATA SUMMARY - APPLE PROCESSING
Page Two
                             WASTE EFFLUENT DATA
4,   In-Plant &  Post Treatment (End-of-Pipe) Waste Effluents
Line
NO.
	 i
.,. 2
' 3
1 4
5
" •<;
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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
"44
45
Gal/Min













































Percent
Recycled













































BOD













































COD

























•















—
213


Temp.
oF













































pH












































,
. Total Suspendeq
Solids Solids i
i
i



1
1
1






i
!

i
:
t
i
»
!
i
t
1

1
i


1
t

i


I
i

>
t

.
1

-------
 DATA SUMMARY - APPLE PROCESSING
                                                              Page Three
 5.
 6.
 7.
 8.
 9.
10.
12.
       Settling Ponds



              Number
       Screening Equipment



              Type 	



       Clarifier



              Number
       Rotary Vacuum Filters



              Number 	



       Aeration Ponds



              Number 	



       Land Disposal



              Type 	
                                    T'otal Area
                                    Mesh Opening
                                    Type
                                    Type
                                    Total  Area
                                    Total  Area
11.     Discharge to Municipal  Sewer
              Daily,  Monthly or Yearly Assessment
Total Volume
Screen Area
Size
Size
Size
                and Basis of Calculating the Assessment



       River and/or Stream



              Name 	






                                  ECONOMIC DATA



13.    Construction Cost of Waste Treatment Facility (include laboratory)
14.     Operating Cost of Waste Treatment  Facility (include laboratory)
                                       •14

-------
Volatiles in Citrus  Wastes;   Those constituents that can distill  over in
anevaporator  and  collect  in  the  condensate.   Chiefly   peel  oil
constituents and essence from juice.
                             CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY   (ENGLISH  UNITS)   by conversion factor to
                         Obtain METRIC UNITS
     ENGLISH UNIT

acre
acre - feet
British Thermal  Unit
British Thermal
   Unit/pound
cubic feet/minute
cubic feet/second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Fahrenheit
feet
gallon
galion/minute
horsepower
inches
inches of mercury
pounds
million gallons/day
mile
pound/square
   inch  (gauge)
square feet
square inches
tons  (short)
yard
ABHXEVIA.TJO.N   CONVERSION  ABBREVIATION
   ac
   ac ft
   BTU

   BTU/lb
   cfm
   cfs
   cu ft
   cu ft
   cu in
   Fo
   ft
   gal
   gpm
   hp
   in
   in Hg
   Ib
   mgd
   mi

   psig
   sq ft
   sq in
   t
   y
       0.405
    1233.5
       0.252
ha
cu m
kg cal
C.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
liters
cu cm
°c
m
liters
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
(0.06805 psi +1) * atm
       0.0929     sq m
       0. 452      sq cm
       0.907      kkg
       0.9144     m
   *  Actual  conversion, not a multiplier
                                     215
                                               ««.«. OOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974 546-317/Z98 1-3

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------