Group I, Phase II
       Development Document for
   Interim Final and Proposed Effluent
  Limitations Guidelines and New Source
      Performance Standards for the
        Fruits, Vegetables and Specialties
              Segment of the
        Canned and Preserved Fruits and
                 Vegetables
          Point Source Category
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                OCTOBER 1975

-------

-------
                      DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

                               for

                   INTERIM FINAL AND PROPOSED
                 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

                               and

                NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

                             for the

               FRUITS, VEGETABLES AND SPECIALTIES
              SEGMENTS OF THE CANNED AND PRESERVED
                      FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
                      POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
                        Russell  E.  Train
                          Admi m'strator
                  Andrew W.  Breidenbach,  Ph.D.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water  and Hazardous  Materials
                           Allen Cywin
             Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
                         James D.  Gallup
                       Donald F.  Anderson
                        Project Officers
                          October 1975
                  Effluent Guidelines  Division
             Office of Water and Hazardous  Materials
              U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                     Washington, D.C.   20460

-------

-------
                            ABSTRACT

This document presents the findings of a  study  of  the  fruits,
vegetables,  and specialties segments of the canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables industry  for  the  purpose  of  developing
waste   water   effluent   limitations  guidelines,  and  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").   An  earlier  development
document   (EPA-t»UO/1-7U-027a) established effluent guidelines for
portions of the apple, citrus, and potato processing segments  of
this   industry.    This   report   covers  effluent  limitations
guidelines  for  the  remaining  segments  of  the   fruits   and
vegetables point source category.

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  regulations  for  July  1, 1977,  are based on in-plant waste
management  and  operating  methods,  together  with   the   best
practicable  secondary  biological treatment technology currently
available  for  discharge  into  navigable  water  bodies.    The
recommended  technology  is represented by preliminary screening,
and secondary biological treatment,  either  aerated  or  aerobic
lagoons, or activated sludge.

The  recommended  technology  for July 1, 1983, is in-plant waste
management  and  preliminary  screening,  the   best   biological
secondary   treatment,   and   disinfection  (chlorination).   In
addition, final multi-media or sand filtration  may  be  reguired
for  "large" point source processors.   The new source performance
standards are the same as  the  best  available  limitations  for
1983.   The technology is either the same as for existing sources
for  1983  or  land  treatment.   Land  treatment  is  especially
attractive  because  land  availability  requirements  can  be an
important part of new source site selection criteria.

Land treatment systems 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.
                               m

-------

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                       Page
Section                                               Number

   I      CONCLUSIONS                                   1

  II      RECOMMENDATIONS                               3

 III      INTRODUCTION                                  5

            Purpose and Authority                       5
            Summary of Methods Used During
              this Study                                6
            Description of Industry                     8
            General Process Descriptions
              (Not Commodity Specific)                  15
            Commodity Specific Process Descriptions    31

  IV      INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION                     171

            Introduction                              171
            Rational for Subcategorization            176

   V      WATER USAGE AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS       189

            Introduction                              189
            Data Handling and Reduction               189
            Data Distribution Analysis                192
            Effluent production Correlation           193
            Subcategory Summary Tables                196

  VI      SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS           231

            Wastewater Parameters of Pollutional
              Significance                            231
            Rationale for Selection of Major
              Parameters                              231
            Analytical Methods                        239

  VII     CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY            243

            Introduction                              2H3
            In-Plant Control Technology               2U1
            Screens                                   261
            pH Control                                262
            Gravity Sedimentation                     263
            Air Flotation                             266
            Nutrient Addition                         271
            Land Treatment Systems                    271
            Lagoon Treatment Systems                  279
            Trickling Filter                          293
            Activated Sludge                          295
            Multimedia Filtration                     300

-------
            Sludge Handling                           304
            Vacuum Filtration                         306
            Chlorination                              307
            Carbon Adsorption                         308
            Electrodialysis                           309
            Reverse Osmosis                           310

VIII      COST ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY
          ASPECTS                                     311

            Introduction                              311
            Approach to Cost Estimation of
              Treatment Modules                       311
            Spray Irrigation                          313
            Ridge and Furrow Irrigation               323
            Lagoons                                   324
            pH Control                                330
            Clarifiers                                330
            Air Flotation                             330
            Nutrient Addition                         337
            Trickling Filter                          337
            Activated Sludge                          345
            Aerobic Digestion                         345
            Vacuum Filtration - Sludge Handling       357
            Emergency Retention Ponds                 357
            Rapid Sand Filtration  (Multimedia)        363
            Chlorination System                       363
            Anaerobic Digestion                       363
            Carbon Adsorption                         372
            Electrodialysis                           372
            Reverse Osmosis                           372
            Approach to Cost Estimation of
              Subcategory Treatment Chains            381
            Multi-Product Plant Treatment Costs       440
            Energy Requirements                       449
            Solid Wastes                              449
            Air Pollution                             452
            Noise Pollution                           453

   IX     EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH
          THE APPLICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE
          CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE      455

            Introduction                              455
            Effluent Reduction Attainable Through the
              Application of Best Practicable
              Control Technology Currently
              Available                               456
            Identification of Best Practicable
              Control Technology Currently
              Available                               464
            Engineering Aspects of Control
              Technique Applications                  464
                              VI

-------
   X     EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH
         THE APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE
         TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE          U81

           Introduction                              H81
           Effluent Reduction Attainable Through
             the Application of the Best Available
             Technology Economically Achievable      U82
           Identification of the Best Available
             Technology Economically Achievable      t»9<*
           Engineering Aspects of Control
             Technique Applications                  i»96

  XI     NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS            501

           Introduction                              501
           Effluent Reduction Attainable for
             New Sources                             501
           Pretreatment Requirements                 501

 XII     ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                            505

XIII     REFERENCES                                  507

 XIV     GLOSSARY                                    513
                              VII

-------
                             FIGURES


Number                                                Page
                                                     Number

  1      Typical Apricot Process Flow Diagram          32

  2      Typical Caneberry Process Flow Diagram        36

  3      Typical Cherry Process Flow Diagram           38

  4      Typical Brined/ Maraschino Cherry Process     40
         Flow Diagram

  5      Typical Cranberry Process Flow Diagram        42

  6      Typical Dried Fruit Process Flow Diagram      46

  7      Typical Fig Process Flow Diagram              48

  8a     Typical Prune Process Flow Diagram            50

  8b     Typical Prune Juice Processing Flow Diagram   51

  9      Typical Grape Juice Process Flow Diagram      54

  10     Typical Ripe Olive Process Flow Diagram       56

  11     Typical Cling and Freestone Peach Process     62
         Flow Diagram

  12     Typical Pear Process Flow Diagram             64

  13     Typical Fresh Pickle Process Flow Diagram     68

  14     Typical "Processed" Pickles Process Flow      69
         Diagram

  15     Typical Pineapple Process Flow Diagram        72

  16     Typical Plum Process Flow Diagram             76

  17     Typical Raisin Process Flow Diagram           78

  18     Typical Strawberry Process Flow Diagram       80

  19     Typical Tomato Process Flow Diagram           84

  20     Typical Asparagus Process Flow Diagram        88

  21     Typical Beet Process Flow Diagram             90

  22     Typical Broccoli Process Flow Diagram         94


                              viii

-------
23     Typical Brussels Sprouts Process Flow         96
       Diagram

24     Typical Carrot Process Flow Diagram           98

25     Typical Cauliflower Process Flow Diagram     100

26     Typical Corn Process Flow Diagram            102

27     Typical Dehydrated Onion Process Flow        106
       Diagram

28     Typical Dehydrated Garlic Process Flow       107
       Diagram

29     Typical Dehydrated Vegetable Process Flow    110
       Diagram

30     Typical Canned Dry Bean Process Flow         112
       Diagram

31     Typical Lima Bean Process Flow Diagram       115

32     Typical Mushroom Process Flow Diagram        118

33     Typical Canned and Jarred Whole Onion        120
       and Onion Ring Process Flow Diagram

34     Typical Pea Process Flow Diagram             124

35     Typical Pimento Process Flow Diagram         128

36     Typical Sauerkraut Process Flow Diagram      130

37     Typical Snap Bean Process Flow Diagram       134

38     Typical Spinach Process Flow Diagram         136

39     Typical Pumpkin/Squash Proces Flow           140
       Diagram

40     Typical Sweet Potato Process Flow Diagram    142

41     Typical Canned White Potato Process Flow     146
       Diagram

42     Simplified Baby Food Plant Process           150
       Flow Diagram

43     Typical Corn Chip Process Flow Diagram       152

44     Typical Potato Chip Process Flow Diagram     156


                          ix

-------
45     Simplied Flow Diagram for Canned
       and Frozen Chinese Specialties               159

46     Simplied Mexican Specialty Process
       Flow Diagram                                 160

47     Simplied Jams and Jellies Process
       Flow Diagram                                 162

48     Typical Mayonnaise and Salad Dressings
       Process Flow Diagram                         164

49     Typical Soup Process Flow Diagram            166

50     Typical Tomato-Starch-Cheese Canned
       Specialties Process Flow Diagram             168

51     BODJ5 vs. Corn Production Scatter Diagram     194

52     Flow vs. Corn Production Scatter Diagram     194

53     Flow vs. Green Bean Production Scatter
       Diagram                                      195

54     BOD5 vs. Green Bean Production Scatter
       Diagram                                      195

55     Schematic Flow Diagram for pH Control
       System Treating Waste with Variable
       Flow and Both High and Low pH                264

56     BOD5_ Removal by Chemical Precipitation
       from Peach and Tomato Wastes from
       Parker  (1969)                                 270

57     BOD5_ Removal Efficiency Relationships
       for Ponds                                    286

58     Schematic Flow Diagram of Typical Spray
       Field System with Zero Discharge             314

59     Estimated Total Capital Costs for Zero
       Discharge Spray Irrigation Systems           315

60     Area Required for Spray Irrigation Field
       as a Function of Application Rate            320

61     Capital Cost of Lagoon Construction of
       Varying Depth and Capacity                   325

62     Estimated Capital Cost for Clarifiers
       for Selected Overflow Rates, Based on
       Table 44 - less than  1 MGD                  335

-------
63     Estimated Capital Cost for Clarifiers for
       Selected Overflow Rates, Based on Table
       44 - 1-5 MGD                                 336

64     Estimated Costs for Nutrient Addition        341

65     Estimated Capital Costs of Activated
       Sludge Aeration Basins                       348

66     Estimated Capital Costs for Rapid Sand
       or Multi-Media Filtration                    364

67     Estimated Capital Costs for Carbon
       Adsorption                                   373

68     Influent BOD^ versus Annual Average BOD5_     466

69     Influent BOD5 versus Maximum 30 day BOD5_     467

70     Influent BOD5> versus Maximum day BOD5_        468

71     Influent BOD5 versus Annual Average TSS      469

72     Influent BOD5 versus Maximum 30 day TSS      470

73     Influent BOD5> versus Maximum day TSS         471
                               XI

-------
                          TABLES

                                                       Page
Number                                                Number

   1      Total Number of Plants Processing
          Various Commodities as Reported by
          Judge's Directory; and Estimated
          Annual Raw Product Tonnage as Compiled
          by SCS Engineers from Various Sources          9

   2      Summary of Disposal Methods Used by
          State as Revealed by Telephone Survey         11

   3      Summary of Disposal Methods Used by
          Plants Processing Various Fruits, as
          Revealed by Telephone Survey                  12

   H      Summary of Disposal Methods Used by
          Plants Processing Various Vegetables,
          as Revealed by Telephone Survey               13

   5      Methods for Peeling Fruits and Vegetables     22

   6      National Canners Association Water
          Economy Check List                            28

   7      Comparison of Raw Waste Loads From           172
          Fruits, Vegetables and Specialties

   8      Final Subcategory List                       175

   9      The Production of Waste Components from
          the Canning of Collard, Turnip, Mustard,
          Spinach, and Kale Greens                     177

  10      Number of Pea Plants by Size with
          Indicated Raw Waste Load                     182

  11      Number of Corn Plants by Size with
          Indicated Raw Waste Load                     182

  12      Number of Tomato Plants by Size with
          Indicated Raw Waste Load                     183

  13      Number of Snap Bean Plants by Size with
          Indicated Raw Waste Load                     183

  14      Number of Corn Plants by Location with
          Indicated Raw Waste Load                     186

  15      Number of Pea Plants by Location with
          Indicated Raw waste Load                     186


                             xii

-------
16      Number of Snap Bean Plants by Location
        with Indicated Raw waste Load                186

17      Alphabetical Characters Defining
        Commodities                                  190

18      Raw Waste Load Summary - All Subcate-
        qories                                       197

19      Raw Waste Load Summary - APRICOTS            198

20      Raw Waste Load Summary - CANEBERRIES         198

21      Raw Waste Load Summary - BRINED CHERRIES     199

22      Raw Waste Load Summary - SOUR CHERRIES       200

23      Raw Waste Load Summary - SWEET CHERRIES      200

2U      Raw Waste Load Summary - CRANBERRIES         201

25      Raw Waste Load Summary - DRIED FRUIT         201

26      Raw Waste Load Summary - GRAPE JUICE         202
                                 CANNING

27      Raw Waste Load Summary - GRAPE JUICE         202
                                 PRESSING

28      Raw Waste Load Summary - PEACHES-CANNED      203

29      Raw Waste Load Summary - PEACHES-FROZEN      203

30      Raw Waste Load Summary - PEARS               204

31      Raw Waste Load Summary - PICKLES -           205
                                 FRESH PACKED

32      Raw Waste Load Summary - PICKLES -           205
                                 PROCESS PACKED

33      Raw Waste Load Summary - PICKLES - SALTING   206
                                 STATIONS

3U      Raw Waste Load Summary - PINEAPPLES          206

35a     Raw Waste Load Summary - OLIVES              207

35b     Raw Waste Load Summary - PLUMS               207

36      Raw Waste Load Summary - RAISINS             208

37      Raw Waste Load Summary - STRAWBERRIES        208
                             xm

-------
38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48


49


50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57


58


59


60


61
Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -


Raw Waste Load Summary -


Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -

Raw Waste Load Summary -


Raw Waste Load Summary -


Raw Waste Load Summary -


Raw Waste Load Summary -
TOMATOES - PEELED   209

TOMATOES - PRODUCTS 209
Raw Waste Load Summary  - SPINACH  - CANNED
ASPARAGUS           210

BEETS               210

BROCCOLI            211

BRUSSELS SPROUTS    211

CARROTS             212

CAULIFLOWER         212

CORN - CANNED       213

CORN - FROZEN       213

DEHYDRATED ONION
AND GARLIC          214

DEHYDRATED
VEGETABLES          214

DRY BEANS           215

LIMA BEANS          215

MUSHROOMS           216

ONIONS - CANNED     216

PEAS - CANNED       217

PEAS - FROZEN       217

PIMENTOS            218

SAUERKRAUT -
CANNING             219

SAUERKRAUT -
CUTTING             219

SNAP BEANS -
CANNED              220

SNAP BEANS -
FROZEN              220

                    221
                               xiv

-------
62      Raw Waste Load Summary - SPINACH - FROZEN    221

63      Raw Waste Load Summary - SQUASH              222

6U      Raw Waste Load Summary - SWEET POTATOES      223

65      Raw Waste Load Summary - WHITE POTATOES      223

66      Raw Waste Load Summary - ADDED INGREDIENTS   22U

67      Raw Waste Load Summary - BABY FOOD           225

68      Raw Waste Load Summary - CHIPS - CORN        225

69      Raw Waste Load Summary - CHIPS - POTATO      226

70      Raw Waste Load Summary - CHIPS - TORTILLA    226

71      Raw Waste Load Summary - ETHNIC FOODS        227

72      Raw Waste Load Summary - JAMS AND
                                 JELLIES             227

73      Raw Waste Load Summary - MAYONNAISE AND
                                 DRESSINGS           228

7a      Raw Waste Load Summary - SOUPS               228

75      Raw Waste Load Summary - TOMATO-STARCH-
                                 CHEESE SPECIALTIES  229

76      Summary of Peeling Methods and Peel
        Disposal Methods Utilized at Plants
        Visited                                      21*8

77      Summary of Blanching Methods and Post-
        Blanch cooling Practices for Those
        Plants Visited                               250

78      Summary of Can Cooling Water Recircula-
        tion and Disposition for Plant Visits        258

79      Suspended Solids Removal from Peach
        Rinse Water by Dissolved Air Flotation
        from NCA (1970)                               267

80      Suspended Solids Removal from Screened
        Tomato Wastewater by Dissolved Air
        Flotation from NCA (1970)                     268

81      Chemical Precipitation of Vegetable
        Processing Wastes from U.S. Department
        of the Interior (1967)                        269
                            xv

-------
82      Nutrient Value of Raw Commodities and
        Required Nutrient Addition for Biological
        Wastewater Treatment                         272

83      Characteristics of Various Food Process-
        ing Wastewaters Applied to the Land          275

84      Demonstrated Spray Irrigation Systems        280

85      Summary of Reported Costs of Construction
        and Operation and Maintenance for Spray
        Irrigation Systems                           281

86      Summary of Overland Flow Treatment
        Performance                                  282

87      Holding Lagoon Effluent Qualities and
        Operational Variables from O'Leary and
        Berner (1973)                                 284

88      Stabilization Lagoon Performance in
        Treating Food Processing Wastes              286

89      Anaerobic Lagoon Performance on
        Screened Food Wastes                         289

90      Reported Aerated Lagoon Treatment System
        Performance                                  292

91      Reported Activated Sludge Treatment
        System Performance                           296

92      Rapid Multi-media Filter Performance
        with Activated Sludge Effluent               302

93      Effluent Quality for Various Treatment
        Processes                                    303

9U      Estimated Capital Cost of Zero Discharge
        Spray Irrigation Systems                     316

95      Estimated Daily Cost of Operation and
        Maintenance for Spray Irrigation Systems     322

96      Estimated Capital Cost of Aerated
        Lagoons Based on Varying Daily Waste
        Volumes and Strengths (Not Including
        Land Costs)                                  326

97      Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Aerated Lagoons                    328

98      Estimated Capital Cost in $1,000 for
        pH Control                                   331

                         xvi

-------
99      Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for pH Control                         332

100     Estimated Capital Cost of Clarification
        Systems                                      333

101     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Clarifiers                         334

102     Estimated Capital Cost of Air Flotation
        with Chemical Addition                       338

103     Estimated Capital Cost of Air Flotation
        without Chemical Addition                    339

104     Estimated Daily Operating and Maintenance
        Costs of Air Flotation Systems with
        Chemical Addition                            340

105     Estimated Capital costs for Trickling
        Filters                             "         342

106     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Trickling Filters                  344

107     Estimated Total Capital Cost of
        Activated Sludge Aeration Basins             346

108     Estimated Capital cost of Activated
        Sludge Aeration                              349

109     Determination of Aeration Basin Retention
        Time for Various BODJ5 Concentrations to
        Achieve Required BOD5_ Reduction              351

110     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Activated Sludge Aeration Basins   352

111     Estimated capital Costs of Aerobic
        Digestion Systems                            354

112     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Aerobic Digestion                  356

113     Estimated Capital Cost of Vacuum
        Filtration                                   358

114     Estimated Daily operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Vacuum Filtration                  360

115     Estimated Capital Cost of Emergency
        Retention Ponds                              361
                           xvn

-------
116     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Emergency Retention Ponds          362

117     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Rapid Sand Filtration              365

118     Estimated Daily Energy Costs for Rapid
        Sand Filtration                              366

119     Capital Cost of Chlorination Facilities      367

120     Operation and Maintenance Cost of
        Chlorination Equipment                       368

121     Estimated Capital Costs of Anaerobic
        Digestion                                    369

122     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Anaerobic Digestion                371

123     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs for Carbon Adsorption                  374

124     Estimated Daily Energy Costs for Carbon
        Adsorption                                   375

125     Estimated Capital Cost of Electrodialysis    376

126     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs of Electrodialysis                     377

127     Estimated Capital Costs of Tubular
        Reverse Osmosis Systems                      378

128     Estimated Daily Operation and Maintenance
        Costs of Reverse Osmosis                     379

129     Estimated Daily Energy Costs for
        Reverse Osmosis                              380

130     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000) For
        A Typical Apricot Plant                      382

131     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000) For
        A Typical Caneberry Plant                    383

132     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000) For
        A Typical Brined Cherry Plant                384

133     Estimated Treatment costs ($1000) For A
        Typical Sour Cherry Plant                    385

134     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000) For A
        Typical Sweet Cherry Plant                   386
                           xvm

-------
135     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Cranberry Plant                      387

136     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Dried Fruit Plant                    388

137     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For a
        Typical Grape Juice Canning Plant            389

138     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Grape Juice Pressing Plant           390

139     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Olive Plant                          391

140     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Canned Peach Plant                   392

141     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Frozen Peach Plant                   393

142     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Pear Plant                           394

143     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Fresh Pickle Plant                   395

144     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Process Pickle Plant                 396

145     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Pineapple Plant                      397

146     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Plum Plant                           398

147     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Raisin Plant                         399

148     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Strawberry Plant                     400

149     Estimated Treatment costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Peeled Tomato Plant                  401

150     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Tomato Product Plant                 402

151     Estimated Treatment costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Asparagus Plant                      403

152     Estimated Treatment Costs  ($1000) For A
        Typical Beet Plant                           404

                           xix

-------
153     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Broccoli Plant                       405

154     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Brussels Sprouts Plant               406

155     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Carrot Plant                         407

156     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Cauliflower Plant                    408

157     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Canned Corn Plant                    409

158     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Frozen Corn Plant                    410

159     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Dehydrated Onion and Garlic Plant    411

160     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Dehydrated Vegetable Plant           412

161     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Dry Bean Plant                       413

162     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Lima Bean Plant                      414

163     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Mushroom Plant                       415

164     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Canned Onion Plant                   416

165     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Canned Pea Plant                     417

166     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Frozen Pea Plant                     418

167     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Pimento Plant                        419

168     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Sauerkraut Canning Plant             420

169     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Sauerkraut Cutting Plant             421

170     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Canned Snap Bean Plant               422

                          xx

-------
171     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A      423
        Typical Frozen Snap Bean Plant

172     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Canned Spinach Plant                 424

173     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Frozen Spinach Plant                 425

174     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Squash Plant                         426

175     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Sweet Potato Plant                   427

176     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Canned White Potato Plant            428

177     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Baby Food Plant                      429

178     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Corn Chip Plant                      430

179     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Potato Chip Plant                    431

180     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Tortilla Chip Plant                  432

181     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Ethnic Food Plant                    433

182     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Jam and Jelly Plant                  434

183     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Mayonnaise and Salad Dressing Plant  435

184     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Soup Plant                           436

185     Estimated Treatment Costs ($1000)  For A
        Typical Tomato-Starch-Cheese Canned
        Specialties Plant                            437

186     Estimated Treatment Costs For A Model
        Pea and Corn Plant                           441

187     Estimated Treatment Costs For A
        Model Pea, Corn and Lima Bean Plant          444
                          xxi

-------
188     Estimated Capital Cost for Single and
        Multi-Product Model Plants

189     Estimated Annual Costs for Single and
        Multi-Product Model Plants                   UU8

190     Estimated Comparative Daily Energy
        Cost for Treatment Systems                   U50

191     Development of Limitations For A Multi-
        Product Model Plant                          478
                              xxn

-------
                            SECTION I

                           CONCLUSIONS
For  the  purpose of establishing effluent limitations guidelines
and  standards  of  performance,  the  fruits,  vegetables,   and
specialties  segments  of  the  canned  and  preserved fruits and
vegetables industry which were studied, have been separated  into
58 subcategories as follows:
Fruits

Apricots
Caneberries
Cherries
 Sweet
 sour
 Brined
Cranberries
Dried Fruit
Grape Juice
 Canning
 Pressing
Olives
Peaches
 Canned
 Frozen
Pears
Pickles
 Fresh Pack
 Process Pack
 Salting Stations
Pineapples
Plums
Raisins
Strawberries
Tomatoes
 Peeled
 Products
Vegetables

Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Brussels Sprouts
Carrots
Cauliflower
Corn
 Canned
 Frozen
Dehydrated Onion/
 Garlic
Dehydrated Vegetables
Dry Beans
Lima Beans
Mushrooms
Onions (Canned)
Peas
 Canned
 Frozen
Pimentos
Sauerkraut
 Canning
 cutting
Snap Beans
 Canned
 Frozen
Spinach
 Canned
 Frozen
Squash
Sweet Potatoes
White Potatoes
Specialties

Added Ingredients
Baby Food
Chips
 Corn
 Potato
 Tortilla
Ethnic Foods
Jams 8 Jellies
Mayonnaise &
 Dressings
Soups
Tomato-Starch-
 Cheese Specialties
The  major  criteria  for  the  establishment  of  the  commodity
subcategories were the  water  usage,  the  five-day  biochemical
oxygen  demand (BOD5)  and the total suspended solids (TSS)  in the
plant  wastewater.   The  basis  of  the  subcategorization   was
primarily  the raw materials processed and the products produced.
Technical evaluation of factors such as age, size,  and  location
                                 1

-------
of  plant,  production  processes,  and similarities in available
treatment  and  control  measures  substantiated  this   industry
subcategorization.   Three  size groups with separate limitations
were necessitated for each commodity subcategory as a  result  of
an economic analysis of the industry.

At  this  time,  available data shows that at least 22 plants are
achieving all of the 1977 - best practicable  control  technology
currently available (BPCTCA)  effluent limitations.  This level of
technology  suggests  land treatment and/or biological treatment,
either aerated or aerobic lagoons or activated sludge, as capable
of achieving the BPCTCA guidelines.

The 1983 -  best  available  technology  economically  achievable
(BATEA)  effluent limitations are achievable by suggested in-plant
controls  and  improved performance of BPCTCA technology with the
addition of multi-media filtration for large plants.  Each of the
BODj> and TSS limitations without filtration are presently met  by
eleven  industry  plants; the TSS limitations based on filtration
as a part of BATEA are currently achieved by six industry  plants
including five plants without filtration.

New   source   performance   standards   (NSPS)   reflect  in-plant
improvements which are presently being achieved by  a  number  of
plants  in the industry and end-of-pipe treatment practices which
are  currently  available.   The  basic  treatment  and   control
processes  which  are  suggested  as  a  means  of  meeting these
performance standards are similar to those for existing plants by
1983.  The preferred technology is land  treatment  because  land
availability  requirements  can  be an important consideration in
new source site selection.

Land treatment systems 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.

-------
                           SECTION II

                         RECOMMENDATIONS
The effluent limitation attainable through the application of the
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available are based
on  the  performance  of 27 secondary biological systems treating
waste water from the fruits, vegetables, and specialties segments
of the canned and preserved fruits and vegetables industry.   The
suggested Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
includes  screening  and  secondary  biological treatment, either
aerated or aerobic lagoons or activated sludge.  In  addition  to
biological  treatment,  BPCTCA  for  some commodities may include
nutrient  addition,  air  flotation,  primary  sedimentation,   a
roughing   filter,  and/or  sludge  handling.   Where  sufficient
quantities of suitable land are available, land treatment systems
such as spray irrigation provide  an  attractive  alternative  to
biological  treatment  in  order  to  achieve the BPCTCA effluent
limitations.  The  BPCTCA  effluent  limitations  guidelines  are
proposed  for medium plants (2,000 to 10,000 total tons per year)
and promulgated  (interim final)  for large  plants  (greater  than
10,000  total  tons  per  year)   in all subcategories, based upon
potential economic impact in the medium  size  group  of  plants.
The  BATEA  effluent  limitations guidelines are proposed for all
plant sizes in all subcategories.

The ranges in the BPCTCA effluent limitations among  the  various
commodity  subcategories,  in  terms  of raw material or finished
product as appropriate, are summarized  as  follows:   the  annual
average  BODJ5  ranges from 0.03 - 2.29 kg/kkg, the maximum thirty
day BODJ5 ranges from 0.04 - 3.47 kg/kkg, and the maximum day BODJ5
ranges from 0.07 - 5.31 kg/kkg;  the  annual  average  TSS  ranges
from  0.06  - 4.67 kg/kkg, the maximum thirty day TSS ranges from
0.10-6.36 kg/kkg and the maximum day TSS ranges from 0.12 -  8.64
kg/kkg;  and  the  pH ranges from 6.0 to 9.5.  In the specialties
segment, the oil and grease  concentrations  are  limited  to  20
mg/1.   BPCTCA  effluent  limitations  for  all subcategoires are
tabulated in Section IX of this document.

The effluent limitations attainable through  the  application  of
the  Best  Available Technology Economically Achievable are based
upon the improved performance of the BPCTCA  secondary  treatment
plus  disinfection,  and  in-plant  controls.   For large plants,
multi-media filtration may be  needed  as  an  integral  part  of
BATEA.    Where   sufficient  quantities  of  suitable  land  are
available, land disposal systems such as spray  irrigation  again
provide  an  attractive  alternative  to  biological treatment in
order to achieve BATEA limitations.

The ranges in the BATEA effluent limitations  among  the  various
commodity  subcategories,  in  terms  of raw material or finished
product as appropriate, are summarized  as  follows:   the  annual
average BOD5 ranges from 0.009 - 0.597 kg/kkg, the maximum thirty

-------
day BOD5 ranges from 0.017-1.160 kg/kkg, and the maximum day BOD5_
ranges  from  0.027 - 2.356 kg/kkg; the annual average TSS ranges
from 0.009 - 1.389 kg/kkgr the maximum thirty day TSS ranges from
0.017-2.175 kg/kkg, and the maximum day TSS ranges from  0.027
4.288  kg/kkg;  and  the  pH  ranges  from  6.0  to  9.5.  In all
segments, the fecal coliform MPN is limited to MOO counts per 100
ml  and  in  the  specialties  segment,  the   oil   and   grease
concentrations   are   limited   to   20  mg/1.   BATEA  effluent
limitations for all subcategories are tabulated in Section  X  of
this document.

The  new  source  performance  standards  are  the  same as those
attainable through the application of BATEA.   These  limitations
are  possible  because  of  the  present availability of internal
control and treatment technology to attain this level of effluent
reduction.  In addition and perhaps more  important,  new  source
site  selection  can  assure land availability for land treatment
facilities such as spray irrigation.  Thus,  the  best  available
demonstrated  technology  for  new  sources is the best available
technology economically achievable.

-------
                           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  wastewater
discharged  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  control  Technology
Currently Available as defined by the Administrator  pursuant  to
Section  304 (b)   of  the  Act.   Section 301(b)  also requires the
achievement  by  not  later  than  July  1,  1983,  of   effluent
limitations   for   point  sources,  other  than  publicly  owned
treatment works,  which  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 30U(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 307(b) and (c)  of the  Act  requires  the
achievement  of  pretreatment  standards  for  existing  and  new
sources  for  introduction  of  pollutants  into  publicly  owned
treatment  works for those pollutants which are determined not to
be susceptible to treatment by  such  treatment  works  or  which
would interfere with the operation of such treatment.

Section  304(b)   of the Act requires the Administrator to publish
within one year of the 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  practices achievable including treatment
techniques, process and procedure innovations, operation methods,
and other alternatives.   The  regulations  proposed  herein  set
forth  effluent limitations guidelines pursuant to Section SOU(b)
of the Act for the fruits,  vegetables,  specialties  segments  of
the   canned  and  preserved  fruits  and  vegetables  processing

-------
industry category.   The  effluent  limitations  for  the  apple,
citrus and potato segment of the industry were promulgated in the
March 21, 1974, Federal  Register (39 FR 10862).

Section  306  of  the  Act requires the Administrator, within one
year after a category of sources is included in a list  published
pursuant   to   Section  306(b) (1) (A)  of  the  Act,  to  propose
regulations establishing Federal standards  of  performances  for
new  sources within such categories.  The Administrator published
in the Federal Register of January 16, 1973, (38  F.R.  1624),  a
list   of   27   source  categories.   Publication  of  the  list
constituted announcement  of  the  Administrator's  intention  of
establishing,   under   Section  306,  standards  of  performance
applicable to new sources within the fruit and vegetable industry
source which was included within the list published  January  16,
1973.   An  earlier  development  document (EPA - Ui»0/l-7U-027-a)
established  effluent  guidelines  for  portions  of  the  apple,
citrus,   and  potato  processing  segments  of  the  canned  and
preserved fruits and  vegetables  point  source  category.   This
report contains effluent guidelines for the remaining segments of
the fruits and vegetables point source category.

SUMMARY OF METHODS USED DURING STUDY

Initial Survey

This study was initiated to gather the necessary information upon
which  to  base  recommended effluent guidelines and standards of
performance for commodities  within  the  fruits  and  vegetables
point  source  category.  These commodities represent differences
in raw material,  production  processes,  and  products  and  by-
products  which  frequently  bear  a  direct  relationship to the
quality and quantity of wastewater.

The initial approach was to undertake  a  literature  search  and
screening  program  to  identify  all  processing  plants in each
commodity.   Directories  which  describe  the  commodities   and
products  and styles processed by each plant in the industry were
utilized, along with industry  journals,  direct  plant  contact,
trade associations, regulatory agencies, and staff knowledge.

An integral part of the initial screening program was a telephone
survey  which  attempted  to develop basic information about each
processing plant.  The primary  purpose  of  the  survey  was  to
locate  plants which warranted on-site field investigation due to
the availability  of  historical  data  pertinent  to  raw  waste
generation  and/or  waste treatment performance.  Another purpose
was to determine  how  the  available  data  might  be  obtained.
Source  data might be located at the plant itself, at a corporate
headquarters, at a city or state regulatory agency, or,  in  some
cases,  through  a  university  or  private  researcher.  Another
purpose of the  survey  was  to  locate  those  plants  utilizing
various   types  of  treatment  systems.   Pertinent  information
obtained included relative percentages of plants  discharging  to

-------
municipal  systems,  direct  discharging  to  surface waters, and
those  using  land  disposal  for   zero   discharge.    Detailed
information from this survey is summarized in Tables 2 -to 4.

On-Site Investigation

The information developed during the initial survey was evaluated
to  determine  which  plants  in each commodity could provide the
information  necessary  to  subcategorize  the  industry  and  to
identify  BPCTCA.   The selection of a plant for an on-site visit
was made on the basis of the availability of historical raw waste
data and availability  of  performance  data  from  a  biological
treatment  facility.   Other factors influencing plant selections
included the relative importance of the commodity, the number  of
representative   plants  in  the  commodity,  and  the  treatment
system's  discharge  quality.   Approximately  300  plants   were
contacted  for  field  visits.  If practical, plants were visited
during the processing  of  major  commodities.   Field  engineers
toured  and  evaluated  production  processes and waste treatment
facilities to verify the quality of the production and wastewater
data generated by the plant.   Historical  data  including  flow,
production,  and  wastewater  constituents  were  collected  from
processing plants and from city, county, or state agencies.   In-
plant  processes  were  as  thoroughly described as possible, and
treatment and control  costs  were  estimated  as  accurately  as
possible.

Wet sampling of effluent streams was conducted where necessary to
verify  the  historical data collected or develop a data base for
commodities.   Time-interval  automatic  samplers  were  used  to
obtain  24-hour composite samples.  The samples were collected in
iced containers and transferred to three smaller bottles, two  of
which  were  frozen  and  one of which was acidified and chilled.
The chilled bottle and one frozen bottle were air-shipped to  the
laboratory for analysis.  The third bottle was retained frozen at
the  plant.   Section  VI of this report describes the analytical
methodology.

Data Reduction

A computer assisted data handling  and  reduction  system,  which
proved  to  be a very efficient tool for analyzing and presenting
characterization data, was developed.  The  key  to  identifying,
storing,  sorting,  and retrieving information in this system are
the data codes which define the source and type of each  item  of
data.  Several related computer programs, which proved to be very
efficient  tools  for  analyzing  and presenting characterization
data, were used.  The first program, was used  to  list  the  raw
data,  sort  the  data  by code or source, and calculate for each
commodity and each plant, by log normal distribution,  raw  waste
load  flow,  BOD.5,  and  TSS  means, standard deviations, maxima,
minima, range, standard error, and coefficient of symmetry.

-------
Once a decision was made on subcategorization,  the data from  the
selected  plants  in  each  subcategory  were  used  by  the next
program, to  compute  and  tabulate  estimates   of  averages  and
minimums  and  maximums  for each important wastewater parameter,
The statistics were also based on a log normal   distribution,  as
this  was  considered  to be the best model for most of the data.
More discussion of each aspect of the data handling and reduction
system is presented in Section V.

DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRY

The fruit and vegetable processing industry provides a market for
a  large  part   of   the   nation's   fruits   and   vegetables.
Approximately  90  percent  of  the  beets;  80  percent  of  the
tomatoes; 75 percent of the  asparagus,  lima  beans,  and  leafy
vegetables;  70  percent of the apricots, cranberries, and pears;
60 percent of the green or snap beans, peas, and sweet corn;  and
50  percent  of  the  peaches  and  cherries are preserved by the
industry.

The industry operates  approximately  2000  plants  (as  of  1967
census  of  manufacturers) and processes about  30 million tons of
raw  fruits  and  vegetables  annually.   Table   1   shows   the
distribution  of  processing  plants  by commodity as well as the
estimated annual raw tonnage processed by commodity.   Individual
plants  range in processing volume from about 500 to 700,000 tons
of raw  commodity  per  year.   Average  industry  employment  is
approximately  200,000,  ranging  from  about  UO in the smallest
plants to 4,000 in the largest.  On the average, where processing
of raw foods is a part of the business  community,  approximately
seven  percent of the local work force is employed at least part-
time by the processor.  The industry's plants operate an  average
of  eight  months  per  year  and process 75 percent of their raw
products in four months for sales of about five  billion  dollars
annually.

Fruit  and  vegetable processing plants are major water-users and
waste-generators.  Raw foods must be rendered clean and wholesome
for  human  consumption,  and  food  processing  plants  must  be
sanitary  at  all  times.  Therefore, relatively large volumes of
clean water are used and sometimes  reused  prior  to  discharge.
While  many  variations  in wastewater strength and volume can be
controlled through good in-plant management, some variations will
be unavoidable and these must  be  recognized  in  the  treatment
design.  Tables 2, 3, and i» summarize wastewater disposal methods
developed  from the initial telephone survey.  Table 2 summarizes
treatmentl methods  by  state,  and  Tables  3   and  U  summarize
treatment  methods  by  commodity.   The  tables  summarize  data
provided by 770 of over 1000  plants  contacted.   Generally,  55
percent  discharged  to  municipalities, 33 percent discharged to
land, and 12 percent discharged to navigable waters.

Since  processing  plants  are  operated   by   different   plant
management  staffs  and  the  availability  of   water  and  other

                              8

-------
                TABLE 1
   TOTAL NUMBER OF PLANTS PROCESSING
  VARIOUS COMMODITIES AS REPORTED BY
  JUDGE'S DIRECTORY ;    AND ESTIMATED
ANNUAL RAW PRODUCT TONNAGE AS COMPILED
 BY SCS ENGINEERS  FROM VARIOUS SOURCES
Commodity
Apricots
Blueberries
Caneberries
Cherries
Cranberries
Figs
Grapes
Peaches
Pears
Pineapple
Plums
Prunes
Rhubarb
Strawberries
Artichokes
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Carrots
Cauliflower
Corn
Green beans
Lima beans
Mushrooms
Okra
Olives
Onions (canned and
dehydrated)
Peas
Peppers and chilis
Pickles
Pimentoes
Pumpkin and squash
Sauerkraut
Number
of
plants
49
—
100
101
13
. 15
21
70
38
23
66
26
—
110
1
75
59
33
104
53
125
223
60
55
22
48

—
189
59
132
19
21
58
Annual
10 3 tons
146
19
32
147
74
35
256
739
348
1,096
25
597
6
84
__
99
190
213
169
96
2,114
613
91
116
17
54

19
512
4
571
30
110
193

-------
TABLE 1  (Continued)
Commodity
Spinach
Brussel sprouts
Sweet potatoes
and yams
Tomatoes
White potatoes
Zucchini
Canned dry beans
Soup
Potato chips
Sauces and
dressings
Canned specialties
Dehydrated vegetables
Dry fruits (peaches,
pears, apricots)
Baby food
Number
of
plants
84
33

—
270
50
50
25
—
—

—
--
—

--

Annual
10 3 tons
196
57

94
5,805
60
9
100
—
—

242
—
61

36
425
        plants process several commodities
   and are therefore included more than
   once.
                   10

-------
                      TABLE  2

          SUMMARY OF DISPOSAL METHODS USED
               BY STATE AS REVEALED BY
                  TELEPHONE SURVEY
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mi chi gan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Totals
Municipal
2
2
8
107
8
4
8
3
1
2
6
9
3
2
3
9
7
7
3
12
0
I
0
14
19
4
19
3
37
33
0
1
13
3
4
26
1
25
409
Navigable
waters
0
0
2
9
0
5
0
1
1
5
1
14
3
0
0
9
2
1
10
11
1
0
1
3
12
1
7
0
10
6
1
0
2
0
10
9
1
19
157
Land
2
0
3
22
2
3
5
4
2
6
9
13
4
1
4
4
20
0
15
38
2
1
0
7
27
6
16
3
21
34
0
3
4
0
19
26
0
37
363
Total
4
2
13
138
10
12
13
8
4
13
16
36
10
3
7
22
29
8
28
61
3
2
1
24
58
11
42
6
68
73
1
4
19
3
33
61
2
81
929
(l)Some plants discharge separate waste streams to more
   than one disposal point and are counted more than
   once.
                       11

-------
                     TABLE  3
        SUMMARY OF DISPOSAL METHODS  USED  BY
         PLANTS PROCESSING VARIOUS FRUITS,
          AS REVEALED BY TELEPHONE SURVEY
Commodity
Apricots
Caneberries
Blueberries
Cherries
Dates , figs ,
prunes
Grapes
Peaches
Pears
Pineapple
Plums
Raisins
Rhubarb
Strawberries
Cranberries
Preserves
Totals
Municipal
16
21
12
25

16
11
26
10
2
10
3
5
29
3
4
193
Navigable
waters
1
4
9
11

1
0
5
4
1
2
0
1
4
0
0
43
Land
3
13
5
40

14
6
11
4
1
15
2
6
15
1
0
136
Total
20
38
26
76

31
17
42
18
4
27
5
12
48
4
4
372
Notes;
  •1.
    Many plants process several commodities  and
    are therefore included more than  once.
2.  The telephone survey included  approximately
    800 plants nationwide.
                          12

-------
                        TABLE  4
      SUMMARY OF DISPOSAL METHODS  USED BY PLANTS
           PROCESSING VARIOUS  VEGETABLES, AS
             REVEALED BY TELEPHONE SURVEY
Commodity
Artichokes
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Carrots
Cauliflower
Corn
Garlic (dehydrated)
Green beans
Lima beans
Mushrooms
Okra
Olives
Onions (canned and
dehydrated)
Peas
Peppers and chilis
Pimentos
Pumpkin and squash
Spinach and greens
Brussel sprouts
Tomatoes
Pickles
Sauerkraut
Canned dry beans
Soup
Total
Municipal
1
10
12
17
38
15
22
3
38
22
13
6
10

8
40
19
4
13
36
6
45
33
5
19
2
437
Navigable
waters
0
5
2
2
6
3
7
0
11
3
0
1
1

1
13
4
1
3
5
2
9
14
2
4
1
100
Land
0
20
13
2
24
6
58
0
37
15
5
2
3

6
48
10
4
12
19
2
41
16
9
18
1
371
Total
1
35
27
21
68
24
87
3
86
40
18
9
14

15
101
33
9
28
60
10
95
63
16
41
4
908
Notes
  1.
    Many plants process several  commodities  and are
    therefore included more than once.
2.  The telephone survey included approximately
    800 plants nationwide.
                         13

-------
resources varies from plant to plant, wide ranges  of  wastewater
volume  and organic strength are generated per ton of raw product
among  plants  processing  the  same  product.   Different  waste
volumes and strengths are also generated from different styles of
the  same  product,  such as peeled versus pulped style.  Product
quality is influenced by the weather and may vary  among  regions
and  years; it also affects the generation of wastes.  Wastewater
volume and organic strength also vary among days of the operating
season and periods of the operating  day.   Facilities  to  treat
these  wastewaters  must  therefore  be  designed to handle large
volumes  intermittently  rather  than  constant  flow  rates  and
constant organic concentrations.

During  the  past  twenty  years  there  has been a constant con-
solidation of smaller fruit and vegetable operations into larger,
more centralized process operations, resulting in  greater  usage
of  water  and  more  discharge  of  wastes per operation.  Thus,
during the highly seasonal periods of operation in the  industry,
it  is  not  unusual for a process operation to utilize much more
water and to generate more waste than the community in which  the
operation  is  located.   The  waste  loads  in  the industry are
generated within a relatively small  harvest  period  during  the
year  while treatment systems must be geared to prevent pollution
at periods when rainfall  and  stream  flow  are  at  a  minimum.
Further,  where  the wastes are channeled into municipal systems,
controls should be exercised to  ensure  these  systems  are  not
overtaxed   in   capacity   or   inadequate   for  the  community
requirements.

In order to lessen the problems created by the necessity of using
relatively large volumes of water, some segments of the fruit and
vegetable  processing  industry  have  engaged  in  programs   of
research  and  demonstration  projects.  Significant achievements
have been made and will continue to be made in the following:

    Reduction of fresh water requirements through use of recycled
    systems.

    Segregation of strong wastes for separate treatment.

    Modification of processes to minimize waste generation.

    Education of plant personnel regarding pollution control  and
    water conservation.

    Cooperative  efforts  with  government agencies in wastewater
    characterization and development  of  more  sophisticated  or
    less costly treatment procedures.

Some  processors  discharge their cooling waters directly without
treatment.  These waters should be relatively uncontaminated  and
should  be  handled  separately  from  process  water.   The BOD5^
concentration usually can be controlled at about 10 mg/1 average,
20 mg/1 maximum and with caution could be discharged to navigable

                                14

-------
waters directly in many cases.  An exception may  be  when  large
amounts  of cooling water are recycled and reused.  In this case,
the cooling water BOD5 concentration may exceed 20 mg/1 while the
load in kilograms per unit of  production  may  be  significantly
reduced   from   similar   plants  not  reusing  cooling  waters.
Depending on water quality requirements this  water  may  require
treatment prior to discharge.

The  fruit  and  vegetable  industry  discharges  a  much  higher
proportion of its liquid waste  to  public  sewers  and  to  land
treatment  than  do manufacturers as a whole.  Discharges to land
are principally by irrigation, mostly by  spray  irrigation,  but
also  by  seeping  from ponds or lagoons and by pumping into non-
productive wells.  Land treatment  generally  removes  very  high
percentages of the pollutional load.

GENERAL PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS

Harvesting

Mechanical  harvesting  has  been applied recently to many crops,
and further developments are to be expected.  Certain crops  such
as  green  peas, lima beans, snap beans, spinach, corn, tomatoes,
cranberries, cherries, beets,  peaches,  apricots,  carrots,  and
turnips  are  now  wholly  or  in  part  mechanically  harvested.
Formerly,  certain  wastes,  such  as  vines  and  stalks,   were
accumulated  during  harvest  and  disposed  of  in one manner or
another,  usually  as  mulch  or  animal  feed.   However,  other
unusable  parts of vegetables and fruits are not always separated
at the field or orchard but are transported to temporary  storage
or  to the processing plant.  Separation of cull material by hand
during mechanical harvesting is being done  to  some  extent  for
tomatoes and potatoes.

Mechanical  harvesting,  while  beneficial economically, in other
respects may be accompanied by certain undesirable effects:

    Greater physical damage to the crop, such as split  skins  on
    tomatoes,  bruises  on  peaches  and cherries, broken ends of
    snap beans, smashed kernels of corn, and damage to  plant  or
    tree.

    Inclusion  of soil with the harvested crop, particularly with
    vegetables, and greater numbers of microbes adhering  to  the
    product surface.

    Loss  in  yield  and  delivery  of  products  at  non-optimal
    maturity from non-selective harvesting.

Physically damaged areas of products such as tomatoes  frequently
become focal points for lodging of soil, sand, and dust which may
lead  to microbial growth of various types of organisms.  Rotting
may readily occur at the damaged areas.


                                15

-------
Certain crops such as asparagus, artichokes,  broccoli,  brussels
sprouts,  cauliflower,  pears,  and  apricots  must still be hand
harvested for any of several reasons, including:

    Maturation of fruits or vegetables differs from one  part  of
    the  plant  or  tree  to  another;  e.g.,  peaches,  brussels
    sprouts.

    Mechanical harvesting would damage the easily  bruised  crop;
    e.g., pears, peaches.

In-Field Processing

In-field  processing  or  preparation  of the crop for subsequent
processing  has  been  used  in  one  form  or  another   for   a
considerable  period.   Recent  developments  include  devices to
assist in the removal of "trash" (stems,  sticks,  leaves,  soil)
from  various  crops  which  have  been mechanically harvested or
mechanically loaded, such as tomatoes and cucumbers.

Some  mechanical  harvesting  devices  also  sort  the   products
according  to size.  Experimental systems for sorting tomatoes by
color have been developed.  The concept of pre-washing  and  pre-
sorting  snap  beans  has  been  used  in  receiving  stations to
facilitate central process plant operations.

There  are  several  advantages  to  such   in-field   treatment,
including  prompt  processing  after harvest, elimination of much
damage and loss of solids during transport of  fresh  fruit,  and
retention of wastes, culls, seeds, peel, and soil near the points
of  production.  Separated wastes can be retained for disposal in
field soils.

Transport to Plant

Harvested commodities require transport to a treatment or process
facility.  In some instances multiple transportation is involved.
The procedures in  handling  crops  for  transport  have  changed
materially  in  the  last  decade.  A significant development has
been the direct transfer from mechanical harvesters into dry bulk
loading trucks  (e.g., beets, carrots, peas, corn,  tomatoes,  and
beans),  and  tote bins, or boxes, eliminating the use of smaller
containers such as sacks, baskets, hampers, or lug boxes.   There
has  been  some  transport  of  crops  such as cherries in water.
Tomatoes  and   potatoes   have   been   transported   in   water
experimentally.

Transport  of  crops  in  water  is  believed to provide possible
economic advantages as well as such benefits as partial  wash  or
soak,   cooling,   and   ease  of  transfer  through  fluming  at
destination.  However, the successful utilization of water  as  a
transport medium for harvested crops depends on several factors:


                               16

-------
    The   adaptability   of  the  commodity  to  such  treatment.
    Tomatoes transported in water, for example,  are  subject  to
    splitting.

    The   limitation   of   container   size  to  that  at  which
    undersirable pressures on  the  product,  which  could  cause
    bruising during handling, do not occur.

    The availability of water.

    The control of microbial growth.

    The economics of increased freight rates.

The  new  methods  of  transport  have  been applied for economy,
improvement in quality, and adaptation to  other  phases  of  the
operations.   The  integration of mechanical harvesting with bulk
transport facilities has decreased the delay  between  field  and
processing  plant,  and  has permitted improved management of the
harvesting and processing operations.

Storage

Generally,  vegetables  and  fruits  grown  for  processing   are
prepared  and  processed soon after harvest, usually within a few
hours.  However, instances occur when it is necessary to hold the
raw products for significant lengths of time before they  can  be
packed.   Such  delays  may  be  occasioned by one or more of the
following circumstances:

    The necessity of accumulating sufficient supplies to  justify
    the start of processing operations.

    The  necessity  of  having  products available in the morning
    before the day's harvest is in from the fields.

    The necessity of assembling  and  transporting  raw  products
    grown considerable distances from the processing plant.

    The necessity of holding over weekends and holidays.

    Accumulations of raw products at peak periods of harvest over
    the capacity to handle them.

    Interference   with   operations   because  of  unanticipated
    breakdown in equipment or lack of labor.

    The desirability  of  extending  the  operations  beyond  the
    normal period of harvest.

    The   improvement  in  yield  and  quality  where  controlled
    harvesting, storage, and ripening  techniquest  are  employed
    (e.g., pears) .


                                  17

-------
Pears,  peaches,  and  apricots are commonly held in cold storage
and/or ripening rooms to control ripening and achieve the desired
texture for processing.  Temperature  and  humidity  are  closely
controlled in these operations.

Cherries  for glacing, maraschinos, and fruit cocktail are stored
in wood tanks under brine containing sulfur dioxide  and  calcium
salts.

Olives  for  black  ripe curing may be stored under salt brine to
hold until they are processed.  New techniques have replaced some
of the salt brine storage.  These are  accomplished  through  the
use  of  anaerobic  tanks  and  are  proven  successes  to  olive
processors.

Receiving

Receiving is generally in UO-50 pound lug boxes,  half-ton  bins,
or larger bulk loads.  Bulk loads may be unloaded by opening side
or  tail  gates  and  driving the truck or trailer upon a sloping
ramp so  that  the  commodity  can  be  moved  by  gravity  to  a
mechanical or hydraulic conveying system.  Stacks of bins and lug
boxes  are unloaded by fork lift trucks, and are usually inverted
mechanically into a dump tank or  onto  the  in-plant  conveyance
system.  Recent developments utilize water to bulk flood tomatoes
into  receiving  gondolas at the plant and subsequently flume the
product from the container to the processing facility.

Washing and Rinsing

Fruits and vegetables  for  processing  are  washed  and  rinsed.
These treatments are applied for a number of reasons:

    Removal  of  soil, dust, pesticides, microbial contamination,
    insects, and their residuals.

    Removal  of  adhering  juices   of   exudate,   products   of
    respiration or of spoilage.

    Removal  of  extraneous  matter  such as leaves, stems, dirt,
    stones, and silk.

    Removal of occluded solubles  or  insolubles  such  as  occur
    during cutting, coring, peeling, and blanching.

    Cooling.

    Extraction of solubles such as preservative salts or acids.

The quantity of water used in wash and rinse operations may be as
much  as  50  percent  or  higher  of  the total usage in process
operations.  These washings may be accomplished by  flumes,  soak
tanks,  water  sprays,  flotation chambers, or any combination of
these methods.  Not uncommonly, water which has  previously  been


                                18

-------
used  for  cooling may be reused for washing (and fluming)  of raw
products.

Detergents  are  being  increasingly  used  to  wash  vegetables,
particularly those grown in contact with the soil or harvested by
mechanical  harvesters.   Ultrasonic  techniques are being tested
for  increasing  cleaning  efficiency.   Hot  water   and   steam
blanching  serve  to promote cleanliness of vegetables subject to
this treatment, for reducing entrapped air, inactivating enzymes,
and setting colors.

Winnowing in an air blast removes dust and  lightweight  contami-
nants from many raw products, including shelled peas and beans.

Sorting (Grading)

For size grading, the shape and size of commodities determine the
type  of  grader  which is suitable.  For some products sizing is
done by hand.  However, decks of vibrating slots,  or  perforated
sheets  (or  screens) with increasingly large perforations, serve
to  mechanically  size  most  commodities.   A   variation   uses
perforated  cylindrical  screens.   Tapered  or  canted rolls are
alternately used for other commodities  (pineapples).   Diverging
cables are used for sizing olives without bruising.

Sizing  is  important for many commodities because it facilitates
handling operations  (pitting, peeling, filling)  and  affects  the
number  of  servings or pieces that can be secured from a package
of a specified size.  Many sizing  operations  are  performed  to
utilize  a  particular machine design that has been present for a
certain size fruit or vegetable.

Fruit to be mechanically pitted, such as peaches,  and  fruit  or
vegetables  to be peeled, whether mechanically or by other means,
often have to be  size  graded.   Corn  huskers  and  green  bean
snippers and cutters operate best for size graded material.

Density graders employing brine of controlled density are used to
separate  over-mature  peas  and  beans  from products of optimum
maturity.  Weed seeds, chaff, heavy stones, and earth pellets may
also be separated by density and in froth separators.

Grading for appearance may be accomplished by mechanical means in
limited instances.  Beans are  separated  for  color  by  devices
which   scan   for   color,   and   accept  or  reject  particles
automatically.

More commonly,  sorting for appearance and texture is accomplished
by visual  inspection  by  trained  graders  on  conveyors  under
special  lights.   Traveling  roller  conveyors rotate individual
tomatoes or  other  fruit  so  that  all  surfaces  are  exposed.
Blemished  fruit  and over- and under-mature fruit are identified
and diverted to waste or special uses (as  nectar  for  green  or
soft-ripe   apricots).   Hand  trimming  of  blemishes  is  often

                              19

-------
sufficient to prevent undesirable material from  entering  juices
and   purees.   Hand  trimming  of  products  like  tomatoes  and
freestone peaches enables  processors  to  meet  requirements  of
government inspection agencies.

Pressure  testers  (penetrometers) and mechanical chewing devices
(tenderometers)   are  used  in  the  field  and  laboratory   for
estimating  the  maturity of fruits and vegetables as a guide for
harvesting and also for grading of processed products.

Cranberries received from the field or after refrigerated storage
are sorted to eliminate soft fruit by bouncing individual berries
over a barrier.   Those that fail in three attempts are discarded.

Stemming, Snipping, Trimming

Stemmers and bunch breakers are used to remove stems from grapes,
cherries, blueberries, etc.  The design of these machines varies.
Thompson seedless  grapes,  intended  for  canning  alone  or  in
cocktail,  are stemmed by pulling from the bunches in reels which
also separate cap stems from the stemmed grapes.  Similar grooved
cylinders are used to stem and seed raisins and snap beans.   The
ends  are  snipped  from  green pods by snippers which tumble the
beans in reels until the ends protrude through slots and are  cut
off by knives.

In-Plant Transport

Various  means have been adapted for conveying fruit or vegetable
products at unloading  docks  into  and  through  the  processing
plant.    These  include  fluming,  elevating,  vibrating,  screw
conveying, air  propulsion,  negative  air  conveying,  hydraulic
flow, and jet or air blasting.  Water, in one way or another, has
been extensively used in conveying products within plants because
it has been economical in such use and because it serves not only
as conveyance but also for washing and cooling.

It  has been traditional to consider water an economical means to
transport fruits and vegetables within  a  plant  and  to  assume
there  was  some  sanitary significance to such use, not only for
the  product,  but  also  for  the  equipment.    A   significant
disadvantage,  however,  may  be  leaching  of  solubles from the
product, such as sugars and acids from cut fruit; and sugars  and
starch from cut corn, beets, and carrots.  Alternative systems to
decrease  such  losses from water have been investigated, such as
osmotically equivalent fluid systems.

Peeling

Many fruits and  vegetables  are  peeled  for  processing.   This
serves  the multiple purpose of removing residual soil, pesticide
residues, and coarse, fuzzy, or  tough  peeling  with  unpleasant
appearance, mouth feel, or digestive properties.

                               20

-------
Peeling  is  accomplished  mechanically  by  cutting or abrasion;
thermally by puffing and loosening the  peel  by  application  of
steam,  hot  water,  hot  oil  flame, or blasts of heated air; or
chemically,  principally  using  caustic  soda   (with   optional
surfactants)  to  soften the cortex so it may be removed by high-
pressure water sprays.  Table 5 shows methods for peeling  fruits
and vegetables.

Root  crops, including carrots, potatoes, and beets, have a thick
cortex which is commonly removed by first softening and loosening
by steam under pressure.  When the pressure is reduced  suddenly,
the  peel  puffs  and  can  be removed by high-pressure sprays of
water.  Steaming before exposure to lye increases  efficiency  of
lye peeling.

Hot  caustic  soda  solutions  used for chemical peeling range in
strength from one percent for thin-skinned produce to as high  as
eighteen percent for some tough-skinned commodities.  Temperature
of  caustic  solution, design of soak tank, and length of contact
with  lye  also  determine  concentration  required.   In   large
operations,  the  caustic  soda may be received in tank cars as a
concentrated solution and diluted  to  the  desired  strength  as
needed.   The  peeling  solution is recirculated until it becomes
contaminated.  The strength is maintained  by  periodic  checking
and  adjustment, or continuously, by automatic devices.  Residual
caustic soda is thoroughly rinsed  from  the  surface  of  peeled
fruits  and  vegetables.   If  a  change  in  pH  is undesirable,
commodities may be subjected to a rinse with dilute  sulfuric  or
citric acid.

Abrasion  peelers  may be of batch or continuous type.  The batch
peelers comprise separate disk bottoms and cylindrical bowl sides
covered with a water  resistant  abrasive.   Continuous  abrasive
peelers   are   constructed  of  rotating  rollers  covered  with
abrasive, over which the product is conveyed.

Thin-peeled fruits such as tomatoes are easily peeled and may  be
cored  simultaneously  in automatic machines.  In these and other
automatic peelers, or combination  peelers  and  coring  devices,
individual  fruit  are  positioned  in  "cups"  or an equivalent,
either by hand or by mechanical positioners which use jogging  to
orient the fruit into the desired position.

In flame peeling, now principally used for pimentoes and peppers,
the  commodity is exposed to high temperature gases or combustiom
momentarily, to puff and loosen  and  sometimes  char  the  peel,
which is then removed by high-pressure water sprays.


Recently,  the  use  of  "dry  caustic"  peeling  has gained wide
acceptance for commodities such as peaches,  potatoes,  tomatoes,
onions, carrots and beets.  After normal exposure to hot lye, the
skins are "scrubbed" from the fruit while minimizing peel removal
                                21

-------
                                                TABLE  5

                                METHODS FOR PEELING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
     Method of Peeling
       Action
      Products
      Comments
ro
po
     Hot water
     Live steam

     Steam pressure




     Hot oil (450°F)
     Flame (1,000°F or
      higher)
     Abrasion
     Lye
     Knives
Disintegrates tissue
beneath peel, causing
peel to become loose,
and easily removed.

Same as above.

Develops pressure be-
neath peel which when
suddenly released re-
moves peel by explosion.

Disintegrates tissue
beneath peel, causing
it to become loose.

Blisters, chars, flakes,
disintegrates peel.
Rotates product against
abrasive surface, wear-
ing away peeling to the
desired depth.

Disintegrates peel,
tissue, "eyes" to de-
sired depth.
Special designs:   by
hand or mechanically
operated blades.
Tomatoes, very ripe
peaches, beets, sweet
potatoes, freshly dug
potatoes

Same as above.

Sweet potatoes, pota-
toes, other root crops,
and apples.
Pimientos.
Pimientos, onions, small
potatoes, other root
crops.

Potatoes, beets.
Peaches, pears, grape-
fruit segments, sweet
potatoes, potatoes,
carrots, tomatoes, apri-
cots, and others.

Apples, pears, root crops.
Excellent
Good, often not uniform.

Good, but must be con-
trolled.
Fair, there may be an
oil residue.
Limited use; wasteful
of product.
Good, but wasteful.
Good, efficiency im-
proved by wetting agent,
Waste may be high.
Good, but limited capa-
city, wasteful.

-------
ro
oo
    TABLE 5   (Continued)
    Method of Peeling
      Action
       Products
      Comments
    Freezing
    Ultrasonics
Breaks down tissue
beneath peel, causing
latter to loosen.

Same as above.
Non-browning peaches
and other fruits.
Tomatoes, very ripe
peaches, ripe fruits,
Poor
Little known, but
promising.

-------
water  volume.  In some cases, the semi-moist peel may be removed
from the plant without ever entering the waste stream.

Pitting and coring

Many fruits used for canning and freezing contain seeds or  cores
which   are   removed  for  processing.    This  is  usually  done
mechanically.  Pears are cored in machines with  special  contour
blades which remove the cores.

Tomatoes  are  cored  by pressing the stem end against a whirling
burr reamer.  Onions and carrots may be cored or "hydrouted" by a
similar whirling knife reamer.  Peaches and apricots  are  pitted
and  halved  simultaneously.   Pits  are removed by knives, or by
twisting the halves in opposite directions.  Cherries are  pitted
by  specially  designed plungers.  Dates and olives are pitted by
similar techniques.

Slicing and Dicing

Slicing is often combined with pitting and coring or accomplished
in a separate machine.  The commodity may be halved, or it may be
cut in wedge-shaped "segments" or in flat rings,  or  it  may  be
diced, as peaches and pears for fruit coctail, etc.

Dicing  is  accomplished by simultaneous two-directional cutting.
The product to be cut may be delivered through a  hopper  into  a
stationary  chamber.   Rotating impeller blades whirl the product
at high speed.  As a steady stream of slices passes  out  of  the
chamber over an immobile knife, an external rotary knife cuts the
product  into  square  cross-section  strips.  The latter move at
high velocity into a set of circular knives that cut  the  strips
into cubes which are ejected through a discharge soout.

Pureeing and Juicing

Widely  varied  techniques  are  used for pressing and separating
fluid from fruits and vegetables.  Equipment includes reamers and
a wide variety of crusher-presses, either batch or continuous  in
operation.  Juice presses include:

    Batch  Hydraulic  Presses.   The whole or chopped material is
    placed in bags which are stacked alternately  with  separator
    grids and subjected to hydraulic pressures.

    Pulpers.  These involve tapered screws or paddeles ehich mash
    and/or  squeeze  juice and puree through a cylindrical screen
    while carrying the pomace for separate dry handling.

    Finishers.  These use brushes or paddles to knead and squeeze
    the  juice  or  fine  puree  through  a  cylindrical   screen
    discharging the pomace at the end of the screen.
                                  24

-------
    Reels  and  Vibrating  Screens.   Reels, usually with lifting
    flights, tumble the pomace  and  allow  the  juice  to  drain
    through  the  cylindrical  screen.   Vibrating  screens, both
    rectangular and circular, are used for  straining  juice  and
    for  classifying  purees  by  particle  size  (using multiple
    decks) .  Vibration causes the pomace to flow from the feed to
    the discharge and prevents the screen from clogging.

    Wilmes Presser.  Has a "balloon" in the  center  which,  when
    inflated, presses the puree against a perforated screen.  The
    puree  is  first mixed with rice hulls to facilitate the flow
    of juice.

Deaeration

The oxygen and other gases (nitrogen, carbon dioxide)  present  in
freshly  pressed  or  extracted fruit and vegetable juices may be
effectively removed by deaeration under vacuum.  The  liquids  to
be  deaerated  are  pumped  into an evacuated chamber either as a
spray or as a thin film.  Modern deaerators operate at  a  vacuum
of  29 inches or above.  Deaeration properly carried out not only
improves color and flavor retention, but reduces  foaming  during
filling and also reduces separation of suspended solids.

Concentration by Evaporation

In  the  concentration of solutions by evaporation,  the liquid to
be concentrated continuously flows across a heat exchange surface
which separates it from the heating medium.  The  heating  medium
may  range  from high-pressure steam at 365°F to ammonia vapor at
60°F.  The heating surface is usually a metal wall in the form of
a  tube  plate  or  kettle  wall.   "Thermo-siphon,"  or  natural
circulation,   is  circulation  of  the  product  resulting  from
reduction in the specific gravity of the solution on heating  and
from  pressure  generated  by  vapor evolved at the heat exchange
surface.  Natural circulation evaporators are usually inexpensive
but are difficult to use for concentration of  viscous  solutions
such   as   30  percent  tomato  paste.   For  such  products,  a
circulating pump is used  to  ensure  high  velocity  across  the
heating  surface.   Such  systems  are  called forced circulation
evaporators.

                                               i
There are various types of evaporators, including:  open kettles,
shell-and-tube heat exchangers, flash  evaporators,   rising-  and
falling-film   evaporators,  plate  type  evaporators,  thin-film
centrifugal evaporators, vapor  separators,  vacuum  evaporators,
and heat pump evaporators.

The  process  involves  heating  the  product  to evaporation and
separating the vapors from the residual liquid.
                                25

-------
Size Reduction

A wide range of size reduction equipment is required  to  produce
different  types  of particulated solids.  Selection of a machine
which can most economically produce desired results  is  affected
by  physical  characteristics of the material and by the required
particle  size  and  shape.   Often  special   modifications   of
equipment  are  required  to  prevent damage to such qualities as
flavor or appearance.

Mechanical devices used to particulate foods are limited to  four
fundamental actions:

    Compression.  Using a more-or-less slow crushing action.

    Impact.  Producing a shattering or splattering action.

    Attrition.  Wearing off the smaller particles by abrasion.

    Shearing or cutting using a slicing or chopping action.

Blanching

Blanching  of vegetables for canning, freezing, or dehydration is
done for one or more  reasons:   removal  of  air  from  tissues;
removal  of solubles which may affect clarity of brine or liquor;
fixation of pigments;  inactivation  of  enzymes;  protection  of
flavor;  leaching  of  undesirable  flavors or components such as
sugars;  shrinking  of  tissues;  raising  of  temperature;   and
destruction of microorganisms.

Water  blanching  may  be accomplished in several different ways.
The most common type of water blancher consists of  a  continuous
stainless  steel  mesh  conveyor  situated  in  an elongated tank
(typically four to five feet wide and twenty to thirty feet long)
which is usually half-filled with heatted (150-210°F) water.  The
product to be blanched is continuously fed onto the mesh conveyor
at a constant rate  (to maintain desired bed depth)  so  that  the
product is totally submerged.  Residence times vary with the type
of end product desired and the vegetable being processed.

A  second  type  of  hot  water  blancher  is a tube or pipe type
arrangement through which the vegetable is  conveyed  by  pumping
heated water and product together (e.g., peas and sliced or diced
carrots).  The length of the pipe, the velocity of the hot water-
product  combination,  and  the  temperature of the water are all
variables that can be changed to produce the desired end product.

A third type of  water  blancher  typically  used  on  dry  beans
consists  of  an  auger  which  screw-conveys the product through
heated water.

Steam blanching is typically done in an elongated (three to  five
feet  wide  and  twenty to thirty feet long)  stainless steel tank


                                26

-------
through which a continuous stainless steel mesh chain is  passed.
The  chamber  is typically fed by several inputs of steam so that
when vegetables are run through the blancher, they are surrounded
and permeated by the steam.   Length  of  blancher,  product  bed
depth, and speed of conveyor are the controlling variables.

In  almost  all cases for preparation of vegetables to be frozen,
it is  imperative  that  the  blancher  processes  be  terminated
quickly.   Consequently,  some type of cooling treatment is used.
Typically, if the product has been water blanched, the  vegetable
is  passed  over  a  dewatering  screen and cooled either by cold
water flumes or cold water  sprays.   Product  to  be  canned  is
usually not cooled after blanching.

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

Canning

The  sanitary  codes  of  most states require that cans be washed
before being filled.  There are usually three steps  in  the  can
cleaning  operation.   First, the cans travel a short distance in
the inverted position; second, they are flushed with a relatively
large volume of water under high pressure; and third, they travel
another short distance in the inverted position for  the  purpose
of   draining   excess   water.   This  is  usually  accomplished
mechanically.

The commodity is then filled into the can by hand, semi-automatic
machines, or fully automatic machines, depending on  the  product
involved.   In  some  products, there is a mixture of product and
brine or syrup.  In other cases, brine or syrup is added  hot  or
cold  as  top-off  liquid.   When  the  top-off  is  cold,  it is
necessary to exhaust the headspace gases to achieve a vacuum  and
maintain product quality.

Exhausting

Exhausting  is  usually accomplished mechanically by one of three
methods:

    Thermal exhaust or hot filling.  The content of the container
    are heated to a  temperature  of  160°  to  180°F,  prior  to
    closing  the  container.   Contraction of the contents of the
    container after sealing produces a vacuum.

    Mechanical.  A portion of the air in the container  headspace
    is pumped out by a gas pump.

    Steam  displacement.  Steam is injected into the headspace in
    such a way as to sweep out air, replacing it with steam.  The
    container is immediately sealed.  A vacuum is  produced  when
    steam in the headspace condenses.
                                 27

-------
                                              TABLE 6

                        NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION WATER ECONOMY CHECK LIST
    Operation or Equipment
                                    May
                                 Recovered
                               Water be Used?
May Water From
This Equipment
be Reused Else-
where in Plant?
Source of Water
  for Reuse
 in Equipment*
OO
1.   Acid dip for fruit              yes
2.   Washing of product
    A.   First wash followed
         by 2nd wash                yes
    B.   Final wash of product        no
3.   Flumes
    A.   Fluming of unwashed or
         unprepared product
         (peas, pumpkin,  etc.)       yes
    B.   Fluming partially pre-
         pared product              yes
    C.   Fluming fully pre-
         pared product               no
    D.   Any fluming of wastes       yes
4.   Lye peeling                     yes
5.   Product-holding vats;
     product covered with
     water or brine                  no
6.   Blanchers - all types
    A.   Original filling water       no
    B.   Replacement or make-up
         water                       no
7.   Salt brine quality graders
     followed by a fresh water
     wash                           yes

8.   Washing pans, trays,  etc.
    A.   Tank washers - original
        water                        no
    B.   Spray or make-up water       no
                                                             no
                                                            yes'
                                                            yes'
      yes"

      yes"

      yes
       no
       no
                                                             no

                                                             no

                                                             no
                                                       Only in this
                                                        equipment
                                                             no
                                                             no
                    Can coolers


                    Can coolers
                                                                          Can coolers
                                                                          Any wastewater
                                                                          Can coolers

-------
    TABLE  6   (Continued)
    Operation or Equipment
                                     May
                                  Recovered
                                Water be Used?
May Water from
This Equipment
be Reused Else-
where in Plant?
Source of Water
  for Reuse
 in Equipment*
ro
    9.  Lubrication of product in
         machines such as pear
         peelers, fruit size
         graders, etc.                   no
   10.  Vacuum concentrators            yes
11.  Washing empty cans               no
12.  Washing cans after
      closing                        yes
13.  Brine and syrup                  no
14.  Processing jars under
      water                          yes

15.  Can coolers
     A.  Cooling canals
         1.  Original water           no
         2.  Make-up water           yes
     B.  Continuous cookers
          where cans are par-
          tially immersed in
          water
         1.  Original water           no
         2.  Make-up water           yes
     C.  Spray coolers with cans
          not immersed in water      yes
     D.  Batch cooling in re-
          torts                      yes
16.  Clean-up purposes
     A.  Preliminary wash            yes
     B.  Final wash                   no
17.  Box washers                     yes
      yes*
 in this equip-
  ment after
  cooling and
 chlorination
       no

      yes
                                                       for processing
                                                      This water may be
                                                       reused in other
                                                       places as indi-
                                                       cated.
                                                            yes*
                                                             no
                                                             no
                                                                       Can coolers
                                                                          Can coolers
                    Can coolers and processing
                     waters

                    Waters from these coolers
                     may be reused satisfac-
                     torily for cooling cans
                     after circulating over
                     cooling towers, if care-
                     ful attention is paid to
                     proper control of replace-
                     ment water, and to keeping
                     down bacterial count  by
                     chlorination and frequent
                     cleaning.
                     Can coolers

                     Can coolers
          *A certain amount of water may be reused for make-up water and in preceding opera-
           tions if the counterflow principle is used with the recommended precautions.

-------
Cans   and  glass  containers  are  usually  mechanically  sealed
immediately after exhausting.

A can or jar of canned food contains a sterilized  product  which
at  normal  room  temperature  will remain unspoiled indefinitely
from a microbiological standpoint, and depending on the  type  of
food will have a marketable guality shelf life from six months to
two years or longer.

When  a  product  is  sterilized,   it  is  free  of viable micro-
organisms.  Commercial sterility is achieved through the  various
systems  described  below  and  may  be defined as that degree of
sterility at which all pathogens and toxin-forming organisms have
been destroyed as well as other more resistant  types  which,  if
present,  could  grow  in  the product and produce spoilage under
normal storage conditions.

Pasteurization may be defined as a heat-treatment that kills part
but not all of the organisms present  and  usually  involves  the
application  of  temperatures below 212°F.  In pasteurized canned
foods, preservation is  affected  by  a  combination  of  a  heat
treatment   and   other   factors  such  as  a  low  pH,  a  high
concentration of sugar, a high concentration of salt, and storage
at temperatures of 32° to 40°F.   Canned  foods  preserved  by  a
pasteurization   process  as  defined  are,  generally  speaking,
commercially sterile.  Foods with a pH of less than 4.5 are often
preserved by pasteurization at temperatures of 212°F or below.

The lethal effect of heat on bacteria is a function of  the  time
and  temperature  of  heating and the bacterial population of the
product.  To design or evaluate an in-package heat process, it is
necessary to know the  heating  characteristics  of  the  slowest
heating  portion of the container, normally called the cold zone,
the  number  of  spoilage  organisms  present,  and  the  thermal
resistance characteristic of the spoilage organisms.

Water Reuse

The  acceptability of procedures for reuse of water in processing
operations requires certain considerations:

    Water is an excellent solvent  and  vector,  and  is  readily
    modified,   chemically,  physically,  and  microbiologically.
    Thus, one use may  or  may  not  render  water  suitable  for
    upstream application, such as primary washing.

    Recovered  downstream,  the water may be suitable for further
    use  only  when  given  enough  treatment  to  be  considered
    potable.

    The  soil,  organic,  or  heat loads in the used water may be
    such that considerable treatment is necessary  to  render  it
    suitable for reuse.
                                  30

-------
Table  6  shows  some  reuse  factors  in the fruit and vegetable
industry (taken from Liquid  Wastes  from  Canning  and  Freezing
Fruits and Vegetables, by NCA) .

Clean-Up

Clean-up  operations  vary  widely  from  plant to plant and from
product to product.  Normally the plant and equipment is  cleaned
at  the  end  of the shift, usually by washing down the equipment
and floors with  water.   In  some  plants  it  is  desirable  to
maintain a continuous cleaning policy so that end-of-shift clean-
up is minimized.  Continous recirculation of waste water to clean
gutters has also helped reduce clean-up wastes.

The  washdown  may  be done with either water alone or with water
mixed with detergent.  Water  is  applied  through  either  high-
volume, low-pressure hoses or low-volume, high-pressure hoses.

In  some operations, such as the mayonnaise processing operation,
clean water is used to flush out the entire system at the end  of
the   shift   to   remove   any   residues   which  might  harbor
bacteriological growth.

The water used in clean-up  operations  generally  flows  through
drains directly into the water waste system.
COMMODITY SPECIFIC PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS

The  process  descriptions for each commodity are given below.  A
general commodity discussion is  followed  by  a  description  of
processing  from  harvesting to canning, freezing or dehydrating.
Then the generation of  wastes  is  discussed  along  with  water
reuse.

Apricots

Apricots are the seventh largest fruit pack in the United States,
with  virtually  all  growing  and processing done in California.
Canned apricots (whole  peeled  and  unpeeled,  halves  unpeeled,
slices,  nectar)  represent  80  percent of the total pack, dried
apricots thirteen percent, and frozen product seven percent.  For
the purposes of this study, ten plants in California  were  field
investigated  to  obtain  historical information.  In addition, a
total of twelve  wet  samples  were  collected  and  analyzed  to
corroborate this data.

Apricots  are tree ripened and harvested by hand from mid June to
mid July.  Normally, the  field  workers  make  several  harvests
during  this  season  selecting only mature fruit and leaving the
green fruit to ripen to  maturity.   In  years  of  poor  yields,
however,  economics  force  "orchard run" harvesting in which all
fruit are stripped from the tree in  one  picking  regardless  of
                                  31

-------
                           FIGURE  1




             TYPICAL  APRICOT PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
f -
fh—
1
1
1
LEAVES , TWIGS
CULLS 	
FROM HALVES
AND WHOLE
INSPECTION

PITS TO STORAGE

L , FIBER .

EVAPO- CONDEN-
RATOR """SATE

BINS


DUMP TANK —


~ REMOVE TRASH


~~~ SORTING BELT
1
FLUME —


SIZE GRADE


1
HEAT
OVER-
CUT
OVERFLOW, JUICES, DIRT ^
1
1
i
OVERFLOW ' I
1
PITS TO STORAGE
SPRAY , /- -^
	 1 	 ' FJIP£ 8 i 	 1 	 'WASTE WATER,
1 GREEN TO 1
PULP
NECTAR

INSPECT
1
FINISH

WASH
1
BLENDING
TANK
1 1
I
1 FILL
i

PASTEURIZE

SEAM
1
FILL
1
|j FREEZE
1
1
| COOL1 NO
i WATER
!
SEAM

RETORT
1
CAN COOL



1
[COOLING
WATER
FILL
PITS TO
STORAGE
OVER-
LYE PEEL
_^_
WASH
| RIPE
SYRUP
8 GREEN
TO
INSPECT
| NECTAR
SEAM
1
RETORT

FILL

SYRUP
1
CAN COOL

1
1
[COOLING
WATER
SEAM

RETORT

CAN COOL
SOLIDS
OVERFLOW, LYE,
SOLUBLES
OVERFLOW
OVERFLOW, LYE,
SOLIDS , PEELS ,
SOLUBLES
PITS T)
STORAGE
CLEAN-UP
SPILLAGE __

I
     [CONCENTRATE]

 X
SOLIDS
[NECTAR]
[HALVES]
   I
   I COOLING

     wl   *


[WHOLE]
                                                EFFLUENT

-------
maturity.   Workers  place  the  apricots  in  bins  or boxes for
immediate transfer to the processing plant.

The principal processes for the canning of apricots  are  surface
cleaning  and  sorting,  size grading, peeling (whole fruit style
only)r washing, and canning.  Figure 1 shows  a  typical  apricot
process flow diagram.  The process description for dried apricots
is  provided  in  a separate dried fruits section of this report.
Initially, the fruit  is  dumped  into  £  tank  for  preliminary
washing  and  proceeds  over  trash  removal  belts  which remove
leaves, twigs, and other debris from the  flow.   Manual  sorting
along conveyor belts removes culls and large debris missed by the
trash  belts.   Following  this,  the  fruit is mechanically size
graded  and  distributed  to  the  whole,   halve,   nectar,   or
concentrate processing lines.

Apricots  to  be canned whole are usually peeled, but some opera-
tions do process unpeeled whole fruit.  After passing  through  a
cascade or immersion-type peeler (by-passed for unpeeled styles),
the  apricots  are spray-washed while moving on shaker screens to
remove peels and residual lye.  The shaker  screens  ensure  that
all  sides of the fruit are exposed to the wash.   The whole fruit
is then inspected, with overripe and green  going  to  nectar  or
concentrate  operations.   The  quality "cots" proceed to canning
where they are tumble-filled into cans, syrup  added,  and  steam
closed.   The cans are then washed with water sprays, retorted in
continuous cookers, and cooled with water sprays.

Fruit to be canned as halves are not peeled, but proceed directly
from storage and size grading to cutter machines.  This operation
halves the fruit, exposes the pit, and mechanically separates the
fruit from the pits.  (Pits are flumed or conveyed to  a  washing
unit  and  subsequently stored for future sale to various related
food and additive manufacturers.)   An  inspection  follows  where
workers remove pits still clinging to the halved fruit; they also
separate overripe and green fruit for transport to the nectar and
concentrate  lines.   The halved apricots are given a final fresh
water wash and proceed to the canning operation  where  they  are
tumble  filled  in  cans and topped with hot syrup.  The cans are
steam closed, washed, retorted in continuous cookers, and  cooled
with water sprays.

The  nectar  operation  is  utilized by most plants as a means of
using apricots of poorer quality not suited for  normal  canning.
Fruit  used  in nectar includes the smallest size "cots" from the
size grading operations and overripe  and  green  fruit  rejected
from  the  whole  and  halves lines.  The overripe fruit provides
high-quality flavor and sugars to  the  nectar  while  the  green
fruit  contributes  the pleasant light color.  The fruit selected
for  nectar  initially  enters  a  screw  conveyor  preheater  to
inactivate  enzymes  and  to  soften  the fruit for pulping.  The
apricots are then pulped and the pits screened out,  washed,  and
removed  to  storage  bins.   Finishers "fine pulp" the puree and
remove peels and fiber as solid waste.  The  fruit  juice  enters

                                 33

-------
blending  tanks  where sugar, water, and pulp are added and mixed
in desired proportions.  The resultant nectar is then pasteurized
in heat exchangers and filled hot in cans.  The cans  are  sealed
in  a  steam  flow seamer, washed, and either held at sterilizing
temperatures to sterilize the container and lid or retorted.  The
cans of nectar are cooled with water sprays.  As shown in  Figure
1,  fruit for concentrate is taken out of the finisher and fed to
an  evaporator  where  it  is   concentrated   to   the   desired
consistency.   It  is  then  filled  in cans and placed in frozen
storage.

The main wastewater flows from apricot processing are:   overflow
from dump tanks and flumes, discharge from peelers and associated
washers,  can  washing and cooling wastewater, and clean-up.  The
dump tank(s) and flumes  are  usually  recirculating  with  fresh
and/or  reclaimed  water  make-up  with continual overflow to the
sewer.  This wastewater contains dirt, pieces  of  leaves,  wood,
fruit,  and  juice.   Periodic  dumping  of  the  lye  peeler and
continual overflow from the  following  washings  contribute  the
main   BOD   load.    This   waste  stream  includes  significant
concentrations of lye, soluble organics, peels, and  other  fruit
solids.   Can  wash  water  may  contain solids and solubles from
syrup and fruit spilled on the outside of the can.   Can  cooling
water  is usually one of the largest wastewater volume generating
operations.  The wastewater is usually of good quality  and  warm
temperature.   This  cooling  water  is  the main reclaimed water
supply for reuse as described below.   Concentrated  end-of-shift
clean-up,  continuous equipment washdown, and spill clean-up also
contribute a wastewater of significant suspended solids and  BOD,
It  may  contain  dirt,  pieces  of  fruit,  juices,  and various
solubles.  In addition, wash  tanks  are  usually  dumped  during
clean-up adding solids and solubles to the clean-up stream.

Nearly  all  dump  tanks,  flumes,  and  washers are continuously
recirculated with  fresh  and/or  reclaimed  water  make-up  with
continual overflow to the sewer.  The major reuse at most apricot
plants  is can cooling water (50 to 150 gpm per cooler) reused in
the initial dump and flume system with  or  without  intermediate
cooling  towers  to lower the water temperature.  This relatively
high-quality cooling wastewater (BOD and SS usually less than  20
ppm)   can  also  be  used for the washings following peeling.  In
this case, a fresh make-up spray wash follows the reclaimed water
use.

Caneberries

Caneberries include  several  popular  varieties:   blackberries,
boysenberries,   raspberries,   loganberries,  gooseberries  (the
immature gooseberry is  most  often  used) ,  and  ollalieberries.
Blueberries  are  also  included  here.  Many varieties are grown
almost exclusively in the Northwest,  especially  in  Oregon  and
Washington,  although  most  blueberries are grown in Maine.  For
the purposes  of  this  study,  six  plants  in  Oregon,  one  in
Washington  and  one  in Maine were visited for the collection of

                               34

-------
historical data.  In addition, a total of twenty-three  composite
samples were collected and analyzed to verify this data.  Because
of  their  tendency to lose shape, color, and texture, nearly all
caneberries  are  processed  frozen  (either  whole  or  pureed) ,
although  a  small  percentage of some varieties are canned.  The
frozen berries are usually sold to processors for  later  use  in
jam and preserve production.

Caneberry  harvesting is usually done from very late May or early
June through late July or early August.  The berries  are  picked
and  stemmed  by hand just before they become soft.  This ensures
that they will remain in good condition for one or two  days  and
will  not  soften  excessively  in processing.  To facilitate the
harvesting of the berries  at  the  optimum  stage  of  maturity,
pickings  must be done daily or every other day.  The berries are
gathered in shallow crates or trays with smaller boxes inside  to
ensure  minimum  injury from crushing, close packing together, or
bruising.  The crates are collected in the  fields  and  sent  by
truck  to conveniently located "weighing" stations established by
the processor or directly to the processing  plant  for  weighing
and receiving.

Figure  2  shows  a  flow  diagram for the typical caneberry pro-
cessing plant.  Berries are  processed  as  quickly  as  possible
after  harvest  because  they  begin  to  mold  if they stand for
extended periods of time.  In the typical operation, the  berries
are  hand-emptied from the crates immediately upon arrival at the
plant into a  shaker-type  washer  where  they  are  immersed  or
sprayed,  gently  agitated,  and  gradually moved across a riddle
where leaves, caps, stems, pieces of berry, and foreign  material
are removed.  An alternate method is the use of small air blowers
to  remove  leaves, stems, and other light debris.  Strong sprays
of water, often directed through  a  screen  to  prevent  product
damage,  remove dirt that may cling to the berries as they emerge
from the water.  After washing, the berries may  be  passed  over
sizing riddles and then are separated according to grade or style
of  pack desired.  When the berries are designated for canned pie
packs, they may remain ungraded as to size.  After the sizing and
washing operations, the berries are inspected on belts, and culls
and extraneous  material  are  removed.   Damaged  fruit  may  be
collected  for disposal or saved and sold for concentrate or wine
processing.  From the inspection belt  the  berries  for  canning
move  to fillers.  The berries are filled into the cans either by
hand or mechanical hopper.  Blueberries  are  packed  in  enamel-
lined cans to prevent discoloration.  Following filling, the cans
go  to  a  weighing station and are topped with syrup, exhausted,
seamed, retorted, and cooled.

Caneberries may be frozen either by IQF or in bulk containers (30
Ib tins or 50 gal drums).  The method of freezing chosen  depends
upon  the  variety  of  the berry and the final product style for
later processing.  Berries frozen in bulk containers  are  filled
either  mechanically or by hand and are weighed after inspection.
Berries to be IQF1d are transported from the inspection table  by


                                35

-------
                          FIGURE  2




           TYPICAL CANEBERRY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
                                                        	SP^LLAflE_    I
 i
[BULK AND PUREE]   [WHOLE CANNED!
[IOF]
SOLIDS
                                                                EFFLUENT
                                  36

-------
belts  and  frozen  by  one  of  three  processes:  blast tunnel,
fluidized bed, or cryogenic liquids.  They are then  refrigerated
in bulk for later packaging.  The inspected berries and often the
damaged  or  broken  pieces  undergo a size reduction in a mixing
tank.  Sugar may be added to the fruit while it is in the  mixing
tank.   The  mixture  is  then  put  through a puree screen which
breaks the berries up.  Seeds and stems are removed by the screen
and are dry collected while the puree is packed into 30  Ib  tins
or 50 gal drums, frozen, and stored for later shipment to jam and
jelly manufacturers.

The  principal  sources  of wastewater generation are the washing
operation,  spillage,  can  cooling,  and  defrost  waters.   The
wasteloadings from the washing operations usually consist of dirt
and  dissolved juices from the broken fruit.  Liquid waste (small
volume)  is produced in the filling and syruping  operations,  but
the  high sugar content of the syrup can contribute significantly
to  the  pollutant  loading  of  the  waste  stream.    Important
reductions   in   water  use  have  resulted  from  dry  cleaning
operations and the use of  dry  conveying.   The  wash  water  is
recirculated  in  some  plants  as well as the can cooling water.
Recycling of water has also been observed in operations  such  as
crate washing.

Cherries

Approximately two-thirds of the total U.S. production of cherries
is  processed  in  Michigan  with  the remainder primarily in New
York, Oregon, Washington, and California.  For  the  purposes  of
this  study,  nine  plants in Michigan, ten in Oregon, and one in
Washington were visited for the collection  of  historical  data.
In addition, a total of seven composite samples were collected at
two plants and analyzed to verify this data.  There are two major
processes  employed  on  cherries:   (1)  sweet  and  tart cherry
canning  and  freezing,  and  (2)   sweet   cherry   brining   for
maraschinos.   In  1973, canned sweet and tart cherries accounted
for 50 percent of all cherry products, while  frozen  sweets  and
tarts  made  up  eleven  percent  of the total.  The remaining 39
percent of the cherry products were brined, juiced, and made into
wine, of which brined   (and  subsequent  maraschinoing)  was  the
major item.

There  are many cherry varieties but only a few are of commercial
importance.  The most important sweet cherry varieties are  Bing,
Tartarian,   Royal   Ann,   Lambert,   Republican,  and  Chapman.
Principal varieties of sour cherries are  the  Montmorency,  Earl
Richmond,  and  English  Morello.    Sweet  cherries  are  usually
manually harvested and hauled to the plant in lug boxes, although
mechanical harvesting is occasionally used.   Tart  cherries  are
usually  mechanically  harvested by devices which shake the fruit
off the tree and convey it to tanks of chilled water, in which it
is transported to the plant.  At  the  plant,  the  cherries  are
processed differently, so they will be discussed differently.


                                 37

-------
                           FIGURE    3

              TYPICAL CHERRY PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                                      WATER, SOLUBLES
                                                   STEM, SOLUBLES
                                                   DIRT, SOLUBLES
       *
    CONDENSOR
     WATER
CULLS
ITS
PITS
LLS
IS

B^i



COOK

.
_fl
-*\

PRESS


H
•-==».


FILTER


JUICE

CONCENTRATE
L



PACKAGE




INSPECT


SIZE
GRADE


PIT



i
FILL 	 	 FREEZE
1
SUGAR PACKAGE

INSPECT


FILL


SYRUP


EXHAUST


SEAM
DEFROST
WATER
CLEAN - UP
SPILLAGE
CONDENSATE
1
SOLIDS
                                                                    EFFLUENT
                                            COOLING WATER
          [JUICE /CONCENTRATE]

                SWEET
[CANNED]

 SWEET
 SOUR
  38
[FROZEN WHOLE]

    SWEET
    SOUR

-------
Figure  3 shows a diagram for a typical sweet and sour processing
plant.  Sweet cherries are  typically  placed  into  field  boxes
after  harvesting.   Upon arrival at the plant, those cherries to
be pitted are cooled either in  continous  flow  hydrocoolers  or
chilling  rooms.   Cherries  to  be packed whole are not chilled.
Chill rooms, unlike hydrocoolers, do not generate wastewater, but
they are less efficient in cooling the product.

Sweet cherries are first put through a cluster breaker  prior  to
de-stemming  to  assure they are single.  They next go to the de-
stemming machine which uses an oscillating belt  and  a  rotating
blade to remove the stems from the fruits.  The operation is dry,
but water is used to flume the stems away and into the wastewater
stream.   The  de-stemmed  fruits  are conveyed to the washer, of
which several types are in use.  Reels on tanks with  sprays  are
common,  and  they  produce  a large proportion of the wastewater
from the process.  The cherries are inspected, and damaged fruit,
culls, and defects are removed.  From this point,  the  processes
for  freezing and canning diverge.  Cherries to be canned are put
through a size  grader,  which  consists  of  a  vibrating  table
perforated  with  the  propersized  holes.   Smaller cherries are
removed to the juice and concentrate line, while the larger  ones
are  usually  conveyed  to  the  pitter.   The  pitters  hold the
cherries in individual cups, and plungers push the pit out of the
cherry.   Pitting  uses  water  to  keep  the  machine  operating
properly  and to flume the pits away.  Occasionally, the pits are
screened before the water enters the wastewater stream, and  they
are  used in landfill, as feed, processed into charcoal briquets,
or are ground and used as a salt replacement on icy winter roads.
Some sweet cherries are canned with the pits  not  removed.   The
next operation is an inspection to remove any incompletely pitted
and  damaged  cherries.   The good fruit then goes to fillers and
into cans or glass, and  syrup  is  added.   The  containers  are
exhausted, closed, cooked, and cooled.  If the cherries are to be
frozen,  they  are  routed  to  the freezing line after the first
inspection.  Individually Quick Frozen  (IQF)  cherries  are  put
through  fluidized  bed, air blast, or cryogenic liquid freezers,
after which they are stored in bulk or packaged.  Other  cherries
are packaged into cartons, sugar is added, and they are frozen in
air blast or plate freezers.

Sour  cherries  are mechanically-harvested into chilled water and
dumped into chill tanks at the plant.  The water lost during this
dump is often reused in a later operation.  The chill tanks  have
a  continuous  overflow, and dirt and residues are rinsed off the
product and into the waste stream.  From  the  chill  tanks,  the
product  is  flumed  to  a de-stemming machine like that used for
sweet cherries, and then is conveyed to  an  "eliminator."   This
device  has  closely  spaced  parallel  rollers  which  eliminate
leaves, stems, and other debris, which  are  subsequently  flumed
into  the  wastewater  system.   Sometimes the waste is collected
dry.  Next the product is sorted, in  most  cases  by  electronic
"spectrosorters."    These   check   the   color  of  each  fruit
automatically and remove discolored or bruised ones.   Two  basic


                                39

-------
                         FIGURE  4




    TYPICAL BRINED/MARASCHINO CHERRY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
                                             BRINING
                                                                 *^
SOLIDS
EFFLUENT
                                  40

-------
types  of sorters exist.  The most common sorter does not utilize
water as a transport medium while the less common type does.  The
dry machine was not originally designed  for  cherries  and  does
experience problems.  Complete recirculation of water is employed
in  the  less  common  wet  type  of  machine.   After electronic
sorting, a manual inspection is often used to remove any  defects
the machines missed.

Cherries   processed   as  pitted  products  are  fed  through  a
mechanical pitter.  Some plants were observed  to  have  a  juice
collecting  apparatus  installed in conjunction with the pitters.
After pitting, a visual inspection is made to insure that no poor
quality cherries will be canned.  The cherries to be  canned  are
filled  into  cans,  topped  with  syrup  if  desired, exhausted,
closed, and cooked in either hot water or  retorts,  after  which
the  cans  are  water cooled.  Sour cherries are frozen two ways:
Either packaged into  containers  or  Individually  Quick  Frozen
(IQF).  The frozen packaged cherries are filled into retail-sized
or  larger  bulk  containers,  sugar  is sometimes added, and the
product is frozen in blast freezers.  The  IQF  product  is  sent
directly to air blast or fluidized-bed freezers, then is packaged
immediately  or stored in bulk for later packaging.  The freezing
operations produce little  wastewater,  usually  only  that  from
spillage from the filler and sugaring.

Figure  H  shows  a  flow  diagram for a typical brine cherry and
maraschino processing plant.  Sweet cherries are usually used and
come to the plant in boxes.  First, extraneous material  such  as
leaves  and stems are removed from the cherries by an air blower,
and this debris is removed dry from the plant.  The cherries  are
then  placed  in  large  tanks  filled  with  high-strength brine
containing sulfur dioxide and calcium (about  10,000  ppm  sulfur
dioxide  and  15,000  ppm  calcium).   The cherries remain in the
brine for several months during which time the brine bleaches the
color and firms up the structure of  the  cherries,  as  well  as
acting  as  a  preservative.  After the cherries are sufficiently
bleached, they are transported into the  plant,  where  they  are
either  destemmed  first  or  sent  directly  to the size grader.
After sizing, the brined  cherries  are  pitted  in  the  typical
manner,  then  graded  according  to  color  and appearance.  The
cherries are then repacked in the  sweet  brine  from  the  brine
tanks  in  barrels  and  either  shipped or stored for later use.
Some plants  incorporate  a  secondary  bleaching  process  using
sodium  chlorite  to  further  de-color  the  cherries  prior  to
repacking.

The brined cherries in barrels are transported to the  maraschino
cherry  process,  which  is  either  at  the  same  plant or at a
different plant than where the brining was done.  The barrels are
dumped, and the packing brine is discharged to the waste  stream.
The  first step is a wash, in which more brine is bleached out of
the cherries.  At this  point,  some  plants  use  the  secondary
sodium  chlorite  bleach  to  assure total color removal from the
cherries.  The cherries are held in sodium chlorite brine  for  a


                                 41

-------
                           FIGURE  5

            TYPICAL CRANBERRY PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM
  fr
       LEAVES, STEMS,  VINES, DEBRIS
                                                     LOCAL   FIELD
                                                   STATION OPERATION



COLD STORAGE
„ FREEZE

DESTONE
1
FLOTATION
WASH
DIRi ,
DIRT,
STONES,
DEBRIS,
FLOATABLE, DEBRIS
DAMAGED FRUIT

"1
1
. 1
1
r
_P^JS£ 	
CAKE
1

INSPECT

HYDROLIFT
1
CHOP
1
PRESS
1
STRAIN /
FILTER
1
PASTEURIZE
1
FILL
1
COOL
1
|_
A 	 SKjjis 	
^ SEEDS
Jl POMACE_


HYDROLIFT

"POPPING "
KETTLE


PULP


FINISH


COOKING
KETTLE


FILL
1
COOL
1
fi_ SKINS
N S~EEDS~

!
STEM
i
"POPPING"
KETTLE
i
PULP

COOKING
KETTLE
I
FILL
1
COOL
1
J
" 1
                                                                 _STE_MS __ I
                                                                 SOLUBLES   I
                                                                 CLEAN-UP
                                                                 SPILLAGE
                                                                        "I
               t JUICE]
                                   COOLING
                                    WATER
[JELLY]
[WHOLE  SAUCE]
SOLIDS
                                   EFFLUENT
                                      42

-------
short  time  and then are washed, which generates more wastewater
high in sodium chlorite.  In  all  cases,  the  bleached,  washed
cherries  are held in a "sweet sauce" containing sugar, coloring,
and flavoring ingredients.  The strength of this sauce  is  grad-
ually  increased to the proper level, and the maraschino cherries
are filled into retail-sized jars or bulk containers  and  topped
with  the sweet sauce.  The jars are pasteurized and subsequently
cooled.

The  hydrocooling  operations  produce  a   sizable   volume   of
wastewater containing some surface residues and dissolved juices.
Another large volume waste generation occurs in the various style
washers.  In some cases, depending on the incoming quality of the
fruit,   the   pollutant  loadings  of  these  streams  might  be
significant.  Both cooking (glass) and cooling operations consume
large quantities of  low  load  water.   These  may  be  recycled
through  a  cooling  tower  to  be  reused  for either additional
cooling or initial washing.  Defrost water, as  is  typical  with
most  frozen  food  processors,  may  be  captured and reused for
initial  washing.   The  brining  and  processing  of  maraschino
cherries  yields  wastes  very  separate and distinct from normal
cherry operations.  Both the sulfur dioxide and  calcium  wastes,
necessary  for  the product characteristics are extremely concen-
trated and may affect a  treatment  plant's  microorganisms.    As
mentioned  above,  recycling of cooling water is commonly used to
conserve water.  In addition, recirculating pumps  were  observed
in  several  installations  to  provide continuous reuse of chill
tank waters and the various water flumes.

Cranberries

Massachusetts and New Jersey produce most of the cranberries  for
processing  in  the U.S. with the remainder produced primarily in
Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin.   For  the  purposes  of  this
study,  one plant in Washington and two in Wisconsin were visited
for the collection of historical data.  In addition, a  total  of
seven  composite  samples  were  collected and analyzed to verify
this data.  Approximately 37 percent of all processed cranberries
are canned as cranberry sauce, with the remainder being canned as
jelly or juice.

Cranberries are grown in peat bogs with high acid soils (pH range
of 3.2 to 4.5).  The bogs are periodically flooded as a means  of
irrigation,   insect   control,   and   frost   prevention.   The
cranberries are ready for harvesting in the late summer and  into
the  fall.   Whether harvesting is done manually or mechanically,
the berries must be handled carefully to  reduce  the  chance  of
bruising, since such damage leads to rapid spoilage.  The berries
are  transported  to  field  stations for cleaning, weighing, and
sometimes freezing prior to  delivery  to  the  processing  plant
which may be several hundred miles distant.

Figure  5 shows a flow diagram for a typical cranberry processing
plant.  Upon arrival at the plant or field  station,  cranberries


                                43

-------
are fed into a shaker with an air cleaning device which blows out
leaves,  stems,  vinesr  and  debris.   The  cranberries then are
conveyed by water flume to a destoner, which removes  stones  and
floatable  debris, and subsequently into a flotation washer which
removes dirt, debris, and damaged fruit.   Although  not  usually
size-graded,   cranberries  are  inspected  for  quality  and  in
addition must pass the bounce test:  ripe whole cranberries  will
bounce,  while damaged or soft berries will not.  Cranberries are
fed into a series of three steps with barriers; those cranberries
which don't bounce over all three steps  are  considered  damaged
and  are  discarded  as  waste.   With  respect  to plants in the
Northwest and Midwest, the above processing steps take  place  at
field stations and do not contribute to the plant waste stream.

Cranberries  for whole sauce processing are fed into a mechanical
stemmer (which may be a mechanical abrasion vegetable peeler)  to
remove the stems.  The berries are then fed into a steam-jacketed
"popping"  kettle  where  they  are cooked with water, popping or
splitting open the skins.  They are conveyed into a pulper  which
removes  the skins and seeds, usually by forcing the pulp through
a wire mesh screen.  The pulp is cooked in a cooking kettle  with
sugar  and  other  ingredients,  and  filled  into cans.  The hot
cranberry sauce is over-filled into the can as there  can  be  no
headspace; the overflow is treated as waste.  The cans are cooled
before  packing and shipment.  The process for cranberry jelly or
strained sauce is identical to that  for  whole  sauce  with  the
addition  of a finisher being used after the pulper.  Cranberries
for juice processing are fed into a mechanical chopper  and  then
into a mechanical press, which separates the liquid or juice from
the  solids.   Wastes  consist  of  bits of fruit, juice from the
chopper, and press cake from the pressing operation.  The berries
enter a strainer and filter to remove  any  remaining  seeds  and
stems,  after  which the juice is pasteurized and filled hot into
cans or glass  bottles.   The  containers  are  cooled  prior  to
packaging.

In  as  much as some of the basic cleaning and washing operations
occur at field stations, a large volume of wastewater is returned
to the field.  Once the cranberries  have  been  brought  to  the
plant,  the major generation of flow is typically from can or jar
cooling water.  Those plants that totally process the berries and
bypass field stations, have, in  addition  to  cooling  water,  a
considerable  volume  of  flume and wash water.  Heaviest organic
loads occur in the  washing  and  fluming  operations  where  the
juices  of  ruptured  or  damaged berries enter the waste stream.
In-plant clean-up, including kettle  washings,  also  contributes
significantly to a typical processor's wasteload.

Both  fluming  water  and cooling water may be reused for initial
washing operations.  Wastewater reduction has  been  successfully
accomplished  through  the  use  of  air  cleaners which serve to
eliminate  (dry) stems, vines, and other organic debris.
                                 44

-------
Dried Fruit

Sun drying in direct or diffused sunlight (shade drying), one  of
the  earliest methods of food preservation,  is still used for the
production of dried fruits.   Sun-dried  fruits  can  be  produced
only  in  climatic  areas  with relatively high temperatures, low
humidities, and freedom from rainfall during the  drying  season.
In  the  U.S.,  the  inland  valleys  in  California are the most
important  producing  areas.   Fruits,  other  than  prunes   and
raisins,  most  widely dried today are apricots, peaches, apples,
and pears.  For the purposes  of  this  study,  three  plants  in
California  were  visited  for the collection of historical data.
Commercial fig producing in the  U.S.  is  mainly  restricted  to
California,  but production is increasing in Arizona, New Mexico,
and Texas.  For  the  purposes  of  this  study,  two  plants  in
California  were  visited  for the collection of historical data.
Almost all processed figs are dried, although  some  Kadota  figs
are canned.

Plums  are  one  of  the  most  widely  distributed fruits in the
country, being grown in nearly every part of the  United  States.
Only  one  type of plum is designated a prune, however, and these
prunes for drying are produced almost entirely in California.  By
1900, prune orchards in California covered 90,000  acres.   Today
there  are  about 100,000 "high production"  acres concentrated in
the Santa  Clara,  Sacramento,  Sonoma,  Napa,  and  San  Joaguin
Valleys.   Currently,  these areas produce 98 percent of the U.S.
total and 69 percent of the world supply.  Harvesting  begins  in
late  August,  and  the  main  processing  season  continues from
September through the winter months.  For  the  purpose  of  this
study,  six  plants were visited in California for the collection
of historical data.  In  addition,  a  total  of  five  composite
samples  were  collected and analyzed to verify this data.  Prune
plums have several distinguishing features which enable  them  to
be  easily  dried.   First,  they are dark purple and elongated or
oval shaped, as opposed to  the  round  reddishpurple  plums  for
canning,  freezing,  and  fresh  utilization.  They have a firmer
flesh, higher sugar content, and often a higher acid content than
plums.  More especially, they can  be  dried  without  fermenting
when the pit is left in.

Figure  6  shows  a  typical  dried  fruit  process flow diagram.
Apricots, pears, peaches, and apples are  all  harvested  in  the
same manner.  After the fruit has ripened on the tree, it is hand
picked,  loaded  in  boxes,  and taken to a field shed where it is
halved and pitted, or cored in the case of pears.  Placed cup  up
on  wooden  trays,  the  fruits  are  stored overnight in sulphur
houses where they are exposed to burning sulphur (sulphur dioxide
gas).  The fruit is then dried in the sun from one to  five  days
and stacked to dry in the shade for one or two weeks.  Once dried
to roughly fifteen to twenty percent moisture, the fruit is taken
to  the  packing  shed  where  it  is  graded by size, recleaned,
resulphured, redried, and packaged.


                                45

-------
                     FIGURE  6
     TYPICAL DRIED FRUIT  PROCESS FLOW  DIAGRAM
                         FIELD DRIED FRUIT
                          IN BOXES/aiNS
           CULLS
                             INSPECT
                            SIZE GRADE
                          RE-CLEAN, WASH
                                           SOLUBLES, DIRT
                          SULPHUR HOUSE
                              DRY
            CULLS
                             INSPECT
                             PACKAGE
SOLIDS
                                                 CLEAN-UP
 •H
EFFLUENT
                               46

-------
Apricots and  freestone  peaches  are  hand-picked  at  maturity,
placed  into  lug  boxes, and transported to a cutting shed.  The
fruit is halved, the pit removed, and the fruit placed cup up  on
a  flat,  pre-cleaned  wooden tray  (approximately three-four feet
wide, six-eight feet long and  one  to  two  inches  deep) .   The
filled   trays  are  exposed  to  sulphurdioxide  fumes  (burning
elemental sulphur) for about twelve hours.  This prevents browing
of the fruit during the drying process.  After "sulphuring,"  the
trays  are  transferred  to  a field where they are placed on the
ground, exposing the fruit to "full sun." Apricots are allowed to
dry in this manner for one day, after which time  the  individual
trays  are  transferred to a shady area and stacked three to four
feet  high.   They  are  allowed  to  dry  in  the  "stack"   for
approximately  one  additional week, then removed from the trays,
placed into   boxes  or  bins,  and  ultimately  delivered  to  a
"packing-plant."   Similarly   the   freestone   peaches,   after
sulphuring, are placed in full sun for  two  to  three  days,  at
which  time  they are transferred to shady "stack" storage, dried
for several additional weeks, removed from the trays, transferred
to boxes or bins, and delivered  to  the  "packing  plant."  Both
apricots  and  peaches  may  receive  longer  exposure times than
mentioned above depending on the availability of "full" sun.

Pears that are to be dried are allowed  to  ripen  on  the  tree.
They  are then hand picked and transported to cutting sheds where
they are cored and halved by  hand.   Placed  cup  up  on  wooden
racks, they are stored overnight in sulphur houses where they are
exposed  to burning sulphur to prevent browning.  The pear halves
are removed from the "sulphur house" and dried  in  the  sun  for
four to eight days and then transferred to stacked storage for an
additional two to three weeks.

Once  dried, the fruit is delivered to the packing plant where it
is processed usually to fill orders.  The dried  fruit  from  the
field  may  sometimes  be  stored as long as several years before
being repacked.  Typically, the fruit  is  graded  for  size  and
appearance,  handinspected  to  remove  undesirable  pieces  (off
color, "slabs," insect damaged, etc.), and then  sent  through  a
re-cleaning  operation.  This is normally a high-speed, reel-type
cleaner fitted with brushes which both softens  and  loosens  any
dirt, wood, or insect particles which may have become attached to
the  fruit  during the field drying process.  Partial rehydration
occurs, and as a consequence the fruit must be  re-sulphured  and
re-dried   prior   to   adding   preservatives  (yeast  and  mold
inhibitors) and final packing.

Figure 7 shows a typical fig process  flow  diagram.   There  are
four  basic varieties of figs used by the processors - Calimyrna,
Mission, Adriatic, and Kadota.  The Adriatics are mainly used for
the production of paste.  Figs are usually allowed  to  partially
dry  on the tree.  In some cases, the trees are lightly shaken at
intervals.  Figs  are  usually  mechanically  gathered  from  the
ground and are typically dry enough to be loosely packed in boxes
or  bins,  although  sometimes they are further dried on trays in

                                  47

-------
                            FIGURE   7

                TYPICAL  FIG  PROCESS FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                      BINS
               CULLS
                                      SORT
                                   SIZE  GRADE
                                                     1
                                                  STORE  AND
                                                   FUMIGATE
                                    WASH AND
                                    PROCESS
                                        SOLUBLES,  DIRT
SORBAT
E
SPRAY
               CULLS
  i
SOLIDS
                    SLICE
                 REFRIGERATE
                    GRIND
                   PACKAGE
[PASTE]
                                      SORT
                                     RETORT
                                     AIR COOL
                                                       PACKAGE
[WHOLEl
                                                                CLEAN - UP
                                                     !	^
                                                                SPILLAGE
                                                ^^_	,J
                                                                         EFFLUENT
                                       48

-------
the sun to approximately seventeen to eighteen  percent  moisture
content.   Some  varieties  of  figs are lightly sulphured in the
field, but this is not a typical operation.  Figs are transported
to the plant in sweat boxes or bins.  Figs are normally screened,
graded for size, and then undergo a thorough inspection at  which
time  insect  damage  and  culls  are  removed.  The screening is
necessary to divide the figs into the reguired  finished  product
styles.   After the first sorting and grading operation, the figs
to be stored for later processing are packed in boxes and  placed
in an airtight chamber and fumigated.  This operation is repeated
several  times  over  a  two-week holding period.  The figs to be
processed are conveyed through a cold water reel washer to remove
loose adhering dust and foreign material.  They are then directed
to a "processing" unit at which time they  are  immersed  in  hot
water  (200°F)   for approximately five to ten minutes.  Soak time
depends upon size and variety of fruit being processed.  The figs
at this point have absorbed some water and because  of  increased
susceptibility to mold, are sprayed with potassium sorbate.  They
are  conveyed,  typically,  over a dewatering belt where they may
either be put into small plastic tubs to equilibrate, or they may
be placed into retorts directly.  The figs are placed into  metal
trays which are pushed into horizontal retorts.  Exposure to live
steam  for  two  or  three  minutes further softens the fig.  The
fruit is air cooked and directly packaged.

Figs (usually Adriatic  variety)  for  paste  are  treated  in  a
similar  manner  as  the whole fruit with several exceptions.   In
some cases, the size grading operations may be bypassed, and  the
figs to be processed are sent directly to cold water pre-washers.
This  is followed by screen-shaker separations mainly designed to
remove foreign material.  The fruit is then  usually  transported
through  one  or  two  consecutive  warm water washers to further
clean the fruit.  It is then mechanically sliced and divided into
lots for official quality inspection and grading.   Refrigeration
typically  follows  for an approximate twenty-four hour interval.
This serves to harden the fruit so that grinding into paste  will
be  facilitated.   The  final  step  in  the process is grinding,
usually through a "meat" type grinder.   The  product  is  packed
into bulk containers and refrigerated prior to shipping.

Ordinarily,  a  prune tree starts to bear fruit four to six years
after planting, and reaches its full production capacity (300  to
600  Ibs  of  raw fruit per year)  sometime between its eighth and
twelfth year in the ground.  The orchards will then  continue  to
bear quality fruit on a commercial basis for about 30 years.  The
prune  tree  is  deciduous  and  goes  dormant  during the winter
months.  It is at this time that the grower cuts back and  prunes
each  tree  to regulate shape, control fruit size, and maintain a
healthy plant.   By  late  August,   the  orchards  are  ready  for
harvesting   which   generally   takes   about   30   days.   The
predeterminant of harvest time for prune plums  is  ripeness,   in
that they are one of the few fruits allowed to fully ripen before
they are picked for processing.  Fruit firmness and natural sugar
content  determine the picking date.  Today, most of California's

                               49

-------
                             FIGURE  8a

                TYPICAL PRUNE  PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
  	REJECTS	


POTASSIUM SOR3ATE
  PRESERVATIVE
          REJECTS
                                                           OVERFLOW , SOLIDS
                                                               SO L_UBLES	.

                                                             CONDENSATE	
                                                               SOLUBLES       *1
                                                             SOLUBLES. SOLIDS   i

                                                                SOLUBLES
                                                               	I
                                                                    MISS
                                                                    PITS
                                                           	OVE RFU»W	J
                                                              LYE, SOLUBLES    ^
                                                                    CLEAN-UP
  i
SOLIDS
                 [ UNFITTED PRUNES]
                                         [PITTED PRUNES]
                                                                         EFFLUENT
                                        50

-------
                           FIGURE  8b




           TYPICAL PRUNE JUICE  PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
               PITS
 4>
SOLIDS
                                               VMl/VUf*    ^



                                            s* j« A i I ki rfi u« * V^B
                                                     EFFLUENT
                               51

-------
prune production is harvested by machine.   In  this  process,  a
mechanical  shaker  takes  hold  of  a  main limb or the trunk, a
fabric catching frame is spread under the tree;  and in  a  matter
of seconds, the fruit is shaken off the tree, and transferred via
conveyor  belt  into  bins  in  which  it goes to the dehydrator.
Because  of  the  ever-increasing  industry  emphasis  on   fruit
quality,  the  historical  method  of allowing fruit to ripen and
drop before gathering  has  all  but  disappeared.   This  method
required  three or four "pickings" to completely strip an orchard
of its fruit.  Immediately  after  harvesting,  the  orchard-ripe
fruit  is taken to the dehydrator yard where it is washed, placed
on large wood trays, and dehydrated  in  a  series  of  carefully
controlled   operations.   Held  in  these  hot  air  (210-220°F)
dehydrators for ten hours, the fresh fruit is reduced to 1/3  its
initial weight through water loss.

Figure 8a shows a typical prune process flow diagram.  Prunes are
processed through a series of screenings, gradings, and washings.
The  first  screening,  a dry screening, removes clods and debris
and breaks up prune clumps.  The second screening  removes  loose
dirt.   The  prunes  are  then  mechanically graded and separated
according to sizes ranging from 23 to 150 prunes per pound.  They
can then be warehoused in wooden bins (up to two  years  storage)
or  can  be processed for packing.  Hand sorting for cull removal
follows, after which the prunes are conveyed to a  blancher   (hot
water  or steam) where they are held from eight to twenty minutes
to deactivate enzymes and preserve color and  flavor.   Potassium
sorbate  and  fresh  water  are  then  sprayed onto the prunes to
maintain  proper  water  moisture   content   and   add   further
preservative.   Fruit  to  be  pitted  is  sent through automatic
pitting machines that either squeeze the pit out with  mechanical
fingers  or  punch it out as does an olive pitter.  The pitted or
unpitted prunes are again hand sorted for rejects,  automatically
weighed  into  boxes  or  sacks,  sprayed  with potassium sorbate
preservative, and sealed.

Prepared prunes are delivered to the plant  typically  in  fiber-
board cylinders.  The fruit is dumped into a breaker and conveyed
directly  to a cooking tank.  The cooking cycle renders the fruit
to a pulp to both prepare the pulp for filtering and to break the
prunes sufficiently for pit removal.  The hot slurry is pumped to
a pulper where the pits are removed as solid waste, and the prune
pulp is further reduced in size.  The pulped juice is pumped to a
tank, filter aid is added, and a second pump transports the prune
mass to a vacuum filter press.  The filtered juice is pumped to a
holding tank, further solids are removed  by  a  centrifuge,  the
Brix  level  is adjusted to approximately 18.5°, and the juice is
pumped  through  a  heat  exchanger  for  pasteurization.    Fill
temperature  is between 195° and 200°F.  The jars or cans are hot
filled, closed, and cooled.  Figure  8b  shows  a  typical  prune
juice  flow  diagram.   Juice  recovery  is  usually aided by the
recycling of the filter cake.


                                   52

-------
The cake is continuously  removed  from  the  vacuum  filter  and
recooked to extract any remaining juice.

The  wastewater  generation  in  the prune juice operation varies
somewhat from the processing of dried prunes.  The vacuum  filter
press requires significant amounts of "no contact" cooling water.
This  essentially  dilutes  the effluent stream and increases the
water usage on a raw ton  basis.   Container  cooling  water,  in
terms  of dilution, also affects waste strength levels.  Clean-up
operations also contribute a heavy proportion of loadings to  the
waste  streams.   Materials such as pulper and centrifuge wastes,
if kept from the effluent stream,  can  contribute  a  measurable
decrease in the BOD and suspended solids levels.

Water  usage in an operation such as described in this chapter is
usually kept to  a  minimum  to  prevent  excessive  leaching  of
soluble  solids  from  the fruit.  Consequently, wastes generated
from the recleaning operation  are  usually  low  in  volume  but
highly  concentrated in terms of BOD.  The principal constituents
are almost always  dissolved  solids  (sugars)  from  the  fruit.
Clean-up  wastes  add  significantly  to  the  volume of effluent
discharged  but  are  not  as  concentrated  as  those  from  the
processing of the fruits.

Grapes

Approximately  93  percent of the total U.S. production of grapes
is  processed  in  California,  with  the   remainder   processed
primarily  in  New  York,  Washington,  and  Michigan.   For  the
purposes of this  study,  three  plants  in  California,  one  in
Michigan,  four in New York, and one in Pennsylvania were visited
for the collection of historical data.  Approximately 68  percent
of  all  processed  grapes are made into wine (covered in another
study); five percent are made into juice, jam, and jelly (jam and
jelly being covered as a separate category  in  this  study);  25
percent  are  processed as raisins (see raisins); and two percent
are canned either as a separate product or with fruit coctail.

When the grapes have reached optimum maturity, the  clusters  are
harvested  either by machine  (bulk) or are hand picked and placed
into 30 Ib boxes.  They are delivered to the plant by truck  with
as  little  delay  as  possible.   Upon arrival at the plant, the
grapes are dumped into a wash  tank  to  remove  dirt  and  loose
debris  from  the  grape  clusters.   The  grapes are then fed by
conveyor to the bunch breaker.  The wash tank may be emptied once
per shift or more.  The bunch  breaker  mechanically  breaks  the
grapes  from  the  cluster.   The grapes are transported by water
flume which serves to both wash and transport  the  grapes  to  a
mechanical  cap  stemmer  which removes the cap stems.  The stems
are discarded as solid waste.  Inspection is  typically  done  by
hand over an inspection belt at which time defective or blemished
pieces  or  foreign  material  are removed and discarded as solid
waste.  The grapes are then fed into the cans and topped with hot


                                 53

-------
                                FIGURE  9

               TYPICAL  GRAPE JUICE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
      PRESSING
SOLIDS
                                                                  EFFLUENT
        [JUICE]
[DRINK]
[JAMS/ JELLY]
 SEE SEPARATE
 DESCRIPTIONS
[CONCENTRATE]
                                  54

-------
syrup.  The cans  are  seamed,  retorted,  and  cooled  prior  to
packing and shipment.

Figure  9  shows  a typical grape pressing and juice packing flow
diagram.  If the grapes are hand harvested, they are dumped  into
a  soak  tank  for a preliminary rinse.  If they are mechanically
harvested, they are dumped into a dry hopper  or  auger.   Grapes
from either type of harvest are then merged and are run through a
stemmer  to  eliminate  stems,  vines,  and  other  miscellaneous
debris.  They are flumed to a surge tank and fed from  this  tank
directly  into  a tubular heater to activate the natural enzymes.
After passing through the heat exchanger, they are maintained  at
approximately   mo°-150°F   until  enzymatic  action  is  judged
sufficient.  At this point, approximately 50 percent of the juice
is available as free liquid and is separated from  the  unpressed
grapes  by means of a pre-dejuicer.  The pulp, separated from the
juice, is fed through a screw press which squeezes the  remaining
juice  from the grape mass.  The juice from both the pre-dejuicer
and press operation  is  combined  in  a  surge  tank,  filtered,
pasteurized,  and  pumped  through a heat exchanger to reduce the
temperature to 28°-30°F.   (The grape juice at this stage contains
approximately 15.5 to 17 percent sugar.)

The chilled juice is pumped to storage tanks where natural or  in
some  cases  artificial  means  are  used  to settle out the fine
suspended tartrates and tannins.   The  juice,  after  aging,  is
usually  siphoned  and  further  clarified,  typically  through a
filter press.  The juice from cold  storage  may  be  treated  in
several different ways.  It may be directly canned as grape juice
or concentrated to be used for formulated items such as drinks or
jelly   (covered  under  Jams  and Jellies).  In the case of grape
juice, following a final filter step, the  juice  is  pasteurized
and hot filled either into cans or glass bottles.  The containers
are  closed,  washed,  and cooled.  Grape or grape-fruit drink is
typically  premixed  in  a  batch  tank  at  which   time   other
ingredients such as vitamins, sugar, other concentrates, etc. are
added  per product formula.  The batches are typically preheated,
pasteurized, and hot filled as described above.

The principal wasteloading process in a grape crushing  operation
is  cleaning.   This  is  primarily  because any spill points are
minimized to conserve  all  possible  usable  juice.   Collecting
stems,  petioles,  leaves,  and  pieces of vine as dry waste also
reduces wasteloadings.  Other items such as pomace or other  pulp
were   observed  to  be  collected  dry.    Principal  sources  of
wasteloadings during grape juice packing are  typically  clean-up
operations  and  any  juice  or  drink spillage which occurs upon
filling.  Can and  bottle  cooling  water  (non-product  contact)
contributes a significant volume to the waste stream while having
a  dilution  effect  on  the  wasteloadings.   For the canning of
grapes, both flume and can cooling  water  can  be  reused.   The
flume  water  is  typically recirculated, whereas the can cooling
water is normally passed through a cooling  tower  and  chlorined


                                55

-------
                FIGURE   10


TYPICAL RIPE OLIVE PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                         BOXES
 LEAVES, TWISS
                         DUMPER
                          TRASH
                        ELIMINATOR

                ==JT=    INSPECT
                                      STORAGE TANK
                                 CHLORIDES,  ^

                                 SOLUBLES    |
                                    CHLORIDES, LYE ,  SOLUBLCS
                                     UNPITTED OLIVE RETURN
                                            SPILLAGE , SOLUBLES       '
                                               ^•M	   ——mm  _ ^.^ «^i^tel



                                              SPILLAGE
                                          -I
[WHOLE  PITTED]
                                           [SLICED OR CHOPPED]
I
                                                               EFFLUENT
                          56

-------
before  being used as either wash make-up water or for additional
cycles of cooling.

Oliyes

In the United States, olives for processing  are  grown  only  in
California.   The utilization of these olives for canning and oil
is a small but substantial part of  the  California  agricultural
economy.   It  has  been estimated that there are 32r000 acres of
olives  grown   in   California.    Leading   varieties   include
Manzanillo,  Mission,  and  Sevillano.  Some Ascolano and Barouni
varieties are also grown, as well as a very small amount of minor
varieties.  For the  purpose  of  this  study,  seven  plants  in
California  were  visited  for the collection of historical data.
Approximately 75 percent of all olives are canned,  either  black
or  green.   The remaining olives are chopped or used for oil re-
covery .

Figure 10 shows a typical olive process flow diagram.  Olives are
harvested by hand in the late  fall  period  of  midSeptember  to
early  November,  when  still  green, just before they would turn
pink if left on the tree.  If they become too ripe, they will not
stand  the  necessary  handling  and   preparation,   and   their
appearance will be ruined.  However, if picked too green, the oil
content  and  nutty  flavor will not be developed.  Every step in
the handling of the olive is done as quickly and  efficiently  as
possible.   Olives  require  more  handling and manipulation than
most tree fruit crops but are not especially prone  to  spoilage.
They are handled either in lug boxes or larger wooden bins.

When  the olives arrive at the factory, they are generally dumped
into a mechanical trash eliminator, a dry operation which removes
leaves, twigs, and debris.  They are conveyed to a stemmer  (also
a  dry  operation)  which removes stems and any remaining leaves.
The olives are then  inspected  and  graded  according  to  size.
Large  and  unblemished  olives  are canned as black or greenripe
fruit.  Intermediate sizes are  used  for  Spanish-cured  olives.
Small  and  blemished  fruits  are used for chopped olives or oil
recovery  (almost all Missions because of their high oil content).
There are several styles of graders used to prevent injury.   The
most  common system consists of a series of V-shaped troughs, the
different sections separated by increasing the increments by 1/16
inch.  The olives are dragged along gently and  when  they  reach
the  proper  size, they fall through.  (A second method is by the
use  of  diverging  cable  type   graders.)   After   sizing,   a
determination  is  made  as  to  whether the fruit is to become a
Spanish style, green ripe, or ripe olive.  The factor determining
Spanish style is size.  Olives smaller than large Barouni, medium
Sevillanos,  petite  Mission  and  petite  Manzanillo  (Ascoloni)
almost  always  go  to  ripe process because of their texture and
susceptibility to bruising.  The determination  as  to  style  is
based  on  production  capacity of the plant since green ripe and
Spanish olives must go directly to curing, but  ripe  olives  may
                                 57

-------
either  go  directly  to curing or be stored (minimum time of two
and a half weeks to nine months).

Because processing may not keep pace  with  the  harvest,  olives
destined  to  go for ripe processing may be stored in large tanks
containing a salt brine solution.    The  concentration  of  brine
used  depends on the variety of olive being stored.   The brine is
generally four to  five  percent  for  Sevillano,  Ascolano,  and
Barouni  varieties.   The concentration of the brine is gradually
increased over a period of three to four  weeks  to  a  level  of
eight to nine percent for the smaller sized varities and seven to
eight percent for the Sevillano, Ascolano, and Barouni varieties.
The  majority of the olives are stored in the brine for one and a
half to six months.   At  some  plants,  Mission  and  Manzanillo
varieties  are stored for as long as ten months (in this case the
brine concentration is increased to ten percent).

Anaerobic storage of olives has been utilized in conjunction with
the storage method described above.  Because  of  the  increasing
emphasis   on   quality   control  (shrivel  has  been  virtually
eliminated and pollution minimized) and a need to prevent  oxygen
from interacting with olives, anaerobic storage was developed and
has  been used for the last several years.  The olives, after the
initial cleaning and inspection, are placed in large tanks  which
have a gasket sealed manhole closure equipped with a liquid trap,
which in turn is fitted with a transparent, removable cover.  The
trap   walls   are   translucent   for   positive   liquid  level
determination and control.  After the tank has been  filled  with
food  product,  liquid is brought up to within one inch below the
manhole.  The closure, with its seal and liquid trap is bolted in
place.  Final filling is through the liquid trap.  Entrapped  air
is  vented  through solution recircualtion and product inspection
ports which are built into the tank.  The  liquid  level  in  the
trap  is raised to nine inches.  As gases generate,  they pass out
through the liquid trap.  The trap provides a  semi  or  complete
anaerobic  seal and allows solution replacement of inter-cellular
gases and  expulsion  of  these  gases  formed  in  fermentation.
Compensation  for  expansion and contraction of the liquid in the
tank is through the trap.  Complete anaerobiosis is  obtained  by
floating food grade mineral oil atop the liquid in the trap.

Alternatively,  the  storage  processes  described  above  can be
bypassed  and  the  olives  utilized  directly  from  the  field.
Storage is only a means of preserving olives for processing.  The
curing  of  green  and  Spanish  varieties is always with freshly
picked fruit that has not been  stored  in  salt  brine.   Curing
consists  of  treating  with dilute sodium hydroxide solutions to
hydrolyze the tannic acid.  If black ripe are  desired,  aeration
is  used  to  develop  the  black  color.   Green  ripe are cured
similarly to black ripe but without aeration.  After curing,  the
caustic  soda  is  leached from the fruit which is then canned in
salt brine.  Spanish-style olives are  cured  by  a  lactic  acid
fermentation in brine.
                                58

-------
Ripe  olives:  the olives are treated with three to eight changes
of dilute sodium hydroxide (lye) solutions.   The  first  lye  is
usually one percent in concentration and the subsequent solutions
are 1.25 percent to 1.75 percent concentration.  Between applica-
tions,  which usually last for an hour and a half to three hours,
the olives are covered with water which is vigorously aerated  by
compressed air.  Or the drained olives alternately are exposed to
air  for  four  to  2U hours.  The object of the lye treatment of
olives is to hydrolyze the bitter  principle  (oleuropein).   The
aeration at slight alkalinity oxidizes the tannins and causes the
olives  to  develop  a black color.  The olives are washed with a
number of changes of water until they  are  practically  free  of
sodium  hydroxide  (pH  7.3  to  7.8).   They  can be alternately
neutralized with sulfuric acid.  The washed  olives  additionally
are  sometimes  stored  for  one to two days in 2.5 percent brine
before they are size-graded a second time and sorted.

The green ripe olives are cured by  a  process  similar  to  ripe
olives  except they are never exposed to oxygen through aeration.
Because of the texture and  susceptability  to  bruising  of  the
Ascoloni, few are processed as Spanish olives.  (Missions because
of  their  high oil content are also generally excluded from this
process.) Sevillanos, Manzanillos, and  Barounis  are  placed  in
water  to  cool  the  fruit  prior  to  the first lye application
(mainly due to the susceptability of Sevillanos  and  Manzanillos
to  lye blister).  After the initial lye application (1.2 percent
to 1.5 percent) has penetrated to the desired depth (usually  1/6
in.  from the pit), the lye is drained.  If the processor sees it
necessary, the lye is re-fortified by a rapid draining of between
one third and one half of the lye.  If olives are  not  "cut"  as
much  as normal, however, then more lye is drained from the tank.
The new lye  is  added  immediately  to  prevent  darkening  from
excessive  air  exposure.   After  the  lye has penetrated to the
correct depth, the lye is drained.  The water is turned on  while
there  is still two or three inches of lye in the tank.  The last
of the lye is flushed out with water,  and  the  tank  plugs  are
replaced.   The  Spanish  olives  are  put on a wash water change
schedule to remove the excess lye.  It is necessary to remove the
excess lye by washing and leaching with  water  before  the  lye-
treated  fruit  is barreled and brined for fermentation.  Several
factors influence the time required to wash the excess  lye  from
the  fruit:   the  concentration  of  lye  in  original solution;
intervals between changes of wash water;  size  and  maturity  of
fruit;  chemical  composition  of  wash  water.   The tendency at
present is to shorten the washing period  in  order  to  minimize
graying  of  olive  color.   Violent  aeration must be avoided in
filling the  tanks  or  vats  with  fresh  wash  water,  for  the
dissolved   entrapped   air   may  darken  the  olives  severely.
Immediately after washing, the olives are placed  in  barrels  or
left in tanks and covered with salt brine.  Corn sugar  (dextrose)
is added to each barrel during the coopering of the barrels.  The
barrels  are then rolled into the barrel lot  (full sun exposure);
the salt concentration is constantly adjusted to maintain a  salt
concentration  of  approximately  7.5 percent to 8 percent  (25-30


                                  59

-------
salometer); and the olives are allowed  to  undergo  lactic  acid
f e rmen ta ti on.

Ripe   Whole Unpitted: from the curing vats, they are pumped to a
needle board (minute needles perforate the olives  to  facilitate
uptake  of brine while preventing wrinkle)  and then taken by belt
or in bins in one of two directions.  Large, well  formed  olives
are  size  graded,  put on a belt, and inspected; gradeouts go to
the chopped olive production line.  From  here  they  are  tumble
filled  into  cans  and topped with brine,  usually by means of an
automatic salt dispenser dropping a tablet in the can.  The  cans
are  closed  in  a  steam  flow  fitted  double  seamer,  washed,
retorted, and cooled.

Ripe Whole Pitted and Chopped: olives  to  be  canned  whole  but
pitted   are   taken   generally  in  bins,  to  a  pitter  which
mechanically removes pits from  the  fruit.   The  popularity  of
pitted  olives  is  increasing  and  at  present  accounts  for a
substantial fraction of the total  production.   The  olives  are
pitted  after  curing  and  the  second  size grading stage.  Two
different makes of  machines  align  the  olives  in  a  vertical
position.   A coring tube produces a loose cylindrical section of
pit and flesh.   A punch pin moves in from the opposite side  from
the  coring  tube  to  push  out  the pit segment.  These pitting
machines have a capacity of about 800 olives  per  minute.   They
are  then  inspected,  culls removed before filling, and the same
steps as above for whole pitted are followed.  Sliced and chopped
olives after being  mechanically  pitted  also  follow  the  same
processes as other olives.

Green  Olives (Pitted and Unitted): the processing and preserving
of the various styles of green  olives  are  the  same  as  those
mentioned above for ripe olives.

Spanish  Olives:  from  the  curing  vats,  the olives are washed,
usually by water sprays, and after inspection  and  sorting,  are
pitted through typical pitting equipment.  The olives may then be
repacked  in  barrels  for bulk sale or may be canned.  Both salt
brine and  lactic  or  acetic  acid  are  added  prior  to  final
processing.   This provides a means of preservations; the cans of
finished product are not retorted.

It is apparent from the above outline of olive processing methods
that  the  spent  brines  and  alkaline  solutions  constitute  a
considerable volume of strong wastes.  It has been estimated that
nine  olive companies in the Central Valley used 4,300,000 Ibs of
sodium chloride and 710,000 Ibs of sodium hydroxide  to  preserve
21,000  tons  of  olives in the 1961-62 season.  Some 226 million
gallons  of  water  were  discharged  during  these   operations.
Substantial  quantities of sodium salts (chloride, hydroxide)  are
used in many food processing operations.   The  disposal  of  the
saline liquid wastes from these operations, without causing water
pollution,  is  a  problem of increasing complexity.  The primary


                                 60

-------
difficulty in the disposal of saline liquid wastes  is  the  non-
biodegradable character of sodium chloride and sodium hydroxide.

A   significant  reuse  of  water  is  accomplished  through  the
recycling of the curing water by way of  the  lye  holding  tanks
(this   water  apparently  is  being  exploited  to  its  maximum
potential).   Of  the  remaining  sources  of  daily   wastewater
generation  - clean-up, pitting, cooling water - the first two do
not offer a likely area for water reuse  because  of  their  high
load qualities.  Cooling water could be reused provided it passed
through a cooling tower.

Peaches

Peaches  are the largest fruit pack in the united States.  Nearly
all U.S. production (94 percent) occurs in California, where both
cling and freestone varieties are processed.  Georgia,  Michigan,
Pennsylvania,  South  Carolina,  Virginia,  and  Washington  also
process peaches.  For the purposes of this study, thirteen plants
in California, one in Washington, one in  Virginia,  and  one  in
Pennsylvania  were visited for the collection of historical data.
In addition, a total of eighteen composite samples were collected
and analyzed to verify this data.  Peaches are processed in three
basic styles:  canned (whole, halves, diced), frozen, and  dried.
Over  90  percent  of  all peaches processed are canned, with six
percent being frozen, two percent dried,  and  one  percent  made
into  pickles,  wine,  and  brandy.   For dried peaches, refer to
separate process description of dried fruit.  The main processing
season runs from mid-July to mid-September.

There are two main varieties of peaches,  clingstone,  and  free-
stone,  and  both are essentially harvested by hand, since fruits
of  this  type  are  too  delicate  for  mechanical   harvesting.
Clingstones  are  harvested  when  ripe  (color  is generally the
determining factor) and firm.  Freestones are  harvested  several
days  before  tree ripening because it is difficult to handle the
soft, tree-ripened freestone  quickly  enough  to  avoid  serious
deterioration  between  harvesting  and  processing.  Because all
fruit on the trees does not ripen at once, several  pickings  are
usually  required.  "Pickers" place peaches into lug boxes, which
hold between 40 and 60 pounds of peaches.  These  lug  boxes  are
then  stacked  on  a  truck  and taken directly to the processor.
Peaches are also delivered to the plants in larger wooden bins.

Figure 11 shows a flow diagram for  a  typical  peach  processing
plant.   Basic  unit  processes  include:  washing, size grading,
halving/pitting, peeling, and canning.  The peaches arrive at the
plant in lug  boxes  or  bins  and  are  usually  dumped  into  a
recirculating  washwater  tank.   This  initial  wash  and  trash
removal screen remove leaves and stems and soil residues.   After
the  initial  wash,  the  peaches are usually, though not always,
sprayed with high pressure rinses to remove final residues.  Some
plants use a dry scrubber with dry roller and a fine  spray,  wet
brush  defuzzer  instead of a dump tank.  The peaches are usually


                                 61

-------
                               FIGURE  11

   TYPICAL  CLING  AND FREESTONE PEACH PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
   £
           LEAVES , TWIGS, DEBRIS
                  CULLS
   f-
            	C ULLJ5	|j
                                                        OVERFLOW , JUICE , DIRT
                                                              OVERFLOW
                                                              OVERFLOW
   ,n
                             H
    PERJODJC  OUMP, OVERFLOW .LYE
            SOLUBLES

     CONTINUAL OVERFLOW, LYE , _
    PEELS,. FRUIT SOLIDS, SOLUBLES
                                                             OVERFLOW
       CULLS
                                 CULLS


!

INSPECT








/( CULLS

-------
transported,  then,  by  water  flumes  to   size   graders   for
distribution  to  the  various  processing  lines.   Sorting  and
grading operations usually take place before  and  after  pitting
and typically, once again, after lye peeling, the main purpose of
which is to sort for maturity and blemished units.

After  the  peaches  have been washed and size graded, they enter
the cutting machines where they are halved and pitted.  Freestone
peaches are pitted on a device similar to an apricot pitter.  The
fruit is cut around the circumference.   The  action  of  rolling
followed  by  a mechanized shaker both opens the peach and shakes
the pit from the peach.  Holes in the shaker screen allow the pit
to be dry conveyed or flumed away.  Cling peaches are halved  and
pitted  simultaneously.   A  rod  with  fitted  "fins"  is thrust
through the peach pushing the pit into a conveyor.  Pits that are
fractured are automatically recycled and repitted by the machine.

Following inspection of the pitted, halved fruit the peaches  are
peeled by exposure to a hot lye solution usually followed by high
pressure  water  sprays.   The peel may alternately be removed by
rubber scrubber discs and the waste removed by dry conveyor.  The
peeled  halves  are  then  quality  inspected  with  culls  being
discarded  to solid waste.  Size grading follows with the highest
quality halves typically conveyed by flumes to filling  machines.
The  lower  quality  halves (too large or small, minor blemishes)
are transported to slicing or dicing operations and are then  re-
inspected before they are packed as sliced peaches (following the
same  process as for halves); or alternately sent as dices to the
fruit cocktail can filling  line.   Peach  halves  are  typically
tumble  filled  into containers of various sizes, topped with hot
syrup, closed with steam  flow,  retorted  (still  or  continuous
type)   and  cooled.  Peach slices and fruit coctail (a mixture of
diced peaches and pears, pineapple,  cherries,  and  grapes)  are
similarly processed.

The   significant   wastewater  streams  include  the  following:
overflow from dump tanks and various fluming  operations  located
throughout  a typical process line; overflow and periodic dumping
of caustic peelers and wash tanks; and  clean-up  of  spills  and
equipment.   The  initial  dump  tank and flume system is usually
recirculating with fresh and/or reclaimed  makeup  and  continual
overflow  to  the  gutter.   This overflow usually contains fruit
juices and  solids,  dirt,  and  debris.   Overflows  from  later
fluming  units  will  contain varying amounts of soluble organics
depending on their position in the process line and the condition
of the fruit.

Wastewater from the lye peeler and washer is the strongest of all
the waste flows.  It is the major BOD and SS contributor as  lye,
peels,  fruit  pieces, and solubles are discharged to the gutter.
Clean-up of spills on a continual  basis  and  intensive  end  of
shift  equipment washdown contribute further to the total BOD and
SS concentrations.  Dumping of lye  peelers  and  wash  and  dump
tanks  during  clean-up operations add caustic, considerable BOD,

                               63

-------
          FIGURE  12




TYPICAL PEAR PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM

BOXES OR BINS


r LEAVES , DEBRIS

DUMP TANK
OVERFLOW __
n
'
\
SIZE GRADER
! .
,1 1
| COLD STORAGE
, , f»UFBB
Ij I DUMP * *~
|i TANK
i'
\ '

'L.-^-H^i2SL.- ME.CHANICAL SOLUBLES
|l CORER
!| |

if* FRAGMENTS
'! '
ES
^



i
CAUSTIC TANK
1
WASHER -*- K'^» 1— ^^J
SOLUBLES
1
-ORES rnar~ »11TT.. SOLUBLES ^
i-r--_-= CORER— CUTTER — ---— — — — — -— — ^
1
i!
|^_ CULLS, TRIMMINGS
If
TRIM AND INSPECT
GRADE-OUTS TO
COCKTAIL
1
lj 1 > 1
!i FILL
SLICE
HEAT
i
J! SYRUP
1 '
j{ SEAM
1
|! CONTINUOUS
|1 COOK
ll 1
1 COOL .COOUNft
INSPECT
TO FRUITS
PULP
POP SALAD .,.„..

OR FRUIT COCKTAU- FINISH "sOLUBUES~^
FILL

SYRUP

BLEND TANK
SUGAR
WATER
I! WATER 1 ^
1
SOLIDS
[ HALVES]
SEAM
PASTEURIZE
________ 1 " ""• ^ ™^^^
CONTINUOUS
COOK
	 - - 	 	
FILL
	 .. 	 	 	 1 ^ ' """^
COOL
[SLICED]
64
COOLING
I
1 RETORT
: i
1 1
1 T
" 	 COOL EFFLUENT
[NECTAR]

-------
and  solids  to  the  clean-up  flow.   Pollutant  loadings  were
observed   to   be  reduced  when  the  peel  waste  was  treated
separately, especially in the use of "dry caustic peelers."

The major source of water for reuse in peach  processing  is  can
cooler  water.   After  use  in  cooling  the hot cans out of the
retort, this wastewater is still relatively uncontaminated and is
frequently reused directly as  make-up  to  initial  dumping  and
fluming  operations.   Alternatively,  this  cooling water can be
passed through cooling towers and recirculated back  to  the  can
coolers.   General  flow  rates from typical can cooler units are
quite substantial, ranging from 150  to  250  gpm.   Other  reuse
practices include continual recirculation of all dump tanks, wash
tanks,  and flumes with a low percentage of make-up and continued
overflow to waste.   Effluent  from  final  fresh  water  product
rinses  may  be  reused in primary washing stages, and wastewater
from the halve/pit machine is often recirculated to the preceding
fluming  system.   A  few  plants  have  can  cooling  water   of
sufficient  quality  to  reuse  it as a major source of the plant
clean-up water.

Pears

Approximately 94 percent of the total U.S.  production  of  pears
are  processed  in  the three Pacific coast states of California,
Washington, and Oregon, with almost two-thirds of the total  U.S.
production  being  processed  in California.  For the purposes of
this study, seven plants in California, two  in  Washington,  and
four  in  Oregon  were  visited  for the collection of historical
data.  Approximately  98  percent  of  all  processed  pears  are
canned; the remaining two percent are dried.

Figure  12  shows a typical pear process flow diagram.  There are
three varieties of pears processed in the U.S.: Bartlett,  Beurre
Box,  and Beurre D'Anjoy.  Pears do not ripen successfully on the
tree and are picked green at  what  is  called  "tree  maturity."
This  is  usually  determined  by  a  pear  pressure tester which
measures the firmness of the pear  by  recording  the  amount  of
pressure  required  to  force  a  plunger 5/16 in. into the pared
flesh of the pear.  Pears are harvested by hand  because  of  the
delicate  nature  of  the  fruit.   They  ripen  under controlled
atmosphere conditions.

Pears arrive at the plant in bins or lug  boxes,  at  which  time
they  are  usually  dumped into a recirculating washwater tank or
hydro-cooled.  This initial wash removes remaining leaf and  stem
material  and  soil,  and  cools  the  fruit (an energy-efficient
method  of  removing  field  heat).   The  pears  may   then   be
transported  to size graders where they are separated by size and
are placed in either cold storage or in a  controlled  atmosphere
until  the  desired  ripeness  is attained, sometimes a period of
several weeks.  They may alternately  go  to  the  ripening  room
without size grading.


                                 65

-------
Out  of  the ripening room, the pears are washed again and fed to
the peeling machine.   Peeling  is  accomplished  with  either  a
machine  that  peels, cores, and halves in one operation,  or with
immersion in a hot lye bath and water spray wash after which  the
pears  are  mechanically  cored  and  halved.    The  advantage of
mechanical peeling is  the  reduction  in  water  usage  and  the
ability  to  keep  peels  and cores out of wastewater flows, thus
lowering  effluent  BOD  and  SS  concentrations.   However,  the
mechanical  peeler  often  gives  a  lower yield than the caustic
peeler because the knives cut off  some  usable  fruit  with  the
peel.   After  the  pears are peeled, cored, and halved, they are
usually inspected, trimmed, and separated by quality for  halves,
slices,  or  dices   (for cocktail), or nectar.  The purpose is to
sort for size, maturity, and blemished  units.   Separations  for
quality  are  most  often  done by hand, while size separation is
done by mechanical means.  Wastes from these  operations  consist
of  whole  pieces,  miscellaneous  organics,  and  juice.   Manual
trimming operations remove unwanted portions of the product, such
as blemishes, cores, and peels.

After trimming and inspecting, the highest quality halves proceed
directly to the can filling station.   Pears  with  blemishes 'or
smaller  size  fruit  that  are  not  of sufficient quality to be
canned as halves are sent to the slicing  line.   Here  they  are
sent  through  a  mechanical  slicing machine after which another
inspection separates undesirable slices for  the  dicing  machine
and  nectar  line.   At this stage, the halves and slices proceed
through filling machines where the various sized cans are filled,
topped  with  syrup,  seamed  with  steam  flow,   sent   through
continuous  cookers, and cooled with water sprays.  The dices are
combined with peach dices, pineapple, grapes,  and cherries to  be
canned  as  fruit  cocktail.  The dices may also be combined with
over-ripe and green pears not suited for halving or slicing to be
canned as nectar.  The over-ripe pears add flavor and high  sugar
content, whereas the green fruit maintains the light color of the
final  nectar.   The  fruit is initially pre-heated to break down
the pectin in preparation for pulping.  The fruit is  pulped  and
finished  with the resultant juice entering a  blending tank where
sugar, water, and pulp are added in proper amounts.   The  nectar
is  then  pasteurized,  filled in cans, cooked in retorts or con-
tinuous cookers, and cooled with water sprays.

The major wastewater streams in pear processing are generated  in
the initial dumping and fluming operation, the lye and mechanical
peeling  wash, the can cooling system, and clean up.  The initial
dump tank and  flume  system  is  continually  recirculated  with
either  fresh  or reclaimed water make-up and continuous overflow
to the gutter.  The waste stream includes sticks,  leaves,  dirt,
and pieces of fruit.  The sytem is usually emptied once per day.

The main BOD and TSS component of the waste stream comes from the
peeler  and  following  washers.   The  strong  solution from the
peeler contains a high concentration of lye and  soluble  organic
matter.  The spray wash following the peeler is used to rinse the

                                66

-------
peel  and  excess lye off the fruit.  This continual discharge to
the gutter is the main pollutant source in the pear process.  The
major flow volume generated occurs in  the  can  cooling  process
following  retorting.   Water sprays are usually used to cool the
cans, often  in  large  volumes.   This  flow,  however,  is  not
significantly   contaminated  and  can  be  reused  in  preceding
operations as described in the next section.   Cooling  water  is
also  typically  recirculated  through  cooling towers and reused
again as cooling water.  Intensive end-of-shift clean-up as  well
as  continual equipment washdown and spill clean-up can also be a
significant suspended solids and BOD source.   Washers  and  dump
tanks  are  usually dumped during clean-up and add further solids
and soluble organics to the clean-up stream.

The major wastewater reuse is can cooler water that is  collected
and  reused  in the initial dumping and fluming operations.  This
supply is usually augmented  with  a  fresh-water  make-up  line.
Other  possible reuses include recycling of water from the cores/
cutter machines to the preceding peeling and  washing  operations
and  the  recirculation  of water in all flumes, washes, and dump
tanks.

Pickles

The preserving of cucumbers by salt and acid is called  pickling.
Cucumbers  produced  for processing in the U.S. are all processed
into one of several varieties of  pickles  or  relish.   Thirteen
states are major processors of cucumbers into pickles.  Michigan,
with  seventeen  percent  of  the  total  U.S. production, is the
leading pickle producing state, followed by  North  Carolina  and
California, with twelve percent each.  Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado,
Delaware,  Indiana,  Washington, South Carolina, and Virginia are
the other major pickle producing states.   For  the  purposes  of
this  study,  three  plants  in Delaware, two in Michigan, one in
Oregon, one in Alabama, and one in Georgia were visited  for  the
collection  of  historical  data.   In addition, a total of seven
composite samples were collected  and  analyzed  to  verify  this
data.

Within  recent  years,  a  change  has  taken place in the pickle
industry due to the introduction of fresh pack pickles.  Prior to
this development,  practically  all  cucumbers  were  salted  and
fermented  in barrels or tanks, after which they were marketed or
processed and finished.  There are two general types of  pickles,
process or salt stock pickles and fresh pack pickles.  The former
is  defined as a cucumber cured by a fermentation process using a
salt  solution.   These  process  pickles  are  cured  either  at
separate  salting  stations used strictly for curing cucumbers or
at pickle plants that cure cucumbers and also  process  and  pack
the  pickles.   Plants  of  this  type  and salting stations cure
cucumbers, in more or less the same  way,  and  this  process  is
described  below.   Process pickles are packed year round.  Fresh
pack pickles are defined as essentially pickles  that  have  been
cured  after  packing.   The  fresh  cucumbers  are packed May to

                                 67

-------
                                           FIGURE  13

                                 TYPICAL FRESH PICKLE  PROCESS
CT>
00
                                     dirt and  juices
       Juices
        Solu-
         bles
                    Slice crosswise
                                                           Culls
                            Overnight soak  in
                              dill solution
drain
(juices,
solubles)
                                                                    Inspect
                      Pack
                     in jars
Syrup
                                                                      Cap
                                                                   Pasteurize
           spillage  I

           Clean-up  '
                     I
                                                                     Cool
                                Cooling

                                 water
                                                                     Effluent
                               _-	I

-------
                                            FIGURE 14

                                TYPICAL "PROCESSED" PICKLES PROCESS
                           Fermentation
                             in brine
                I
           Dill solution
Wash and size water
                Spent
                brine
              Rinse
           Pack
UD
Tumeric-alum
  process
                                          Overflow
           PROCESSED
             DILLS
                              Cool
                            Inspection
  Cut or chop into
chunks, strips/ chips
                                 Other
                               vegetables
                                 added
                                       Finish in
                                        spiced
                                      sour vinegar
                           SOUR RELISH
                        SOUR MIXED PICKLES
                                                              I
                                         WHOLE
                                          SOUR
                                        PICKLES
                                                         Pack in
                                                        sweetened
                                                         liquor
                                           Pack in
                                            other
                                          vegetables
                                  SWEET RELISH
                               SWEET HIKED PICKLES
                                                        Finish  in
                                                        sweet tank
                                                                                     WHOLE
                                                                                     SWEET
                                                                                    PICKLES

-------
August, in  jars  or  cans,  sealed  in  a  brine  solution,   and
pasteurized.

There  are  over 36 types of pickles belonging to the process and
fresh pack pickles.  These are various dills,  sours,  sweets,   and
fresh   pack   products.    Pickles  are  packed  whole,  halved,
quartered, sliced, chopped, and in spear, cube, and chunk styles.
Most pickle plants manufacture  both  processed  and  fresh  pack
pickles  and  may  also have their own curing  tanks.   Waste loads
for these plants vary greatly depending on whether  processed  or
fresh  pack pickles are being processed.  The  process description
following explains more in depth the processes for processed  and
fresh pack pickles.

Figures  13 and 14 show typical pickle process flow diagram.   The
proper  selection  of  cucumbers  is   essential   in   obtaining
satisfactory  pickles.   The cucumbers should  be firm, sound, and
free from blemishes.  Cucumbers are  harvested  by  hand  and  by
machine.   The  trend is moving toward mechanized methods.  These
cause an additional wasteload in settleable and suspended  solids
because  of the soil and vines also collected.  The cucumbers are
either delivered to salting stations or  directly  to  processing
plants  as  soon  as possible after picking.  After delivery, the
pickles are unloaded dry to a flume and  are  washed  with  fresh
water.   The  cucumbers  are then mechanically sized, placed into
bins, and are processed immediately or stored  in coolers  for  no
more than a few days.

Fresh  pasteurized  dills, sweets, and relish  are made by placing
fresh cucumbers in glass jars, covering them with suitable  brine
or  syrup, and pasteurizating them.  Cucumbers of a suitable size
are used for making fresh sliced cucumber  pickles,  also  called
bread  and  butter pickles.  Fresh whole dills are packed tightly
into containers with the desired whole spices   and  covered  with
hot  or  cold  dill liquor containing vinegar  and salt and water.
The containers are then capped, pasteurized, and promptly cooled.
The process for Kosher dills and fermented or  Polish or Hungarian
dills is similar to other dills, but other spices, such as garlic
cloves or garlic juice or onion, are  added.   Other  fresh  pack
styles  are  sliced or chopped, washed, and then packed in liquor
or syrup depending on the particular type desired.   The  packing
operation  is  the  same  as  for process pickles.  The styles of
fresh pack pickles  have  similar  wasteloading  characteristics.
However,  the  dill  pickles that are sliced will have a somewhat
greater wasteload than whole dill pickles, and fresh pack  sweets
will  have  a  somewhat greater wasteload than products packed as
dills due to the drip loss of the sweet cover  syrup.

Cucumbers are brined in wooden vats ranging in capacity from  200
to  1,200  bushels.   The  vats are filled with fifteen to twenty
percent salt brine and green cucumbers graded  for size or  mixed,
and  are fitted with wooden board covers and keyed down firmly to
enhance the fermentation process.  Sufficient  amounts of salt and
brine are added throughout the operation to  keep  the  cucumbers

                              70

-------
covered.   The brine is generally recirculated by means of a pump
from the bottom of  the  tank  to  the  top  until  all  salt  is
dissolved.   The fermentation process requires a minimum of eight
days, but more often three to six months is  allowed.   The  scum
which  forms  on  the  top  of  the  tanks during fermentation is
removed from time to time to avoid spoiling or softening  of  the
pickles.   The  pickles  are cured when the original bright green
color has changed  to  dark  olive  green  and  the  pickles  are
translucent  and show no white spots or areas when sliced.  After
curing, the pickles are kept  usually  in  the  original  covered
tanks  or vats.  Scum is removed daily and sufficient brine added
to keep the pickles submerged at all times.  When completely  and
properly  cured,  pickles  will keep satisfactorily for a year or
more.  If kept longer, new salt is added as  needed  to  maintain
the desirable brine concentration.

Various  types  of  sweet pickle products are made from processed
pickles by a series of operations:  leaching out most of the salt
with fresh water, conditioning with  alum  and  tumeric  in  most
cases, adding vinegar, and sweetening with sugar.  The fifteen to
eighteen  percent  salt  in  cured stock is reduced to about four
percent by at least two changes of water.  In  the  last  change,
the water may be heated to increase the rate of desalting.  Whole
pickles  go  directly into vats for impregnation with vinegar and
sugar syrups, whereas pickles destined to become  chips,  relish,
and  so  on  are first sliced to the desired degree, usually in a
rotating cutter which simultaneously cuts the pickles and  sprays
the pieces with a jet of water.  After the "sweetening" tank, the
pickles  are  packed  into  jars, covered with vinegar and syrup,
capped, pasteurized, and cooled.  The process for sour pickles is
similar to that for the sweet pickles, except for the  fact  that
the pickles are impregnated with a vinegar and herb mixture which
contains only a small amount of sugar.

The  processing  of dill pickles is very similar to that for sour
pickles.   Dill  herb  is  added  to  the  brine   tanks   during
fermentation   (producing  natural  dill pickles) or dill-flavored
vinegar is used to impregnate regularly brined pickles  (producing
process dill pickles).  Dill pickles can  vary  from  very  large
whole  cucumbers  to  finely  chopped  relish.   Some  are sliced
lengthwise.  Many are sliced crosswise.

Sources of wastewater have been indicated on Figures 35  and  36.
In  addition  to  these  wastes, significant amounts of water are
used in conditioning the vats and in clean-up  operations.   Lime
water  from  "sweetening"  the tanks is dumped about once a year.
Fermentation and sweetening vats are occasionally dumped and  are
high in wasteload concentration and salt content.  Daily clean-up
operations also generate a considerable amount of wastewater.

Spent  brine  is  a  major  contributor  to the wasteload.  Brine
recycling is a new technique to recover salt plus  reduce  waste-
load.   Several  plants are experimenting with this operation and
are  currently  in  the  pilot  stages.   One  plant  using  this

                                71

-------
                          FIGURE  15

          TYPICAL PINEAPPLE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM


A 	 SHELLS_TO 	
N BY-PRolttUCTS

1
INSPECT /
TRIM
1
SLICE/CHUNK
TIDBIT

BULK -DUMP


SIZE GRADE



GINACA
CONTOUR
PEELER

TRIMMINGS

SMALL SIZE

i

>J_SHELLS TO
Ni£ PRODUCTS"
PULP, CORES
, JUICES
,J_PULP TO
^BY-PRODUCTS

PIN-O-MAT

DISINTEGRATE

PRESS

HEAT
                                                              CONDENSATE
                                           PULP TO
                                         NBY-PRODUCTS


                                    GRADE OUTS.k

                                    DEFECTS TOr
                                    DEFECTS TO I
                                    BY-PRODUCTS
                                    CAN WASH WATER
                                       RECIRCULATE
                                      	J
                                                                      EFFLUENT
[SLICE/CHUNK/
    TIDBIT]
[CRUSHED]
[JUICE]
                                   72

-------
technique  was  visited, and the recycling steps are described as
follows.  After fermentation, the pickles are removed for further
processing.  The spent brine is then recycled to  a  fermentation
holding  vat  where  residual  sugars  in  the brine solution are
oxidized by lactobacillus  bacteria.   Retention  time  for  this
anerobic  process  is about one week.  After the sugars have been
consumed, the spent brine  is  passed  through  a  heat  exchange
process.   At  this  time, lime is added to the brine solution to
adjust the pH.  The spent brine is then recycled back to  a  salt
tank  where  salt  is added to bring the brine solution back to a
100° salometer.  This recovered brine solution is  then  recycled
back   to   the  curing  vats  where  the  process  is  repeated.
Recirculation of flume water is common.  Cooling  water  is  also
reused in a counterflow principle, then discharged.

Pineapple

Most of the U.S. production of pineapple occurs in three Hawaiian
plants,   although   it   is   also  processed  in  Puerto  Rico.
Approximately two thirds  of  the  1,095,700  tons  of  pineapple
produced in 1971 was canned, and the remaining one third was made
into  juice.   The  amount of processed pineapple in the U.S. has
been declining the past few years because  most  processors  have
been  moving  their  plants  to the Phillippines or other foreign
countries.  For the purpose of this study, three pineapple plants
were visited for the collection of historical data.  In addition,
a total of five composite samples were collected and analyzed  to
verify this data.

The  generation  of pineapple plants is started with the planting
of green crowns that are removed from the mature fruit  prior  to
the   harvest.   The  ground  is  first  fumigated  for  nematode
prevention, the crown is placed in a  "cutout"  hole  in  a  long
narrow  continous piece of plastic.  The bottom part of the crown
is covered with dirt, a shot of  fertilizer  is  given,  and  the
growth  cycle  is  renewed.  The planting is mostly done by hand,
but machinery has  been  developed  to  automatically  plant  the
crowns.   Each  plant  yields  a  single  fruit  which matures in
eighteen  to   twenty-four   months   depending   upon   climatic
conditions.  After harvest, the plant will send up a sucker which
in  approximately  twelve  to  thirteen more months, will yield a
second fruit (ratoon crop).  This fruit is generally  smaller  in
size  than  the  first picking, but is still quite acceptable for
processing.  The plant may be further allowed to produce one more
fruit (second ratoon)  which in turn is usually smaller  than  the
first  ratoon.   All  fruit  processed is of the Cayenne variety.
Harvesting is a hand operation.  The crowns  are  "snapped"  from
the top of the fruit and saved for planting.  The mature fruit is
then  removed  from  the  plant,  placed  on  a boom (spread over
several rows at a time)  which feeds a  bulk  container,  and  the
fruit delivered to the plant immediately thereafter.

Figure  15  shows  a  typical flow diagram for a pineapple plant.
The pineapples are gently "rolled" from the  bulk  bins  and  are


                                 73

-------
initially  size  graded by being passed over a series of spinning
screw-rollers which both  convey  the  pineapple  and  allow  the
smaller  fruit  to  drop through to another conveyor.  Conveyance
can be accomplished by rapid moving flumes or by  conveyor  belts
fitted  with  water sprays.  An operator at this station equipped
with TV monitoring apparatus, controls the flow of fruit into the
plant.  The operator views the different slice, chunk, and  juice
operations  and  varies the proportion of fruit into the plant as
needed by selecting the various available sizes for processing.

The fruit can be prepared for canning in one of  three  different
ways.   The  first method employed by all processors is by use of
the Ginaca machine, which removes a cylinder of fruit  along  the
long  vertical axis of the pineapple.  Both ends are trimmed, the
inner core removed, and the cylinder is conveyed  to  a  trimming
line.   Because  the Ginaca machine does make an even cylindrical
cut, however, there is much flesh left  adhering  to  the  shell.
Another  function  of this machine "eradicates" this fruit which,
combined with the cores and juices (from cutting) , is conveyed to
the beverage juice operation.   The  shells  are  conveyed  by  a
separate  system  for  by-product  processing  (see more detailed
explanation below).

The second method of preparing pineapple is  by  use  of  an • FMC
Contour  Peeler.  This device, rather than remove a "cylinder" of
pineapple, is designed to  follow  the  shell  curvature  of  the
fruit,  thus aiding in fruit recovery.  The crown, butt ends, and
cores are removed automatically to complete the trimming.   Cores
and  shells  are  conveyed  to  by-products.  The prepared fruit,
however, because it is not in a shape to yield  uniform  diameter
slices,  is  utilized  mainly  for  the  production of chunks and
tidbits.  The third processing line is a direct  result  of  size
grading.  The smallest size fruit are conveyed directly to either
a  citromat  or  pin-a-mat machine that first slices the fruit in
half, lengthwise, rips the flesh (cores included)  from the shells
and finally results in two product streams -  fruit  to  a  juice
line and shells to by-products.

Once  prepared  by either the Ginaca or Contour Peeler, the fruit
is conveyed to trimming tables where careful hand  trimming  with
special  knives  is  diligently  performed.   Blemishes  such  as
bruises or adhering shell material are removed,  and  the  fruit,
still  intact  at  this  point, is conveyed for either slicing or
chunks/tidbit sizing.  Trimmings are conveyed separately  to  the
juice  line.   As mentioned above, only the Ginaca lines are used
for finished product slices although the chunk and tidbit  pieces
are sliced before being forced through a die and reduced to final
desired  chunk/tidbit  size.   The slicing is done automatically,
after which a very careful inspection is made.  Only  the  select
and  properly  mature slices are accepted for final pack.  Grade-
outs and fruit of varying maturity are conveyed  to  the  crushed
line.   Slices  for canning are generally packed by hand into the
desired can size,  but  automatic  can  packers  are  being  suc-
cessfully utilized by at least one processor.  Chunks and tidbits

                               74

-------
from  either the Ginaca or Contour Peeler may be filled by either
a tumbler-type filler or by a revolving table-top  pocket  filler
fitted  with  a  brush-off device.  All cans are filled to weight
specifications.  Once filled into cans, the fruit is  topped  off
with   varying   concentrations  of  hot  syrup  (see  by-product
description).  The cans are closed  under  steam  flow  and  then
retorted  by  either  continuous pressure or atmospheric cookers.
Water cooling to approximately 100°F is the  final  step  in  the
process.

As  mentioned  above,  the crushed line is fed from both overflow
and sortouts from either the sliced or chunk lines.   The  entire
flow is conveyed through a crusher or dicer and undergoes another
inspection  at  which time defects are removed and transferred to
either a juice line or by-product conveyer.   The  flow  is  then
pasteurized and conveyed to a heated storage tank (or alternately
heated in thermal screws)  from which cans are filled via a piston
or  displacement  type  fitter.   It should be noted that in both
crushed and juice canning, the temperature of  the  pineapple  is
usually   raised   in  two  successive  steps  to  a  final  fill
temperature of approximately 200°F.   This  is  done  to  prevent
flavor degradation by rapid exposure to high temperatures.  After
being  hot  filled, the cans are sent through a continuous cooker
or held for a few minutes at this temperature and  water  cooled,
typically by a spray cooler.

The  make-up  flows  for juice have been described in the various
above sections.  All  fruit  destined  for  juice  is  first  run
through  a  disintegrator, then through a "rough" pressing opera-
tion during which most of the fibrous material  is  expelled  for
by-products  with  the  resulting  juice being pumped to, in some
cases, a finisher to further eliminate fiber, or  directly  after
heating,  to  a  centrifuge  which  eliminates  remaining fibrous
material.  In some cases,   these  centrifuged  solids  enter  the
waste  stream,  while  in  others, these are saved for by-product
processing.  The juice is then held and concentrated to a desired
brix level, heated for a second time, hot-filled,  seamed,  held,
and  cooled.   Alternately,  a  small portion of the juice may be
further  concentrated,  filled,  closed,  and  frozen  for  juice
concentrate.

Approximately  55  percent  of the finished pack is utilized in a
typical processing plant.   This  necessitates  an  elaborate  by-
products  operation.   The  three  main  by-products produced are
livestock bran, syrup, and alcohol.  Some  enzymes  may  also  be
recovered.   Typically,  the  entire  line  of  final grade-outs,
juices, shell materials, expelled  fibrous  material  from  juice
pressings,  etc.  are  merged  into one line.  The entire mass is
ground, heated, force pressed, or screened and fine filtered with
the juice and solids going in different  directions  for  further
processing.   The  juice  is run through a series of ion exchange
media to remove various acids, gums, enzymes, etc.  The syrup  is
then  concentrated and used for the filling operations of the raw
processed pineapple.  Solid sugar is added  as  make-up  whenever

                               75

-------
                          FIGUKE  16




             TYPICAL PLUH PROCESS  PLOW DIAGRAM
                                              [FROZEN HALVES]
SOLIDS
                                                                EFFLUENT
                                   76

-------
necessary  to achieve a desired brix concen-tration.  Alternately,
the juice, after  being  fine  filtered,  can  be  fermented  and
finally  distilled  as 190 proof ethyl alcohol.  All solid wastes
generated from  either  process  are  run  through  kiln  dryers,
reduced  to approximately 10 percent moisture, and sold as cattle
feed.

The characterization of pineapple effluent streams can  basically
be  divided  into three types:  (1)  high volume, high load wastes
usually consisting of fluming, washing, and clean-up  water;  (2)
can  cooling  water - high volume, low load, and;  (3) by-products
condensor water - high volume, low load, brackish  (salt)  water.
All  three  of the processors divide their wastes in at least two
and sometimes three individual plant effluent streams.   A  major
water  volume  variation between processors occurs at the initial
washing operations depending upon whether the fruit is flumed  or
transported  by  conveyor  belt.  Constant floor clean-up to keep
the acids from attacking the floors is practiced and generates  a
considerable  volume  from each processor.  Other cannery sources
include standard volume generations such as  can  washers,  steam
flow  condensate,  etc.   The  largest  volume  of  water used in
processing pineapple is that for can  cooling.   This  is  always
fresh,  potable, chlorinated water and in two of the canneries is
recirculated and used as make-up water for  the  initial  washing
operations.     Similarly,    the    by-products   operations
specifically, the production of sugar -  uses  large  volumes  of
condenser water.  This water is usually taken from brackish wells
and  with  the exception of being natural salt brine, is low load
water.   The  principle  area  for  reuse   of   water   is   the
recirculation of can cooling water to provide make-up for initial
washings.

Plums

Approximately  two-thirds  of  the total U.S. production of plums
(other than prunes) is processed in Michigan, with the  remainder
processed  primarily  in Oregon and Washington.  For the purposes
of this study, five plants in Michigan, four in Oregon,  and  one
in Washington were visited for the collection of historical data.
Approximately  82  percent  of  all  processed  plums (other than
prunes)  are canned, with the remainder being frozen.  Prunes  are
discussed   as  a  dried  fruit.   Plums  are  usually  harvested
mechanically by shaking the tree; the fruit falls onto canvas and
is funneled onto a conveyor and  into  field  boxes.   Plums  for
fancier  packs  are  picked  by  hand and ripened at the plant in
temperature and humidity controlled warehouses.

Figure 16 shows a flow diagram  for  a  typical  plum  processing
plant.   Upon arrival at the plant,  plums are usually dumped into
a washing tank which uses a riffle board to separate the  leaves,
twigs,  and  loose  dirt.   The  plums  are usually given a high-
pressure water rinse as they leave the washer.   In  addition  to
this  first  washing, the plums may also be air cleaned to remove
leaves, twigs, and other debris.  Sizing is normally accomplished

                                 77

-------
                           FIGURE   17
              TYPICAL  RAISIN  PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
                                     BOX
         SAND , CHAFF, STEMS
                                 DRY SCREEN
AIR
SEPARATE
CAP
STEM
SIZE
GRADE
                                            RECIRCULATE
                                                    SPILLAGE, SOLUBLES
                                                       OVERFLOW
                                                       SOLU BLES
                                                       OVERFLOW
                                                               CLEAN-UP
                                                               SPILLAGE

SOLIDS
EFFLUENT
                                    78

-------
by a mechanical shaker with perforated holes.  Sizing is  uaually
done  to separate the fruit for canning whole or for distribution
to the pitting line for plum  halves.   Plums  to  be  pitted  or
canned   whole   are   usually   sent  through  a  destemming  or
"eliminator" operation.  This removes any adhering stems,  twigs,
etc.  prior  to  either  final  size  grading  or halving.  Final
inspection, done by hand, separates  culls  and  defective  units
from the flow of product before filling and preserving.

Plums  may be either canned or frozen.  Those fruits to be canned
whole are  tumble  filled  into  cans,  topped  with  hot  syrup,
exhausted,  seamed, retorted, and cooled.  The plums to be frozen
are halved on a machine similar to one found on an apricot  line.
The  fruit is cut in half by small saw blades protruding from the
bottom of a shallow trough.  As the fruit rolls over the  trough,
a slice is made around the circumference, and subsequent tumbling
and  shaking  loosen  the pit.  The pit falls through openings in
the shaker, and the fruit is conveyed to an inspection line where
remaining pits are removed by hand.  The fruit is given  a  final
wash  and  inspection and is then either frozen in bulk (30 pound
tins)  or by IQF.

The principle wastewater generators in terms of  volume  are  the
washing  and  can cooling operations.  With the exception of some
dust and debris in the washing operation, however, this  effluent
is  relatively  weak  in pollutants.  Halving and pitting, on the
other hand, can contribute significant strengths to the  effluent
streams.  However, wastewater volume and subsequent loadings have
been  successfully  reduced  by  replacing  flumes  (for pits and
halved fruit) with dry conveyors.  Plums  are  very  acidic;  and
these  juices  were  observed in at least one plant to require pH
adjustment prior to final discharge.  The  principle  sources  of
water  reuse  and  recirculation  are  the can cooling waters and
closed hydraulic transport systems which were observed at several
of the plants.  These waters can  be  reused  provided  they  are
chlorinated to prevent microbial growth.

Raisins

Approximately  25  percent  of  the U.S. grape production is made
into raisins, the  great  majority  of  which  are  processed  in
California.   The proportion of grapes going to raisin production
was 969,000 tons in 1973.  For the purposes of this  study,  four
plants   in   California  were  visited  for  the  collection  of
historical data.

Figure 17 shows a typical raisin process flow diagram.  There are
several types of grapes processed  into  raisins;  the  principal
varieties  are  Thompson  Seedless  and  Muscate.   Natural-dried
raisins are hand picked (August in California) from the  vine  in
bunches  and  set  on  paper to be dried in the sun (two to three
weeks).  After the raisins have dried to a  moisture  content  of
nine  to  twelve percent.  They are loaded into "sweat" boxes and
shipped  to  the  processing  plant.   Golden  Bleach   (Thompson


                               79

-------
                        FIGURE   18




          TYPICAL STRAWBERRY PROCESS PLOW DIAGRKM
SOLIDS
                                                              EFFLUENT
                                80

-------
variety)  raisins  are  hand  picked  in  bunches from the vines,
dipped in 0.5 percent hot lye solution for three to six  seconds,
sulfured  for four hours, dried (sun or forced air)  to a moisture
content of nine to twelve percent, and  stored  in  sweat  boxes.
Soda-dipped  raisins are processed the same as Golden Bleach, but
are not sulfured.  From this point, the processing is the same as
for natural-dried raisins.

Raisins are processed by a series of screenings,  stemmings,  and
air  separations.   In the screenings, the raisins are blown over
screens where the loose dirt and debris are  removed.   They  are
then  stemmed  and  screened again to remove the raisins from the
particles.  The raisins are then blown  over  an  air  separator.
The heavier berries fall through the air blast to a conveyor belt
which  carries  them  to  another  air separator.  The process is
repeated  until  light-weight  particles,  including  small   and
inferior  raisins and cap stems (the stems usually go to a cattle
feed  lot)r  are  removed.   Small  raisins  may  then  go  to  a
distillery or be packed for use in cereal or bakery products.
                           »
The  raisins  are  next  washed  and  sent  through  a dewatering
operation which removes the excess surface water.  They  then  go
through  another stemming operation to remove residual cap stems.
Following the final stemming  operation,  the  raisin's  moisture
content  is  checked  and  may  be  raised  by water sprays  (to a
maximum of eighteen percent).  The raisins are  then  sorted  and
inspected  for  size and quality.  The quality sort is usually by
hand, and until recently the size sort has  been  done  by  hand.
There is now a mechanical sorter which can handle this operation.
After  sorting, the fruit is mechanically packaged and stored for
shipment.

Because of the requirement to maintain the fruit below a  maximum
moisture  content of eighteen percent, the amount of water coming
into contact  with  the  fruit  is  kept  to  a  minimum.   As  a
consequence,  the  major  steps in raisin processing are dry, and
the principal sources of wastewater stem from the  fruit  washing
and  plant  clean-up  operations.   The  wash  water is used in a
closed loop system to  pump  the  raisins  to  a  second  washing
operation.   The  water  from  the  "optional sprays for moisture
control" is also recycled to the wash water tanks.

Strawberries

Strawberries are the nation's leading  frozen  fruit.   They  are
grown  and processed in nearly every section of the country.  The
leading strawberry-producing state  is  California,  but  Oregon,
Washington, and Michigan are also important.  For the purposes of
this study, three plants in California, six in Oregon, and one in
Washington  were  visited  for the collection of historical data.
In addition, a total of ten composite samples were collected  and
analyzed  to  verify  this data.  Because strawberries lose their
fresh appearance, take on  a  weak  neutral  color,  shrink,  and
become  soft  and placid when canned, almost all strawberries are

                                 81

-------
either sold fresh, made into jams or preserves,  or  frozen.    Of
the  strawberries  produced  for  freezing,  about 13 percent are
frozen whole and 57  percent  are  sliced.   Figure  18  shows  a
typical strawberry process flow diagram.  Nearly all strawberries
are  harvested  by  hand into small, square, fiberboard boxes.  A
mechanical harvester has been used but with limited acceptance by
the industry because it damages the  perennial  strawberry  plant
and  is not selective to the varying maturity rates of the fruit.
Stemming is typically done manually at the time of picking.

Strawberries are washed and  inspected  after  unloading  at  the
plant.   In  a  typical  operation, these are shaker-type washers
which immerse the strawberries and gently agitate and  move  them
across  a  riddle  where  leaves,  caps, stems, berry pieces, and
foreign materials are  removed.   Strong  sprays  of  water  then
remove  dirt  that  may  cling to the berries.  Some plants use a
destemmer at this point to remove any adhering stems  or  leaves.
The  berries  may  be  recycled  back through the destemmer after
inspection.  Less frequently the washer is a shallow tank with an
inclined  perforated  conveyor  which  carries  the  berries   to
overhead sprays for washing.  These sprays are generally directed
through screens to break their force and therefore prevent injury
to  the  fruit.  From the washer the fruit is carried by conveyor
belt to an inspection belt, where culls and remaining leave's  are
removed.  The fruit then passes through a sizing machine (riddles
more  often  than  seives to protect fruit quality)  and a sorting
belt where culls  which  have  escaped  previous  inspection  are
discarded;  and the best fruits are separated for whole and fancy
packs.

Those strawberries graded for  whole  production  are  placed  on
belts,  inspected,  sugar-added,  and  frozen.   They may also be
taken directly from  the  size  grader,  inspected,  individually
quick  frozen,  and  packaged.   Those  strawberries that are too
large or small for whole or sliced production are usually  pureed
in  a  large  "ribbon"  type mixer to which sugar has been added.
The agitation of all ingredients produces  the  desired  texture.
The product is then packaged and frozen.

The  principal  volume  sources  of wastewater generation are the
washing and clean-up operations.  Slicing and filling  operations
produce  some  juice and spillage.  These go to the waste stream,
but the volume is  small.   Clean-up  operations  can  contribute
significantly  to  the  wasteloads  because  of  the  sugar  used
throughout the plant.  The clean-up  volumes  wash  these  wastes
directly into the main plant effluent.  Wastewater reuse has been
of  relatively  minor  importance as a water conservation method.
However, crate wash water as well as berry wash water  have  been
utilized for recirculation on a limited basis.

Tomatoes

Tomato  products  are  the  leading canned vegetable items in the
United  States.   Approximately  two-thirds  of  the  total  U.S.

                                82

-------
production   is   processed  in  California  with  the  remainder
processed primarily in Ohio, Indiana, New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,
and  Michigan.   For  the  purposes  of  this study, 27 plants in
California, seven in Ohio, one in Iowa, eleven in Indiana, one in
Illinois, one in Florida, three in Texas, one in Georgia, and one
in Alabama were visited for the collection  of  historical  data.
In  addition,  a total of eleven composite samples were collected
and analyzed to verify this data.  Approximately ten  percent  of
all  processed  tomatoes  go  into  juice and ten percent go into
canned whole tomatoes.  The remaining 80 percent is used  in  the
production of tomato catsup, paste, sauce, and puree.

Many  varieties  of  tomatoes  have  been developed to facilitate
harvesting, resist climatic conditions, and  increase  production
yields.    Field   labor  shortages  in  California  led  to  the
development of varieties  that  mature  more  uniformly  and  are
harvested  by  machine  with  a single pass through a field.  The
harvester undercuts the vines, lifts  the  plant,  separates  the
tomatoes  from  the  vine,  and returns the plant material to the
ground.  Often, a crew rides the harvester to  additionally  hand
separate  cull material.  Tomatoes are loaded from the harvesters
directly  into  wooden  bins  or  gondolas  and  trucked  to  the
processing   plant.    It  is  reported  that  mechanical  tomato
harvesting in comparison to hand picking increases the amounts of
soil and organic  solids  included  with  the  raw  product,  and
results  in  a higher percentage of damaged tomatoes delivered to
the processing plant.  In those tomato growing areas  outside  of
California,  hand harvesting into lug boxes is the more prevalent
harvest method.  Reasons for this  are  generally  smaller  field
sizes    (economics),    rolling    terrain   (topography) ,   and
unpredictable weather.

Figure 19 shows a flow  diagram  for  a  typical  tomato  canning
plant.  Separate processing lines are shown for the manufacturing
of  canned  tomatoes,  tomato  juice,  and other tomato products,
e.g., paste, puree, catsup, etc.   The  tomatoes  arrive  at  the
plant in gondolas  (bulk), bins (bulk), or individual lug boxes at
which time they are usually dumped into a recirculating washwater
tank or a combination of recirculated water flumes and dewatering
screens.   This  initial wash removes some of the remaining leafy
and stem material and most  of  the  soil  residues,  seeds,  and
pesticide  residues.    After  initial  washing  the  tomatoes are
sprayed with high pressure rinses to remove final residues.   The
U.S.   Department   of  Agriculture,  Western  Regional  Research
Laboratory, Albany, California, in cooperation with EPA and  NCA,
during 1973 conducted experiments with rubber disc scrubbers as a
mechanical  aid  to  washing  tomatoes  at  a processing plant in
Hayward, California.    Initial  results  show  significant  water
volume  savings  with  very little loss in washing effectiveness.
The tomatoes are usually transported by  water  flumes  from  the
washers  to  size  graders where they can be separated for use in
either whole-pack, juice, or  sauce  products.   Flume  transport
requires  large  quantities  of  water  and  results  in  greater
leaching of organics into the wastewater.   Another  method  used


                                 83

-------
                         FIGURE  19




              TYPICAL TOMATO PROCESS FLOW  DIAGRAM
STEMS, VINES, ETC..
r~
II
II CULLS
I /h 	
1
i
i
i
RECIRCULATE
L
1
INSPECT
1
LYE
PEEL
1
WASH
1
INSPECT
1
FILL
1
JUICE
1
SEAM
1
RETORT

BOXES OR
BINS


DUMP
TANK
1
FLUMES
	 1
SIZE
GRADE


MUD , JUICES
OVERFLOW ' !
OVERFLOW _ |
MUD , SOLIDS




POMACE ^1 =

_COOLING ^
WATER

/CULLS -
N ~

X.
PRESS


1
1 	
( OPTIONAL )


INSPECT
1
1
1
1 	 1
	 ' SPRAT
, 	 " Ul A « U .
CHOP
1
HEAT
— ^_ _ I ^ ^ _ „_
PULP

FINISH
^ S

1
PEEL^LVE '
SOL03LES ^
1
1
1
PILLASE _|
CLEAN-UP _J

PASTEURIZE


FILL


SEAM


coot-

f
FORMULATE .
COOK —



, 1
* 	 1
] CONOENSATE |
FILL
1
COOLINC
WAT€R
SEAM

RETORT
COOLING
WATER
  \
  II
  II
 1.
SOLIDS
                       ( JUICE )
         ( CONCENTRATE )
[WHOLE  PACK]
[PRODUCTS]
                                                          t
                                                       EFFLUENT
                              84

-------
for  transportation  in  recent  years  has been a combination of
roller conveyors fitted with water sprays.  This method  has  the
advantage  that the tomatoes are constantly rotated to facilitate
sorting and cull removal.  Sorting  and  grading  operations  may
take place more than once in the process.  The purpose is to sort
for   size,   maturity,   peel   removal,  and  blemished  units.
Separations for quality are most often done by hand.  Wastes from
these operations consist of whole pieces, miscellaneous organics,
and juice.  Trimming operations remove unwanted portions  of  the
product, such as blemishes and damaged areas.  Blemish removal is
done  by  hand  and  results  in  wastes consisting of pieces and
juice.

Since canned tomatoes constitute only ten percent of  the  tomato
pack,  the remaining 90 percent is processed as described in this
section.  The cleaned and size separated  tomatoes,  as  well  as
shape and color rejects from the "whole pack" line, are typically
run  through the "hot break" process.  This usually consists of a
chopper or disintegrator (with steam injection)  for  comminution,
followed  by exposure of the product to agitating stream coils to
prevent the breakdown of pectins.  The product is  then  normally
pumped  to  holding  tanks  from which the various style consumer
products are made.  To make tomato juice, the  product  is  taken
from  the  holding  tank  and  more  completely reduced by mills,
pulpers, and "finishers" to eliminate skins and  seeds  (pomace).
The  juice is then typically homogenized, deaerated, pasteurized,
and "hot-filled" into various sizes  and  styles  of  containers,
held for several minutes, and cooled.

The manufacturing steps for tomato paste and puree are similar to
those  for  juice  up  to and including the final finishers.  The
macerated product, however, is then pumped  to  concentrators  or
evaporators  where  the desired consistency is achieved.  This is
usually accomplished under partial vacuum to maintain  acceptable
color and flavor standards.  Resultant flows from the evaporation
process  are  normally  then  pasteurized,  hotfilled,  held  for
several minutes, and cooled.  Alternately,  the  product  may  be
hot-filled,  retorted and cooled.  Products such as tomato sauce,
catsup, and other related items are made by adding various  spice
formulations  and  additives to a puree or more concentrated form
as a base.  Method of processing is either  pasteurization,  hot-
fill, hold and cool, or hot-fill retort, and cool.

The  process flow for whole pack tomatoes is essentially the same
as described above in terms  of  initial  washing,  sorting,  and
grading.  The tomatoes at this point, however, are peeled usually
by  exposure  to  a  heated  lye  (eighteen percent) solution for
approximately one minute.  The peels are subsequently removed  by
either  high  pressure cold water sprays or rubber scrubber discs
followed by water sprays.  The peeled, whole  tomatoes  are  then
typically  conveyed  by water flume to hand pack filling machines
where the various size cans are filled, topped  with  hot  juice,
seamed, retorted, and cooled.  The hot lye peeling operation is a
major  source  of  alkalinity  (resulting high effluent pH), high

                                 85

-------
temperatures, BOD, and  suspended  solids.    Elimination  of  the
peeling  operation  in  the  manufacture of tomato products other
than canned is the major reason  why  pollutant  generation  from
manufacture  of canned tomatoes is significantly higher than from
other tomato products.

The  significant  wastewater  streams  include   the   following:
overflow  from  dump tanks and various fluming operations located
throughout a typical process line; overflow and periodic  dumping
of  caustic  peelers  and  wash  tanks;  can cooling and condenser
water; and clean-up of spills and equipment.   The  initial  dump
tank  and flume system is usually recirculating with fresh and/or
reclaimed makeup and continual  overflow  to  the  gutter.   This
overflow usually contains fruit juices and small solids, dirt and
debris.   Overflows from later fluming units will contain varying
amounts of soluble organics depending on their  position  in  the
process line and the condition of the fruit.

Wastewater from the lye peeler and washer is the strongest of all
the  waste flows.  It is the major BOD and SS contributor as lye,
peels, fruit pieces, and solubles are discharged to  the  gutter.
Can  cooling  and condenser water contribute significantly to the
final volume of wastewater but are  usually  relatively  free  of
contaminants.   Unless  a  cooling tower is utilized, their major
effect on the effluent is from their high temperature.    It  must
be  realized, however, that contamination with volatiles from the
tomatoes  results  in  a  significant  BOD  load  in   evaporator
condenser  water.  In addition, level control problems may result
in solids carry-over from evaporators.  Clean-up of spills  on  a
continual  basis  and  intensive  end-ofshift  equipment washdown
contribute further  to  the  total  BOD  and  SS  concentrations.
Dumping  of  lye  peelers and wash and dump tanks during clean-up
operations adds caustic, considerable  BOD,  and  solids  to  the
clean-up  flow.   Caustic  may  also be used as a cleaning agent.
The degree of damage to the tomatoes as  received  at  the  plant
exerts  considerable  influence on the degree of contamination of
transport and wash water.  Other significant factors are time  of
harvest,  maturity  of  fruit, variety of tomato, degree of field
processing,  and  field-to-plant  transport  time  and  distance.
Considerable  solid  waste  results  from the various pulping and
finishing processes.  This waste may either be removed dry or  be
transported  by  water.  The latter results in considerable added
wastewater load.  In the course of  products  manufacturing,  the
use   of   vinegar   adds   substantially  to  the  risk  of  BOD
contamination through spillage, equipment washup, or condensation
of vapors from  hot  processes.   Additional  condensers  may  be
required  for  deaeration of the product or for odor control when
required.

The major sources of water for reuse in tomato processing are can
cooler water and condenser water.  After use in cooling hot cans,
the cooler wastewater is still relatively uncontaminated  and  is
sometimes  passed through cooling towers and recirculated back to
the can coolers.  A recycle system for condenser water, utilizing

                              86

-------
evaporation water from the tomato concentration process  is  also
frequently  used,  but  some  fresh water make-up and waste water
overflow are usually necessary.  Other  reuse  practices  include
continual recirculation of all dump tanks, wash tanks, and flumes
with a low percentage of make-up and continued overflow to waste.
Effluent  from  final fresh water product rinses may be reused in
primary washing stages.  A few plants have can cooling  water  of
sufficient quality to reuse as a major source of the plant clean-
up water.

Asparagus

Asparagus   processing  is  performed  in  several  states,  with
California leading in production with 43  percent  of  the  total
pack.   Other states producing a significant crop are Washington,
Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and  Oregon.   For  the
purposes  of  this  study,  seven  plants  in  California, one in
Delaware, one in Michigan, and three in Illinois were visited  to
obtain  historical  information.   In  addition,  a  total of six
automatic composite samples were collected and analyzed to verify
this data.  Of the 98,500 tons of asparagus processed in 1972, 37
percent was frozen and the  remaining  63  percent  canned.   The
recent   trend   has   been  toward  increased  frozen  asparagus
production.  In recent years, green asparagus  has  comprised  70
percent of the total pack and the white variety 30 percent.  Both
crreen  and white asparagus are packed in spears, tips, and center
cuts, with spears representing approximately 75  percent  of  the
total production.  The asparagus processing season runs from late
March  through  the  middle  of  June, thus preceding most of the
large fruit and vegetable packs.

Both the white and the green  varieties  are  harvested  by  hand
using a long handled, sharp, chisel shaped tool.  White asparagus
stalks  are  cut off six inches below the ground just as the tips
are breaking the surface of the ground.  Their white color is due
to the absence of chlorophyll in the cells.  For the  green,  the
stalks  are  allowed  to grow from H to 6 inches above the ground
and are then cut  off  slightly  below  the  surface.   The  only
difference  between the "white" and "green11 varieties is the time
of harvest.  With new beds or fields, a cutting  can  usually  be
made  early  in  the season of the second year after planting the
roots.  The first year of cutting usually  yields  from  five  to
seven  hundred  pounds  per  acre.  The quantity will double each
year for the next four years; after five years,  the  yield  will
average  from  six  to  eight  thousand pounds per acre.  A well-
established bed which receives good cultivation and fertilization
should produce profitable crops  for  fifteen  to  twenty  years.
Asparagus  changes  in  structure  very rapidly after it has been
cut.  It rapidly becomes more  fibrous  and  takes  on  a  bitter
flavor  so  that  it  is  necessary  to  handle  it promptly.  In
California, where there are fields of several hundred acres each,
it is customary to have a central station where  the  "grass"  is
thoroughly  washed  within  an  hour or so after removal from the
ground.  The white or bleached grades will  stain  very  rapidly,

                                 87

-------
                               FIGURE 20
             TYPICAL ASPARAGUS PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                                            BUTTS TO SOLID WASTE
    OVERFLOW
   r-«l	
   |  SOLIDS,
   I   DIRT
EFFLUENT
                                      88
                                                                        EFFLUENT

-------
and  once  this stain is formed, it is impossible to wash it off.
This stain is not so noticeable on the green grades.  The  stalks
are  placed  in  lug  boxes  in  the  field  with tip ends in one
direction.  The tips must  always  be  carefully  protected  from
breaking  or  mashing  because  the  value  of  the stalk depends
largely on the perfect condition of the tip.  The boxes are  then
trucked to the factory.

The  operations  for processing white and green asparagus are the
same.  Figure 20 shows a flow  diagram  of  a  typical  asparagus
canning and freezing operation producing spears, tips, and center
cuts.   Asparagus is either processed immediately upon arrival at
the processing plant or stored in wooden lug boxes or bins  under
cold  water  sprays  (additional  ice  packing  optional) for not
longer than one day.  This storage at between 40° and  50°F  with
sufficient  moisture  will  prevent staining, bitterness, and any
increase in fibrous texture.   Hydrocooling  has  been  shown  to
extend  35°F cold storage of green asparagus up to one week.  The
asparagus spears are typically hand unloaded from the field boxes
and aligned with tips  all  pointing  the  same  direction  on  a
conveyor  belt  to  a  rotary knife or band saw.  This mechanical
knife or saw is adjusted to make the desired cuts.  The first cut
removes the butt ends which are conveyed mechanically  or  flumed
to the waste hoppers.  Successive cuts separate the "center cuts"
from   the  spears,  with  the  center  cuts  flumed  to  another
processing line.

Center cuts are flumed from  the  rotary  knife  to  the  washer.
Washing  by  dipping  cannot  be relied upon to give satisfactory
results, so spray washing of some kind is generally necessary  to
remove   dirt  and  sand.   Blanching  is  accomplished  in  most
instances with a continuous steam or water blancher  heating  the
asparagus  to  180°F  for  two  or  three minutes.  The cuts then
proceed over inspection belts where rejects are  removed  to  the
gutter  and solids hopper.  The center cuts are blended with tips
and cuts from the main spear process line (as shown in Figure  2)
and  then  mechanically  or hand filled into cans.  Following the
rotary knife operation, the spears  usually  enter  a  series  of
flumes  and  a  spray  washer  similar to that used on the center
cuts.  It is important to  ensure  that  all  dirt  and  sand  be
removed  from  the  tips.   This  can be facilitated by using hot
water at 1400-150°F which causes the small leaflets in the  stalk
to  open up, thus providing better water contact.  After washing,
the spears pass over conveyor belts and are  either  size  graded
mechanically  or  graded  by  hand.   Grading  is based on color,
quality, and size.  The spears then enter a continuous  steam  or
hot  water blancher where they are held at 180°F for two to three
minutes.  At this point, the  spears  can  either  be  canned  or
frozen.

Those  to  be  canned  pass over inspection belts to filling con-
veyors where workers hand fill all cans with tips up.  A selected
portion of these spears  enter  a  cutter  and  shaker  operation
before  filling where tips are severed from the center cut (stalk

                              89

-------
                        TIGURE  21




             TYPICAL BEET PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM
                                   	S_OUJBLES	I
SOLIDS
                                                               EFFLUENT
             [ WHOLE ]     [ DICE/SLICE]
[CUT STYLES ]
                                90

-------
portion) and small fragments removed  to  waste  by  the  shaker.
These  tips  and  cuts are joined by cuts from the initial center
cut line and proceed into the automatic can  filler.   After  the
cans  are  filled,  they pass to the briner where they are filled
with a two to three percent salt solution  at  a  temperature  of
190-200°F.  The hot brine should be sufficient in amount to cover
the  tip  ends  when  the  can is closed.  If the cans are filled
sufficiently   hot,   atmospheric   closure   is    satisfactory.
Otherwise, a steam-flow closure is used to produce a vacuum.  The
canned  asparagus  is  then  retorted  and cooled.  The asparagus
spears to be frozen are flumed from the blancher  to  inspection.
This flume acts as a cooler to prepare the product for packaging.
Some of the spears proceed on conveyor belts and are hand packed,
whereas  others  are  fed through cutters and machine packaged as
tips and cuts.  These cartons are  check  weighed,  wrapped,  and
frozen in storage.

Asparagus  produces  a  very  low  waste  load  of all vegetables
processed.  The waste is very low in both BOD and  SS,  primarily
because:   (1) the plants arrive fairly clean from the field with
very little dirt;  (2)  there is no peeling operation  which  is  a
major  BOD producing operation in a cannery; (3)  asparagus solids
are  slow  to  leach  into  wastewater  streams;   and,  (U)   dry
conveyance  of  trimmed  butts  is  frequently  used  so  that  a
significant portion of the cutting is  never  exposed  to  water.
The  major  wastewater  flows come from the retort cooling water,
freezer defrost water, initial fluming and washing operation, and
the strongest waste stream from the hot water or steam blanchers.
This blancher discharge is the only  significant  wastewater  BOD
component.   Other  waste  streams result from can washing in the
seamer, overflows from the brining operation, and  various  fresh
water  sprays  at  inspection  belts.   The two significant water
reuse systems frequently employed in  asparagus  processing  are:
(1)  continuous  recirculation  of initial flume and washer water
(often with substantial overflow and makeup  required)  and,  (2)
reuse  of retort cooling water or freezer defrost water as makeup
in the initial fluming operations.

Beets

Beets, all canned, are processed in four main states:  New  York,
Wisconsin,   Oregon,  and  Texas.   Almost  50  percent  of  beet
production is into sliced  styles.   For  the  purposes  of  this
study,  three  plants  in  Oregon,  six  in Wisconsin, and one in
Washington were visited for the collection  of  historical  data.
In addition, a total of thirteen composite samples were collected
and analyzed to verify this data.  Figure 21 shows a typical beet
process flow diagram.   Beets for canning are ordinarily harvested
and  topped mechanically.  The mechanical harvester travels along
a row digging, cleaning, and topping the  beets,   and  discharges
them  into  a  truck  for transport to the cannery.  Beets can be
stored on cement slabs for a few days.  When  placed  in  a  well
ventilated warehouse,  they can be stored for several months.

                                 91

-------
Prior to washing, the beets are often subjected to a dry cleaning
operation  (reel  or  shaker)   to  remove stems, trash, and loose
dirt.  The beets are then dumped or conveyed to  a  washer.   The
washing operation is done by large brush washers or rotating reel
type washers.  The washing operation removes the majority of silt
or leaves from the beets.  Beets are normally size graded as many
as  three  different times throughout the process.  These sizings
may be accomplished with shaker  screens,  parallel  bars,  or  a
combination  of  both.   The  purpose  of these separations is to
segregate for peel removal and  product  style.   From  the  size
graders,  the product is blanched or preheated using water baths,
belt-steamers,  or  atmospheric   screw-steamers.    After   this
preheating  step,  the  vegetable  is  subjected to high pressure
steamers or hot caustic.  Peel removal  may  be  accomplished  by
either  high  pressure  water sprays or by abrasive peelers.  Dry
peel removal was also observed to be successful in several of the
plants visited.  From the peeler, the beets move along a belt for
hand trimming and inspection.   Soft beets are removed, and  beets
requiring  additional  peeling are sorted out and returned to the
peelers.  After trimming  and  inspection,  the  beets  are  size
graded again and transported to the appropriate processing line.

Small,  nearly-spherical  beets  are  canned whole.  Medium-sized
beets are sliced (regular or crinkle-cut) and canned.  The  large
and  irregularly  shaped  beets  are  diced,  "shoestringed,"  or
sectioned.  The cut beets are then washed, filled with  a  tumble
type  filler,  topped with hot brine, seamed, cooked, and cooled.
Cooking is done in retorts or continuous cookers.

The  principal  wastewater  generators  are  washing,  blanching,
trimming, peeling, fluming, and cooling waters.  Trimmed portions
of  beets  are usually transported dry from the inspection belts,
but some plants utilize flumes; this increases both waste volumes
and pollutant loadings.  The wet peeling  processes  are  another
major  source of waste loads.   Dry peeling machinery, however, is
an alternative.  Dry peelers use rotating  discs  to  remove  the
peel from the product.  The peel material is transported from the
process  in a semi-liquid state and may be disposed of separately
from the main plant effluent.   Some plants, however, use water to
flume this peel material to the gutters and  thereby  reduce  the
benefit  of  the  dry  peelers.   The blanching and steam peeling
operations contribute significant waste  load  strengths  to  the
plant  effluent.   In  many  cases,  peel  loss can be related to
incoming product quality, and this can affect the  blanching  and
peeling conditions.

In  many  plants, the dirt and debris removed by the washers goes
to  the  wastewater  stream.   Some  plants  were   observed   to
recirculate  the  washwater  after settling out the mud and silt.
The water, if maintained and  chlorinated,  can  be  used  up  to
several  days before discharge.  Plants also utilize recycled can
cooling water  for  the  preliminary  washing  operation.   Self-
contained,   internally   recycled  pumping  water  for  in-plant
transporting of whole and cut beets is another  major  source  of

                                 92

-------
recirculated  water.  The reduction of water consumption has been
accomplished by  the  use  of  dry  conveying  and  dry  cleaning
processes for several of the operations.

Broccoli

Nearly  all  broccoli  produced  for  processing  in  the U.S. is
processed frozen  in  California,  although  a  small  amount  of
broccoli  freezing  is  done in Illinois, Oregon, and Washington.
For the purposes of this study, four plants  in  California  were
visited  for  the  collection of historical data.  In addition, a
total of eleven composite samples were collected and analyzed  to
verify  this  data.  Most broccoli (63 percent in 1973)  is frozen
in spears.  The  rest  is  processed  about  equally  as  chopped
broccoli  and  broccoli cuts.  Broccoli is all hand harvested and
trimmed in the field.  There are generally three cuttings in each
field, about one week apart, before the crop  is  finished.   The
broccoli  is  taken  directly from the field in 700 pound bins to
the processing plants.  Ice may  be  added  to  prolong  storage.
Broccoli  is  generally  processed  the  year round excluding the
summer months of July, August, and September.

Figure 22 shows a flow diagram for a typical broccoli  processing
plant.   The  broccoli  arrives  at  the processing plants in 700
pound bins and is dumped onto a conveyor belt.  As the  vegetable
is  moved  along  the  conveyor  belt,  it  is  hand  trimmed and
quartered.  The good stems and pieces from the trimming are saved
and used in chopped broccoli.   After  trimming  and  quartering,
cuts  are  typically  dumped  into a recirculating washwater tank
which utilizes a highpressure spray to move the vegetable and  to
remove  soil  and  pesticide residues.  This process is sometimes
repeated if further cleaning is required.  From the  washer,  the
broccoli is dewatered before entering either a hot water or steam
blancher.  Post-blanching operations usually consist of a cooling
cycle  (either cold water flume or cold water sprays), dewatering,
and  a  second inspection.  Further hand-trimming occurs, and the
broccoli  is  sorted  for  spears  and  chopped  fractions.   The
packaging  of  broccoli  is essentially a hand operation in which
the desired piece sizes are hand-packed, the  boxes  individually
weighed, and finally conveyed to a package-wrap operation.  These
packages  are  then  normally  plate-frozen  and  freezer-stored.
Alternately the chopped broccoli after inspection may be conveyed
directly to an IQF freezer and automatically  filled  into  poly-
bags.

The  large  flow  volumes  generated  are  mainly attributable to
washing and defrost water.  BOD and SS levels are reasonably  low
due  to  the  large  amount  of hand trimming.  The principal BOD
loadings are  generated  during  blanching  operations  and  vary
according  to  method  of  blanch (steam or hot water).   Clean-up
water, sometimes containing detergents, also contributes to these
waste loadings.  Freezer defrost water  is  discharged  sometimes
directly  to  navigable  streams or alternately combined with the
plant effluent.  The BOD loading of these defrosting waters is

                                  93

-------
                         FIGURE 22




            TYPICAL BROCCOLI  PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

BINS

. CULLS. LEAVES
N BUTTS
1
||-__— — _^
REUSE
1
1 	
1
)!(_ CULLS
r "
jij_ SPILLAGE
fr-
i
INSP
HA
TR


ECT,
40
M

WASH


BLANCH


COOL


INSPECT

PIECES
EDIBLE BUTTS
	 	 /•
OVERFLOW f
SOLUBLES
OVERFLOW 	 f
i
PIECES

^ 	 DIRT
PARTICLES ^"1
>y 	 SOMBLS? 	 '
PARTICLES j
1
1
1
1
CHOP I

PACKAGE


CHECK
WEIGH


WRAP


FREEZE




DEFROST
WATER
1
1
PACKAGE CLEAN-UP 1
' — » 1

1
	 	 SPILLAGE 1
CHECK ~" j
WEI6H |

I
1
WRAP '

1
I
FREEZE -SIIISSI*. !
WATER j
 I
SOLIDS
EFFLUENT
                                 94

-------
equivalent to the BOD loadings of the individual plant's  potable
water supply.

Counter-current  flow recycling provides the best opportunity for
water reuse.  Typically water is recycled  from  a  second  stage
washer  back  to  the  initial  wash,  usually by collection from
dewatering screens.  Fluming water  may  also  be  recycled  back
through  the  various  washing  steps.   Defrost  water, if used,
provides an excellent source of pre-blanch chilled spray or flume
water.  Screened final effluent discharge water has been observed
to be recycled to provide  in-plant  gutters  with  a  continuous
water flow.

Brussels Sprouts

California  produces  approximately  95  percent  of the Brussels
sprouts in the United States.  This production  area  is  further
limited  to  the  immediate  proximity of the Pacific Ocean strip
from the shoreline inland about one-half mile, and just south  of
San Francisco in the Half Moon Bay and Santa Cruz areas.  In this
limited  strip,  the  right  combination  of  foggy days and mild
nights is ideal for Brussels sprout growth.  For the purposes  of
this  study,  two  plants  in  California  were  visited  for the
collection of historical data.  In  addition,  a  total  of  five
composite  samples  were  collected  and  analyzed to verify this
data.  All Brussels sprouts for processing are frozen whole.

Figure  23  shows  a  typical  Brussels  sprouts  flow   diagram.
Harvesting  of Brussels sprouts is a hand operation.  Since there
is a great difference in the maturity rate of the  bud  units  on
the  individual  plants,  it  is necessary to make several passes
through the field or "pick over"  the  plants  several  times  to
assure  raw  product  of optimum quality.  The stalks with mature
buds  are  severed  from  the  plant  with  a  sharp  knife   and
transferred   to   lug  boxes  or  tote  bins.   The  product  is
transported to a field or grower's  station  at  which  time  the
edible  buds  are  mechanically  trimmed  from  the  stalk.   The
individual buds may then undergo several inspections for  quality
parameters  prior  to  shipment  to  the  processing  plant.  The
sprouts may be iced or placed in cold storage to accomodate plant
operations.

As many as five size separations are made for Brussels sprouts to
control mechanical  trimming,  blanching  conditions,  and  final
quality  and  size  parameters.   Grading is usually done through
parallel rollers so spaced that the smaller buds fall to  another
conveyor  or processing system.  Sprouts are usually mechanically
trimmed to remove the butt or stalk  portion  of  the  vegetable.
The trimmers are pre-set for a particular size which necessitates
the   size   separations  as  mentioned  above.   Following  this
trimming, the buds  are  hand  inspected  for  quality  and  trim
removal.   Those  buds  needing further or more complete trimming
are returned to a "hydrout" line,  washing operations,  following
trimming, are usually done in a shallow tank fitted with overhead

                                 95

-------
                       FIGURE  23




      TYPICAL BRUSSELS SPROUTS PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
                                          SOLUBLES, CONOENSATE
   	LEftVE S, CULLS
SOLIDS
                                                           EFFLUENT
                                96

-------
high  pressure  sprays  which  provide  both make-up water and an
agitation to thoroughly clean the sprouts.  Blanching is normally
done in steam blanchers, although at least one company utilizes a
hot  water  blanch  system.   These  stabilizing  operations  are
typically  done  in  more  than  one  blancher  to accomodate the
different sizes of sprouts.  Blanching conditions vary  depending
upon  the size of sprouts and type of blancher used.  The sprouts
are typically water-flumed  to  sorting  belts  after  blanching.
This  cools  the  buds  as  well  as providing a final wash.  Air
separation after fluming provides a final  aspiration  to  remove
any  loose  leaves.   The  sprouts are given a final sort and are
then conveyed to a filler.  Preformed boxes  are  filled,  check-
weighed, wrapped, and frozen.

The  principal  sources  of  waste  loading in a typical Brussels
sprouts process  are  the  washing,  blanching,  and  post-blanch
fluming  steps.   These  contribute the greatest concentration of
wastes with the heaviest load coming from the blanchers.  Initial
washing and defrost water contribute the largest volumes  to  the
waste  streams with the defrost water being essentially "no-load"
water.  Flume water, whether pre- or post-blanch, can be recycled
to provide make-up for the initial wash.  The final flume  opera-
tion  is  not  continuously recirculated as this provides a final
potable water wash for the sprouts.  The  flume  water,  however,
can be used for make-up in previous washing steps.

Carrots

Carrots  are  root  vegetables  canned and frozen in almost equal
proportion.  Carrots may also  be  commercially  dehydrated  (see
separate  commodity  description  on Dehydrated vegetables).  For
the purposes of this study, ten plants in Wisconsin, four  plants
in Oregon, one in Iowa, two in Washington, one in California, and
one  in Texas were visited for the collection of historical data.
In addition, a total of six composite samples were  collected  to
verify  this  data.   Carrots  are  processed in numerous styles,
including diced, sliced  and  crinkle  cut,  nuggets  and  whole,
julienne and shoestring, chunks and chips, irregular, and juice.

Figure  2H  shows a typical carrot process flow diagram.  Carrots
are removed from the ground while a large percentage of them  are
still  in  the  growing  stage,  before  all  have  reached  full
maturity.  In this way, the smaller carrots may be kept  separate
and  processed  whole,  while  the  larger  carrots are sliced or
diced.  Carrots for processing are usually mechanically harvested
and sometimes topped in  the  field.   The  mechanical  harvester
travels  along  the row digging the carrots, cleaning and topping
them, and discharges them to a truck  ready  for  the  processor.
Occasionally  lug boxes or baskets are used.  Carrots may be held
in cold storage to extend the processing season.   Several  types
of  washers  may  be used on carrots.  These can be reel washers,
soak tanks, or brush type, or any combination of the three.   They
are usually washed prior to lye peeling so that peel removal will
be more efficient.  Alternately, the carrots may  run  through  a

                                  97

-------
                               FIGURE  24

                 TYPICAL CARROT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
           CULLS, STEMS, TRASH
                STEMS
                                                                    *1

1
UT

SIZE
GRADE




FILL



1
BLAI
                                                       FRAGMENTS
                                                           SOLUBLES
                                                           SOLUBLES
                                               COOLING WATER
SOLIDS
                              _COOUNO_
                              "WATER"
                                                                   EFFLUENT
                    [ JUICE ]
[ CANNED ]
I FROZEN ]
                                  98

-------
dry  reel  for  dirt  removal  prior to a wet washing step.   Size
grading may be accomplished either before or after  lye  peeling.
Gradings  are  usually  accomplished  by  using parallel rollers,
allowing the smaller carrots to  drop  through  onto  a  separate
processing  line.  Size gradings are also done to divide the flow
of carrots for slicing and dicing.  The larger  diameter  carrots
are  generally  used for dicing whereas the smaller diameters are
utilized for slicing or for baby wholes.

All carrots for canning and freezing are peeled.  Peel removal is
done either by use of lye, steam, or abrasion.  The  carrots  are
sometimes pre-heated before entering a lye bath.  Typically, they
are augered through a steam chamber which serves to further clean
the  vegetable  and  to  soften  the  peel.  The carrots are then
immersed in hot lye for a short time.  The peel at this point  is
very loose and can usually be removed by high pressure cold water
sprays  as  the  carrots  are conveyed through a reel washer.  In
some cases, more solids may be removed  by  use  of  an  abrasive
peeler.   This  operation  "polishes" the carrot and is typically
used for the produc#ion of baby wholes.  An  alternative  to  lye
peeling  is  a  steam  pre-heat,  abrasive peel combination.  The
carrot is pre-heated in a manner similar to the  above,  but  fed
directly  into  an  abrasive peeler.  The carrots are then washed
and conveyed to either an inspection  table  or  to  a  dicer  or
slicer.    Post-peeling  operations  usually  consist  of  manual
inspection and trimming.  Defects are generally removed by  hand;
trimming  green-tops  and  stems  may be done by cutter blade, by
hydrout, or by hand.

Canned or frozen carrots may be sliced or diced into a number  of
different  forms.   Slices may be regular or they may be crinkle-
cut.  Dices may be cubed  or  rectangular.   Sliced  carrots  are
sometimes  conveyed  over shaker screens to eliminate extra large
slices or small bits and fragments.  The sliced or diced  carrots
to  be  canned are usually moved directly from final size grading
and inspection to a tumbletype filler.  The containers are topped
with hot brine, exhausted, closed, retorted, and cooled.  Carrots
to  be  frozen  are  blanched  prior  to  packing  and  freezing.
Blanching  is  usually done either by steam or water tubular type
blanchers.  The  carrots  are  usually  cooled  after  blanching,
typically  by  water  flumes  or  sprays.   The  product  is then
individually quick frozen, stored in bulk, and packed at a  later
date.   After peeling, washing, and final inspection, the carrots
are chopped and sent through a pulper and a finisher.  Solids ex-
pelled from the pulper/finisher operation may be sent through  an
additional filter press operation to recover the remaining juice.
The liquid is then heated, deaerated, and filled into the desired
container which is closed, retorted, and cooled.

Wastewater strengths can vary considerably depending on degree of
peel  removal  and  the  optional  use  of  abrasive  peelers  or
polishers.  These peel removal waters and blancher effluents  are
the  main  contributors  to both BOD and suspended solids levels.
Initial washing operations were observed to generate  both  large
                                99

-------
                            FIGURE  25


           TYPICAL CAULIFLOWER PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
            CULLS , DEFECTS     ^
                                                    OVERFLOW , DIRT ,  SAND


                                                   VEGETABLE PARTICLES
                                                    OVERFLOW, SOLUBLES       ^|


                                                                           1


                                                     DLUBUES, PARTICLES       ___ }
                                                                           ^
  SOLU I
                          WHOLE
                         BRANCHES
SIZE
GRADE
                                                PIECES
   p-
CULLS , DEFECTS
^
INSPECT
— —£. ••
PIECES

1
F
INSPECT
                               COOLING


                                WATER
                                                                  CLEAN -
                                                                            i





                                                                  SPILLAGE   ^1
                                                                            I
         COOLING

          WATER
  i
                      [RETAIL]
[BULK]
SOLIDS
                      EFFLUENT
                                    100

-------
volumes  of  wastewater  and  high  settleable  solids  levels as
evidenced from the amount of mud in the  effluent.   Slicing  and
dicing  operations  can  also  contribute  organics  to the waste
stream by generating juices and vegetable particles.  Can cooling
water and in-plant flumes can be recirculated and reused provided
that the water is maintained and properly  chlorinated.   Cooling
water can be recirculated to provide make-up for initial washing.
Hydrocooling operations can provide make-up for flumes, the flume
water  being continuously recirculated and provided with a steady
overflow.

Cauliflower

Cauliflower, also called "heading broccoli," is processed  frozen
and  is  very  closely  related  botanically to regular sprouting
broccoli.  Approximately 80 percent of the total U.S.  production
of  cauliflower  is processed in California.  For the purposes of
this study, four plants in California  and  one  in  Oregon  were
visited  for  the  collection of historical data.  In addition, a
total of ten composite samples were  collected  and  analyzed  to
verify this data.

Cauliflower  heads  are  cut  from  the plant with a large knife,
leaving one or more whorls of  leaves  attached  to  protect  the
curds  from  dehydration and "yellowing."  Before transporting to
the processing plant the leaves may be further cut off just above
the head, leaving a jacket of petioles and the remainder  of  the
leaf blades.  Further trimming may be done in the field to reduce
transportation  costs and in-plant solid wastes.  Delivery to the
processing plant is made either in large bins or  bulk  trailers.
Cauliflower  is  reasonably  hardy,  but  in  order  to  maintain
quality, the loads are usually chilled or iced.

Figure  25  shows  a  flow  diagram  for  a  typical  cauliflower
processing   plant.   In  a  typical  processing  operation,  the
cauliflower, after reaching the plant, is "balled" or stripped of
all leaves close to the base of the curd.  This is often a  hand-
trim operation but may be facilitated by "hydrout" machines.  The
large  majority  of  wastes  are  generated during these trimming
stages.  Hand trimming usually results in a  high  proportion  of
solid  waste,  whereas  the  hydrout  equipment  introduces  more
solubles into the wastestream.  After initial trimming, the heads
are further reduced in size  by  hand  trimming  to  the  desired
finished  product size.  After trimming, the cauliflower clusters
are conveyed through a system of spray or tank washers.  Salt  or
brine  soak  tanks  have sometimes been included to remove insect
residue.  The cauliflower is then conveyed to a blancher,  either
a hot water or steam blancher.

Typically,  however, when the cauliflower leaves the blancher, it
is rapidly cooled to approximately 70°F or lower by chilled water
sprays or flumes.  Quick cooling after blanching stops the blanch
at the desired point and is essential to preserve the  color  and
maintain  the quality of the frozen product.  This flume or spray


                                    101

-------
          FIGURE 26




TYPICAL CORN  PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
A DEBRI
r
[t HUSKS , L
f-
III HUSKS, SI
r
||j 	 DEFECT
r
L HUSKS, SILK,
If" COB~~E~N as ~
h CULLS r*
	
L

1 1
,,..
'
1 BRINE
| 1
1
1
1 RETORT
i! '
1 COOL
1
I STAF
II SUG*
SALT
!
i

BULK IN TRUCK

S, DIRT


UNLOAD

lAVES, STALKS

AIR CLEAN

LK, COB ENDS


HUSK

S, CULLS


INSPECT / TRIM



WASH
COB

TRIM

INSPECT
1

STEAM
BLAN CH

_ 1
1
COOL 2X.IJ
j
t]
__

-------
cooling also  serves  to  wash  the  vegetable  of  any  adhering
bleaching  agent.   Citric  or  ascorbic  acid  baths  have  been
utilized to prevent discoloration or  oxidation  during  a  post-
blanch  hold.   The  cauliflower  is then sometimes passed over a
shaking device to remove most of the small pieces and  extraneous
material  before being reinspected.  At this point the product is
conveyed to a mechanical or hand filler where it is  packed  into
wax-treated  cartons  or  other  similar packages, which are then
wrapped, sealed, weighed, and frozen.  The product  may  also  be
IQF'd  and  stored in frozen bulk for repackaging at a later date
or for packaging into plastic bags.

The main components of the  liquid  effluent  are  washwater  and
defrost  water.   The BOD and SS levels are relatively low due to
the large amount of hand trimming.  The  principal  BOD  loadings
are  generated  during blanching operations and vary according to
the method of blanch  (steam  or  hot  water).   Cleaning  water,
sometimes  containing detergents, also contributes to these waste
loadings.  Freezer defrost water is discharged sometimes directly
to navigable  waters  or  alternately  combined  with  the  plant
effluent.   The BOD loadings of these defrosting waters are close
to the BOD loadings  of  the  individual  plants'  potable  water
supplies.   Counter-current  flow  recycling  provides  the  best
opportunity for water reuse.  Typically, water is recycled from a
second  stage  washer  back  to  the  initial  wash,  usually  by
collection  from  dewatering  screens.  Pluming water may also be
recycled back through the various washing steps.  Defrost  water,
if reused, provides an excellent source of chilled spray or flume
water.  Screened final effluent discharge water has been observed
to  be  recycled  to  provide  in-plant gutters with a continuous
water flow.

Corn

Corn is processed both frozen and canned in whole kernel, on-the-
cob, and cream styles.  It is processed  mainly  in  ten  states.
The  leading  corn  state  is Minnesota, which processed about 28
percent of the U.S. corn in 1972.  Wisconsin,  Oregon,  Illinois,
Washington, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware are
the other big corn states.  For the purposes of this study, seven
plants  in  Minnesota,  two  in  Indiana, six in Illinois, two in
Idaho, six in Oregon, four in Washington, eighteen in  Wisconsin,
one  in  Ohio, and two in Iowa were visited for the collection of
historical data.  Approximately 70 percent of all canned corn  is
canned  whole  kernel,  both  yellow and white.  The remaining 30
percent is canned as cream style corn and corn-on-the-cob.   Corn
is frozen in whole kernel and on-the-cob varieties.

Sweet  corn varieties have been developed which mature uniformly.
By staggering the time of planting and the acreage, a  processing
plant  can  plan  for a uniform flow of product through the plant
during the season.  Corn harvesting is  done  by  large  machines
which mow down the stalks and remove the ears, which are then put
in  large  trucks  for  transport  to the plant.  Due to the high

                               103

-------
amounts of sugars and starches in the corn kernels,  the  product
must  be  processed soon after harvesting to prevent degradation.
Most plants process the corn within 12 hours of harvest.  As  the
corn  is  brought  to the plant, it is weighed, then dumped on an
open or covered slab.

The raw corn is transported to the  processing  line  by  a  drag
chain  conveyor or by a front-end loader.  Initially, the corn is
run through a dry cleaning operation (see Figure 26), usually  an
air blast cleaner, which removes loose husks, silk, leaves, dirt,
stalks, and other extraneous material.  The clean ears then go to
the  huskers which are automated in most plants.  Some plants use
a steam wilter before the  huskers  to  soften  the  husks.   The
husking  machines  consist of ridged parallel rollers which strip
the husks and much of the silk from the ears without damaging the
kernels.  The waste material is  usually  transported  dry  to  a
hopper or truck (sometimes after grinding)  for transport from the
plant.   It  is  used as silage, animal feed, or as a land-mulch.
The husked ears are inspected and rehusked  in  some  cases,  but
often  go  straight  to  some  type  of washer.  In many plants a
"desilker" washer is used, in which the ears of corn are  sprayed
with  water while being brushed by long, cylindrical brushes par-
allel to the direction of  product  movement.   Another  type  of
washer  in  use  is  a  revolving  drum washer with water sprays.
Increasing use of higher pressure, lower-volume  sprays  in  this
operations has reduced wastewater production.

If  the  plant  is running corn-on-the-cob, the next operation is
usually an inspection or sorting operation where  good  ears  are
picked out and trimmed in preparation for blanching.  After steam
blanching,  the  ears  are cooled with water sprays and frozen in
air blast  freezers  on  trays  or  belts,  or  in  liquid  Freon
freezers.   The  frozen  cobs  are  usually  stored in bulk until
repacked later.

For cream style and whole kernel, the corn ears are put through a
cutter, which cuts the kernels from  the  cob.   While  some  are
developing  and  using  automatically  fed cutting machinery, the
majority of plants rely on hand labor to push  the  ears  through
the  cutters.  The cobs are transported dry and combined with the
husk material for use as silage or feed, while  the  cut  kernels
are  carried  to  the next operation by belt, vibrating conveyor,
flume, or pump.  Some plants run  the  cut  kernels  through  de-
cobbers and de-silker machinery to remove extraneous cob bits and
silks before washing, but most plants bypass this and go directly
to  the washer.  Most plants are using flotation type washers, in
which the starch from the corn mixes with the water to produce  a
solution  of  higher  specific  gravity than pure water, and this
solution buoys the lighter waste material to the  surface,  where
it  is carried off by the overflow.  The good kernels sink to the
bottom of the washer and are pumped to inspection tables.   After
inspection, the kernels can go three ways:  whole kernel canning,
whole kernel freezing, or cream-style canning.
                               104

-------
After  the  inspection, the corn is transported to the fillers by
pump, belt, flume, or negative air, whereupon it is filled in the
cans, topped with brine, seamed, cooked in retorts or  continuous
cookers,  cooled, and warehoused.  Some plants blanch the kernels
prior to filling and some use steam exhausting before seaming but
these are not common.  The corn to be frozen is water blanched at
about 180°, then cooled by water flumes,  water  sprays,  or  air
evaporative methods.  It is then frozen by fluidized bed IQF, air
blast,  or  liquid Freon freezers.  Most frozen whole kernel corn
is cold stored in bulk for repacking at a later  time.   In  some
cases, the product is prepared in one plant then taken to another
plant for freezing.

Corn  for  cream  style  is  transported to the cream style line,
where part of it is put through a mill or  grinder  to  comminute
it.   The  resulting  pasty  corn  material  is  mixed  with  the
remaining whole kernels in a heated  vat  along  with  the  salt,
sugar,  and  other  ingredients.  The mixture is pumped through a
"slitter" to control consistency, and is held in a  large  heated
tank  prior to filling.  The cans are filled hot and seamed, then
retorted and cooled.

The principal sources of wastewater generation are washers, water
blanchers, wash and cooling sprays, and cooling water as well  as
a  small amount of pumping and fluming water.  The larger volumes
of water are from the washing and can cooling operations.   While
the  BOD  levels are extremely low in the cooling water, they may
contain significant levels in the wash water.  Blanching  wastes,
typical  for  this  type  process,  are much more concentrated as
solids tend to leach rapidly from a product with the  starch  and
sugar content of corn.

Some  companies  that use water blanchers (both the reel-type and
pipe blanchers) do recirculate their water.   However, there is  a
limit  imposed  by  the  need for sanitation and product quality.
The input of  clean  fresh  water  is  required  to  maintain  an
acceptable  and  clean product free from microbial growth.  Thus,
this modification is only a partial recirculation of  the  water.
Air  cleaners  and other dry solids removal equipment are used in
some operations to replace water-consuming cleaning methods.  The
savings are both in water consumption and in reduced waste  load;
however,  some  air  cleaning  devices deposit the waste material
into the wastewater system, often by fluming,  and  this  negates
some of the benefits realized by dry removal.  In some plants the
use   of  cooling  towers  for  cooling  water  has  resulted  in
significant water reduction.  Other sources  of  water  reduction
have  been  accomplished  through  air  cooling  instead of water
cooling  and  steam  or  hot-air  blanchers  in  place  of  water
blanchers.
                                105

-------
                               FIGURE  27

          TYPICAL  DEHYDRATED ONION PROCESS FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                      STORAGE CURE
  jl—-,
 DJJ?!l    _
DEBRIS, TOPS
DRY CLEAN
                                          SIZE
                            LARGE ONIONS
                                             SMALLER ONIONS
                          WASH
                           DIRT
                           SKINS
                                                         WASH
       CORES, ROOTS
                          CORE
                                                                      DIRT , SKINS
                                                        INSPECT
                          WASH
       CULLS, DEBRIS
                                      SKINS
                                                         WASH
                         INSPECT
                                           DEBRIS
                                                                  	S_KJ_N_S__	-to.
                                                        INSPECT
                      STORAGE HOPPER
                                                     STORAGE HOPPER
                          S LICE
                                                         SLICE
                           DRY
                                                          DRY
                           MILL
                                                         MILL
                    TYPICALLY:
                       LARGER SLICED
                       SLICED
                       LARSE CHOPPED
                       CHOPPED
                                      TYPICALLY:
                                         CHOPPED
                                         MINCED
                                         GROUND
                                         GRANULATED
                                         POWDER
SOLIDS
                                                                                EFFLUENT
                                          106

-------
                                FIGURE 28

           TYPICAL  DEHYDRATED GARLIC  PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
                                   STORAGE
                                    CURE
         SKINS,  DIRT, DEBRIS
               SKINS
            DEBRIS, CULLS
SOLIDS
                                  DRY CLEAN
CRACK


ASPIRATE


INSPECT


RIFFLE WASHER


D
                                                      TO RECRACK
                                                    DIRT,  SKINS ,  STONES
FLOAT

TANK


INSPECT
                                STORA6E HOPPER
                                    SLICE
                                    DRV
                                     MILL
                                                    DIRT, SKIN
                                                                     EFFLUENT
                                    107

-------
Dehydrated Onions And Garlic

There  are only four onion and garlic dehydrators in the country,
all of them in California.  Several varieties of white onions are
used  for  dehydration--Southport  White  Globes,  Creoles,    and
certain  hybrids.   Yellow or red onions are not dehydrated.   The
harvest period is from mid May in the El Centro and Blythe  areas
to  November  in  the  Tule  Lake  area.   Garlic, early and late
California varieties, is usually harvested from  mid  June  until
approximately  the  first  of  October.   For the purposes of this
study, four plants in  California  were   field  visited  for  the
collection  of  historical  data.   In  addition,  a total of six
composite samples were collected  and  analyzed  to  verify  this
data.

Onions  and  garlic are harvested by running a cutter blade below
the bulbs.  This process undercuts the root system, starving  the
bulb  and  attached  green stem from further nutrients.   When the
tops are sufficiently wilted, a mechanical harvester picks up the
bulbs, removes the green tops, screens out most of  the  adhering
and  loose dirt clods, and loads the bulbs into bulk gondola-type
trailers.  A labor force aboard  the  harvester  further  removes
tops,  defective  bulbs,  and  dirt  clods.   Additional labor is
sometimes used to gather those bulbs "missed" or dropped  by  the
machinery.  The bulbs are transported directly to the plant where
they  are screened to remove dirt and loose stems and then gently
conveyed to storing bins.  These bins are fitted with fans  which
circulate  warm  air  through  the onions (from bottom to top)  in
order to dry remaining tops and stems, outer layers of skin,   and
the  bulbs  themselves  to  prevent  microbial  spoilage.   These
storage bins can be very large (approximately 100,000 cu  ft)  or
small individual containers  (80 cu ft).

Figure  27  shows  a flow diagram for a  typical onion dehydrator.
Cleaning is performed by both wet and dry methods.  Dry  cleaning
is  used  to remove dried tops, some loose skins, and dirt.   This
machinery usually consists of  a  series  of  vibrating  screens,
parallel  rollers, air aspirators, or a  combination of all three.
Dried tops are usually "pinched-off" by  a series of rollers  and,
combined  with  the  loose dirt and loose skins, are collected as
dry solid waste.  Wet cleaning is usually done by a series of dip
or soak tanks and high-pressure  water  sprays.   These  cleaning
operations  are  designed  to  remove  soil, loose skins, and any
other debris or contaminant which may be adhering to the external
circumference of the bulbs.  Hand trimming is sometimes  employed
to  further  remove  tops,  defective  parts  of  bulbs, or other
undesirable blemishes.  The waste  streams  generated  throughout
these  cleaning  operations  normally contain high levels of fine
silt, dirt, and loose  skins  which  can  either  be  settled  or
screened from the final waste effluent.

Figure 28 shows a typical dehydrated garlic flow diagram.  Garlic
normally  contains  more  dirt  than  onions, and dry cleaning is
essential.  This normally involves a series of rollers or screens


                                 108

-------
which both screen the dirt and aspirate the skins from the bulbs.
A cracking operation is included  which  breaks  the  bulbs  into
individual  cloves.  It is the cloves which are eventually sliced
and dried into a finished product.  The cloves are given a visual
inspection  (culls,  trash,  and  foreign  debris  removed)   and
conveyed through a riffle washer, the purpose of which is to wash
the  individual cloves and separate them from small rocks and any
adhering dirt.  They then enter a flotation tank where  they  are
immersed in water.  The good cloves sink, whereas defective (dry)
cloves and loose skin float and are skimmed off as solid waste.

Onions  may  be  size  graded  as  a  part  of  the  dry cleaning
operations, or they may be size  and  quality  sorted  after  wet
washing.  In some cases, the larger onions are separated from the
main  stream  and used primarily for the generation of the larger
piece  sizes—i.e.,  large  sliced,  sliced,  and  large  chopped
fractions.   These  bulbs  normally  are  cored  by  a  "hydrout"
operation which removes the root and root-crown  from  the  bulb.
These  particles  of  waste then usually become part of the waste
stream.   Conveying  throughout  these  operations   is   usually
facilitated   by  inclined  augers,  flumes,  or  belts.   Gentle
handling, however, is  necessary  throughout  all  operations  to
prevent bruising of the bulbs.

Following  grading,  sorting,  and  washing,  the  onion bulbs or
garlic cloves are conveyed to specially designed  machines  which
slice  the whole bulbs and cloves into thin layers.  These layers
are  then  transferred  by  belt  or  vibratory  conveyor  to   a
continuous  belt  dryer.   Continuous  belt  dryers  are the most
commonly used method for dehydration.  They are usually long  and
multi-staged   with   baffled  chambers  which  blow  heated  and
sometimes desiccated air from over and under the bed-depth of the
raw slices.  Residence time in this type of dryer is usually  ten
to  twenty  hours,  resulting  in  a  product that has a finished
moisture content of no greater than 4.25 percent  for  onions  or
6.0 percent for garlic.  Alternately, the onion and garlic slices
may  be  taken  from the final stage of drying at slightly higher
moisture and reduced to the  desired  moisture  content  by  "bin
drying."   These   are  unit  processes  in  which  a  metal  bin
(approximately 80 cu ft) is fitted with wheels and a port-opening
designed to accept a heated and desiccated air flow which further
dehydrates the slices to  the  desired  moisture  levels.   After
dehydration  the  dried  slices  are  usually  screened,  milled,
aspirated,  separated,   and   ground   in   various   mechanical
combinations to achieve the final desired piece size.

The  main  volume  of  water  generated  for a typical dehydrator
occurs throughout the  various  washing  operations.   These  are
characterized  by  high  settleable  solids  and screenable solid
wastes  (loose skins).  The strength of these streams  is  usually
low  (approximately  200-300  ppm BOD), but the settleable solids
are high enough (typically 200-400  ppm)   so  that  mud  settling
tanks  are  a  necessary pretreatment before final discharge.   In
general, these plants  run  a  24-hour  day,  seven  day  a  week

                               109

-------
                            FIGURE 29



      TYPICAL DEHYDRATED VEGETABLE PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM
                                                  WASHING	2'.5I.-»"»'»-
     C U L L£,_T_RJM MIN 6 S,_


         PT1"CES
             TRIMMING
                                                  PEELING
BLANCHING
                                                               SOLUBLES
       CULLS.ROT


      DE"FECT!7 TRASH
Z^^^^^ INSPECTION
                                                               CLEAN - UP
 I
SOLIDS
                                                               EFFLUENT
                                     110

-------
production schedule.  Cleanup wastes are generated throughout the
production   day   and   are   usually  of  high  volume  to  low
concentration.  The slicing operations, because  of  the  extreme
sharpness  and  frequent changing of blades, generate very little
solubles into the wastewaters.  The major wastewater reuse in the
dehydration process is recirculated wash  water.   Another  major
reuse  is the recycling of flume water by counter-current flow to
prior washing stages.


Dehydrated Vegetables

Dehydrated vegetables are an important and significant portion of
the food industry.  Vegetables commonly dehydrated include beets,
cabbage, carrots, parsley, chili pepper, horseradish, onion,  and
garlic  (see  separate  commodity  descriptions) ,  bell  peppers,
turnips, parsnips, and celery.   Additionally,  other  vegetables
such  as  asparagus,  tomatoes,  green  beans, spinach, and green
onion tops may be dehydrated upon commercial demand.  These items
are commonly used as ingredients for various canned  specialties,
baby  food,  and  soup (canned or dried) formulations.  Virtually
all dehydrated vegetables are processed in California.   For  the
purposes  of this report, three plants in California were visited
for the collection of historical data.

Figure 29 shows a typical dehydrated vegetable operation.  Almost
all of the crops are dehydrated fresh  from  the  field  although
some  items such as green beans may be dehydrated from the frozen
state.   For  more  detail  on  harvesting  of   the   individual
commodities,   refer  to  the  specific  commodity  descriptions.
Similarly, the various washing,  sorting,  grading,  and  peeling
operations  are  virtually  identical to those as detailed in the
individual  commodity  descriptions  (except  celery   and   bell
peppers).     Other   notable  exceptions  to  standard  operating
conditions are: cabbage is blanched prior to  drying;  beets  are
not  peeled  -  all  dehydrated  beets  are sold as dried, ground
powder; and parsley is dried  in  a  specially  designed  hot-air
tower  for a short time prior to discharge to a more conventional
drier for final moisture equalization.

Celery - Celery is delivered to the plant in bulk fresh from  the
field.  The butt and leaf ends are trimmed by mechanical circular
saws.   The butts go to solid waste, and the leaf  (known as stalk
and leaf)  can be processed on another line.  The leaf portion  is
sometimes  trimmed  in  the field.  Following trimming, the inner
yellow stalks are hand separated  and  are  typically  discarded.
The celery stalks are then washed in immersion type or spray type
washers  and  conveyed  directly  to  slicers or dicers.  The cut
fractions are sprayed with a sulfite solution (to preserve  color
integrity)  and fed in a steady stream to continuous belt driers.
The dried product may be further dried in forced-air  bin  driers
or  may  be packed directly into bulk containers.  Repacking into
specific customer containers is usually done  at  a  later  date.
"Stalk and leaf" is processed identically to the stalk.


                                 Ill

-------
                            FIGURE  30



        TYPICAL CANNED DRY  BEAN PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                            SOLUBLES. SO LIDS. FRAGMENTS
                                              STONES, DIRT. SOLUBLES
                                                    SOLUBLES
                                          	SOLUBLES, BITS, FRAGMENTS   ^1
                                          |                           »|
                                                           SPILLAGE
                                                           CLEAN -UP
                                           COOLING WATER
SOLIDS
EFFLUENT
                                   112

-------
Bell  Peppers - Bell peppers are hand picked and delivered to the
plant in large wooden bins.  Bell peppers change color and solids
content as they mature on the plant.  The first  portion  of  the
harvest  results  in  the prime green bell pepper.  As the season
grows longer, peppers remaining on  the  vine  begin  to  develop
yellow  and  yellow-orange  stripes  and blotches.  Reaching full
maturity, they develop an intense red  color.   Typically,  then,
bell  peppers  are  run as three distinct products: green, mixed,
and red.  The peppers may initially undergo a size separation  in
order   to  facilitate  cracking  of  the  pods  and  later  core
separation.  Grading is usually done  by  parallel  rollers,  the
smaller  vegetables  dripping  to  another  processing line.  The
peppers are then  usually  washed  in  immersion  or  spray  type
washers  and  conveyed to a "popper" or "cracker."  This can be a
device consisting of two closely spaced belts moving in the  same
direction  (one over the other to pull the peppers in and "crack"
them) or it may  be  two  revolving  wheels,  between  which  the
peppers  fall  and  are "popped." Separation of pods and cores is
usually accomplished by means of flotation.  The very  light  and
buoyant  core  floats while the flesh of the pepper is more dense
and sinks.   The  cores  are  skimmed  and  go  to  solid  waste.
Inspection  for  defects  and  hand-sorting of remaining attached
cores is then accomplished prior to a final wash  to  remove  the
remaining bits of core and seeds.  The peppers are diced, sliced,
or  cut  into  desired piece size, sprayed with sulfite solution,
and dried on a continuous belt  drier.   Final  moisture  can  be
achieved  in the main drier or by bin drying.  Packing is usually
done in bulk, though the peppers may  be  repacked  into  smaller
packages at a later date.

Carrots  -  Carrots  are size graded, inspected, washed, trimmed,
and peeled almost exactly as  covered  in  the  carrot  commodity
description.    After final inspection and wash, they are conveyed
to a dicer or slicer,  blanched  usually  in  a  steam  blancher,
sprayed  with sulfite, and dried and packaged in a similar manner
to celery and  bell  peppers.   The  processing  of  carrots  was
observed  to  be greatly facilitated with the use of field-topped
carrots.

Wastewater generations are typical of those separate commodities.
Waste loadings from these  operations  usually  consist  of  dirt
(especially  carrots  and  beets) with a conseguent high level of
settleable solids.  In some cases,  mud  settling  tanks  or  mud
cyclones  were  observed.   peeling  and/or  slicing  and  dicing
operations generate the highest levels of BOD, COD, and suspended
solids.   These  steams  usually  consist  of   organic   juices,
peelings,  lye,  and  solubles.   Evaporated  water is discharged
directly to the atmosphere.  Water reuse, with the  exception  of
some in-plant flumes, is minimal.

Dry Beans

Dry  beans  are  the sixth ranked dried or dehydrated food in the
United States.  The prinicpal  varieties  used  for  canning  are


                                  113

-------
pinto,  kidney, navy, and great northern beans.   For the purposes
of this study, one plant in Maine, one in  Pennsylvania,  one  in
California,  two  in New York, one in Wisconsin, one in Illinois,
one in Indiana, and one in Iowa were visited for  the  collection
of  historical  data.   In  addition,  one  composite  sample was
collected and analyzed to verify this data.  Figure  30  shows  a
process  flow  diagram  for  dry  bean  processing.   The  beans,
previously dried, are typically stored  in  100   pound  sacks  in
clean,  dry  warehouses.   If  proper  precautions  are  taken to
prevent moisture and  insect  infestation,  dried  beans  may  be
stored for long periods of time (one year or longer).

The  dry beans are delivered to the processing plant in 100 pound
sacks which are emptied into soak tanks and allowed to  soak  for
approximately  four  to twelve hours.  In order  to make the beans
palatable, the natural moisture content of the dry bean  (between
nine  and twenty percent)  must be raised.  The soaking is usually
done in shallow, non-corrosive  metal,  fiber-glass,  or  enamel-
lined  tanks.   Depending  on  the  climate,  water hardness, and
initial moisture content of the  beans,  the  times  involved  in
soaking  will vary.  However, if the moisture level is raised too
high, splitting of the bean's skin will result.   With beans which
are soaked properly, 100 pounds of dry beans should produce  185-
190  pounds  after a ten hour soak.  The beans may be dry cleaned
prior to the soaking and cleaning operation.  Regardless  of  the
initial  washing steps utilized the beans are flumed over riffles
to remove small stones and other dense material.  The  beans  are
passed  over  an  inspection belt where defective pieces, stones,
and foreign material are removed.  Air  aspiration  is  sometimes
used to remove lighter material.

After the beans have been soaked and destoned, they are blanched.
Dry   beans  are  blanched  at  varying  times  and  temperatures
depending on the variety processed.  The time may vary from three
to twelve minutes, and the temperature may be varied from 180° to
210° F.  Blanching is normally done in hot water screw-blanchers.
The beans are dewatered and conveyed from the blanchers to shaker
screens which separate  out  skins  and  shriveled,  broken,  and
undersized  beans  while  cooling  the  good  product  with water
sprays.  The rejection of defective beans is usually  facilitated
by manual inspection and elimination of undesirable beans.

The  principal  sources of wastewater generation are the soaking,
destoning, blanching, fluming, spraying, and can cooling  waters.
The soaking and post-blanch water sprays produce low volume waste
but  of high-strength BOD value.  Blanching, while of low volume,
is responsible for the high concentrations  of  oxygen  demanding
wastes  and  dissolved  solids.   The  riffle washer accounts for
approximately 80 percent of the processing wastewater   (excluding
retort  cooling  water)  but  is  relatively  low in BOD or total
solids concentrations.  Flume water for transport  of  the  beans
from the soak tank or to the filler is often a closed loop system
and  is  continuously  recirculated.  Conventional cooling waters
                                  114

-------
                             FIGUEE 31

             TYPICAL LIMA BEAN PROCESS FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                    BINS OR BULK
                                       DUMP
         LEAVES, VINES. PODS, SKINS
   A-_____'
   F"
AIR CLEAN
                                       WASH
                                                      DIRT, SKINS, SOLUBLES
            BITS, FRAGMENTS
                                       SIZE
                                                 UNDERSIZE
                          BABY  LIMAS    I
                                      BLANCH    —— —-
                                       COOL
QUALITY
GRADE
                 SKINS
                 CULLS
                                     AIR  CLEAN
                                      INSPECT
                                   CpOLIj<0
                                    WATER "
                      [CANNED
SOLIDS
h                                                                DEFROST
                                                              — WAT—R—
              [FROZEN]
                                      115

-------
can be reused with the water  passing  through  a  cooling  tower
prior to its recycling.

Lima Beans

Approximately  53  percent  of  the total U.S. Production of lima
beans is processed in California  with  the  remainder  processed
primarily  in Delaware, Wisconsin, Washington, and Maryland.  For
the purpose of this study,  one  plant  in  California,   four  in
Delaware, one in Idaho, three in Illinois, and three in Wisconsin
were visited for the collection of historical data.  In addition,
a  total  of ten composite samples were collected and analyzed to
verify this data.  Approximately 76 percent of all processed lima
beans are frozen, with the remainder being canned.

Lima beans are usually harvested by a mobile viner which cuts the
vine, threshes the beans from the vine, returns the vine  to  the
field,  and  deposits  the  beans  directly  into bulk trucks for
transport to the plant.  Figure 31 shows a  flow  diagram  for  a
typical  lima  bean processing plant.  Upon arrival at the plant,
the beans usually are fed into a shaker  and  air  cleaner  which
removes leaves, chaff, dirt, vines, and pods.  The beans are then
given  a  thorough washing.  A few processors use froth flotation
cleaners, which remove loose skins, cracked lima beans,  and unde-
sirable extraneous vegetable  material.   Where  froth  flotation
cleaners are used, the lima beans are first immersed in a treater
solution  of deodorized oil which prepares them for the selective
bubble-attachment in the froth emulsion.  The lima  beans,  after
being pre-treated, are dropped into a separation tank filled with
an  emulsion (oil-in-water and a detergent).  Extraneous material
floats and is carried off via a discharge pipe.   The  beans  are
given  a  fresh  water  rinse with highpressure sprays after they
pass through the flotation cleaner.

Sorting and grading usually occur two or three different times in
a typical lima  bean  operation.   An  initial  size  grading  is
usually  performed  by  a  vibrating  mechanical  shaker.   Post-
blanching quality  grading,  accomplished  by  brine  separators,
divides  the beans into several maturity grades at which time the
beans  can  either  be  separated  in  bins   or   can   be   run
simultaneously  on several processing lines.  The beans undergo a
hand inspection after quality grading to  remove  insect  damage,
decay,  and other undesirable pieces.  Lima beans are blanched to
inactivate enzymes.  The type of blancher commonly  used  is  the
hot  water  rotary  type,  although some pipe blanchers and steam
blanchers  are  used.   The   beans   are   rapidly   cooled   to
approximately 70° F immediately upon release from the blancher to
stop  the  blanch  and  to  preserve  the  color and maintain the
quality of the product.

Brine  flotation  graders  are  utilized  quite  extensively   to
separate lima beans for tenderness and maturity.  Many processors
pass the beans through separators installed in tandem.  The brine
is  adjusted  in  the  first  separator  to separate a maximum of

                                 116

-------
starchy white beans.  The portion containing only green or tender
beans continues through the processing line while the more mature
beans  pass  through  the  second  separator  containing  a  more
concentrated  brine.   The  final  separation yields mostly green
beans, although some white wrinkled beans  may  remain  with  the
green  beans.   Brine  flotation graders do not always completely
separate lima beans into the various degrees  of  tenderness  and
maturity.  Neither do they greatly assist in the removal of loose
skins or split beans.  Beans are sprayed with high-pressure water
sprays  to  remove  adhering  brine.   They  are sometimes passed
through a revolving wire reel that removes most  of  the  splits,
loose  skins,  and  extraneous material before going over a hand-
picking belt.  After hand-picking, the beans are  usually  either
conveyed  to  a  filler  where  they  are filled into cartons for
freezing in a blast freezer, or conveyed through an IQF  freezer,
and  then  packed  dry  frozen.  The canning process is virtually
identical to the freezing process prior to the filling operation.
The cans are initially filled mechanically with lima beans,  then
topped  with  hot  brine  and water until overflow.  The cans are
washed, retorted, cooled, and ready for packaging.

The process steps that are primary contributors to the  wasteload
are  washers,  flotation  cleaners,  hot water blanchers, quality
graders, and clean-up operations.  Dumping of blanchers, washers,
and size  graders  contributes  substantially  in  high  BOD  and
suspended  solids  concentrations.   Cooling  waters  are high in
volume but relatively free from contaminants  and  are  sometimes
discharged   from   the  plant  without  treatment.   When  froth
flotation cleaners are used, the oil  solution  is  recirculated.
However,  some spillage occurs.  The fresh water rinse discharges
small amounts of detergent and oils left on the beans  after  the
separation  tank.   Clean-up  operations  vary  in frequency from
weekly to continuous operations.   Since  the  concentrations  in
wasteload  are  not  high,  clean-up generally does not adversely
affect  treatment  facilities.   Waters  used  for  fluming   are
generally   recirculated;   however,   spillage   or  leakage  is
unavoidable.  Principal reuses of water are  typically  those  of
recirculating    fluming    or   cooling   water   per   standard
countercurrent practices.  Some  plants  were  observed  to  have
replaced  fluming  operations with dry-belt conveyors which would
both lower water consumption and pollutant levels.

Mushrooms

Mushrooms  are   processed   canned,   frozen,   or   dehydrated.
Approximately   two-thirds   of  the  total  U.S.  production  is
processed in Pennsylvania, with the remainder scattered through a
number  of  states,  including  New  York,  Ohio,  Michigan,  and
California.   For  the  purposes  of  this  study, five plants in
Pennsylvania, one in Michigan, one  in  California,  and  one  in
Oregon  were  visited  for the collection of historical data.  In
addition, a total of five composite samples  were  collected  and
analyzed to verify this data.  Production is heaviest between the
months of October and May, inclusive.  Harvesting is light during

                                117

-------
                       FIGURE 32




           TYPICAL MUSHROOM PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SOLIDS
EFFLUENT
                            118

-------
warm weather months.  Many growers maintain production during the
summer by means of air conditioning.

Figure   32  shows  a  typical  mushroom  process  flow  diagram.
Mushrooms are grown best in a cool, moist place.  Many  producers
grow  mushrooms  in  special  buildings  built  for this purpose,
although in some areas caves and abandoned mines are used.   Most
canners grow a portion of their own mushrooms; in some cases this
is  100  percent.   Mushrooms are pulled from the beds with roots
attached before the "veil" or membrane breaks  open  and  exposes
"gills."  The mushrooms may be delivered to the plant either with
or  without  roots  attached.  Pulled mushrooms generate a higher
wasteload due to the discarded roots and attached soil.   In  the
latter  case, the roots are cut from the mushrooms in the growing
houses by the harvesters.  In either case,  they  are  placed  in
baskets  holding  ten  Ibs  or  more  for  delivery to the plant.
Freshly harvested mushrooms with the root portion  attached  will
remain  fresh  longer  than if the root portion has been removed.
Mushrooms frequently grow in clusters which may contain three  or
more mushrooms.

Mushrooms  deteriorate  rapidly  after picking; the veils tend to
open, and the  mushrooms  become  discolored  and  wilted.   They
should  be delivered to the cannery promptly after picking.  When
mushrooms cannot be processed immediately after delivery  to  the
cannery,  they  are  usually  placed  in a refrigerated room at a
temperature of 36° to  37°F  until  needed.   Mushrooms  must  be
handled  carefully  at all times to avoid bruising, which results
in dark discolored areas.  The baskets of mushrooms are taken  to
the  cutting  line  for removal of root stubs and stems.  In most
plants the cutting operation  is  performed  by  manually  loaded
mechanical  cutters, although some plants still cut by hand.  The
stems generally undergo two cuttings, the  first  to  remove  the
root  portion  followed  by  the  second  which  gives the stem a
uniform length.  In the case of whole  mushrooms,  the  remaining
stem  is  left one-fourth to one-half in. long.  For button style
mushrooms, the second cut is made just below the veil.   In  both
cases,  the  root portion is carried away as solid waste with the
cut stems from the second cutting operation saved to be processed
in the "stems and pieces" style.  After cutting,  both  the  caps
and  stems are thoroughly washed.  This removes the clinging bits
of casing soil or other dirt.  The mushrooms at some  point  pass
over  one  or more inspection belts where blemished mushrooms may
be trimmed or sorted out.  Misshapened, blemished,  trimmed,  and
broken  mushrooms  are  sorted out and placed with other mushroom
material for the stems and pieces style.  For example,  mushrooms
with  partially  opened  veils  may be processed in the stems and
pieces style or may be added to the buttons  or  whole  mushrooms
intended  for  one  of the sliced styles.  The mushrooms are size
graded into holding tanks  by  a  revolving  drum  sizer,  either
submerged  in  water  (mushrooms  float into water-filled holding
tanks) or overhead  (mushrooms  fall  into  water-filled  holding
tanks).   The  buttons  may  be  separated into as many as twelve
                                  119

-------
                        FIGURE 33

   TYPICAL CANNED OR JARRED WHOLE ONIONS  AND ONION RING
                    PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
,• MUD, SOLIDS
fl=*=™M--™M
JL BLEMISHES, ENDS
jj1 DECAY
!(_ PEELS
i !
!
jjf CULLS
!
S RECIRCULATE
4 	
TOTE BOXES OR BASS
1
ELIMINATOR AND
AIR CLEAN
1
SIZE GRADE
1
TRIM
1
PEEL
1
LYE, PEEL
( OPTIONAL)
1
WASH
1
SORT AND SIZE
1
INSPECT
1
FILL
1
BRINE
1
CAP OR SEAM
1
RETORT
1
COOL
1
LABEL

PEELS, DIRT
	 PEELS I
n
PEELS, SOLUBLES _|

^" t





SLICE
1
SPRAY WASH
1
BATTER
1
FRY IN OIL BATH
1
DRY
1
CAN DRY
1
LABEL

'1
SPILLAGE ^|
1
CLEAN-UP __[
1
SOLUBLES I
H
STARCH _j
1
I
1
1
1
J
SOLIDS
EFFLUENT
                                120

-------
different sizes.  The larger sizes are generally sliced, and  the
smaller sizes are packed as buttons.

Mushrooms are washed before blanching then flumed or dry conveyed
from   the  holding  tanks  to  the  blancher.   In  addition  to
deactivating enzymes, blanching also  shrinks  the  mushrooms  as
much  as  30  to  UO  percent,  which is needed to meet the drain
weight requirements.  Most mushrooms are blanched by immersion in
water at  a  temperature  near  boiling.   An  alternate  method,
however,  is  to  pass  the  mushrooms through a continuous steam
blancher where they are exposed to live steam for a period of two
to eight minutes.  Water blanching produces a better  product  in
terms  of  yield,  pack, and color.  Since copper, steel, or iron
tend to discolor mushrooms, blanchers  are  fabricated  of  other
non-corrosive  metal  such as stainless steel.  A spray rinse may
follow the blancher operation.  Mushrooms  intended  for  slicing
are  generally  sliced  after  blanching; however, slicing may be
performed before  blanching  if  they  are  to  be  frozen.   The
mushrooms  are  generally passed through a mechanical slicer with
knives that cut them into slices of a predetermined thickness.  A
shaker screen for certain styles removes the small end and broken
pieces to be used in other styles.

Mushrooms are generally filled into the can  by  tumble  fillers.
The  cans  pass  through  the  center of a rotating cylinder that
lifts and drops the mushrooms into the can.  Mushrooms that  miss
fall  back  into the water in the bottom of the drum.  Volumetric
fillers and hand pack fillers are also used.  After filling,  the
cans are check weighed, and the fill is adjusted if necessary.  A
salt tablet is normally added, and the containers are moved under
taps  of  hot  water,  the  temperature  of which is greater than
200°F.  The taps are adjusted to  fill  to  overflowing.   A  hot
brine solution and briner filler is sometimes used instead of the
water  and  salt tablet to eliminate the brine overflow.  This is
only practiced, however,  where  fill  rates  are  high.   It  is
generally  unnecessary to use an exhaust on the filled containers
since a sufficiently high vacuum is obtained by the  addition  of
hot  water.   After closure, the containers are washed, retorted,
and cooled.

The  major  contributors  of  wastewater  are   flume   overflow;
blanching  wash  and  rinse  wastes;  holding  tank  filling  and
brining; and retort and cooling waters.  Blancher water  has  the
highest  wasteload  concentration  in  BOD  and dissolved solids.
This water is occasionally used as filling  juice  in  the  final
pack.  Continuous and end-of-shift clean-up operations contribute
high  volumes  and wasteloads, along with pieces of mushrooms and
other organic wastes.   Flume  water  is  typically  recycled  in
several  unit  process  steps.  Cooling water may be recycled for
further cooling purposes or can be used as  make  up  in  initial
washings or flumes.
                                121

-------
Onions, Canned

Canned  onions are packed by relavively few packers, although the
annual pack increases each year as  the  product  becomes  better
known and more widely distributed.  The principal producing areas
are  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  Delaware, Oregon, and California.
For the purposes of this study, two plants in  Pennsylvania,  one
in  New York, and one in Delaware were visited for the collection
of historical data.   Yellow  globe  onions,  a  commerical  term
applied to several different varieties and strains of onions, are
preferred by most processors.

Figure 33 shows a typical canned onion process flow diagram.  The
customary period at which to harvest onions for canning is in the
fall  when  the tops have begun to turn greenish yellow,  usually
the crop is dug by a hoe or an implement which turns  the  ground
exposing  the  onions to the surface.  After they have been taken
from the ground, the onions are placed in windrows  or  piles  in
the  field,  where they remain until the tops are completely dry.
After curing sufficiently, the tops are cut or pulled  off  close
to  the bulbs.  The onions are then placed in storage or shipped.
They are usually delivered to the cannery in sacks or crates  and
are  stored  until used.  Well-cured onions will keep for several
months if stored in a well-ventilized place.  In some areas  they
must be enclosed to protect against freezing.

Generally  the onions are emptied from sacks onto a belt conveyor
carrying them to a sizer which eliminates over-  and  under-sized
onions.   From the sizer the onions are placed in buckets or pans
on a "merry-go-round" or "lazy susan" sorting table where ends of
the onions are trimmed, and  onions  possessing  rot,  decay,  or
other  serious  defects  are discarded.  From the sorting table a
variety of peelers may be  used.   Carborundum  abrasive,  rubber
abrasive, and flame peelers are the most popular.  In some cases,
a  continuous  lye  peeler  is  used,  containing  a three to ten
percent lye solution.  The strength depends upon the variety  and
character  of  the onions.  This further loosens the outer scales
of the onion  bulb.   When  a  lye  peeler  is  used,  a  closely
controlled  check  is necessary to assure complete removal of the
lye solution from the onion bulbs.  The hot lye peeling operation
results  in  effluent  high  in  BOD,   suspended   solids,   and
alkalinity, unless a low water usage scrubber is utilized.

Following peeling, the onions pass through a rotary screen washer
where  adhering  portions of the outer loosened scales are washed
off under a strong spray of water.  After washing, the onions are
moved by conveyor belt to an  inspection  table  where  blemished
onions  are  removed.   At this time the good onions are normally
separated into three  size  classifications:   tiny,  small,  and
medium.   Each processor has his own particular sizing operation.
However, most onions exceeding 1 1/2 in. in  diameter  and  those
with  a  diameter  of less than 5/8 in. are not used for canning.
As the onions come from the sizer they are conveyed onto a  final
inspection  table where loosened scales, loose centers, blemished


                                  122

-------
units, or excessively discolored onions are removed.  The  onions
are  then filled into cans or glass jars, and a sufficient amount
of hot  brine  is  added  for  a  proper  fill.   Brine  spillage
contributes to the wasteload.  After the cans or jars are filled,
they  are  quickly  closed,  sealed,  and still retorted in metal
baskets.  After  sufficient  time  is  allowed  for  the  retort,
cooling  water is slowly added to the retort in the case of jars,
or a cooling tank may be used for cans.  Cooling  tank  water  is
generally  recycled  and dumped once a day or week depending upon
the plant operation.

The process for canned fried onions is essentially  the  same  as
the  process  for canned onions from delivery through the washer.
The onions are then sliced  mechanically  into  rings  and  spray
washed.   The rings are then covered with batter, fried in an oil
bath then air dried.  Onion rings are then canned dry.

The  process  components  contributing   substantially   to   the
wastewater  are  the following:  Overflow from fluming operations
located between the trimmer and peeler(s) ; overflow and  periodic
dumping  of  lye peelers and wash tanks; spillage and overflow of
brine from filling operations; retort,  condensing,  and  cooling
water;  and  clean-up  of  spills  and equipment.  Flume overflow
contains soil and organic solubles but the volume of  water  loss
is minimal in most cases.  Cooling and retort waters are large in
volume   but   relatively   free  from  contaminants  except  for
occasional breakage of jars and brine removed from the surface of
the cans or jars.

Wastewater from the  peelers,  especially  the  lye  peelers  and
washers  contributes the strongest wasteload.  It has the highest
BOD and suspended solids concentrations as well as  onion  pieces
and  solubles.  Cleanup of spills on a continued basis and end of
shift equipment washdown also contribute to the total  wasteload.
Dumping  of  washers  and  peelers  during  clean-up  adds a con-
siderable amount of BOD and solids to the clean-up flow.  Fluming
and   cooling   waters   are   normally   recycled.    Continuous
recirculation  of  peeler  and  wash  water with makeup water are
other practices also used.

Peas

Approximately U9 percent of the total U.S. production of peas  is
processed   in  Wisconsin  and  Washington,  with  the  remainder
primarily in Minnesota, Oregon, Idaho, California, Delaware,  and
Maryland.  During the peak processing season typical freezing and
canning  plants  may  operate  two ten hour shifts seven days per
week, with an average production of ten to fifteen tons per hour.
Such intensive production is necessary to insure  that  the  peas
are  processed  at  the proper stage of maturity.  The processing
season usually runs from June through July  in  the  midwest  and
from  mid-June  to  mid-August  in the west.  For the purposes of
this study four plants in California, two  plants  in  Wisconsin,
four  in  Oregon,  one  in  Pennsylvania,  two  in Idaho, four in

                                  123

-------
                               FIGURE  34
                 TYPICAL PEA PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                      BINS OR BULK
                                         DUMP
         LEAVES, VINES, PODS, SKINS
         LEAVES, VINES, POOS, SKINS
                                       AIR CLEAN
                                        SHAKE
                                         WASH
  L_
UNDERSIZE
                                      SIZE GRADE
                                        BLANCH
                                         COOL

                 SKINS

                                       INSPECT
                      FILL
                     BRINE
                      SEAM
                     RETORT
                      COOL
                                  COOLING
                                   WATER
SOLIDS
                                                            DIRT,  SKINS
                                                          S OLUBLES , STARCH
                                                              SOLUBLES
                                                           BRIN E^ SOLUBLES
                                                                     CLEAN -UP
                                                                      SPILLAGE
                                                           FREEZE
                                                         DEFROST
                                                          WATER
                                                           PACKAGE
                                                                EFFLUENT
                                        124

-------
Illinois, nine in Washington, one in Michigan, two in  New  York,
two  in  Delaware,  and  five  in  Minnesota were visited for the
collection of historical data.  In  addition,  a  total  of  nine
composite  samples  were  collected  and  analyzed to verify this
data.  Figure 34 shows a typical pea process flow diagram.   Peas
are  usually harvested mechanically by a mobile viner which picks
up the vine from windrows, threshes out the pea pods, and  shells
the  peas.   The vines, trash, and pods are returned to the earth
to be plowed under.   The  peas  are  directly  bulk-loaded  into
trucks for shipment to the plant.

The initial operation separates extraneous material from the peas
by  means of an updraft air cleaner.  This extraneous material is
either collected in bins  or  carried  away  by  water  into  the
gutter.   The  peas  may  also be passed over a scalper to insure
further removal of pods, vines,  etc.   The  washing  process  is
accomplished  in  three  stages:   first,  a tank or reel washer,
second, a flotation washer, and third, a final fresh water rinse.
The initial washer often uses  reclaimed  or  recycled  water  to
rinse  the  product  prior  to  pumping or fluming to a flotation
washer.   This  latter  wash  affects  further  removal  of  soil
residues and extraneous material by passing the product through a
bath of water, in which the extraneous material floats to the top
and  is  carried away in the overflow.  Some plants use a "froth"
washer in addition, instead of the flotation washer.  This device
uses a mineral oil plus air injection to create turbulence  which
further cleanses the peas.  The peas are then flumed or pumped to
a  mechanical sorting operator for separation into various sizes.
Flumes and/or pumps are the preferred method of transport between
unit processes in order to  maintain  product  quality.   Such  a
system   can   require   large   amounts  of  water;  however,  a
considerable water savings is  often  realized  by  using  recir-
culated  water  or  water  from  another operation.  Negative air
systems are also replacing water transport in many  plants  where
practicable.

Blanching  is typically done in reel or tube type blanchers.  The
blanching operation requires a substantial supply of fresh water,
except where  steam  blanching  is  utilized,  to  replenish  the
blanching  water,  and to rapidly cool the peas.  Under carefully
controlled  conditions,  some  water  reuse  can  be   practiced,
providing  in-plant chlorination is effective.  The blanchers are
a potential fertile source of bacterial  contamination,  and  are
cleaned  frequently.   Steam  blanching  is also practiced and is
desirable in  reducing  waste  generation  since  less  solubles,
particularly   sugar,   are  leached  from  the  peas.   However,
uniformity of blanch is more difficult using steam.   Cooling  is
normally  done  in flumes or air coolers while the peas are being
carried to the quality grader.  In many plants the blanched  peas
are  cooled  by  using  spray  devices  such  as  a spray reel or
vibrating screen with overhead spray.

The blanched product is dewatered after the cooling  process  and
separated  into  two  grades.   This  separation  is  effected by


                                  125

-------
passing the product through  a  brine  solution;   and  due  to  a
difference  in  specific  gravity,   the  less mature, tender peas
float, whereas the more mature, starchy peas sink.  The peas  may
then  be  passed  through  an air cleaner and subsequently to the
inspection belt.  Extraneous material from the  air  cleaner  and
sort-outs  from  the  inspection belt are either collected dry or
washed in the gutter for later separation by screening.  Peas  to
be  frozen  are  conveyed  by pump, flume, or negative air to the
freezer, which is usually an individual quick freeze (IQF)   type.
Frozen  peas  may  then  be immediately packaged in various style
containers or held in bulk in cold storage for  repacking  during
the  off season.  A single plant may process peas by both canning
and freezing.  Usually,  if  both  methods  of  preservation  are
available, the more mature peas are held exclusively for canning,
while the less mature peas are favored for freezing.  The canning
process consists of filling various sized containers, topping off
the  container  with brine, and then cooking in either retorts or
continuous cookers.

The largest volumes of water generated throughout a  typical  pea
processing operation are attributable to washing and can cooling.
The wash waters usually contain dissolved solids and dirt whereas
the  can  cooling  water  has  had  no product contact and can be
reused elsewhere.  Hot water blanchers  contribute  significantly
to   plant   effluents.   These  streams,  however,  are  usually
characterized by low flow with high BOD levels.  Condensate  from
steam  blanchers produce even a more concentrated load (but lower
flow) than a hot water blancher.  Maturity separation, usually by
means of flotation through a salt brine, results in some chloride
addition to  a  plant's  waste  stream.   Spillage,  however,  is
usually  minimal  so  that  chloride levels are not a significant
pollutant.

As in most canneries, reuse or recycling of can cooling water can
be a major contributor to reduced water consumption.  This  water
can be utilized for initial washing operations, gutter flushings,
boiler  makeup,  etc.   Various  other  processing  steps  may be
incorporated to conserve on water usage or may  reduce  pollutant
levels.

    1.   Use of steam blanchers rather than hot water blanchers.
    2.   Dry size graders instead of hydro-graders.
    3.   Use of dry belt conveyors and/or negative air for
         transport rather than fluming.
    U.   Utilization of air transport methods for dry clean-
         ing.
    5.   Filtering of salt brine.  This can reduce both water
         and waste loads.
                                 126

-------
Pimentos

The  production  and processing of pimentos takes place primarily
in  the  states  of  Georgia,  Alabama,   and   Tennessee,   with
approximately  15,000  acres  of pimento fields under cultivation
each  year.   Lesser  amounts  are  grown  in   California,   the
Carolinas,  and  Texas.   The  size  of  individual fields in the
southern states range from  one  to  twenty  acres.   Since  con-
siderable  hand  labor  is  involved  in  processing, the pimento
industry  provides  an  important  source  of  income  for   many
laborers.   The pimento variety of the red sweet pepper (Capsicum
Annum)  is a smooth, heart-shaped pod  covered  with  a  hard  wax
peel.   The  flesh  of the pimento is deep red in color and has a
mild, sweet taste when the pod is ripe.  The pimento pods do  not
have the deep creases and lobes which are characteristic of other
red  peppers and sweet green peppers.  The predominant variety of
pimento grown is the Truehart Perfection.  Pimentos are generally
used as seasoning or garnishing agents in combination with  other
vegetables  or  fruits.  Therefore,  the majority of packs are in
small glass jars.  For established uses in cheeses,  lunch  meat,
and  stuffed  olives,  large  cans and five gallon containers are
packed.  Industrial sources estimate that at least 75 percent  of
the  total  pimento pack was processed in four plants in Georgia.
The common styles are whole pods, strips, pieces, and dices.

While pimento harvesting has historically  been  accomplished  by
hand labor, a mechanical harvester has recently been designed and
constructed,  and the first commercial prototype of the harvester
is currently being tested in Georgia.  In  the  meantime,   manual
harvesting continues to be the common commercial practice.  Since
only  fully  ripened pimentos are picked, each field is harvested
several times during each season.  The pimentos  are  transported
in  small  trucks  to receiving stations where they are packed in
field boxes and hauled  to  the  processing  plant  by  trailers.
These  boxes  are  then  stored at the plant for use within three
days.

Figure 35 shows a typical flow diagram for pimento processing.  A
preliminary wash is applied to the pimentos prior to lye peeling.
This is usually a reel washer to remove surface dirt and assorted
debris.  Pimentos to be roasted are  not  washed  prior  to  peel
removal.   An initial inspection done upon receiving is sometimes
used to separate the larger pods for seed  production.   Pimentos
are  roasted  in  rotating metal cylinders approximately eighteen
feet long and 20 inches in diameter.  Each cylinder  is  inclined
at  about  fifteen degrees from the horizontal.  A jet flame from
natural gas or fuel oil is blown through the  cylinder,  and  the
pods are allowed to roll through the flame.  The pods, black from
charring  of  the  peel, emerge at the lower end of the cylinder.
They are then conveyed to a reel washer which removes the charred
peel by the abrasive action of the reel and  water  spray  within
the reel.
                                127

-------
                        FIGURE  35
          TYPICAL PIMENTO PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM
                                            _SO_UJ BLE S.__LYE_   I
                                             SKINS. SEEDS    ~" I
SOLIDS
                                                       EFFLUENT
                                      COOLING WATER
                             128

-------
Pimentos  may also be peeled by lye.  After an initial wash, they
are exposed to a sixteen to  eighteen  percent  sodium  hydroxide
solution  at  approximately  99°C.   The  lye coated product then
enters a pressurized steam vessel  where  the  peel  is  loosened
further.   The  peel  is then removed by the abrasive action of a
reel washer.  Cores may be removed either  by  mechanical  coring
(using  a  rotating  mechanized  knife)   or  by crushing the pods
between two belts.  If mechanical coring is used,  then  a  large
employee  force  is  needed  to  hand  remove  the cores from the
crushed product.  On the other hand, use of  "belt-like"  crusher
and subsequent flotation removal of cores was observed to greatly
reduce  labor  at  no sacrifice to core removal.  Hand inspection
and trimming is still necessary following these steps  to  remove
final  traces  of  core  and charred material.  The fruit is then
thoroughly washed in reel washers to remove any traces of  seeds,
char,  or  core  prior  to  canning.   After peeling, coring, and
trimming, an optional practice is wilting of the fruit in a steam
bath to soften the flesh for packing.  The fruit may go  directly
into  a  citric  acid  bath or through a reel washer prior to the
bath.  The purpose of the bath is to reduce the final pH  of  the
canned pimento to approximately U.S.

The whole pods are generally packed into small containers by hand
and  into large containers by machine.  Sliced, diced, and pieced
styles are cut and packed by machine.  If the product  was  cored
by  crushing,  it  is packed by machine, since only diced and cut
styles can be produced from the crushed fruit.  The final  pH  of
the  pimentos  is  the  dictating  factor  as to final processing
steps.  They may either be held at pasteurizing  temperatures  or
may  have  to be retorted to insure commercial sterility.  During
packing the containers are usually drained of  excess  liquid  in
order  to  insure a tight pack of the can or jar.  The containers
are cooled in canals or by cold water sprays.

A comparison was made by Bough (Ref. 1)  of  roasting  versus  lye
peeling  for generation of wastes and quality of canned products.
The two main advantages of lye as compared to flame peeling  were
reported to be the reduction of trim labor and consumption costs.
One  plant  in  the  study  reported  a savings of forty to fifty
thousand cubic ft of natural gas per year by using lye peeling in
place of  flame  roasting.   Bough  (Ref.  1)  reports  that  the
effluent  from  the  roasting  process contains 69 percent of the
total suspended solids load, 37 percent of the COD load,  and  30
percent  of  the  BOD  load in 18 percent of the total wastewater
flow.  The study on the pressurized lye application system showed
that 73 percent of the total suspened solids, 61 percent  of  the
COD,  and  39  percent  of  the  BOD  load resulted from the peel
removal operation.  The reel washer employed for core removal  is
also  a  contributing  source  of  pollutants.   Bough   (Ref.  1)
reported that this wash was found to contain a high concentration
of dissolved solids (1,472 mg/1)   due  to  the  large  amount  of
soluble  materials  washed  from  the  cores of the pimento pods.
Cooling water, if  sufficiently  free  of  contaminants,  can  be
recycled  to  the  initial  washing operation.  Some of the final

                                  129

-------
                    FIGURE  36


     TYPICAL SAUERKRAUT PROCESS  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                                 EARLY  BRINE
SOLIDS,  EXCESS LEAVES, BAD SPOTS
               HELD—6 WEEKS MINIMUM
                                                          «•*•» ^^^^ «^MV B^te»
                                          	SOLUBLES. BRINE	I
                                                                  n
                                                                    I
                                                       CLEAN - UP	I
                                                                  n
                                                                    i
                                                      _SPI l.LAOE_ __    j


                                                                    I
                                                 CONDENSATE
                                                               EFFLUENT
                             130

-------
wash water may also be recirculated to the  initial  washings  if
relatively free of contaminants.

Sauerkraut

Approximately   two-thirds   of  the  total  U.S.  production  of
sauerkraut is processed in  New  York  and  Wisconsin,  with  the
remainder  scattered  over  several  states.  For the purposes of
this study, three plants in New  York,  two  in  Oregon,  one  in
Wisconsin, one in Michigan, one in Indiana, one in Idaho, and one
in  Texas were visited for the collection of historical data.  In
addition, a total of four composite samples  were  collected  and
analyzed  to  verify  this  data.  Cabbage for sauerkraut is most
often harvested by machine.  The heads are cut from the  standing
stump  and  lifted  into  trailers  by  a series of conveyors and
elevators.  Processors prefer a clean-cut,  undamaged  head  free
from  excess leaves.  Usually two wrapper leaves are retained for
shipment to processing plants.

Figure 36 shows a flow diagram  for  a  typical  sauerkraut  pro-
cessing   plant.    Some  plants  are  cutting  and  fermentation
operations alone.  In this case, the sauerkraut and  spent  brine
are  later  shipped  to canning facilities.  The heads of cabbage
are dumped onto a conveyor  belt  which  carries  them  past  the
trimming  station  where  portions of stems and heavy green.outer
leaves are removed by hand; cutting of  blemished  or  discolored
portions is also done by hand.  Heads of cabbage are cored before
shredding.   The  heads  are  placed under a rapidly moving auger
with small horizontal blades.  The blades cut the core into  very
fine  pieces which are not objectionable in the finished product.
Approximately 25 percent of the initial weight of cabbage is lost
as solid waste in the trimming and coring operations.  The  range
loss   of  weight  between  over-the-scales  tonnage  and  packed
quantities is 25 to HO percent.  The heads  of  cabbage  are  cut
into  shreds  by  curved knives set into a rapidly revolving disc
about three ft in diameter.  The blades are usually  set  to  cut
shreds  1/32  to  1/4  in.  in  thickness.  Chopped sauerkraut is
prepared by means of a mill which cuts the cabbage into pieces of
varying degress of fineness.

Sauerkraut tanks are normally constructed of cypress wood,  fiber
glass, other materials, or a combination of materials.  The tanks
are  usually  placed  in  groups of ten or more, depending on the
size of the plant and number of shredding and  packing  lines  in
operation during the season.  The tanks are usually sized to hold
from 20 to 100 tons of chopped or shredded cabbage.  Each tank is
provided  with  an  opening  in the bottom to drain off the juice
when necessary.  A small opening may be provided in the  side  of
the  tank  for  sampling  juice  to  determine  the  progress  of
fermentation.  The shredded cabbage from the cutter  is  conveyed
by  belt into a buggy for transport to fermentation vats at a few
traditional plants.  It  is  more  commonly  moved,  however,  by
conveyor  or  positive air systems.  Two to three Ibs of salt per
100  Ibs  of  cabbage  is  applied  evenly  as  the  shreds   are

                                 131

-------
distributed  in  the  vat.   Juice  is  released from the cabbage
almost immediately after addition  of  the  salt.    To  assure  a
maximum  fill  of  cabbage into a vat, much of this "early brine"
may be withdrawn from the vat and  discarded  during  or  shortly
after  the filling.  This early brine is a major source of liquid
waste in the cutting and fermentation processes.  When  the  tank
is  full,  heavy planks or wood sections cut to fit the inside of
the tank may be placed on the cabbage and weighted down or may be
held in place by a screw press.  Another method is  to  seal  the
tank  with  a  plastic  lid covered with about two feet of water.
This prevents air from getting to the sauerkraut.

A number of different kinds of bacteria, yeasts, and mold  spores
are  present  in  or  on  the cabbage as it comes from the field,
ready to develop when conditions are favorable.  The addition  of
salt  to  the  shredded or chopped cabbage inhibits the growth of
many of the undesirable organisms.   The  juice  drawn  from  the
shredded cabbage by the salt helps to create a condition favoring
the  growth  of lactic acid bacteria.  Fermentation is considered
complete when the tritratable acidity, expressed as lactic  acid,
has reached 1.5 percent and the shreds are fully cured.  The time
required  for fermentation varies with the temperature and can be
as short as 20 days but normally ranges from four to eight weeks.
Sauerkraut which has been cured rapidly and then canned  promptly
will usually be lighter in color than when it is slowly fermented
and  packed  after holding in tanks for long periods.  Sauerkraut
darker in color or produced from longer fermentation  periods  is
higher in quality.

The  acidity  of  the sauerkraut should be determined by means of
laboratory tests to assure a properly cured  product  before  the
tank   is   opened.   When  the  fermentation  process  has  been
completed, the sauerkraut is removed from the vats and  packaged.
Many  times  several  vats are ready for packing at approximately
the same time; therefore, some must be  held  until  the  packing
operations can handle the sauerkraut.  The sauerkraut may be held
in  the  vats  for  up  to  two years without spoilage.  The tank
should not be disturbed until the sauerkraut is  to  be  removed.
Once  opened,  the  tank  is  usually emptied without delay.  The
excess juice is drained off by means of a tap in  the  bottom  of
the  tank.   In most cases this juice is retained for use as fill
brine in canning or for sale as  sauerkraut  juice.   This  "late
brine" is extremely high in BOD, COD, and suspended solids.  When
discarded, it represents an important source of liquid waste.

The  sauerkraut  is  usually  mechanically filled into cans after
heating to about 180° to 185°F.  This  eliminates  the  need  for
exhausting  the cans.  If sauerkraut is handfilled, then the cans
need to be exhausted with steam.  After  filling,  the  cans  are
passed  under a flow of hot brine containing two to three percent
salt.  This may be the late brine obtained from the  fermentation
vats  or  new  brine.   Care is usually taken not to overfill the
cans; however, some spillage is unavoidable.  After brining,  the


                                132

-------
cans  are seamed, retorted, rinsed, and cooled before packing and
shipment.

Sauerkraut processing involves two  distinct  operations:  first,
cutting and fermentation; and second, the canning operation.   The
first  occurs  immediately  after  harvesting and lasts for a few
months.  The canning operation can last all  year  round  but  is
sometimes   subdued   during  cutting  season.   Because  of  the
unpredictable time lag  and  overlap  of  these  two  operations,
estimating  total  wasteloads  per  total  quantity of cabbage or
sauerkraut would be more accurate if analyzed  separately;  i.e.,
relating  raw commodity to the wasteload generated by cutting and
fermentation and  relating  quantity  of  final  product  to  the
canning operation.

The  highest  wastewater  loading  in terms of organic discharges
results from the fermentation process of the vats.   Early  brine
is high in wasteload concentrations; BOD may easily be as high as
20,000  mg/1.   The  volume  released  varies  depending  on  the
individual plant and the market  demand  for  sauerkraut.   Later
brine  is  the highest in wasteload concentrations; BOD may be as
high as 40,000 mg/1 or more.  The volume discharged as  waste  is
also  variable  depending  on the individual plant operations and
the market demand for sauerkraut juice.

After the vats are emptied they must be  prepared  to  be  filled
again  next  season.   Wooden  vats must be kept filled with soak
water to prevent shrinkage and  collapse  until  ready  for  use.
Soak  water  is discharged and is low in wasteload concentrations
but high in volume, the largest  discharge.   Fiber  glass  lined
vats  and vats of other materials, such as concrete, are becoming
more popular because soak water is not needed  for  conditioning,
yielding  less  water  usage  and  less  wasteload.  Before being
filled with  cabbage,  all  vats  are  washed  with  water.   The
wastewater is of greater strength than soak water, but the volume
is  low.   Vat  wash water, therefore, is not a significant waste
source.  Cutting and transporting cabbage are dry operations, and
clean-up is  generally  accomplished  with  brooms  and  shovels.
Cutting and coring equipment are washed at regular intervals.

Snap Beans

Snap  beans  include  green,  Italian  (or Romano), and wax beans.
This category also includes "string" beans, although  snap  beans
no  longer  have  the  "string."  Approximately 58 percent of the
total U.S. production is processed in Oregon, Wisconsin, and  New
York,  with the remainder scattered throughout a number of states
in small percentages.  For the purposes  of  this  study,  eleven
plants  in  Oregon,  two  in Washington, ten in Wisconsin, one in
Idaho, and one in Michigan were visited  for  the  collection  of
historical  data.   In  addition, a toal of six composite samples
were collected and analyzed to verify this  data.    Approximately
77  percent  of  all  processed  snap  beans  are canned, and the
ramining 23 percent are frozen.

                               133

-------
                                  FIGURE  37

                 TYPICAL SNAP BEAN PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
     LEAVES, TWIGS, DIRT
          DEBRIS
          STEMS
                                              SOLUBLES ,  DUMPED
UNSHIPPED
BEAN
RETURN
                                                               SPILLAGE
           CULLS
SOLIDS
	 SITE (


SRA

CUT


r>c











SIZE GRADE








J
r
BLANCH


COOL


SLICE
' 	 : INSPECT








BLANCH 	 SOLUBLES 	 ^_




IQF
1
PACK

FREEZE '*~^

STORE

DEF
WA

* *

I
BRINE
1
SEAM
1
1
1
• RETORT
ROST 1
COOL

CO
T







IQF
_OL_
Tfi

_N6_
;R "

— »-
1

PACK


FREEZE


STORE

                                                               CLEAN UP
                                                                 80LUBLE8
                                                                  SEEDS
                                                                  DEFROST
                                                                  WATER
                                                                       EFFLUENT
     [WHOLE/CUT FROZEN]    [ALL STYLES CANNED ]      [SLICE FROZEN]
                                     134

-------
Snap beans consist of two varieties: bush beans which  are  grown
close  to  the ground for ease of mechanical harvesting, and pole
beans which grow to a  height  of  four  to  five  feet  and  are
harvested  by  hand.   The mechanical harvesting of bush beans is
done by a mobile viner, which pulls the vine,  strips  the  beans
from  the  vine, and returns the vine to the ground.  Pole beans,
which are harvested by hand, demand a higher price,  due  to  the
superior quality of raw product.  Bush beans are bulk-loaded into
trucks  for  transport  to  the  plant,  whereas  pole  beans are
generally loaded in tote boxes of approximately  1,000-2,000  Ibs
and  transported  to  the plant.  Bush beans mature uniformly and
are harvested all  at  once.   Pole  beans  continuously  produce
mature beans over several weeks, so they are picked several times
per season.

Figure 37 shows a flow diagram for a typical snap bean processing
plant.  The beans are normally sent through a series of vibrating
shaker  screens  to  separate  pieces  of  vine, stones, and dirt
clods.  They are then winnowed in an air blast to  remove  leaves
and other light trash.  The beans are next sent through a cluster
breaker,  which mechanically breaks apart clusters of beans.  The
beans can then either be sent to another air blast or directly to
the washers.  The beans are usually washed on a belt type  washer
but  may also be washed by either tank or immersion type methods.
Wastes from the cleaning and  washing  operations  include  silt,
pods, rocks, and bean pieces.

Sorting  and grading operations are used extensively in snap bean
processing.  The beans are most often graded by size  at  several
points  in  the  process line.  The first size grading segregates
the beans by  diameter  and  length  using  rotating  reels  with
various  sized  openings.   At other points, rotating reel "sieve
graders" are used, and in  some  cases,  a  series  of  vibrating
plates  with  perforations  of  specific  sizes  are used.  These
latter two are used  to  size  grade  the  beans  after  cutting.
Sorting  is  done by hand on inspection belts.  The beans are fed
into a mechanical snipper which removes the ends  of  the  beans.
The  beans  then  progress  to  an  unsnippedbean  remover  where
unsnipped beans  are  recirculated  back  through  the  snippers.
Snipped beans advance to inspection lines.  The snipped ends from
the  beans and other debris are usually removed from the beans at
the re-snipper; however, screens can also be  utilized  for  this
step in the processing.

Beans  for whole pack processing (the smallest beans)  are usually
blanched in a water blancher  and,   in  some  plants,  cooled  in
water.   For  canning, the beans are filled into the cans, topped
with brine, seamed, retorted, and cooled.  Some plants use  steam
exhaust  boxes before seaming.  For freezing, the whole beans are
usually packed into containers and frozen by plate freezers.  The
mid-sized beans are prepared as cuts, either straight or  angled.
The  whole beans are run through mechanical cutters, and are then
size graded and inspected.  Following a water blanch,  the  beans
to be canned are filled into cans,  which are then seamed, cooked,


                              135

-------
                        FIGURE  38


          TYPICAL SPINACH  PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
                                          SAHD, DIRT , OVERFLOW
    WEEOS^
||  DAMAGED
 |   PIECES
                                                                     +.
                                                                   EFFLUENT
                                136

-------
and  cooled.  Beans to be frozen are cooled after blanching, then
frozen in air blast, fluidized bed, or  Freon  freezers.   Sliced
beans are processed in the same manner as whole beans except that
the beans are sliced lengthwise after blanching and cooling.

The  largest  wastewater volumes generated in a typical snap bean
operation  are  those  attributable  to  washing   and   cooling.
Although  the  cooling  water  is  generally  very low in BOD and
suspended solids, the wash  waters  and  effluents  from  slicing
operations  can  contribute  significantly  to  pollutant levels.
Overflow from hot water blanchers and condensate  drippings  from
steam  blanchers  usually  contain  the strongest waste loadings.
The various fluming, cooling,  and  pump  recirculation  stations
throughout  a  typical  plant  also contribute in both volume and
pollutant levels because of their continous product  contact  and
overflows.

The  use  of  dry  cleaning  methods  has been observed to reduce
effluent volumes.  Fluming and recirculation pumps also have been
successfully utilized to conserve process water.  Cooling  water,
properly  maintained,  can  be  reused  either for more cycles of
cooling or  can  be  reused  for  initial  washing  and  cleaning
operations.

Spinach

Spinach  and  leafy  greens  (included  are  turnip, mustard, and
collard  greens  and  kale)   are  important  canned  and   frozen
vegetables.    Approximately  57  percent  of  the  U.S.  spinach
production and  a  small  proportion  of  the  U.S.  leafy  green
production  are  processed in California.  The remainder of these
crops  are  processed  in  the  south,  primarily  in   Arkansas,
Oklahoma,  Georgia, and Florida.  For the purposes of this study,
thirteen plants in California, two in Wisconsin, two in Virginia,
two in Oklahoma, one in Alabama, one in Flordia, two in  Georgia,
and two in Arkansas were visited for the collection of historical
data.   In  addition,  a  total  of  five  composite samples were
collected and analyzed to verify  this  data.   Approximately  53
percent  of  the spinach for processing is frozen, and 47 percent
is canned.  With greens, the inverse proportion is more accurate:
approximately 56 percent canned and HH percent frozen.

Figure 38 shows a typical process flow diagram  for  spinach  and
leafy  greens.   Leafy green crops grow comparatively quickly and
are generally grown twice a year:  the first  vegetable  crop  in
early  spring  as  well  as  a fall crop in September or October.
These are usually harvested by a mowing machine which  loads  the
greens  directly  into  trucks  for  transport  to the processing
plant.  An alternative method involves cutting the greens with  a
cutter  bar  machine  and  then  elevating them into small trucks
which in turn unload the greens onto a conveyor belt which  loads
a  semi-trailer.  In Flordia and Georgia, it is a common practice
to place crushed ice among the greens to keep them cool and fresh
during transport.  More than one harvest can often be made in the


                               137

-------
same field.  The crops are transported directly from the field in
bulk trucks or bins.  They are usually then taken  directly  from
the  fields  to  the processor.  They can, however, be shipped in
bins and iced for longer storage prior to processing.

The raw product is slowly proportioned by hand - the use of rakes
or pitchforks facilitates the unloading - onto  a  conveyor  belt
which  feeds  a dry-reel roller.  The tumbling action of the reel
fluffs the spinach, which in turn loosens adhering sand and dirt.
The loose soil and other debris are eliminated through the  outer
openings  and  collected  as  dry waste.  In Florida and Georgia,
where crushed ice is layered between the transported greens,  the
dry  reel  generates a waste effluent containing soil and debris.
This effluent is commonly screened  to  remove  solids,  and  the
liquid  effluent  is  discharged  to  the  process  effluent.  An
inspection usually follows dry cleaning  at  which  time  debris,
weeds,  off-color  (yellow), and insect damaged pieces are removed
by hand.  The wet cleaning operations vary considerably from  one
plant  to  another.   Washings  can  be  accomplished  by  paddle
washers, dip or dunk tank-type washers,  or  sprays.   Typically,
the  plants employ a combination of these into two or three stage
washing  operations.   Another  option  used  to  affect  washing
effectiveness has been the use of either cold, warm, or hot water
in  any  of  the  various  wet-cleaning  stages.   Fresh water is
continually added to the washers by overhead nozzles  to  replace
water  discharged  from  the washer.  The waste effluent from the
washers  may  either  be  dumped  intermittently  or   discharged
continuously  either  from  the  bottom  of  the  washer, or from
natural overflow.  Dewatering chains or conveyors are  frequently
used for transport between the above mentioned washes and also as
a  transport to the blancher.  Each plant employs its own process
conditions for blanching which are greatly influenced by  product
loading,  speed  of  related equipment, use of heated wash water,
and type of blanchers (hot water or steam).

After blanching, the spinach is conveyed either by  water  flume,
belt, or chain conveyor to a final inspection table.  Fluming, an
aid  to  cooling, is predominant in the freezers.  Trapped water,
however, between the layers of the leafy greens can  create  some
problems  for freezing, so that in several observed cases, rubber
inner-tube type "wringers" were used to effectively  dewater  the
product  before  inspection  and packaging.  The final inspection
mentioned above is typically done in  combination  with  canning.
Defective  pieces are discarded while the remainder of acceptable
grade  material  is  generally  hand-packed  into   the   desired
container  size  and  individually  check  weighed.   This  is  a
critical step in as much as the retorting that follows is greatly
dependent upon the "drained weight" contents  of  the  container.
Alternately,  for  another  variety  of  pack,  the greens may be
passed through a cutter to reduce piece size and be filled  on  a
more  automated  canning  line.   These  still  undergo  a  check
weighing process.  Once filled, the cans are  topped  with  brine
solution,  passed  through  an  exhaust  box   (to expel headspace
gases), seamed  (under steam flow if an exhaust box is not  used) ,


                             138

-------
washed,  retorted,  cooled,  and  conveyed  to warehouse storage.
Preparations for freezing and canning are  essentially  identical
up  to and including the final inspection.  The product, however,
may be packed as either whole leaf or  chopped.   Whole  leaf  is
basically  a hand-pack operation in which the leaves are manually
placed into pre-waxed boxes and weighed prior to box closing  and
wrapping.   The  chopped  product,  however,  is  the  result  of
diverting some of the main stream of product through a high speed
"chopper" and subsequently pumping the flowable mass to a  piston
or  displacement  type  filler.  The boxes are then automatically
filled, check weighed, closed, wrapped, and frozen.

Excluding can cooling and defrost water, the largest  volumes  of
water generated in a typical leafy green processing operation are
from  the various washing and dewatering stages.  It was reported
that 73 percent of a plant's wastewater (exclusive of cooling  or
defrost  water)   is generated during washings, and these washings
were responsible for 37  and  50  percent  of  the  BOD  and  COD
respectively.    The   most  concentrated  wastes  occur  at  the
blanchers either in terms  of  spillage  (hot  water  blanch)   or
condensate  (steam  blanch).   Other  sources  of  waste  volumes
generated are from water  flumes,  exhaust  box  condensate,  can
washers, and brine spillage.  Clean-up operations vary from plant
to  plant and are generally similar with the exception of spinach
processors.  Because raw spinach has a high natural concentration
of oxalic acid,  resultant washings and blanching steps leave hard
mineral deposits of calcium oxalate.  Subsequent  acid  cleanings
or  manual  buffing to remove these deposits can result in higher
than normal COD or ss levels.  Reference to wet sampling of plant
SP05 (Figure 18) shows that the last two SS results (April 15 and
April 20) were much higher than  normal  due  to  manual  oxalate
removal during clean-up hours.

The various stages of washing lend themselves to recirculation by
countercurrent  flow.  Many plants were observed to collect water
from dewatering belts and to recirculate it  back  to  the  first
washing  stages.   Flume water throughout various stages of plant
operations was also  observed  to  provide  make-up  for  initial
washes.  Cooling tower water from canning operations was observed
at  some  canneries to be either recycled for further can cooling
operations or pumped back to  first  washing  stages  as  make-up
water.    One  plant  utilized  a  portion of their screened waste
effluent to provide constant flume-flow for  all  in-plant  drain
canals.

Squash

Squash  and  pumpkin  combined  are  the thirteenth ranked canned
vegetable  commodity.   The  two  commodites,  which   from   the
botanist's  viewpoint  are separate, are virtually indistinquish-
able to the  food  processor.   The  term  pumpkin  is  generally
applied  to  the  late maturing or fall vining varieties, and the
term squash generally applies to the bush and  summer  varieties.
Both  pumpkin  and squash are members of the same genus; however,


                                 139

-------
                            FIGURE  39




           TYPICAL PUMPKIN/SQUASH PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
         DEFECTIVE PIECES, CULLS
SOLIDS
                                                                    EFFLUENT
                                   140

-------
they do not include "summer squash" or zucchini.  In most  plants
the processing is identical; frozen varieties are usually labeled
squash  and  canned  varieties pumpkin, although the content need
not differ to any great extent.  In the ensuing discussion  where
the  word pumpkin is used, it applies to both pumpkin and squash.
For the purpose of this study, three plants in Illinois, three in
Oregon, and one in California were visited for the collection  of
historical data.

Pumpkin  and  squash  are not harvested for processing until late
fall when the fruit is fully mature.  Harvesting is usually  done
after  the leaves begin to turn yellow.  This crop can be handled
when ripe without undue damage because of the  toughness  of  the
outer  rind.   It is generally harvested by a machine which chops
the fruit off at the stem, leaving vine and leaf materials behind
and depositing the fruit directly into bins for transport to  the
plant.

Figure  39 shows a flow diagram from a typical pumpkin and squash
processing plant.  Separate lines are shown for the  canning  and
freezing  processes.  Pumpkin and squash are usually delivered as
harvested to the processor.  They can be stored for several weeks
in  a  wellventilated  area  if  precautions  are  taken  against
freezing.   When  ready  for  processing, they are brought to the
product lines by drag conveyor or  front-end  loader  where  they
undergo  a preliminary rough wash to remove adhering dirt, vines,
and other extraneous material.   They  typically  then  go  to  a
second  washer which removes remaining dirt.  The washers consist
of rotary drums or soak tanks or a combination of both.  The corn-
removed by strong water sprays.  From the  washers  the  pumpkins
pass  to  an  inspection  belt  where  stems,  blossom  ends, and
blemishes are removed.  The pumpkin is then  mechanically  sliced
or  hand  trimmed,  and cut into smaller pieces which are further
reduced in size by running  them  through  a  chopper  or  "rough
finisher."  An inspection for rot and other defects follows.

The   pumpkins  are  wilted   (partially  cooked)  in  live  steam
(atmoshperic or pressurized steamers) until they are soft  enough
for  further  processing.   The  wilted  pumpkins  are soggy with
liquid which is a mixture of condensed steam and  pumpkin  juice.
The  product  is treated by passing it through an adjusted press,
most commonly two belts, the upper one of which applies  pressure
on  the  lower.  In some plants the pressing and wilting are done
simultaneously by the use of augers  fitted  inside  cone-shaped,
perforated  screens.   Pumpkin  from  the  press is conveyed to a
pulper which both  reduces  particle  size  and  eliminates  hard
pieces  of  pulp,  shell,  seeds,  and  some of the inner fibers.
Further size reduction through a "finisher"  results  in  pumpkin
puree   of   finished   product  consistency  and  in  the  final
elimination of seed, fiber, and hard particles.  The  temperature
of  the  prepared  pumpkin  at  the  time of processing is a very
important  factor  in  the  efficiency  of  the  process.    Heat
penetration  of  the product is very slow because of its physical
character, and the temperature at the beginning of the process is

                                 141

-------
                             FIGURE 40




           TYPICAL SWEET  POTATO PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SOLIDS





DIRT, PARTICLES, SMALL_ROOTS 	

LYE, PEELS
DRY PEEL

ENDS
CULLS, DEFECTS


VACUUM
PACK
BINS OR
BULK


DUMPER


TRASH
REEL


WASH


LYE BATH


SNIP


INSPECT
/ TRIM


SIZE GRADE


INSPECT

DIRT, SOLUBLES _


n
i
STEAM 1


WET



SCRU



1
l
1
SOLUBLES i
rttu STARCH, LYE "" |
^ 1
1 	 JUICES, SOLUBLES |

SPILLAGE 1
^^1
1
CLEAN -UP 1
	 OL1CI. , ,UT , . jy,icES • ^i
FRAGMENTS 1
1
i !
FILL


PULP /MASH '
i ;
SYRUP
1
RETORT
1
COOL COOLING
WATER


HEAT J
I !
EXHAUST


SEAM




RETORT


COOL

FILL J
1
SEAM J
1 [
RETORT ^
| LH-LUtNl
— T 	
COOL
                          COOLING WATER
                                    ^	I
[SOLID PACK]
                              142

-------
correspondingly important.  Use of a heat exchanger to raise  the
temperature  to 180-190°F results in a uniform fill.  The product
is then filled hot into cans and seamed, and the cans are washed,
retorted (still or continuous type) , and cooled.  That product to
be frozen is treated in almost the same  manner  as  that  to  be
canned  except  that after heating,  the pulp is cooled and filled
into individual packages which are check  weighed,  wrapped,  and
frozen.

The  principal sources of wastewater loadings typically come from
the  washing,  chopping,   finishing,   wilting,   and   pressing
operations.  The main pollutant from washing is normally soil and
adhering dirt (settleable solids) , whereas the wilting, pressing,
and finishing operations generate considerable amounts of juices,
seeds,  and  fine  suspended  organic particles.  Condensate from
wilting, a low volume, highly concentrated stream, can also be  a
significant  contributor to the waste stream.  Cleanup operations
may also affect a pumpkin/ squash processor's effluent  depending
on  the  amount  of spillage and accumulated juices and solubles.
Wasteload reductions may be accomplished  by  separating  chopper
and  finisher  waste  from  the  effluent  stream.   These can be
removed manually or by dry conveyor belt and discarded  as  solid
waste.  The major water volume generations throughout the process
are   washing   and  can  cooling.   Can  cooling  water  may  be
recirculated through a cooling tower  (with  proper  chlorination
controls)   and  be reused either for additional cycles of cooling
or as makeup for initial washing operations.

Sweet Potatoes

The principal areas in  which  sweet  potatoes  are  commercially
canned are Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and
Alabama, although small quantities are packed in Kansas, Georgia,
North  Carolina,  Illinois,  and  California.  Sweet potatoes are
sold principally candied whole and/or cut and are packed in three
main styles:  solid pack,  syrup  pack,  and  vacuum  pack.   The
amount of sweet potatoes processed represents about 10 percent of
the  total crop grown, the remaining 60 percent being sold on the
fresh market.  Canning sweet potatoes  is  a  seasonal  operation
restricted  mainly  to  the  fall  months--from September through
December.   After December, canning may be  somewhat  extended  by
using  stored lots.  For the purposes of this study, one plant in
California, one in North Carolina, and two in Maryland were field
visited for the collection of historical data.   In  addition,  a
total  of  three composite samples were collected and analyzed to
verify this data.

Sweet potatoes are generally harvested in the fall of  the  year,
though  in  some areas potatoes may be harvested as early as July
or as late as December.  The potatoes are harvested by both  hand
and  machine  and  are  usually  delivered  to  the  cannery  for
processing in field boxes or bulk trucks.  The difference between
fresh and aged sweet potatoes becomes significant in  processing.
Fresh  sweet potatoes are preferred for canning for the following

                               143

-------
reasons: the skin of the fresh potato is thinner and more  easily
removed  than  that  of the aged sweet potato and thus, the sweet
potato is canned only as a late season fill-in operation or as  a
way  of  meeting  a  high sales demand for the product; the fresh
potato has a higher starch content than the aged potato as  aging
results  in  part  of  the starch being converted into sugar; and
after canning, aged sweet potatoes tend to break down in the  can
and become softer than do canned fresh potatoes.

Figure  40  shows  a  flow  diagram  for  a  typical sweet potato
processing plant.  Sweet potatoes  are  either  washed  prior  to
delivery  to the cannery or are washed at the plant.  Some plants
dry clean the potatoes after receipt, and stones, some dirt,  and
some  of the small potatoes are removed.  After dry cleaning, the
potatoes are washed in a reel washer  consisting  of  a  rotating
drum  and  cold  water sprays.  Approximately five percent of the
gross weight of the potato trucked in from the field is dirt that
is removed during the receiving  and  cleaning  operations.   The
most  frequently  used  types of sweet potato peelers are hot lye
and steam peelers.  Either method may be used to soften the peel,
after which the  peel  is  generally  removed  by  some  type  of
abrasion.   Steam  peeling  offers some potential advantages over
lye peeling in terms of  increased  yields  but  may  affect  the
resulting  quality  of  the  product.   There are also associated
additional maintenance and  equipment  costs.   Lye  peeling  may
basically  be divided into two systems:  wet peel removal and dry
peel removal.

Wet Lye Peeling--The wet caustic peeling process involves several
steps.  After the potatoes have been cleaned, they are  preheated
in  a  hot  water  bath at 120° to 150°F for two to five minutes.
The preheating enhances  peel  removal.   After  preheating,  the
potatoes  are  immersed  in  a lye bath of five to twelve percent
caustic at 200° to 210°F for two to eight minutes.  The  strength
of  the  lye  bath,  skin  thickness,  and  the  condition of the
potatoes determine the length  of  exposure  to  the  bath.   The
caustic  softens  the  skin  and  outer  layers of the potato and
facilitates easy peel  removal.   Following  the  lye  bath,  the
potatoes  are conveyed to a rotating drum peeler, the inner sides
of which are coated with  a  sand-like  abrasive.   As  the  drum
revolves,  the  peel is rubbed off along with some potato solids.
A continuous water spray removes the abraded peel from the  sides
of  the drum.  As much as 40 percent of the potato may be removed
during this process and is lost as liquid waste.

Dry Caustic Peeling—The dry caustic  peeling  process  is  quite
similar to the wet caustic process, the only difference being the
peel  removal.   The dry peeler equipment employs rubber studs on
planetary rollers in a rotating drum.   In  concept,  the  rubber
studs are flexible and facilitate a more efficient removal of the
potato  eyes  and the skin surrounding irregularities.  Abrasion,
by contrast, is not flexible and must remove more of  the  potato
to achieve acceptable peel removal.  Rubber studs may be provided
in   different   lengths,  sizes,  and  stiffness,  allowing  for


                                  144

-------
interchange and combinations  that  provide  the  most  efficient
peeling  operation.   The rapid rotation of the planetary rollers
discharges the peel waste to the interior wall  of  a  containing
drum where it can be scraped off.  Only a small quantity of water
is  needed  to lubricate the planetary rollers.  The waste can be
disposed of as a semi-solid.  In terms of waste loading, the  dry
caustic  peeling  process  offers  an  excellent  opportunity for
processors to significantly reduce both their BOD  and  suspended
solids  levels  when  compared  with  either wet peel removal and
steam/abrasion peeling.

Steam peeling requires exposure  of  potatoes  to  high  pressure
steam  for  a  short  duration  of  time.   The  steam loosens or
"blisters" the peel from the potato.  Abrasive  peelers  or  high
pressure  cold  water  sprays  typically  follow  to  remove  the
loosened peel.  Alternately, the  sweet  potatoes  may  first  be
passed  through  a steam peeler  (acting as a pre-heater) and then
sent to a lye bath for further peel penetration.   The  operation
of  snipping  the  ends  of the sweet potato may be placed either
before or after the peeling operation.  The snipper is  a  device
that  mechanically cuts off the ends of the potatoes.  These ends
then go into the clean-up stream or can be  removed  directly  as
solid  waste.  The mechanical snipping operation requires further
manual labor to finish  trimming  the  sweet  potato.   From  the
snipper,  the  potatoes  travel along a sorting belt where manual
labor is used  to  inspect,  trim,  and  discard  the  parts  not
suitable  for canning.  A rotating drum with different size slots
size grades the potatoes for canning.  The larger  potatoes  move
through a series of slicers to reduce size before canning.  Quick
handling  of  sweet potatoes after peeling, sorting, and trimming
is important to  avoid  discoloration.   Any  contact  with  iron
surfaces  will cause considerable black discoloration if there is
delay.  The potato, after grading, moves  onto  a  circular  hand
pack  filler  with a series of can-size openings around the peri-
meter.  The potatoes  are  raked  into  cans  passing  below  the
openings.   They may also be mechanically filled by a tumble type
filler.  Waste  associated  with  this  process  is  confined  to
spillage which can be discarded as a solid waste.

Sweet  potatoes  can  be packed in three different styles: vacuum
pack, syrup pack, and whole pack.  The vacuum  pack  consists  of
filling  the  potato  pieces into the can tightly and seaming the
can under approximately 29 inches of vacuum.  No  top-off  liquid
is  added.   The  syrup  pack  differs from the above in that the
sweet potato pieces are topped with  hot  syrup,  exhausted,  and
seamed.   The third style, solid pack, usually consists of mashed
or, pulped product which is heated and filled  hot  (about  190°F)
into  the  cans.   Seaming is done immediately after filling.  In
all three processes, the seamed cans are  washed,  retorted,  and
cooled.

The  most  significant  wastewater  stream generated in the sweet
potato process results from the  peeling  operations.   With  wet
peel removal equipment, peeling contributes the highest wasteload

                                  145

-------
                    FIGURE  41




TYPICAL CANNED WHITE  POTATO PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
!
1
I
^
so



BULK

WASH

J=^-=^=====^hL^=^^=^=^=
INSPECT


1
1
I PEELS. LYE DRY PEEL
(I* =r~ =r™ REMOVAL
' j

^
h CULLS
1
|
h_ CULLS
^~
.IDS I WHOLE
LYE PEEL


TRIM

SIZE
GRADE

INSPECT

BLANCH

DEWATER
1
INSPECT

FILL
1
BRINE
DIHT

WET PEEL
REMOVAL

UNPEELED
POTATOES
TO PEELER
_J


SLICE
1
GRADE

INSPECT

SOLUBLES, STARCH 1
STARCH, SOLUBLES i
[SLICED WHITE POTATOES]
j
SPILLAGE J
*"

SEAM

RETORT
cutAn-up __ |


COOL
1
T
: WHITE POTATOES 1 EFFLUENT
                            146

-------
for  both  BOD  and  suspended  solids;  scrubbing  and  snipping
contribute approximately one-third  of  the  wasteload.   Cooling
uses  the largest amount of water, but the wasteloadings are nil.
Clean-up operations can also contribute significantly because  of
the heavy loadings of natural sugars and starches inherent in the
sweet potato.

The  use  of  dry  peel  removal  can, of course, be used to full
advantage for reduction of  wasteloads.   Properly  managed,  the
peel  removal  operation  can  be kept almost completely separate
from the  main  plant  effluent  stream  with  subsequent  marked
decrease  in  BOD and suspended solids loadings.  Initial washing
operations and volumes of water used can be extended  by  use  of
recirculating  pumps.   Can  cooling  water  can  also be used as
initial make-up for first washings or can be recirculated through
cooling towers to be reused again as can cooling water.

White Potatoes, Canned

White potatoes are  processed  in  a  variety  of  styles.   This
report,  however,  is  limited  to  canned whole and sliced white
potatoes.  Two plants in Virginia, one in  Pennsylvania,  two  in
Delaware,  one in New Jersey, one in Maine, and one in California
were visited for the collection of historical data.  In addition,
a total of six composite samples were collected and  analyzed  to
verify this data.

Figure  m  shows  a  typical  canned white potatoes process flow
diagram.  Potatoes for processing are mechanically harvested  and
loaded into bulk containers to be shipped by truck or rail.  Har-
vesting is a seasonal operation.  However, since raw potatoes can
be successfully stored for months, many processing plants operate
ten  to  twelve  months  a  year.   An extended growing season is
preferred to produce a tuber with higher specific gravity and low
reducing sugar.

Potatoes are removed from bin storage to a large flume, sometimes
in the floor of the bin, and conveyed by the water  to  a  large-
mesh  metal  conveyor  situated  over  a sump.  This initial wash
removes some  of  the  field  soil  and  vine.   This  wastewater
deposits  in the sump where the overflow is discharged or reused.
The potatoes are then mechanically  conveyed  to  a  drum  washer
equipped  with  high  pressure  sprays.   As  the potatoes tumble
through  the  drum  washer,  the  high  pressure  water   removes
practically  all of the adhering field soil.  This wash water may
be reused  in  the  initial  fluming  or  washing  operations  or
discharged  directly.  After washing, the potatoes are discharged
to an inspection belt where culls and trash are manually  removed
as culls.

The most common type peeler is called a wet caustic peeler or lye
peeler.   Other  types  of  peelers in use are steam and abrasion
peelers.  In a lye peeler operation, the potatoes are dumped in a
caustic bath of fifteen to eighteen percent strength  where  they

                              147

-------
remain  three  to  seven minutes,  depending upon the condition of
the raw material.  A submerged screw pulls the  potatoes  through
the  bath.   Lye  is  added  periodically to maintain the caustic
strength.  The potatoes are conveyed out of the bath and  into  a
wet  or  dry  peeler.   Wet  peelers are more commonly used;  they
consist of brushes and water sprays in  a  revolving  drum.    The
loosened  potato  skin  is brushed off and washed as the potatoes
tumble through.  A thorough rinsing follows, to wash  off  excess
peel  and  caustic  and to prevent hardening and discoloration of
the potato.  The peels and potato waste  are  discharged  to   the
wastewater stream.

Dry  peelers  are  becoming more popular because of the decreased
water usage, increased yield, and efficient waste disposal.    The
potatoes  are  conveyed  from  the  caustic  bath into a rotating
scrubber consisting of rubber studs on  planetary  rollers  in  a
rotating  drum.   The  peels and potato waste is deposited on the
outside of the drum where they are scraped off and disposed of as
solid waste.  A small amount of water is  used  for  lubrication.
An  abrasive  peeler follows the scrubber, where the potatoes are
polished by abrasive rollers and brushers.  The solids are  again
removed mostly as a solid waste.  A water spray rinses the potato
as  it exits the peeler.  Abrasive peelers contain discs or rolls
which are coated with an abrasive material.  These discs or rolls
rotate and remove the peel and some potato tissue  by  physically
tearing   it   from   the  whole  potato.   Strong  water  sprays
continuously wash the abrasive material and the partially  peeled
potatoes.   The  potato  is  spun  to ensure equal peeling on all
sides.  All waste is discharged to the wastewater stream.   Steam
peeling  requires  exposure  of  potatoes  to high pressure for a
short duration of time.   The  steaming  vessel  is  followed  by
brushes and water sprays which remove the cooled peel and some of
the potato tissue directly below the peel.  Highpressure steaming
of  potatoes is an excellent procedure for producing a thoroughly
peeled potato.  Because of heat ring formation, this operation is
not generally used for canned potatoes.

The peeled potatoes are discharged to a belt where unpeeled  eyes
and  discolored  areas  are  removed  and  discarded.  Very small
potatoes are removed in the size grader and are  also  discarded.
The  potatoes  are  sliced  into  one  of several styles, and the
sliced pieces are sent over a perforated shaker which removes the
small pieces.  Water is used  to  lubricate  the  blades  and  is
sometimes  used  to  remove  excess  starch.  The slices are then
passed through a size grader.  Hot water  blanching  is  used  by
some  plants  for  both  whole  and  sliced styles to improve the
quality of the finished product.  Nearly all the  waste  produced
is  in  liquid  form.  Blanchers are dumped periodically, usually
once per  day  during  clean-up  operations.   The  potatoes  are
immediately  cooled by water sprays or flume, to halt the blanch.
A dewatering screen follows, and the excess water is  shaken  off
the  potatoes by a rapid vibrating motion.  Both whole and sliced
styles are mechanically filled into cans,  and  heated  brine  is
added to overflowing.  Sometimes a salt tablet is dispensed along

                                  148

-------
with  fresh  water  in  the  place  of  brine.  Minor spillage is
unavoidable.  The cans are then  seamed,  washed,  retorted,  and
cooled.

As discussed, many steps along the process line use and discharge
water.   The  washing and peeling operations generate significant
volumes and high concentrations of wasteload.  The  caustic  bath
is  seldom dumped, but the outside of the tank may be washed down
during clean-up.  Scrubbing,  peeling,  and  rinsing  the  potato
contribute  high  BOD  and  suspended solids from the lye, peels,
pieces, and starch washed into the  gutter.   Fluming  operations
are  located  throughout  the  process  line, and even though the
water  is  recirculated,  a  continuous  discharge  results  from
spillage  and  overflow.  Other major sources of liquid waste are
blanching,  cooling,  and  clean-up.   Some  cooling  waters  are
recirculated  through cooling towers to be used again for cooling
or  other  operations  such  as  washing  or  boilers.    Cleanup
operations  usually  occur after each shift; dumping of blanchers
and washers may accompany  the  hosing  down  of  equipment.   As
discussed   above,   some  of  the  initial  wash  water  may  be
recirculated  as  well  as  retort  cooling  water.   Other   wet
operations,  however,  do not lend themselves to reuse because of
the heavy starch contamination throughout.

Added Ingredients

It is recognized that  certain  commodities  described  and  sub-
categorized  in  this  document utilize additional ingredients in
the manufacture of finished products containing  that  commodity.
For  example,  many  frozen  vegetables are now sold with butter,
cheese, or cream  sauce  added.   Other  common  ingredients  are
sugar, starch, and tomato sauce.

It  was  not  possible  to determine quantitatively the extent of
usage of added  ingredients  as  defined  above.   It  was  felt,
however,  that  the  handling  of  these added ingredients by the
processing plant adds an incremental wasteload to the total plant
waste production.  The incremental  wasteload  primarily  results
from  the  clean-up  of  the  equipment (vats, pipes, dispensers,
etc.).  Since these are expensive ingredients, it is assumed that
a well-managed plant will keep spillage to a negligible minimum.

The added ingredients discussed are preprocessed  and  arrive  at
the plant in bulk form.  Generally, the constituents of the sauce
are  combined  in  a  predetermined  formula, cooked in stainless
steel tanks, and pumped to the filler.  In  the  case  of  sauced
frozen  vegetables,  the  filling  operation  is performed in two
stages:  a weighted measure of the vegetable is filled  into  the
bag,  and  prior  to its closure the sauce is injected.  The bags
are then sealed, frozen,  and  stored.   Prior  to  filling,  the
vegetables   are   processed   identically  to  those  non-sauced
varieties, and a detailed description of each  commodity  can  be
found in the individual commodity process descriptions.


                                 149

-------
                            FIGURE 42

   SIMPLIFIED BABY  FOOD PLANT PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM  (2 LINES)
                                 PLANT
                                CLEAN-UP
* RAW • m
FRUIT . c 	 1 STEAM I 	 »


biC.) 	 •"*
FRUIT LINE

FINAL ^ 1 coonric 1 * PULPER/ ^ PIT
PRODUCT ^ Lr~~'lllLJ ^ FINISHER RFMOVAf
INSPECTION
BELT

— *-J3L ANCH1NG |-«
* RAW
t
t
VFHFTARI ES ... __„...,__, STEAM


(KJIAlUhS, 	 	 J PEELING


mm
WASHING



INSPECTION
BELT


CARROTS, ' 	 '
ETC.)
MEAT- VEGETABLE LINE


— ^ — 	 COOKING ™'"^ 	 FINISHER l--1^
ppnnurvr ,... ,— •











bLANUr



^ . *

NOTE
HEAVY ARRCTW
DESIGNATES MAJOR
LIQUID WASTE
GENERATION



    *  REFER TO INDIVIDUAL COMMODITY PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS
        FOR DETAIL OF WASTE STREAMS FROM UNIT OPERATIONS
                                   150

-------
The  processing of dry bean specialties is identical to that of a
typical dry bean processor except that additional ingredients are
added to produce the canned specialty; for instance, beef, tomato
sauce, and spices are added to make chili con carne.  Filling  of
the  containers  may  be a one, two, or multi-step operation.  In
some instances, the containers are mechnanically filled, while in
other circumstances much hand labor is required.   After  filling
(the product is usually filled hot), the cans are closed, washed,
retorted, and cooled.

The   characteristics   and  generation  of  the  wastewater  are
identical to the waste streams  for  the  individual  commodities
with  the  addition of the cooking tank and pumping line cleanup.
The clean-up waste stream,  because  of  the  "richness"  of  the
various  sauces, is a contributor to BOD levels.  These premixing
operations are usually done in a separate part of the plant,  but
the  necessary  constant sanitation (equipment flushing and floor
clean-up) produces a waste volume that is combined with  the  raw
commodity processing effluent before final plant discharge.

Baby Foods

Baby  foods are produced in California, Michigan, Arkansas, North
Carolina, New York, and Pennsylvania.  The plants are designed to
take advantage of the natural harvest seasons in each area, while
at the same time have the capability of year-round operation  for
non-seasonal  items.   The  varieties  and styles produced by the
manufacturers virtually encompass each separate commodity covered
individually in this study.  Almost all production is marketed in
glass jars with the exception of juices  and  cereals.   For  the
purposes  of  this  study, two plants in California were visitied
for the collection of historical  data.   In  addition,  one  wet
sample was collected and analyzed to verify this data.

Figure  42  shows the various steps in a typical baby food plant.
Baby food plants at one time  in  the  year  or  another  usually
handle  the  following  commodities fresh from the field: apples,
apricots, green beans,  beets,  carrots,  peaches,  pears,  peas,
spinach,   squash,   sweet  potatoes,  and  white  potatoes.   In
addition, they may process fresh frozen plums and  dried  prunes.
Other  ingredients, such as corn, tomatoes, celery, and pineapple
may be completely or partially preprocessed  (canned or frozen)  by
another manufacturer.

The processes for washing, grading, inspecting, pitting,  coring,
blanching,  and  peeling  are basically the same for any specific
commodity and will  not  be  dealt  with  in  this  section  (see
separate  descriptions for detailed processing steps).  There are
several variations, however, which separate baby food  processors
from  the  typical raw product processor.  A principal difference
is blanching.  Typically, because the resulting finished  product
is a puree or very small piece size, almost all raw materials are
blanched  (cooked).   This may be a thermal screw or some similar
device, the purpose of  which  is  to  pre-cook  and  soften  the


                               151

-------
                FIGURE  43

TYPICAL  CORN  CHIP  PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM
       WATER
                  DRY CORN KERNEL
                     STORAGE
                    BINS OR BAGS
                                      OVERFLOW
                                        SOLUBLES ,  HUSKS
                                        PERIODIC BOIL-OUT
                                       (  DETERGENT ADDED )
                                                 CLEAN-UP
                                                 SPILLAGE
                                                             EFFLUENT
                         152

-------
product  so  that  it  may  be more easily reduced by either dis-
integration or high-speed mills or a combination of both.   These
blanching and pre-cooking conditions are usually much longer than
a  normal  canner or freezer because of the degree of pre-cooking
desired.

Batching operations may be accomplished in several ways depending
on the product and style desired.  These usually include  various
starches,  meats,  condiments,  and  raw  materials  all  brought
together as per  the  various  formulae.   In  some  cases,  this
involves  meat  grinding, slurrying, and pre-cooking of starches,
adjustment of  brix  concentrations,  and  various  other  mixing
operations  where  products from the raw material processing area
and other pre-processed ingredients are  blended  and  pre-cooked
prior  to  filling.   For  example,  a  product  such as "Chicken
Dinner" may contain freshly prepared carrots and potatoes, frozen
deboned chicken, one or more starches which must be pre-cooked to
obtain desired viscosity, processed  tomato  paste,  and  perhaps
five or more minor ingredients for the desired flavor and product
characteristic.   These ingredients would then all be combined in
a batch tank, pre-cooked, and pumped to the filler.

After batching and pre-cooking, the products may undergo  several
additional  processes  before  filling.  For example, fruit items
may be pumped  through  heat  exchangers  where  the  product  is
exposed  to  high  heat (230-250°F) and short-time (approximately
30-45 seconds)  sterilization, pumped  through  a  deaerator,  and
finally pumped to the filler at about 200°F.  The product is then
hot-filled  into  a glass jar; the jar is capped; and the unit is
held for three  to  five  minutes  to  achieve  sterilization  of
container and closure.  Cooling is achieved by cold water sprays.
Formulated  items  containing  meat and starch are usually pumped
directly from the batch tanks to the filler.  The jars  are  then
exhausted and capped, retorted and cooled.

Wastewater  generations  throughout  the raw material preparation
are  similar  to  those  for  any  particular   commodity   being
processed.   Retort  and  cooling  water,  as  is  typical  for a
"canning"  operation,  is  a  major  volume  part  of  the  final
effluent,  but  it is normally low load water and does not affect
the pollutant levels (except for dilution).  The use of many  raw
materials,  however,  necessitates extensive clean-up operations.
Volume of water used and  subsequent  BOD  and  suspended  solids
levels   can   be  significant.   Washed  juices,  suspended  and
partially solublized starches, meat particles containing fat, and
the appropriate cleaning chemicals all contribute  to  the  waste
load.   The  principle reuse of water occurs in the retorting and
cooling systems.  In some cases, these waters are reused as make-
up for initial produce washing operations.  Part of  this  stream
may  also  be used for gutter flushings.  Cooling towers may also
be used for recirculation.
                                   153

-------
       Corn and Tortilla

Corn chips are  usually  manufactured  in  the  same  plant  con-
currently with potato chips;  however, the manufacturing processes
and  wasteloads  generated  are much different from potato chips.
Until about I960, one major company held  the  patents  on  their
manufacture, and this firm still dominates the industry.  For the
purposes  of  this study, two plants in Michigan were visited for
the collection of historical data.  The processing of corn  chips
is  always  a  batch  process, in that a group of ingredients are
assembled in a container and then proceed through  the  following
processing  steps  as  a  batch.  A schematic flow diagram of the
manufacturing process is shown in Figure 43.    Major  ingredients
used  are  dry  kernel corn,  lime, and water.  A typical ratio of
corn to lime is 100:1 by weight.

Corn, water, and lime are measured and mixed into  the  simmering
kettle,  usually  a  stainless steel steam-jacketed kettle with a
double motion agitator.  Typically, one pound of lime and fifteen
to twenty gallons of water are mixed  with  each  100  pounds  of
corn.   The  ingredients are brought to a boil and simmered for a
period of time, ranging from 20 to 30 minutes, depending  on  the
corn  used.   After  the  set  period  of  time, cooling water is
immediately metered into the mixture.  The mixture is continually
agitated so that it will cool uniformly.   When  the  temperature
has  dropped  to  about  160°F,  the  mixture is transferred to a
soaking tank.  The mixture is allowed to soak  for  three  to  24
hours  in  order  to loosen the corn husks and build the moisture
content of the corn to over 50 percent.  An additional fifteen to
twenty gallons of water per 100 pounds  of  dry  kernel  corn  is
added  in  this  step.   At  the  end  of the soaking period, the
steeping water, a very strong waste, is discharged to the  sewer.
After  soaking,  the  corn  is  pumped  into a continuous washer,
usually a perforated drum with fresh water sprays that wash  away
the  loosened  husks.   Water is generously used to wash away all
contaminants.

The cooked and washed corn is transported by conveyor to the corn
mill where it is screw-fed between two specially cut and  matched
stones  which  grind  the  corn into a substance called masa.  No
water is used in this unit  process  or  any  subsequent  process
except  for  routine  plant  clean-up.   The  masa is fed into an
extruding machine which rolls the masa into a log  and  feeds  it
into  a  cylinder nine to ten inches in diameter at the other end
of which is attached a die that forms the width and thickness  of
the chips.  The product is cut to the desired length by adjusting
a  variable  speed  knife.   A  disc  forces the masa through the
extruder which shapes the chip and cuts it.   The  chips  usually
fall from the extruder directly into the fryer.

The  chips  are  fried in oil at a temperature of between 390° to
410°F for between 75 to 105 seconds, depending  on  the  type  of
finished  product  desired.   The  cooking  vats  usually  have a
continuous fines removal system for small bits of  masa  produced

                                 154

-------
in  the  extrusion  operation.  The oil is usually cleaned at the
end of each day by passing it through a  filter  press.    Salting
usually  occurs  immediately  after  removal  from  the fryer.   A
mechanical salter is normally used.  The chips are usually tested
for quality  at  this  point  by  tasting.   A  quick  cooler  is
sometimes  used  to  cool the chips before packaging, although if
the conveyor belt is of a sufficient distance, the chips may cool
naturally while being transported  to  the  packaging  equipment.
Various  flavorings  may  be added at this time, the most popular
being bar-b-que.  Chips  are  usually  mechanically  packed  into
various  types of containers.  Tortilla chips are manufactured in
almost the same  manner  as  corn  chips,  up  to  the  point  of
extruding.   At  this  point,  the  masa  is  fed to a mechanical
sheeter and cutter which presses the masa into sheets and cuts it
into the desired shape, usually triangular.  The chips  are  then
fed  into  an  oven  where  the moisture content is substantially
reduced.  The chips are removed from the oven,  cooled,   and  fed
into  the  fryer.  The rest of the process is similar to that for
corn chips.

Discharges to a plant's effluent stream are  sporadic  in  nature
but  for  the most part rather concentrated.  The introduction of
steeping  water  and  clean-up  water   (floor   and   equipment)
contributes to the organic loads, most of the effluent consisting
of  dissolved  and/or  suspended  corn particles as well as small
amounts of the added lime.

Chips, Potato

Potato chips are manufactured in  plants  spread  throughout  the
nation.   Because  of  the  high  cost of freighting the finished
potato  chips,  plants  are  located  in  virtually   all   major
population centers and vary greatly in size.  For the purposes of
this study, nine plants in Pennsylvania, two in Maine, and one in
Texas  were  visited  for the collection of historical data.  The
Potato Chip Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, provided background  data
and enlisted the cooperation of its membership.

In  this report we are considering only potato chips manufactured
from  fresh  potatoes.   Reconstituted  chips  manufactured  from
dehydrated  potatoes  are  not  covered.  The fresh potatoes used
comprise a wide range of varieties and are grown in many  states.
The  varieties  best  for  chipping  include Russet Rural, Russet
Burbank, Smooth Rural, Irish Cobbler, Kennebec, Sebago,  Katahdin,
Delus, Merrimack, and Saco.  Varietal differences  of  importance
to  wasteload generation include skin thickness, potato size, and
percent solids.  Potato solids content varies from  about  twelve
and  one-half  to twenty percent depending upon variety, location
grown, time  of  year,  and  length  of  storage  prior  to  use.
Generally, the potatoes are machine harvested and received at the
chip  plant  unwashed.   The  amount  of  dirt  on  the potatoes,
percentage  of  spoiled  potatoes,  and  trash  included  depends
primarily upon the type of soil and weather conditions where they
were harvested.  The potatoes usually arrive at the chip plant in

                               155

-------
                            FIGURE   44

           TYPICAL POTATO  CHIP PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
                                 DRY CONVEYANCE
                                  OVER ROLLERS
                                   ( UNUSUAL)
                                                     PERIOD !£._ _B OU._-_OUT
                                                       WITH DETERGENTS
SOLIDS
                                                                        EFFLUENT
                                   156

-------
half-ton  wooden bins, but larger containers may be used at large
plants, and 100 pound sacks may be used at small plants.

Potatoes may be  stored  under  controlled  conditions  for  long
periods  before  use,  and  virtually all plants can store for at
least several months.  Therefore, effluent guidelines  should  be
based  upon final production and not upon receipt of raw product.
Potatoes in storage may "weep" (go rotten)  and  create  a  liquid
waste  which  must  be  cleaned  up,  but  this is a minor amount
generally, because the plant will  process  the  potatoes  before
this  happens.   Potatoes  in  storage,  however, do experience a
thickening of the skin and an increase in percent solids.

The  processing  of  potato  chips  is  virtually  a  year  round
operation.   Figure  44  shows  a typical flow diagram for potato
chip processing.  There appears to be little deviation  from  the
basic  processing steps shown, only a difference in the design of
the equipment used and the amount  of  water  recycle  practical.
The  binned  potatoes  are  unloaded  by  forklift into a washer-
destoner device which  hydraulically  lifts  the  potatoes  at  a
velocity  designed to separate dirt and debris from the potatoes.
Water used may be fresh or recycled within the slice washer  (see
below), and is extensively recycled within the washer-destoner to
reduce the volume of the wastewater discharged.

An estimated 95 percent of the potatoes used for potato chips are
abrasive  peeled.   A  few very large plants in the Northwest are
reported to use lye peeling.  No peeling at all may  be  required
when  the  fresh  potatoes  are  very thin skinned.  The abrasive
peeler removes the skins by means of high-speed abrasive rotating
discs.  Sprays to wash the peel  from  the  potato  are  normally
fresh water; however, in at least one plant, they are reported to
be  reclaimed water from the slicing washer described later.  The
peeled potatoes are transported usually by conveyor belt,  to  an
inspecting  and  trimming  station where unwanted portions of the
potato, such as leftover peel, eyes, and blemishes,  are  trimmed
usually  by  hand.   The  wastes  generated in this operation are
whole pieces, peels, and unwanted portions of  the  product.   In
the  past, these wastes were generally disposed to the wastewater
via continuous flumes; modern practice, however, recommends  that
they be placed in containers and disposed of as a solid waste.

The  peeled  and  trimmed  potatoes  are  fed  into a centrifugal
mechanical slicer which slices the potatoes into chips of between
fifteen and twenty slices per inch.  Blade  sharpness  and  slice
thickness  have  a bearing upon waste generation.  Sharper blades
and thicker slices cause  less  leaching  of  solubles  from  the
slices during the following washing step.  There appears to be no
data  available,  however,  to  quantify  the difference in waste
generation.  The major  producer  of  soluble  organic  waste  in
potato  chip  manufacture is the slice washer.  There are various
designs of slice washers.  The majority use a revolving drum with
hard sprays.  Others may wash the slices in  a  trough  of  water
through  which  the  slices  are  conveyed on a belt.  The washer


                               157

-------
removes surface starch from the  slices  to  prevent  matting  or
sticking of the chips.

Wastes  generated from the slicing and washing operations include
suspended solids and white starch.  The industry  recognized  the
significant  strength  of this waste and has developed a means of
reducing its strength.  Recent developments have included systems
for separating the white starch from the wastewater into a  solid
block  of starch, which can be utilized as starch or animal feed.
One method is through a hydraulic washing  system.   Slicers  are
mounted  on  the  washer  frame  and  discharge  directly  into a
collector trough where slices are sluiced  into  a  high-velocity
water  stream.   The slices are washed by the combination of high
agitation and a rapidly moving water stream.   They  travel  with
the  water  through a washing tube onto a separation flume, where
both the slices and water  are  spread  evenly  over  a  draining
conveyor.   The  draining conveyor consists of a stainless steel,
open-mesh conveyor belt which allows water, small bits and pieces
of potato, and peel to fall through and separate from the slices.
The slices continue to drain as they are  carried  up  the  first
draining  conveyor;  they are then dropped onto a second draining
conveyor of similar construction, turning over  in  the  process.
The  wastewater  from  this  operation is run through centrifugal
wastewater concentrators (hydrocones) , which remove a substantial
percentage of the starch in solution.  The slurry  is  discharged
into  vats  where  it solidifies into blocks of solid starch, and
the water can be recirculated for use in peeling or other  opera-
tions.   The  economics  of starch recovery depend upon transport
cost and the market for recovered starch.

Following the slice washer, the slices are fried in a  continuous
fryer  using a high grade of vegetable oil.  The continuous fryer
is  normally  boiled  out  weekly  using  detergent  and   water,
producing  a short-term, high-strength waste.  This is considered
part of the overall clean-up water.  The  industry  has  an  odor
problem  from  the  frying  operation.   A  recent development to
reduce this odor is a system to  reclaim  steam  from  the  fryer
through  a  condenser  and  special  heat  exchanger.   Chips are
usually salted immediately upon  removal  from  the  fryer  by  a
mechanical salter and then packaged.

The  major  volume  of  wastewater  generated in a typical "chip"
operation is attributable to the washing and  peeling  processes.
Initial  washings  generally  remove  external  dirt  and  debris
resulting in low BOD and suspended  solids  levels  but  somewhat
higher  than  normal  levels in settleable solids.  The method of
peel removal and subsequent washings and  slicings  generate  the
highest concentration of BOD, suspended solids, and solid wastes.
Peel  losses and subsequent effluent loads are lower in this type
of operation compared to other potato processing steps due to the
"minimum" peeling desired by "chip" manufacturers.  Routine daily
clean-ups consist mainly of equipment and area washings with  the
occasional  addition  of  various  types  of  detergents.   These


                                  158

-------
                             FIGURE   45
                SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM FOR CANNED
                  AND FROZEN  CHINESE  SPECIALTIES
MEAT LINE
        BEEF, CHICKEN, SHRiMP, LOBSTER
        t PRE-PROCESSED ELSEWHERE )
                                                       ASSEMBLY LINE
BEAN  _
SPROUTS"
        ALL OTHER VEGETABLES

        ( PRE-PROCESSED
        ELSEWHERE )
STARCH LINES
             FLOUR
             SHORTENING
                                   159

-------
                        FIGURE  46

       SIMPLIFIED MEXICAN SPECIALTY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Clean-up
 Final
 Product
             Cactus Line
              Lye
             Peeler
            Vegetable Line
             Inspection
             Slicing &
              Grating
             Bean Line
             Cooking
            Grinding
            Material Preprocessed Elsewhere,
            E.G. Tomato Base, Spices, Etc.
                     Brine or Water   r
                           Boilers
                               ! Steam
Cooling
Retorting
                                   Main
                                   As s e~b ly
                                   Line
                                                 Blanchincr
                                  Mi xi no-
Bottling or
  Canning
                           160

-------
chemicals directly affect  the  strength  of  the  waste  streams
either by dilution or through added chemical ions.

The  potential  for  water  reuse  in a typical potato chip manu-
facturing operation is greatly dependent upon ability  to  remove
starch  from  slicing  and  post-slicing washing operations.  The
overflow from the washers can then be collected and pumped to the
initial potato wash or the peeling (abrasive)   operation.   Fresh
make-up  water, therefore, only has to be added to the slicer and
final wash operations.

Ethnic Foods

Ethnic foods, for the purposes of this study, include canned  and
frozen  Chinese  and  Mexican  foods.  These products usually are
assembled at the plant by combining a blend of pre-processed  and
plant-processed  items.   For  example,  Chinese  food processing
plants typically process their own sprouts (including sprouting) f
rice, noodles, meat, and celery.  Other  vegetable  items,  eggs,
flour,  and  incoming raw meat and fish are usually pre-processed
elsewhere.  Mexican food processors typically process  beans  and
cactus  while  utilizing  such  pre-processed  items as tomatoes,
beef, shrimp, chili, and various spices.   For  the  purposes  of
this  study,  two  Chinese  and one Mexican processing plant were
field visited for the collection of historical data.

Figures 45 and 46 show typical Chinese and Mexican  food  process
flow  diagrams.  As can be seen from the flow diagrams, there are
a number of simultaneous operations occurring, the end result  of
which   is   a   blending  or  mixing  together  of  the  various
ingredients.

There are several basic operations in a Chinese specialty  plant:
meat  or  fish  processing;  sprout  and  vegetable handling; and
starch and/or rice preparation.   The  various  steps  that  each
group  follow  are  typically  those  necessary  to  prepare  the
ingredient groups for further processing.  Meat is  cut,  cooked,
and  fried.   Vegetables  are washed, cut, and blanched.  Rice is
cooked and fried.  Flour is mixed with various  ingredients  into
dough for various egg roll combinations.  All of these ingredient
groups  are combined in various combinations, the result of which
is a finished frozen dinner, snack, or  entree.   Vegetables  may
also  be  processed  by  themselves,  independently  of the other
ingredient  groups.   These  are  typically  washed,   inspected,
sliced,  diced, or cut and filled into cans.  The cans are topped
with hot water   (with  or  without  added  ingredients),  seamed,
retorted, and cooled.

The  assembly of Mexican foods is similar in many ways to Chinese
foods.  Typically, there are several operations happening at  one
time.  Cactus and/or various vegetables are typically washed, lye
peeled   (for  cactus), diced, sliced, or cut and blanched.  Dried
beans are processed as described in the canned dry  bean  process
description.   All or some of these ingredients are then combined

                                  161

-------
                      FIGURE 47

SIMPLIFIED JAMS AND JELLIES  PROCESS FLOW  DIAGRAM
                          FRUIT
                      ( PREPROCESSED
                       ELSEWHERE )
        SUGAR 	
        CORN SYRUP
        PECTIN 	
        ACID	
MIX
                          VACUUM
                           COOK
          COOLING WATER
                           FILL
                          STEAM
                       STERILIZATION
                                           SPILLAGE
                                           CLEAN -UP
                           COOL
                                     COOLING WATER
                          LABEL
                          PACKAGE
                                                      EFFLUENT
                            162

-------
in mixing or batch tanks.  Automated filling into cans  or  glass
bottles follows.  The containers are then retorted and cooled.

Principal  wasteloadings may come from both the processing of raw
ingredients and clean-up.   The  processing  operations  generate
dirt,  solubles,  and juices (from washing, slicing, cutting, and
blanching), whereas clean-up operations normally involve the  use
of  chemicals  which  contribute heavily to COD and BOD loadings.
Can  cooling  and  freezer  defrost  water   are   large   volume
generators,  but  these  are  essentially "no-contact" waters and
serve to dilute the  effluent  stream.   In  any  of  the  ethnic
plants,  the  formulations  being  run on a particular day have a
significant effect on the pollutants generated.

Jams and Jellies

Processing, as it is applied to the manufacture of jams, jellies,
and preserves, is essentially the combining  of  fruit  or  fruit
concentrate,  sugar,  pectin,  and  certain  other additives in a
highly acidic medium, the result of which is  a  gelatinized  and
thickened  commercial  jam  or  jelly.   For  the purpose of this
study, one plant in California was visited for the collection  of
historical  data.   Figure  47 shows a flow diagram for a typical
jam and jelly processing plant.

Because of short harvesting season and  physical  characteristics
of the finished product, most processors buy their fruits in pre-
processed,  bulk packs.  These bulk packs consist of fruit juices
used for jelly processing or fruit pieces used in the  making  of
jams.   Fruit concentrate is also utilized for jelly preparation.
Cherries,  currants,  caneberries  (blackberries,  boysenberries,
raspberries,  loganberries,  and  gooseberries), and strawberries
are usually  pre-processed  into  frozen  containers  of  various
sizes, while apricots, peaches, grapes, plums, and pineapples may
either  be  canned  or frozen.   Some plants may process the fruit
fresh during the harvesting season, but even these plants usually
pack the fruit into bulk packs and process the preserves to fit a
pre-determined production schedule.  A  detailed  description  of
the  harvesting,  transportation, and processing methods for each
commodity can be located in  the  appropriate  sections  for  the
individual fruits.

The  bulk containers are taken from refrigeration and transported
by lift  truck  to  the  processing  line.   The  containers  are
manually  dislodged  from the containers (usually 50 gallon drums
or 30 Ib tins), and dumped into a stainless  steel  mixing  tank.
The  frozen  fruits  are  allowed  to  thaw  and are heated.   The
setting or gelling of jams and jellies requires the  presence  of
four  ingredients   (pectin, sugar, acid, and water)  in a definite
relationship to each other.  To  the  mechanically  mixed  fruit,
sugar (as corn syrup or sucrose), water, and pectin are added and
blended   thoroughly.   When  sufficient  pectin  and  sugar  are
present, no gel will  form  until  the  pH  is  reduced  below  a
critical pH value (approximately 3.6) .

                                163

-------
                         FIGURE 48




TYPICAL MAYONNAISE AND SALAD DRESSING  PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
STARCH ^ 	 	
CONDIMENTS^ PRE-MIX "»]



COOK



» INGREDIENTS
:GETABLE OIL
EGG YOLK
VINEGAR
SPICES








EMULSIFY


FILL


STEAM
EXHAUST


CAP


LABEL


CASE


COLD
STORAGE


                                                 SPILLAGE
                                                 CLEAN-UP
          [SALAD DRESSING]
[MAYONNAISE]
                                164

-------
The  mixture  is then transferred to the cookers.  The product is
vacuum cooked  to  prevent  degradation  (discoloration  and  off
flavor)  of  the  fruit,  while  concentrating  the  fruit to the
desired degree brix (typically 65°-68° brix).   To  avoid  gelling
in  the  cooking process, the pH of the fruit is maintained above
the critical pH value.  From the cookers, the mixture is  drained
or  vacuum pulled to holding tanks where acid is added to the hot
solution.  Citric, tartaric, and malic acids are used, as well as
phosphoric and lactic acids.  Citric is  most  often  used.   The
sugar  and  acid  act  upon  the  pectin to cause it to gel.  The
mixture is heated (170°-190°F), homogenized (for some  products),
pH  adjusted  below the critical level, and pumped to the filler.
The jam or jelly is hot filled and capped;  the container is  held
hot for several minutes, cooled, and packaged.

The principal sources of wastewater generation are cooling water,
spillage, and clean-up.  Because of the high sugar content of the
product,  spills  result  in  a  low volume-high strength wastes.
Cleanup wastes typically  generate  the  highest  strength  waste
loads  on  a consistent basis.  This is due mainly to kettles and
cookers  which  must  be  maintained  in  accordance  with   good
sanitation  practices.   Can  and  jar  cooling  water  is  often
recirculated by passing the water through a cooling tower.   This
provides  the only practical reuse of water since the majority of
water consumed is either used  in  the  product  itself,  or  for
clean-up.

Mayonnaise and Dressings

Mayonnaise  or  salad dressing is the emulsified, semi-solid food
prepared from edible vegetable oil and acidifying  and  egg  yolk
containing  ingredients.   For  the  purposes  of this study, two
plants  in  California  were  visited  for  the   collection   of
historical  data.   In  the manufacturing of mayonnaise and salad
dressing, the vegetable oil is dispersed  in  an  aqueous  medium
with  egg  yolk  as  the  emulsifying agent.   The purpose of this
agent is to form a coating around the individual globules of  oil
and  thus prevent them from coalescing into masses of oil visible
to the eye.

The principal constituents of mayonnaise and salad  dressing  and
their  typical  percents  by  weight  are  vegetable oil  (usually
soybean but sometimes cottonseed or corn  oil)—80  percent;  egg
yolk  containing  substances  (two-thirds white and one-third yolk
which together exert a stabilizing influence)—8  percent;  cider
and distilled vinegar--37 percent; spices and seasonings  (usually
including  mustard flour, pepper, paprika,  onion, and garlic; and
sometimes including ginger, mace, cloves, tarragon, and celery)--
1/2 percent; water—six percent; sugar  (extensively  beet  sugar
but  sometimes cane sugar, dextrose, or corn sugar)—two percent;
and  salt--l/2  percent.   The  principal   difference   in   the
processing between mayonnaise and salad dressings is the addition
of  a  starch paste during salad dressing processing.  The starch


                                165

-------
                          FIGURE  49

             TYPICAL SOUP  PROCESS FLOW  DIAGRAM
   RAW VEGETABLES

    1 CARROTS.POTATOES
    ONIONS , ETC. )
 STARCHES /
CONDIMENTS
 STARCH, SALT,
 SUGAR AND
 FLAVORINGS
MEAT/FISH/
  POULTRY
BLANCH
INSPECT


DICE /SLICE
 PRE PROCESSED
  INGREDIENTS
  ( FROZEN CORN ,
DRY BEANS, NOODLES,
   DEHYDRATED
  VEGETABLES, ETC. )
                                                  COOLING
                                                  ""WATER
                                166

-------
addition  and  subsequent  differences  in  processing  will   be
discussed in a separate section below.

Figure  U8  shows a typical mayonnaise and salad dressing process
flow diagram.  If whole fresh eggs are used, the eggs are creamed
by beating them in a vertical mixer until smooth or  by  creaming
them  in  a  premixing  tank.   If frozen egg yolk is used, it is
thawed and put directly into the  premix  tank  without  previous
creaming.   The  premixer  is  usually a jacketed stainless steel
tank fitted with a double acting agitator.   The  eggs,  vinegar,
water,  salt,  sugar,  and spices are put into the premixing tank
and mixed until thoroughly blended.  The oil is then fed into the
tank in a steady stream with the premixer running.  The rate this
oil is added is very important to prevent  viscosity  differences
later.  The object is to incorporate the oil into the water phase
as  quickly  as  possible,  leaving the actual emulsifying to the
colloidal mill.  As soon as the oil has been incorporated and the
premix takes on a smooth, uniform  appearance,  the  premixer  is
stopped.   In some cases, it is necessary to operate the premixer
intermittently while the batch is being pumped out to avoid sepa-
ration.

When premixing is completed, a valve at the bottom of the  premix
tank  is opened, and the mixture is pumped through a homogenizing
colloidal mill.  The purpose  of  the  milling  operation  is . to
disperse  the  oil  in  droplets  throughout  the medium and thus
homogenize the oil and egg emulsion into the  desired  viscosity.
The  mayonnaise  is  pumped from the mill to an automatic filler.
After filling, the jars travel by means of a conveyor to a capper
and labeler.  Capping is of the utmost importance since  a  large
portion  of the shelf-life of the finished product depends on the
efficiency of this step.  The cap must make a tight seal to mini-
mize transfer of air at the top.  This  may  be  accomplished  by
sparging  the headspace with steam.  The jars are labeled, cased,
and placed into cold storage (30-10°F).

Salad dressings are made from the same ingredients as  mayonnaise
with the addition of a starch paste.  They are manufactured in an
identical  way  with  the  addition  of  a starch base cooker and
cooler system.  Starch based cooking is done using two  types  of
equipment:   a  batch  type  tank  or a continuous starch cooker-
cooler.  In both systems, the starch base is stirred continuously
while being cooked to prevent hardening or film  formation.   The
principal  ingredients  of  the  starch base and their percent by
weight include:  water  (52 percent),  salad  dressing  starch  or
cornstarch  (eight  percent),  salt   (three  percent),  sugar (20
percent), and vinegar (17 percent).  After cooking the mixture is
cooled and pumped  to  premixing  tanks  and  combined  with  the
vegetable  oil, egg, water, vinegar, and spices.  The rest of the
process is the same as mayonnaise.

The principal sources of wastewater generation are  spillage  and
clean-up.   The  closed piping systems are broken down routinely,
usually daily, and flushed with water and  chemicals  creating  a


                                167

-------
                      FIGURE 50

  TYPICAL TOMATO-STARCH-CHEESE CANNED SPECIALTIES
                     PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM
INGREDIENTS
 PROCESSED
 ELSEWHERE
RAW COMMODITIES,
 E.G.,  TOMATOES,
          ETC.
 PREBLEND
                                                       SEE INDIVIDUAL
                                                     COMMODITY DESCRIPTIONS
                                                       FOR TYPICAL UNIT
                                                    PROCESS WASTE STREAMS
                                MIX
                             BATCH AND
                              PRECOOK
                           CONTAINER FILL
                                                         PLANT CLEAN-UP
                                                         SPILLAGE
                                COOK
                                COOL
                                           COOLING WATER
                                                                   EFFLUENT
                               168

-------
high-strength  and  in  some  cases high-volume waste.  Principal
pollutants such as suspended egg solids and varying levels of oil
and grease are dissolved.

Soups

The preparation of canned soups involves the combining of various
ingredients  in  preprocessed  or  fresh  form.   The   principal
categories  of  preprocessed items include:  meat, fish, poultry;
dairy products and eggs; flours, starches, rice,  spaghetti,  and
noodles; spices, salt, sugar, fats, and oils; and tomato paste (a
few   manufacturers  process  fresh  tomatoes  into  the  desired
consistency).  Some vegetables are usually processed raw (onions,
potatoes, mushrooms, carrots) while others such  as  corn,  peas,
beans,  etc.   arrive at the plant in bulk preprocessed form.  The
fresh  processing  involves  cleaning,   peeling,   sizing,   and
stabilizing   prior  to  final  washing.   These  operations  are
conducted  by  the  methods  similar  to  those   described   for
individual  commodities.   Generally, the plants operate the year
around.  However, the ratio of varieties canned may change as the
seasonal availability of principal vegetable ingredients  change.
For  example,  a plant may can its entire year's output of tomato
soup stock during the tomato harvest season.  For the purpose  of
this  study,   one plant in Ohio was visited for the collection of
historical data.

Figure 49  shows  a  typical  soup  process  flow  diagram.   The
essential  ingredients  are  combined  and cooked in several ways
depending on the form of the raw  materials.   Vegetables  to  be
processed  fresh  at the plant are typically treated as described
in the separate commodity sections.  These products  are  usually
sliced,  diced, or ground to suit particular formulations and are
typically combined with preprocessed ingredients to form a "soup"
blend.  The various preprocessed items such  as  meat,  starches,
and  condiments  are  typically weighed, chopped or slurried, and
premixed in separate tanks as per individual formulation.  Starch
mixtures may additionally be precooked before final batch mixing.
The  batching  operation  normally  combines  the  processed  raw
commodities  and the several meat, starch, and condiment premixes
into a final mixing tank.  A final precooking  is  normally  done
and  the  product  pumped to a filler bowl.  The cans are filled,
seamed, washed, retorted, and cooled.

The wastewater generations throughout the raw material prearation
are  similar  to  those  for  any  particular   commodity   being
processed.   Retort  and  cooling  waters are a major part of the
final effluent, but it is normally low load water  and  does  not
affect the pollutant levels except for dilution and a very slight
increase  in  water  temperature.  The use of many raw materials,
however, necessitates extensive clean-up operations.   Volume  of
water  used and subsequent BOD and suspended solids levels can be
significant.   Washed juices, suspended and partially  solubilized
starches,  meat  particles  containing  fat,  and the appropriate
cleaning  chemicals  all  contribute  to  the   wasteload.     The


                                169

-------
principal  reuse  of  water  occurs  in the retorting and cooling
systems.  Part of these streams may be used for gutter flushings.
Cooling towers may  be  used  for  recirculation  of  waters  for
further  cycles  of  cooling.   In  the  raw commodity processing
sections of the plants, the various opportunities for water reuse
are similar  to  those  described  in  the  individual  commodity
sections.

Tomato-Starch-Cheese Specialties

This  segment  of  the industry includes canned spaghetti, canned
raviolis, and other "Italian" type canned foods.   The  magnitude
of  this  segment  is  not  known in terms of total production or
sales.  In most cases, the making of tomato-starch-cheese  canned
specialities  is  basically a mixing and blending operation using
almost exclusively pre-processed ingredients.  The exceptions  to
this  are  the  few large plants that process their own tomatoes,
but even this processing is usually done in the form of paste  or
puree  to  be used at a later date in plant formulations.  During
their tomato processing season,  these  would,  of  course,  fall
under the tomato products subcategory.

Products  that  are  mainly  a  tomato-cheese-starch  combination
(spaghetti, lasagne, and ravioli)  generate wastes primarily  from
spills  and  clean-up  of blending vats and cooking kettles.  The
wasteloads from these operations are dependent upon the volume of
water used during clean-up.  Their high-strength wastes will vary
according to the volume of  final  effluent  leaving  the  plant.
Figure 50 shows a simplified flow diagram of the process.

In addition to commodity specific operations that lend themselves
to  wastewater  recirculation and water reuse, the main operation
contributing to the reuse of wastewater is cooling  towers  which
recirculate retort and can cooling waters.
                                 170

-------
                           SECTION IV

                     INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION

The Fruits, Vegetables and Specialties segments of the Canned and
Preserved  Fruits  and  Vegetables industry includes all the sub-
groups of the food and kindred products industries, identified as
Major Group 20 in the Standard  Industrial  Classification  (SIC)
Manual,  1972, published by the Executive Office of the President
(Office of Management and Budget).  Within SIC 2099  this  report
also  covers  establishments  processing  potato  and corn chips.
Included in these segments are SIC Industry Numbers  2032,  2033,
2034, 2035, 2037,  and 2099.

In  developing  wastewater  effluent  limitation  guidelines  and
standards of performance for the canned and preserved fruits  and
vegetables  industry, a judgement must be made as to whether such
limitations  and  standards   are   appropriate   for   different
subcategories  within  the  industry.  Before these subcategories
can be determined, it is necessary that the industry be separated
into three  segments  based  on  natural  processing  activities,
principal sources of wastes and common usage.  In developing this
segmentation,  canned  and  preserved  fruits were differentiated
from canned and preserved vegetables because  of  differences  in
their  general  properties, differences in their major processing
activities and differences in their  common  usuage.   The  third
segment, canned and miscellaneous specialties, was differentiated
from  fruits  and  vegetables  on  the  basis  of  differences in
processing activities and differences in major sources of wastes.
Thus, three industry segments have been identified as follows:

                   Canned and Preserved Fruits
                 Canned and Preserved Vegetables
              Canned and Miscellaneous Specialties

Table 7 shows a comparison of raw waste characteristics  for  the
three  industry  segments.   It  is obvious there are significant
differences among waste loads from processed  fruits,  vegetables
and specialties.  The water usuage and raw BOD5 and TSS are lower
for  fruits than for vegetables or specialties.  The water usuage
for specialties is less than the water usage for  vegetables  but
the  raw  waste  BOD5  and TSS for specialties is larger than the
BODjj and TSS for vegetables.  Thus, the differences  in  the  raw
waste   characteristics  substantiated  the  separation  of  this
industry into three segments: Fruits, Vegetables and Specialties.
                                   171

-------
                              TABLE 1
                  Comparison  of  Raw Waste Loads
             From Fruits, Vegetables  and Specialties

                        INDUSTRY SEGMENTS

                    FRUITS            VEGETABLES
  Average
Water Usage
cu m/kkg
(gal/ton)

 Average
   BOD5_
kg/kkg
(Ib/ton)

 Average
   TSS
kg/kkg
(Ib/ton)
 10.86
(2586)
 11.8
(23.5)
  2.2
 22.91
 (5454)
 13.0
(26.0)
  6.6
(13.1)
                                    SPECIALTIES
 15.17
 (3612)
 14.8
(29.6)
 14.3
(28.5)
                                   172

-------
In  order  to  identify  any  such  subcategories  within   these
segments, the following factors were considered to be potentially
important:
                       Raw material
                       Products and by products
                       Production processes
                       Age of plant
                       Size of plant
                       Plant location
                       Waste treatability


In  order  to  consider  each  of  the  above factors in the most
complete manner, it was determined that the three fruit and vege-
table segments should  be  separated  by  commodity.    There  are
several advantages to studying the industry in this manner.

First,  it  separates  the  industry  into relatively homogeneous
groups  within  each  segment   in   terms   of   four   of   the
subcategorization   factors:   raw  material,  products  and  by-
products, production  processes,  and  waste  treatability.   The
influence  of  the  remaining three plant factors—age, size, and
location—can be analyzed more effectively when  the  other  four
factors  are  held  constant.   Second,  many  of the information
sources are commodity specific.  Third, it provides a  relatively
high  level  of resolution as it divides the entire industry into
three  segments  with  a   total   of   58   commodity   specific
subcategories.   Fourth,  it  provides  basic modular information
units which can be aggregated as desired for an economic analysis
of the industry.  Fifth, it is convenient for technical review as
most commentors relate to individual commodites.

Once this commodity separation was made, the general approach for
determining the final subcategorization was as follows:  identify
information  sources;  establish  information  handling  and data
analysis  system;  survey  information   sources;   examine   the
information obtained from the initial commodity subcategorization
with  each segment and determine whether each commodity should be
further  divided,  combined  with  another,   or   deleted   from
consideration.

The   criteria   for   further   dividing  an  initial  commodity
subcategorization was that the  statistical  characterization  of
the  raw  waste loads from two or more groups of plants had to be
significantly different.  Groups of  plants  were  identified  as
being  different  based  on  the  subcategorization factors.  The
criteria  for   combining   two   or   more   initial   commodity
subcategories  were  that  the commodities are often processed at
the same facility and the statistical  characterizations  of  the
raw  waste  loads were not significantly different.  The criteria
for deleting  an  initial  commodity  subcategory  was  that  the
commodity  is  of  minor  environmental or economic significance.
That is, the waste loads and production levels are low and it  is
usually processed incidental to other commodities.

                                 173

-------
In   the   canned   and   preserved   fruits   industry  segment,
blackberries,    blueberries,     boysenberries,     raspberries,
loganberries,  gooseberries and ollalieberries were combined in a
subcategory  labeled  caneberries.   However,   cranberries   and
strawberries   were   separate  subcategories.   The  subcategory
dehydrated fruits include dried apricots, peaches, pears, apples,
figs, prunes and prune juice.  However, raisins  are  a  separate
subcategory.   Five  other fruit commodities were further divided
into additional subcategories.  Cherries were subcategorized into
sweet,  sour  and  brined   subcategories.    Grape   juice   was
subcategorized  into  pressing  and  canning  subcategories,  and
pickles were subdivided into processed, salt-stock pickles, fresh
pack pickles, and pickle salting stations.  Within each of  these
pickle  subcategories,  pickled cucumbers are included along with
pickled   beets,   cauliflower,   peppers,   and    miscellaneous
vegetables.   Peaches  were subcategorized into canned and frozen
styles and tomatoes were subcategorized into peeled  and  product
styles.

In   the   canned  and  preserved  vegetables  industry  segment,
dehydrated beets, cabbage, carrots,  parsley,  horseradish,  bell
peppers,   turnips,  parsnips  and  celery  were  combined  in  a
subcategory labeled dehydrated vegetables.   However,  dehydrated
onions   and   garlic   was   a   separate  subcategory  as  were
canned/frozen  beets,  carrots  and  onions.   Collard,   turnip,
mustard,  spinach,  and  kale  greens were combined in a separate
subcategory,  either   canned   or   frozen   spinach.    Another
subcategory  for  dry  beans includes several types of dry beans:
butter, speckled, butter, chile, garganzo,  great  northern,  red
kidney,  white  kidney,  navy,  pinto,  red, yelloweye, and lima.
Five  other  vegetable  commodities  were  further  divided  into
additional  subcategories.   Sauerkraut  was  subcategorized into
cutting and canning subcategories.   Four  vegetable  commodities
were  subcategorized  into  canned and frozen styles: corn, peas,
snap beans, and spinach.

In the canned and  miscellaneous  specialties  industry  segment,
soup  plants  and  baby  food  plants  were  considered  separate
subcategories.  Jams, jellies and preserves were  combined  in  a
subcategory   labelled   Jams/Jellies.    Mayonnaise   and  salad
dressings were combined in a subcateogry  called  Mayonnaise  and
Dressings.   A  snack food, chips, was subcategorized into potato
chips, corn chips and tortilla chips.  Table 8  lists  the  final
subcategories  defined by industry segment.  The influence of the
subcategorization factors and the  rationale  used  to  establish
final  subcategories is detailed throughout the remainder of this
section.
                                174

-------
                             TABLE 8

                     FINAL SUBCATEGORY LIST

Fruits              Vegetables               Specialties

Apricots            Asparagus                Added Ingredients
Caneberries         Beets                    Baby Food
Cherries            Broccoli                 Chips
 Sweet              Brussels Sprouts          Corn
 Sour               Carrots                   Potato
 Brined             Cauliflower               Tortilla
Cranberries         Corn                     Ethnic Foods
Dried Fruit          Canned                  Jams S Jellies
Grape Juice          Frozen                  Mayonnaise &
 Canning            Dehydrated Onion/         Dressings
 Pressing            Garlic                  Soups
Olives              Dehydrated Vegetables    Tomato-Starch-
Peaches             Dry Beans                 Cheese Specialties
 Canned             Lima Beans
 Frozen             Mushrooms
Pears               Onions (Canned)
Pickles             Peas
 Fresh Pack          Canned
 Process Pack        Frozen
 Salting Stations   Pimentos
Pineapples          Sauerkraut
Plums                Canning
Raisins              Cutting
Strawberries        Snap Beans
Tomatoes             Canned
 Peeled              Frozen
 Products           Spinach
                     Canned
                     Frozen
                    Squash
                    Sweet Potatoes
                    White Potatoes
                                 175

-------
RATIONALE FOR SUBCATEGORIZATION

The influence of each of the seven subcategorization  factors  is
discussed   in   the  following  subsections.   The  factors  are
discussed qualitatively with respect to the fruit  and  vegetable
processing  industry  as  a  whole.   However,  any data obtained
regarding the influence of these factors on the subcategorization
is referenced.

Raw Material

The strongest  argument  for  subcategorization  within  segments
essentially  by  major groups of commodities is the difference in
raw material or product delivered to the processing plant.   Each
raw  product has a somewhat different chemical composition and/or
physical character, which in turn results in the use of different
unit production processes and the  generation  of  different  raw
waste  loads.  In general, each type of raw product was placed in
a separate subcategory.  In  a  few  cases,  where  two  or  more
similar  types  of  raw products were often processed at the same
plant and the  waste  loads  were  not  considered  significantly
different, a single subcategory including all of the raw products
was   included.    Examples  of  this  were  the  combination  of
blueberries,    blackberries,     boysenberries,     raspberries,
loganberries,  gooseberries,  and  ollalieberries as caneberries,
and the combination of collard,  turnip,  mustard,  spinach,  and
kale  greens as spinach.  Table 9  shows the similarities between
spinach and several leafy greens.  The composite effluent samples
for each type of green were analyzed  for  pollutant  differences
and statistically shown to be significant.

For  several  types  of  raw  products,  there are differences in
guality  when  delivered  to  the  plant.   Unlike   most   other
industries,  where  raw material quality is essentially constant,
the fruit and vegetable industry  experiences  differing  weather
conditions, diseases, and other factors beyond the control of the
processor  which  may  cause  significant changes in raw material
conditions.  It should be pointed out that  these  uncontrollable
factors  often  result in differences of raw material appearance,
texture or flavor which dictate  to  the  processor  certain  end
products.   Thus,  the  quality of the raw material is considered
when product styles are compared for differences.  The quality of
the raw material is  further  considered  when  a  full  year  or
several  years'  data is used in the determination of subcategory
raw waste loads.  In one case a processor reported annual average
data for three seasons where the third  year's  BODjj  was  almost
twice  the preceding years.  Since the processor made no physical
changes in the plant which might account for  the  variation,  it
was  concluded that the change shown in the third year was caused
by a variation in the raw product which was beyond the control of
the processor.  While this variability is included when all three
years data is utilized in the development of the regulations, the
assumption regarding raw material variability .beyond the  control
of the processor should be further investigated.  For example, in
                                176

-------
                                            TABLE 9
Effluent
         THE  PRODUCTION OF WASTE COMPONENTS FROM THE CANNING
        OF COLLARD, TURNIP, MUSTARD,  SPINACH,  AND KALE GREFNS

                                        Waste  load, Ib/ton*

Processing   Type of    Total   Volatile   Suspended    Total
operation     greens2    solids   solids      solids    acidity
                                                                                C3D
BOD
   n
            Dunker
             washer
            Reel
             washer
            Blancher
            Chopper
            Tumbler
             fillers
            deceiving
              shed
            Composite
c
T
M
S
K
C
T
M
s
K
C
T
M
S
K
C
T
M
S
K
C
T
M
S
K
C
T
M
S
K
C
T
M
S
K
U.30bc
6.83a
6.f»9afc
8.37a
U.Ottc
7.1i»b
8.75ab
6.83b
10.05a
6.9*»b
6.73b
5.51b
7.07b
13.26a
10.30ab
.60NS
.67NS
.79NS
.89NS
.79NS
5. 11NS
4.20NS
U.83NS
4.06NS
U.37NS
.10NC
1.45ND
2.28NC
-
. 0 3N C
25.65NS
30.34NS
32.81NS
39.91NS
31.35NS
3.13b
U.60ab
4.85ab
6.34a
3.10b
3.95NS
6.07NS
5.50NS
7.00NS
5.27NS
4.55NS
3.43NS
5 . 1 2NS
8.38NS
6.48NS
.UONS
. <* UNS
. 55NS
.49NS
.U6NS
3.35NS
2.72NS
3.60NS
2.53NS
2.87NS
. 08ND
.97ND
1.58ND
-
.02ND
17.00NS
19.67NS
21.85NS
2«.20NS
21.1 7NS
1.08b
1.78h
2.83ab
«.54a
1.41b
0.71d
1.46b
1.29bc
1.09a
1.1 Ocd
.29b
.25b
.2Ub
.72a
.26b
.03NS
.03NS
.OUNS
.OSNS
.OUNS
. 30NS
.2 SMS
.28NS
.25N3
.29NS
.02ND
. 1<4ND
.37ND
-
.003ND
1 .76NS
3 . 1 (INS
2 . 86 NS
4.0 2NS
2.35NS
0.08h
0. 16ab
0.1 9a
0 . 1 7a
O.OSb
0.1 5b
0.2aab
0.22b
0.32a
0.20h
0.22ab
0.15b
0.1 8b
0.26ab
0.37a
0.02a
0.03a
0.03a
0.01b
0.03a
0.20a
0. 18a
0.20a
O.OBb
0.1 5ab
0.002Nn
0.0 6ND
0.07ND
-
.001ND
0.62MS
0. 94NS
1. 10NS
1.0 8NS
0.79NR
2.90NS
5. 12NS
5.91NS
6.03NR
3.6UNS
3.55b
6 . H 1 a
5. 11ab
6.3Ua
5.?0ab
4.59NS
3.37NS
5.35NS
6.90NS
7 . 0 a NS
0. 41NS
0.36NS
0.60NS
0. 48NS
0. 59 NS
3.75NS
2. 32NS
3 . 8 3 NS
2.51NS
3.48NS
.04ND
1.00ND
1.63ND
-
.01ND
16.45NS
18.79NS
20.83NS
22.29NS
2 1 . 6 1 NS
1 . 05NS
1.60NS
1. 47NS
1. 18NS
1.32NS
1. U6NS
2. 19NS
1. 73NS
2.23NS
1. 90MS
1.87bc
1. 48c
2.U1abc
3. 31a
2.77ab
0. 20NS
0. 21NS
0. 30NS
0.22NS
0. 2=iNS
1 .73NS
1. uaws
2. 25NS
1 .2UNS
1.S6NS
0.0 2ND
0. 28ND
0. 43ND
-
. 00"ND
6.70NS
8 . 07NS
8. S8NS
<*. 27NS
9 . 6 2NP
1 Values followed by the same letter in each column  and  effluent  are  not significantly different
 at the 5% level.
NS mean square values not significantly different at.  5% lev^l.
ND significance not determined.
ZC  Collard greens; T, turnip greens; M, mustard greens; S,  spinach  greens,  K,  kale gre°ns.
Source - Bough, Wayne A., " Composition and Waste Load  of Unit Effluent From a  Commercial
         Leafy Greens Canning Operation," J. Milk and Food Technology  36,  547-5S3  (Nov.,  735•

-------
this case when the pounds of BODJ5 per ton of raw material doubled
the  third  year,  the production had decreased by 34 percent and
water usage decreased only 10 percent.  At the same time the BOD^
concentration increased 42 percent.   These  statistics  indicate
that  water usage and plant management may be responsible for the
rise  in  BOD55.   In  any  case,   the   conclusion   cannot   be
substantiated  that the change was caused by variation in the raw
product beyond the control of the processor.


Some of  the  contributing  variables  influencing  raw  material
quality  as  it  arrives  at the processing plant are weather and
disease.   It  is   not   considered   necessary,   however,   to
subcategorize  on  the  basis  of  such  unpredictable  events as
drought or insect damage which  would  usually  be  localized  in
occurrence.   It is concluded that some variations in raw product
guality are normal and should be expected from week to  week  and
season  to season.  Therefore, a plant's waste management program
should be designed with  sufficient  flexibility  to  handle  the
problems  inherent  in  the  industry due to expected raw product
quality  variations.   It  is  suggested  that  management  of  a
processing  plant  should  work  in  advance  with its regulating
agency to formulate an emergency plan to handle a situation where
uncontrollable  significant  deterioration  in  its  raw  product
quality causes its treatment facilities to be "overwhelmed."

Other variables which influence raw product quality and which are
under  the  control  of  the processor to some extent are harvest
method, type of container and  length  of  haul,  and  degree  of
preprocess  sorting  and  washing  in the field.  These variables
should be considered when control options are being formulated to
help meet the BATEA limitations for 1983.  At this time, however,
there is no conclusive data to quantify the  influence  of  these
variables.

Certain  of  the  subcategories  herein  include  processes which
utilize several ingredients in addition to the basic raw product.
For example, many frozen vegetables are  now  sold  with  butter,
cheese, or cream sauce added.  Other common added ingredients are
sugar,  starch,  and  tomato  sauce.   The  handling, mixing, and
clean-up of these additional ingredients by the processing  plant
adds  an  incremental organic waste load to the total plant waste
production.  This incremental waste load primarily  results  from
the  clean-up  of  the  equipment  (vats, pipes, dispensers, etc.)
which comes in contact with the added ingredients.   Since  these
ingredients  have an inherently high waste load in terms of BOD5,
it was concluded that a separate subcategory would be established
for additional ingredients.  In practice, the  added  ingredients
effluent  standards  will  be incrementally added to the specific
commodity subcategory guideline for plants  which  utilize  these
added  ingredients  in their final fruit, vegetable, or specialty
products.  The incremental addition of this subcategory guideline
is not, however, intended to  be  added  to  subcategories  where
                               178

-------
these  ingredients  have  already  been  considered,  such as for
various styles of dry beans, baby foods or ethnic foods.

Products and By-Products

Variations in waste load generated within a commodity subcategory
can also be due to the preservation technique and  style  of  the
end   product   produced.   The  differences  of  most  potential
significance are as follows:

    Preservation method  (freezing, canning, brining, etc.)

    Peeling method and extent of cutting which occurs.

    Product form  (solid, juice, gel, emulsion, etc.)

The raw waste data was organized by preservation method and style
for each initial subcategory to determine  whether  there  was  a
significant   difference  due  to  any  of  these  factors.   The
technique  employed  utilized  a  statistical  "T"  test  of  the
significance  between the mean BODJ5 and flow ratios of each group
of data.  If the difference was significant, then the groups were
considered  to  belong  to  separate   subcategories.    If   the
difference  was  not  significant,  the groups were considered to
belong to the same subcategory.

It is suspected that some differences  due  to  style  variations
could  not  be determined because many of the plants investigated
produced different styles, and it was impossible to separate  the
waste  load  generated  by  each  style  since  other  sources of
variation  (e.g.,  raw  product   condition,   plant   management
attitude,   etc.)  obscured  differences.   Moreover,  wastewater
collection systems at many plants were not amendable to obtaining
samples from waste streams of  different  product  lines  running
simultaneously.   Several  commodities (corn, peaches, peas, snap
beans, and spinach)  were subcategorized into  canned  and  frozen
products.   Brined  cherries  were  separated  from sweet or sour
cherries.  Tomatoes were divided into peeled and  other  products
subcategories,  and  chips were separated into potato chips, corn
chips, and tortilla chips.  Many of the  process  operations  are
similar  for  these  commodities,  but  the  style of products or
preservation method results  in  different  waste  loads.   Thus,
product  differences  have resulted in two corn, peach, pea, snap
bean,   spinach,   and   tomato   subcategories,    three    chip
subcategories,  and  separate  subcategories  for  soups and baby
foods.

By-products from this industry  may  include:   (1)   animal  food
generated  by  removal  of  solids  during product processing and
screening of wastewaters, (2)  salable oil and grease generated by
primary treatment of those raw wastes with a significant oil  and
grease  constituent,  and  (3)   starch  removed  from potato chip
processing  wastes.    The  extent  of  by-product   recovery   is
generally  determined by the market value rather than concern for

                               179

-------
pollution control and is practiced to some degree throughout  the
industry.   The development of marginal by-products in some cases
may  be  an  attractive  alternative  to   expanded   end-of-pipe
treatment.   By-product  recovery  was  therefore viewed from the
standpoint of being a pollution control  option  rather  than  as
basis for further subcategorization.

Production Processes

The  unit  processes  employed  by the industry for specific com-
modities are generally quite standard.  However,  there  is  much
on-going  pollution  control  research  and development effort in
this  industry  which  is   concentrating   on   developing   and
demonstrating  alternate  unit  process  technologies to generate
lower volumes and/or strengths  of  liquid  wastes.   Significant
progress  is  being  made as described in the "In-plant treatment
technology"  subsection  of  Section  VII   of   this   document.
Naturally,  effort  is  being  concentrated upon those production
processes which generate the greatest amounts of pollution, e.g.,
peeling, blanching, product conveying, waste  material  handling,
and  brine  fermentation.   In  each  of  these  unit  processes,
promising new techniques are being tried for various commodities.
It is concluded, therefore, that the use of alternate  production
process  equipment  will reduce raw waste generation by the fruit
and vegetable processing industry in the future.  Since  the ' new
techniques  are  not  standard today, they were viewed as being a
pollution control option rather  than  as  a  basis  for  further
subcategorization.   Subcategorization  on the basis of these new
methods  was  considered  to  be  inequitable  because  the   new
techniques  are  largely  still experimental for most commodities
and the magnitude of the new techniques' effect  upon  raw  waste
load reduction is still largely undetermined.

The  effects of water and steam blanching and of conventional and
dry caustic peeling on raw waste loads were analyzed on  a  plant
basis.   It  was  found  that  differences  in  waste  volume and
characteristics attributable to  any  single  operation  did  not
affect  the total effluent load in a manner sufficient to justify
additional subcategorization.  In one  case,  a  vegetable  plant
utilizing  a dry peel process exhibited a low water use and a low
organic load.  Yet the plant indicated that other water and waste
reduction programs had  also  been  implemented  along  with  the
peeler  and  that these practices reduced water and organic loads
more than the dry peeler.  It is apparent, therefore, that  plant
water  and  waste  management  programs must be combined with new
operations  such  as  the  dry  peel   process   if   significant
improvements  in  the  total  effluent  raw  waste load are to be
achieved.

The  differences  in  production  processes   used   during   the
processing  of  cherries,  grapes,  sauerkraut,  and pickles were
investigated and found  to  be  significant.   In  addition,  the
presence  of  the  peeling  operation  during  the manufacture of
peeled tomatoes clearly increased the raw waste load  over  those


                                180

-------
plants  which  only  processed  unpeeled  tomato  products.  As a
result, three subcategories have been developed for  pickles  and
cherries.   Pickles processing has been subcategorized into fresh
pickle processing, processed salt-stock or  stored  pickles,  and
pickle  storage  or salting stations.  Cherries have been divided
into brined cherries, sour cherries, and sweet  cherries.   Grape
juice,  sauerkraut,  and  tomatoes have been separated into grape
pressing and grape juice packing, sauerkraut cutting and canning,
and peeled tomatoes and other  tomato  products.   Thus,  it  was
shown    that    these    commodities   do   require   additional
subcategorization.

Age of Plant

Age of plant is difficult to define.  A processor may install new
equipment into an old building, or vice versa.   In  the  average
processing  line,  the  age  of individual unit process equipment
will vary.  The industry is  competitive  so  older,  inefficient
equipment  is  eventually  replaced.   The  age of different unit
processing equipment would be strongly correlated with  the  type
of   production   processes   just   discussed  in  the  previous
subsection.  Most  plants  tend  to  use  similar  equipment  for
certain  commodities  except  for  some  which  are  testing  new
equipment to reduce their waste  loads  and  increase  by-product
recovery.   The logic for not subcategorizing by age is therefore
similar to that  expressed  during  the  previous  discussion  of
subcategorizing by production process.

Size of Plant

The  size of plant may be significant from both the technical and
economic point of view.  Several  commodities  with  data  points
from  many  plants  were  investigated to determine whether plant
size affected either raw waste  characteristics  or  volume.   No
significant  correlation  could  be  found between the variables.
Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13 show the variability or scatter of water
usage and BODJ5 values with various plant  sizes  for  pea,  corn,
tomato, and snap bean processing plants.


This  result  should  not  be  surprising,  since  plants in this
industry usually run "lines," i.e., a chain of unit process steps
to convert the raw material into the  finished  product.    (These
processing  chains  for  different  commodities  are described in
Appendix A of this report.)   Generally, the size of the plant  is
a function of the number of processing lines; i.e., a large plant
has  many  lines and a small plant has only one or two.  Assuming
the  raw  wasteload  generated  per  processing  line  is  fairly
consistent,  there  should  be  no  significant difference in raw
wasteload generated per unit of production on the basis of  plant
size alone.
                                181

-------
00
ro
                                           TABLE 10


                 NUMBER OF PSA PLANTS  BY  SIZE WITH INDICATED RAW WASTE LOAD


                 PLANT SIZE          WATER USAGE                BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)

                     (ton/day)    1/kkq (1000 qal/^on)               2 kq/kkq  (Ih/ton)
                                  <3   3-4   4-5  5-6   6-7   >7     <30  30-40  40-50   50-60
(40-60)
(61-80)
(81-100)
(101-120)
(121-140)
(141-16C)
(16U)
1
2 1


1
1 1

1
1

1
1 1
1
1 2
1 1
1 1
1
1



1


1
1



1
1
1
1
1

2
1


1
1
2
1
4



1
1
                                     TABLE  11


           NUMBER OF CORN PLANTS BY SIZE WITH  INDICATED RAW WASTE LOAD


           PLANT SIZE               WATER USAGE                        BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)

        kq/day  (ton/day)         1/kkq  (1000 qal/ton)                          2kq/kkq


                                                 Ji5^2   2-2.5  >2^5    <20   20Z30  30-00


                                                                  11

                                                    1              1111


                                                                          1


                                                           11211
(50-150)
(151-200)
(201-250)
(251-300)
(301-350)
(35U)
1




1

1


1
2



1
1


-------
00
oo
                                         TABLE 12

             NUMBER OF TOMATO PLANTS  BY SIZE WITH TNCTCATED RAW WASTE  IOAD

              PLANT SIZF          WATER USAGE                BTOCHEMTCAL  OXYGEN DEMAND  (BOD)
           kq/clay  (ton/May)    1/kkq  (1000 qal/*-.on}               2 kq/kka (Ib/ton)
              (<1000)
              (1001-1500)
              (1501-2000)
              (2000-2500)
              (2501-3000)
              (>30001)
1
1
1




J-2
1

2
2
2
1
2-3 3-U >U

1 1 1
U
1 1


>5

1
1

1

5^6
1

1



6-7


1

1

7-R

1
1
1
1

8-9
2




1
>9
1
1
1



                                          E  13

        NUMBER OF SNAP BEAN PLANTS BY STZE WITH INDICATED  RAW WASTE LOAD


           PLANT ST7E           WATER USAGE               BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN  DEMAND  (BOD)
        kq/day  (ton/'iay)    1/kkq (1000 qal/+on)                2 ko/kkq  (Ib/ton)

(U50)
(51-100)
(101-150)
(151-200)
< 2 2-3
1 1
1
1 1
3-a
1
2
1
U-5
3
1
>5
1
1
12
1
2,
1

-------
Plant  size  is  also important from an economic viewpoint.   Vir-
tually all in-plant and end-of-pipe waste reduction technology is
subject to economy of scale.  A review of Section  VIII  of   this
report  emphasizes the fact that waste treatment cost per unit of
commodity production (as measured by waste volume)   is  less  for
large plants than for small plants.  In addition, the large  plant
might   be  expected  to  have  greater  economic  resources  and
finanical leverage in financing new  waste  treatment  technology
than  does  the small plant.  However, the smaller plant may have
more options for both waste treatment and  in-plant  measures  to
reduce waste generation.

The  concurrent  economic  impact study conducted by EPA for this
industry has addressed itself in  great  depth  to  the  economic
impact of the proposed guidelines.  In this study, treatment cost
alternatives  have  been  developed  in  Section  VIII  in a very
comprehensive manner in order to provide the EPA with  the  tools
to  make  an  accurate  impact  analysis.  ' The  results  of this
technical  study  indicate  that   size   of   plant   does    not
significantly  affect waste loads, and thus, size of plant is not
a satisfactory basis for further industry subcategorization.

Interestingly, the cost of waste treatment and disposal per   unit
volume  of  wastewater  is  often  affected more by the method of
disposal than by the size of plant.  Let us consider three cases.
In the case of those plants discharging to municipal systems, the
surcharge is usually calculated on the basis of waste volume  and
strength  with  equal  unit charges applied to all, regardless of
size.  Thus large plants  get  no  economy  of  scale  advantage.
However,  a large plant discharging into a small community system
may find itself paying much higher unit costs than would a  small
plant discharging into a large community system.  In such a  case,
the  economy  of  scale  is a function of the community size—not
plant size.

In a second case, the plant discharges to a land disposal system.
Here, the cost of disposal is  more  dependent  upon  the  avail-
ability,  suitability, and cost of nearby land than to processing
plant size.  The small plant,  because  it  requires  less  land,
would  even have an advantage in finding a suitable disposal area
over a large plant.

In the third hypothetical case, the plant discharging to  surface
waters  has  little  land  available, and must install biological
treatment facilities to meet discharge standards.  In this  case,
the  large  plant  will  almost always derive substantial benefit
from economy of  scale.   Even  very  small  secondary  treatment
facilities  are relatively expensive and the cost per unit volume
treated may be significantly greater for  the  very  small  plant
than for the large plant.
                                  184

-------
Plant Location

The  importance  of plant location from an economic point of view
was touched upon in  the  previous  subsection  discussing  plant
size.   There may be other potential effects connected with plant
location including the following:

    1.   Geographical  climate   (weather)   affects  raw   product
         quality.    This  was  discussed  in  the  raw  material
         subsection of this section as were harvesting techniques
         and variety differences.

    2.   Geographical climate (weather)  affects end-of-pipe waste
         treatment   processes.     Variations   in   temperature,
         rainfall,  evaporation rate, and sunshine can all affect
         the performance of different typj>es of treatment systems.
         For  example,  temperature  effects  have  resulted   in
         different  treatment design in Section VII and different
         treatment costs in Section VIII.

    3.   Local situation with regard  to  nearby  land  for  con-
         struction of treatment and/or disposal facilities.  Land
         availability  factors  include cost, area, distance from
         plant, soil type, permeability,  hydro-geology,  zoning,
         future  land  use  plans, and distance to nearest public
         development  (odor complaints).

    4.   Availability of nearby municipal  wastewater  collection
         system.   Such  access  may  create  one more wastewater
         handling alternative for the processor to consider.


    5.   Availability of  solids  disposal  facilities  near  the
         plant.   The  cost  of   solids  disposal  (screenings and
         sludge) varies over  a  tremendous  range  depending  on
         local   situations.   One  California  tomato  processor
         estimates solids and sludge hauling and  disposal  costs
         are almost twice the daily operating cost of the rest of
         his  activated  sludge   treatment  plant.   Some  plants
         report no cost for solids disposal since they are picked
         up free of charge by a  local farmer and used for  cattle
         feed.

    6.   Local availability and cost of water.  Many plants  with
         a  history  of a largely unlimited supply of inexpensive
         water were designed  with  no  consideration  for  water
         conservation, and are still operated that way.

    7.   The  quality  of  the  receiving  water  and  the  state
         effluent  limitations  being imposed.  Plants located in
         areas designated by  a   state  as  being  water  quality
         limited   generally   have   to   meet   very  stringent
         requirements.   It  is   likely  that  this  factor  will
         greatly  affect  new plant construction as there will be


                                  185

-------
                            TABLE  14

NUMBER OF  CORN PLANTS BY LOCATION WITH INDICATED  RAW  WASTE LOAD

                       WATER USAGE               BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)
 GEOGRAPHIC        l/kkq/(1000 qaI/ton               2 kq/kkq  (Ih/ton)
  LOCATION    .5  0.5-1  1-1.5   1.5-2  2-25  >2.5   <20  20-30  30-40   40-50  >50
EAST
North Central 7.
West

2 3
2
1
3 3
1 2
1
2
1

2
1

2
2

1 2
1
                              TABLE  15

  NTIMBEP OF PEA PLANTS  BY LOCATION WITH  INDICATED RAW WASTE LOAD

                         WATER USAGE                BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND  (BOD)
   GEOGRAPHIC        l/kkq/(1000 gal/ton)               2 kq/kkq (Ib/ton)
 	LOCATION	<3   3-4  4-5  5-6  6-7   >7    <30_  .30-40  ^£0-50  50Z60

      East                 1     2
 North Central    14111

      West                      2
                              TABLE 16

NUMBER  OF SNAP BEAN PLANTS BY  LOCATION WT^H INDICATED RAW WASTE LOAD

                        WATER USAGE                BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN  DEMAND (BOD)
  GEOGRAPHIC       l/kkq/(1000 gal/ton)               2 kq/kka  (Ib/ton)
   LOCATION      <2  2-3  3-4   4-5  >5    <4   4-6  6-8  8-10   10-12   >12

3
2 1
1
1
1
1
2

1
5 4
1
East
North Central
West
2

2 1
3
1

•
1 2
4

1
2
2
1
2
1 1

1
1
2
2

-------
         some tendency to locate outside of these areas,  if  raw
         product can still be reasonably obtained.

Most  of  the  above  potential  effects are local, as opposed to
regional, variations.  Tables m,  15  and  16  investigated  the
effect  of location  (East, North Central or West)  on water usuage
and organic loading.  The variability shown throughout the tables
substantiates the conclusion mentioned earlier under raw material
that plant location does not significantly affect waste loadings,
and thus is not a basis for further subcategorization.   Climatic
effect  on  raw  material  quality  was discussed earlier in this
section IV.  Climatic effect on  end-of-pipe  treatment  is  dis-
cussed in Section VII and below.

There  is  no  question that biological waste treatment processes
(except land treatment) are affected by temperature, because  the
rate   of   bacterial  metabolism  is  slowed  by  reductions  in
temperature.  A  gross  "rule  of  thumb"  sometimes  used  is  a
reduction  of 50 percent in rate of bacterial metabolism for each
10°C reduction in temperture below 20°C.  (A better indication of
temperature effect is obtained by using the formulas developed by
Eckenfeller and determining temperature effect constants for  the
specific  waste  under  consideration.)  However, the question of
temperature effect is relevant only from the  point  of  view  of
treatment  plant  design  and  cost.   If  a treatment plant must
operate in cold climates, then the biological treatment  facility
must  be conservatively designed to operate effectively under the
expected  temperature  condition.   Stated  differently,  it   is
recognized  that  for  biological  treatment  systems  to achieve
consistent effluent quality, compensation in design and  care  of
operation  must  be made if they operate for long periods of time
significantly below 20°C.  Consistent effluent quality  has  been
demonstrated  in  this industry during protracted periods of very
cold weather in northern climates.   Therefore,  neither  climate
nor temperature is a basis for further subcategorization.

An  investigation  was  made  as  to the extent of each commodity
being processed in a  water  quality  limited  (WQL)  area.   One
problem  is that some states are still in the process of defining
these areas and another is that  commodities  are  generally  not
confined  to these areas.  In general, however, plants located in
WQL areas tended to have better effluent  control.  These  plants
were    included  among  the  exemplary  or  better  plants,  the
peformance of which serve as the goal for  other  plants  in  the
industry   to   achieve   rather   than   being   a   basis   for
subcategorization.

Waste Treatability

Waste treatability is a function of the pollutant characteristics
of the waste and the ability of treatment  technology  to  remove
those pollutants.
                                 187

-------
Liquid  wastes generated by each segment of this industry contain
principally biogradable organic matter in soluble  and  suspended
form.   The  generation of such pollutants per unit of production
varies between commodities because  of  the  differences  in  the
chemical composition of different commodities and the differences
in  the  methods  used  to  process raw commodities into finished
products.  Section V of this document details the raw waste  load
for  each  subcategory,  and Section VII discusses the technology
for treatment of these raw wastes.  The successful application of
similar  treatment  systems  to  the   raw   waste,   from   many
subcategories supports the proposed subcategorization.

Cost and Economic Analysis

While the technical analysis determined that separate limitations
were  needed  for twenty-two different types of fruit, twenty-six
different  types  of  vegetables  and  ten  different   specialty
products  within  the fruits, vegetables and specialties industry
segments,  an  economic   analysis   determined   that   separate
limitations  were needed for three plant sizes within each fruit,
vegetable or specialty product.  The economic study was based  on
financial  and price effects, sales and investment, international
trade and  other  factors.   As  a  result  of  the  analysis  on
representative  model  plant groups, potential plant impacts were
found to  differ  among  small,  medium  and  large  size  plants
Accordingly,  no  limitations  have  been  established  for small
plants which process less than 1,816 kkg (2,000  tons)  per  year
and  separate  limitations  have  been established for medium and
large size plants for each of the twenty-two different  types  of
fruits,  the twenty-six different types of vegetables and the ten
different specialty products.

A medium size plant has been defined as a plant that processes  a
total  annual  raw  material  production  of  fruits, vegetables,
specialties and other products that is between 1,816  kkg  (2,000
tons)  per  year  and  9,080 kkg  (10,000 tons)  per year.  A large
plant has a production that exceeds 9,080 kkg (10,000  tons)   per
year.
                                  188

-------
                            SECTION V

             WATER USAGE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION

Raw  waste characteristics were established for each subcategory;
first, by making a comprehensive survey of the  industry  at  the
individual   processing   line  level;  second,  by  establishing
subcategories using certain equity criteria; third, by  selecting
representative   plants  in  each  subcategory;  and  fourth,  by
obtaining a statistical representation of these plants  for  each
subcategory.  The design and implementation of the survey program
was discussed in Section III, and the subcategorization rationale
and  selection  of  representative  plants  in  Section IV.  This
section  will   present   the   statistical   representation   or
characterization for each subcategory and discuss the methodology
used, including the following points:

    Data handling and reduction

    Data distributions

    Effluent-production correlations

Information was also obtained on treatment system performance and
effluent  characteristics  from  many  plants and is presented in
detail in Section VII and Section IX.

DATA HANDLING AND REDUCTION

Over 500 separate sources of information relating  to  raw  waste
load  characteristics  of  the  fruit  and  vegetable  processing
industry were obtained during this study.  These represented over
50,000 individual data points.  To handle and analyze this  large
volume  of  data, an initial computer assisted information system
was developed.  One of the principal parts of this system was the
computerized data processing subsystem.  The key to  identifying,
storing,  sorting,  and  retrieving  data  in this system was the
eight character "process code".  This code uniquely  defined  the
name of the plant from which the data was obtained, the commodity
being  processed,  the origin of the data, the source of the data
(historical or wet sample), and whether the data were for raw  or
treated effluent.

The  process code, the key to data identification, was defined as
follows.  The  first  two  alphabetical  characters  defined  the
commodity  as  listed  in  Table  17.   Information obtained from
multi-commodity processes was assigned a  special  character,  an
asterisk,  in the first place.  While multi-commodity information
had limited use for characterizing the waste water from a segment
of the industry, it was often useful  for  determining  treatment


                               189

-------
                        TABLE 17
      ALPHABETICAL CHARACTERS DEFINING COMMODITIES

Apricots - AP
Asparagus - AS
Baby Foods - BF
Beets - BT
Blueberries - BU
Broccoli - BR
Brussels sprouts - BQ
Caneberries - BC
Carrots - CT
Cauliflower - CU
Cherries, brined - CB
Cherries, sweet and sour - CH
Corn - CO
Corn chips - KK
Cranberries - CR
Dehydrated vegetables - DV
Dried fruits - DF
Dry beans, canned - BD
Figs - FG
Garlic - GL
Grapes - GR
Greens - GN
Jams, jellies - JJ
Lima beans - BI
Mayonnaise and salad dressings - SD
Mushrooms - MU
Olives - OL
Onions - ON
Peaches - PC
Pears - PR
Peas - PE
Pickles - PK
Pimentos - PI
Pineapples - PS
Plums - PL
Potato chips - PP
Prunes - PN
Pumpkin and squash - SQ
Raisins - RA
Sauerkraut - SA
Snap beans - BN
Soups - SL
Spinach - SP
Strawberries - SW
Sweet potatoes - ST
Tomatoes - TO
Tomato - starch - cheese - CS
White potatoes - PO
Tortilla Chips - TC
                          190

-------
effectiveness  for  food  processing waste.  The third and fourth
numeric characters defined the name and location of a  particular
plant  and  the contract participant who obtained the data.  This
assignment ensured that different data would not be  accidentally
assigned the same code.  The next four characters further defined
the  source  of  the  data.   A  letter "H" in the fifth position
represented historical data from a plant, government  agency,  or
literature  source.   A "W" represented wet sample data collected
and analyzed during the study.   when  data  was  obtained  after
treatment,  the  letter "T" was added, and when data was obtained
from more than one point in the treatment system, a  numeral  was
added  after  the  "T".   The  information  associated  with each
process  code  was  considered  to  be  separate   although   not
necessarily   independent.    Independent   process   codes  were
established for different processing plants.  When historical and
wet sample data were obtained for the same plant,  the  data  was
combined  as  a single process code.  Multiple years of data have
been evaluated and only one process code  has  been  established.
The  number  of raw waste samples obtained from each process code
can be determined by referring to individual plant tables.

Computer programs proved to be very efficient tools for analyzing
and presenting characterization data.  The first program was used
to list the raw data, sort the  data  by  code,  plant  name,  or
state,   and  calculate  estimates  of  time  averages,  standard
deviations, and observed  minimums  and  maximums  of  wastewater
parameters  from individual plants.  Listings of all the raw data
inputs and tables showing the statistical representation of  each
plant  from  each  source  or  point  examined  in this study are
presented in Supplement B.  The input data  is  arranged  by  the
dates  and  the points where the samples were collected.  All the
wastewater parameters expected to be obtained  during  the  study
were entered and priorities assigned.  Since the table format was
limited  to  a  standard  page  size,  those  parameters with the
highest priorities are presented at the top of the table; and  if
more  than ten parameters were available, only those ten with the
highest  priorities  were  presented.   To   achieve   relatively
consistent  table  formats,  the  top five parameters were always
presented whether data were available or not.

Data from a plant with several outfalls could  be  mathematically
composited  into  a  single end-of-pipe sample in two ways.  Data
from sample points which were considered to  be  correlated  were
mathematically  composited  by  adding  the  wasteloads from each
point for each day to obtain daily estimates of  the  total  load
from  these points.  These daily composites were then averaged to
obtain an estimate of the mean total daily load.  This  "mean  of
total daily loads" is a more accurate estimator when the loads at
two  or  more  sample  points  are  considered  to be correlated;
however, the data must be present from each sample point  on  the
same  days to perform this correlated calculation.  The wasteload
for sample points where data was collected infrequently (such  as
washdown)   was considered to be independent of the wasteload from
other points.  The average load  from  each  of  the  independent


                                 191

-------
points  was  computed  over  all days and then added to the daily
average from the other points to determine the overall average.

The summary program provides a statistical characterization of  a
group of plants used to represent each subcategory.   These tables
describe  the  raw waste flow, BOD5 and TSS for each subcategory.
Both the arithmetic and logarithmic  mean  value  are  given  for
1977.   In  determining  these  means, each individual sample was
weighed equally.  The logarithmic mean values were the raw  waste
characteristics  used  in establishing the 1977 limitations.  The
values listed  for  1983  are  the  logarithmic  mean  minus  one
standard deviation.  In calculating these values, each plant mean
value  was  weighed  equally.   These  values  were the raw waste
characteristics used in establishing the 1983 limitations.   Each
table is identified as a Raw Waste Load Summary, and these values
were  used as the basis for establishing effluent limitations and
costs of pollution control options.  This  information  is  given
for  fruits,  vegetables  and specialty products in Tables 19-75.
The  process  codes  representing  the  data  utilized  for  each
subcategory  table  are listed at the bottom.  An overall summary
of the 58 individual subcategory summary tables is  listed  later
in   this   section   under   "Raw   Waste  Load  Summary  -  All
Subcategories," Table 18.

DATA DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

To determine the natural distribution  of  the  major  wastewater
parameters,  cumulative  probability  plots were made for certain
major commodities using computerized statistical  routines.   The
purpose  of  these  plots  was  to  determine  which  theoretical
probability distribution function  (model)  best  fit  the  actual
data.   Once  the  best probability model is determined, then the
best statistical representation can  be  determined.   The  first
model  tried  was  the  standard  normal  distribution, since the
arithmetic average, which is easy to compute, is a good estimator
of the mean of this distribution.  It was determined  that  while
the  normal  distribution  model was adequate for a few cases, in
most cases the range of data was large and tended  to  be  skewed
with   a   few   relatively   large  values.   Also,  the  normal
distribution allowed for negative values which do  not  occur  in
actuality  for  the pollution parameters being examined.  The log
normal distribution has only positive values and is skewed  right
to allow for a few large values.  The set of logarithms of values
 (log normal distribution) conforms to the normal distribution and
thereafter standard, readily available statistical techniques can
be employed.

The  rationale  for  selecting  the  log  normal  distribution to
determine raw waste loads is based on data  presented  for  flow,
BOD5 and TSS for each subcategory in Tables 19-75.  The final two
columns  in  each  table present values  (coefficient of symmetry)
which describe the degree of  difference  between  hypothetically
perfect  normal and log normal distributions and the actual plant
data  sets,  for   each   pollutant   parameter   and   commodity


                                 192

-------
subcategory.   Pollutant  parameter mean values with coefficients
of symmetry closer to zero more accurately describe the data  set
distribution.   The  sign  (plus  or minus)  of the coefficient of
symmetry indicates whether the "tails" of  the  distribution  are
curved  up  or down from the hypothetically perfect straight line
probability plot.

From the final commodity summaries it was  determined  that  more
than 75 percent of the flow ratios and 85 percent of the BOD5 and
TSS  ratios  were  found  to  be better described by a log normal
distribution than by a normal distribution.
EFFLUENT PRODUCTION CORRELATION

A preliminary assumption made for each subcategory was  that  the
wasteloads  per  unit  of  production (ratio)  did not change with
production level.  To check this assumption,  "scatter  diagrams"
were  developed  for  some of the major subcategories where there
was a significant range of production levels.

Figures 51-54 show scatter diagrams of flow versus production and
BOD5 versus production for corn and  green  beans,  respectively.
Figure  52  shows that the individual flow ratios for each canned
corn plant are somewhat variable.  It also shows that there is  a
trend among some plants for the flow ratio to decrease as produc-
tion  increases.   This  is  offset, however,  by four plants with
relatively high water use.  The log mean of the  ratios  for  all
the  plants  from  the  summary  table is 1071 gal/ton.  The line
representing this ratio is drawn on the plot for comparison  with
the  individual  plants.  It appears that even when using the log
mean, the flow rate estimate is conservative  and  will  tend  to
over-estimate the flow for most plants.

Figure  53  shows  three canned green bean plants with relatively
low water use, with the rest having much higher water use related
to production.  The mean flow ratio from  the   summary  table  of
3691  gal/ton  will  underestimate  the  flow  at several plants.
However, the figure also  shows  that  there  is  much  room  for
improvement in water use in this subcategory of the industry.

Figure 51 shows that BOD5> load from corn processing is reasonably
well  correlated  with  production.  The mean BOD5_ ratio from the
summary table of 28.8 Ibs/ton appears to be a   good  fit  to  the
data  with BODjj loads being under and over-estimated for about an
equal number of plants.  The BODJ5 loads are  less  correlated  to
production   for  the  canned  green  bean  plants  (Figure  54).
However, the mean BOD5 ratio  from  the  summary  table  of  6.25
Ibs/ton  appears  to  be a reasonable fit with an equal number of
plants above and below the value.

None of the commodities studied showed a consistent trend for the
flow or BOD5_  ratios  to  be  a  function  of   production  level.
                               193

-------
                    FIGURE 51



    BOD VS. CORN  PRODUCTION SCATTER DIAGRAM
                           28.8 ibs/ton-
9
Q
O
              PRODUCTION (TONS/DAY)



                    FIGURE            •


      FLOW VS.  CORN PRODUCTION SCATTER DIAGRAM
Q
U
a
I
1071  gal/ton
              PRODUCTION (TONS/DAY)
                       194

-------
                        FIGURE  53

               FLOW VS. GREEN BEAN PRODUCTION
                      ^COTTER DIAG!
Q

g
                              3byl  gal/ton
                   PRODUCTION  (TONS/DAY)
                        FIGURE
                  BOD VS.  GREEN BEAN PRODUCTION
                        SCATTER DIAGRAM
1
                                  6.25 Ibs/ton
a
o
  • •a
                   PRODUCTION (TONS/DAY)
                          195

-------
Therefore,  no  subcategories  were  further  subdivided based on
production.

SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY TABLE

The following subsection presents  a  summary  table  (Table  18)
which  provides  the  major raw effluent pollution parameters for
all of the subcategories.   The  individual  subcategory  summary
tables follow in Tables 19-75.  The form of the tables from which
these summary tables were derived was discussed previously in the
Data Handling and Reduction subsection.
                                  196

-------
                  TABLE 18
RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY - ALL SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY
APRICOTS
CANEBERRIES
SWEET CHERRIES
SOUR CHERRIES
BRINED CHERRIES
CRANBERRIES
DRIED FRUIT
GRAPE JUICE - CANNING
GRAPE JUICE - PRESSING
OLIVES
PEACHES - CANNED
PEACHES - FROZEN
PEARS
PICKLES - FRESH RACKED
PICKLES - PROCESS PACKED
PICKLES - SALTING STATIONS
PINEAPPLES
PLUMS
RAISINS
STRAWBERRIES
TOMATOES - PEELED
TOMATOES - PRODUCTS
ASPARAGUS
BEETS
BROCCOLI
BRUSSELS SPROUTS
CARROTS
CAULIFLOWER
CORN - CANNED
CORN - FROZEN
DEHYDRATED ONION ANO GARLIC
DEHYDRATED VEGETABLES
BRY BEANS
LIMA BEANS
MUSHROOMS
ONIONS - CANNED
PEAS - CANNED
PEAS - FROZEN
PIMENTOS
SAUERKRAUT - CANNING
SAUERKRAUT - CU.tflNG
SNAP bEANS - CANNED
SNAP BEANS - FROZEN
SPINACH - CANNED
SPINACH - FROZEN
SQUASH
SWEET POTATOES
WHITE POTATOES
ADDED INGREDIENTS
BABY FOOD
CHIPS - CORN
CHIPS - POTATO
CHIPS - TORTILLA
ETHNIC FOODS
JAMS AND JELLIES
MAYONNAISE AND DRESSINGS
SOUPS
TOMATO - STARCH - CHEESE SPECIALTIES
PLOW
1977
5263.
1441.
1863.
2883.
4783.
2955.
3185.
1732.
373.9
9156.
3134.
1297.
2839.
2051.
2298.
253.1
3133.
1193.
671.3
3148.
2146.
1132.
16520.
1212.
10945.
8722.
2910.
21473.
1071.
3194.
4772.
5303.
4313.
6510.
5385.
5516.
4721.
3483.
6914.
843.3
103.4
3691.
3816.
9039.
7024.
1341.
995.2
1992.

1769.
2883.
5628.
4878.
3108.
631.7
551.3
7342.
5716.
- SAL/TON
1983
2946.
679.7
1067.
2591.
1356.
1519.
1701*
1479.
270.4
5578.
2456.
1069.
1636.
1878.
1481.
76.86
2739.
744.0
393.2
1662.
1183.
920.7
5594.
802.2
5433.
7867.
2323.
20469.
424.1
2772.
3060.
4756.
3826.
4746.
3202.
4073.
2908.
2622.
6114.
665.1
74.89
2631.
3437.
2776.
3588.
739.8
692.5
758.6

1310.
2883.
4214.
4876.
2193.
492.0
541.5
7342.
2370.
BOO -
1977
30.9
5.66
19.3
34.3
43.5
19.9
24. 8
21.4
3.81
87.4
28.1
23.4
42.3
19.0
36.7
15.9
20.6
8.23
12.1
10.6
8.18
2.58
4.24
39.4
19.6
6.85
39.0
10.5
28.8
40.4
13.0
15.8
30.7
27.8
17.4
45.1
44.2
36.6
54.5
7.02
2.49
6.25
12.1
16.4
9.62
33.6
60.2
54.6
8.00
9.12
70.4
74.0
59.4
13.6
11.7
10.9
29.7
9.58
LBS/TON
1983
26.2
3.98
13.6
22.4
42.4
17.0
23.7
9.73
2.29
43.7
19.7
20.2
24.0
5.89
17.2
3.17
17.3
3.26
12.2
8.47
6.25
2.08
0.950
34.3
7.65
5.60
30.7
7.60
13.2
18.1
10.3
14.2
15.0
12.9
13.1
47.8
40.2
20.2
43.0
6.95
1.24
2.96
12.0
7.46
4.83
7.99
44.8
4Q.1
8.00
8.93
70.4
39.4
59.4
12.0
10.0
10.1
29.7
6.49
TSS
1977
8.49
1.17
1.15
2.09
2.88
2.85
3.71
2.49
0.808
15.0
4.61
3.70
6.51
3.82
6.54
0.834
5.46
0.701
3.26
2.72
12.3
5.33
6.85
7.89
11.2
21.6
23.9
5.13
13.4
11.2
11.8
11.3
8.80
20.7
9.60
18.7
10.8
9.78
5.77
1.21
0.375
4.03
6.01
13.0
4.06
4.56
22.9
74.8
_
3.20
59.8
84.4
72.1
4.81
1.94
5.13
19.5
5.24
- LBS/TON
19S3
5.75
0.574
0.653
1.96
1.28
1.58
2.18
2.45
0.632
7.39
5.18
2.76
4.77
1.91
1.57
0.432
4.89
0.254
2.27
2.64
4.07
4.34
4.11
7.53
4.61
4.27
13.4
3.91
5.69
3.07
6.55
10.0
4.70
8.64
7.24
7.94
9.08
6.21
4.50
1.20
0.198
1.92
6.83
8.55
4.23
4.25
23.5
64.0

1.13
59.8
22.4
72.1
3.70
1.23
4.35
19.5
5.23

-------
                                                          TABLE 19
                                                  RA.v WA-->1£  LOAD SUMMARY
                                                          APRICOTS
                                                1977                       198J

FLOW
CU.ME
,uus
Tib

GAL/TON
1 ERic KKG
L : /TON
K'u/ KKG
L :VTOIM
iVo/KKG
NUMBtri OF
PLANTS
7.
7.
f.
7.
7.
7.
ARITHMFTIC LUG
MtAN MLAN
6372. 526J.
26.57 21.94
32.9 3f.9
16.5 lo.b
9.72 f.49
4.86 H.25
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
2583.
10.77
26.3
13.1
5.81
2.91
LOG
M-SD
2946.
12.29
26.2
13.1
5.75
2.88
                                                                                                ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                                COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                                SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                                  1.6^27
                                                                                                  0.9990
                                                               0.0096
                                                                                                  1.1575      -0.11*3
                                                               0.1206
           Process Codes:   AP01W, AP02H, AP03*. AP04H, AP05H, AP09H,  AP11H*
10
00
         TABLE 2d
  RA»v WAblE LOAD  SUMMARY
        CMNEBERRIES
1977                      1983

FLUW
CU.ME
BODS
Tbb

GAL/TON
Ley TON
Kb /KKG
t-^/TON
Ku/KKG
NUMBER Of
PLANTS
b.
5.
5.
b.
b.
5.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
1698.
7.0,79
7.43
3.72
1.84
0.922
Lub
1401.
b.843
b.66
2.83
1.17
0.584
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
662.8
2.764
3.84
1.92
0.255
0.128
LOG
M-SD
679.7
2.834
3.98
1.99
0.574
0.287
                                                                                                ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                                COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                                SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY

                                                                                                 -0.1375      -1.2455
                                                                                                  1.4553      -0.1293
                                                                                                  3.1130      -0.1633
           Process Codes:  BU28H, BU50H, BC50W, BC51*. BC56*

-------
  RA-v
1977
                                                      TABLE 21
                                                         LOAD SUMMARY
                                                         CHERRIES
                                                                       1983

FLOW b^L/TON
CU.ME Tc-
-------
FLOW   OAL/TON
 CU.METERS,
BOU5    L'/ION
TSS     L ;/TON
        Ko/KKG
                                                      TABLE 22
                                                 RA* rtAbTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                                     SOUK CHERRIES
                                               1977                      1983
ER OF
ANTS
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
3165.
13.20
39.2
19.6
U24
LOO
MLAN
2883.
12.02
34-. 3
IV. 2
£.09
i.05
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
2676.
11.16
22.1
11.0
1.89
0.947
LOG
M-SD
2591.
10.81
22.4
11.2
1.96
0.981
                                                                                             ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                             COEFF.  OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                             SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                                0.8597
                                                                                                1.1448
                                                                                                1.2050
               0.4646
               0.5520
               0.5916
          Process Codes:  CH50H*. CH57H*. CH60H
PO
8
        FLOw   GrtL/TON
        8005    LH/TON
                Kb/KKG
        TSS     LB/TON
                Kio/KKG
                                                       TABLF 23
                                                 RAw WAbfE LOAD  SUMMARY
                                                     SWtLT CHERRIES
                                               1977                      1983
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2464.
10.36
21.5
10.8
1.68
0.839
LUIJ
MLAN
1863.
l.lbl
1*.3
*.66
1.15
0.575
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
271.8
1.134
13.0
6.49
0.737
0.369
LOG
M-SD
1067.
4.448
13.6
6.81
0.653
0.327
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                              COEFF.  OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
 1.2116
                                                                                                     0.3367
-0.1119      -1.0589
-0.1090      -1.2545
            Process Codes:  CH51H, CH54H, CH59W

-------
                                               TABLE 24

                                         RArt WAbTE LOAD SUMMARY

                                              CKAN8ERRIES

                                       1977                      1983

FLOW
CD.
BODS
TSS

GAL/ TON
METErfo/KKG
Li /TON
Ku/KKG
L /TON
KJ/KKG
NUMfltH OF
' PLANTS
b.
b.
6.
b.
b.
b.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
3561.
14.85
23.5
11.8
4.1b
LOo
MtAN
1^.32
19.9
2.85
i.43
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
1275.
5.316
15.7
7.87
1.37
0.687
LOG
M-sn
1519.
6.333
17.0
8.51
1.58
0.790
                                                                                      ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                      COEFF. OF    COEFF.  OF
                                                                                      SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                        1.7051
                                                                                        2.^807
                                                                                        1.4198
                                    0.9270
                                    1.4260
                                    0.0666
Process Codes:  CR01H, CR02H, CR03H, CR04H, CR05H, CR51W
                                               TABLE 25
                                         RAW WASTE LOAD  SUMMARY
                                              DRIED FRUIT
                                       1977
1983

FLOW
CU.
BODS
TSS

GAL/TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
5455.
22.75
3ft. 0
15.0
7.00
3.54
LOG
MEAN
3185.
13.28
24.8
12.4
3,71
1.86
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
-702.4
-2.931
24.9
12.5
-0.055
-0.028
LOG
M-SD
1701.
7.093
23.7
11.9
2.18
1.09
                                                                                      ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                      COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                      SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                        2.9985
                                                                                        2.8544
                                     0.7655
                                                                                        2.3847      -0.7186
                                     0.5400
PROCESS CODES:  DF01H*. DF03H*. PN03H, PN04*. PN25H*

-------
                                                TABLE 26
                                                   LOAD SUMMARY
                                               JUICE - CANNING
1977
                                                                 1983

FLOrt
CO.
HOD5
TSS

GAL/TON
METt.'-ib/'sKG
LwlON
L :/ ION
Ku/INKG
IMUi-irftR OF ARITHMETIC Lub
PLANTS MEAN Mc-AN
.e. 2059. 173^.

-------
                                                             TABLE 28
                                               RA»  WASTE  LOAD SUMMARY
                                                  REACHES - CANNED
                                             1977                      1983


FLOW
CU.ME
BOU5

TSS



uAL/TON

L--:/ TON
Ko/KKG
L'-vTON
Ku/l\KG
NUMSt* CF
PLANTS
b.
8.
8.
8.
5.
b.
ARITHMETIC LOG
MEAN MtAN
3497. 3134.
14.58 13.07
32.? 2b.l
16.1 l*.l
5.54 4.61
2.73 d.3\
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
2002
8.353
18.0
9.00
5.18
2.59
LOG
M-SD
2456.
10.24
19.7
9.88
5.18
2.59
                                                                                            ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                            COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                            SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                              2.1052       -0.6434
                                                                                              2.2360       -1.3675
                                                                                              1.0473       -1.4927
       Process Codes:  PC02H, PC05*. PC06W, PC09*. PC10H, PC11H, PC13H, PC50H*
ro
o
FLOW   GAL/TON
 CU.METER5/KKG
      BOU5
      TSS
              Lc/rON
              L ;•/ TON
          TABLE 29
  RAw WAi>IE LOAD SUMMARY
     PtAchES -FROZEN
1977                      1983
NUMtstF) CF
PLANTS
d.
2.
2.
2.
d.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
1470.
6.131
24.9
12.5
6.94
3.47
LUb
MtAN
1291'.
5.4Q8
23.4
11.7
J.7Q
1.85
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
825.3
3.44
20.1
10.0
-0.391
-0.196
LOG
M-SD
1069.
4.458
20.2
10.1
2.76
1.38
                                                                                            ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                            COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                            SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                              2.0629
                                                                                              3.5168
                                                              0.7816
                                                                                              0.4461       -0.7666
                                                              1.2435
      Process Codes:  PC25H, PC30H

-------
FLOW    CiAL/TON
 Cu.l
       BOU5     LVTON
       TSS      L;-./TON
                                                         TARI.F  30
                                                  «A* VJAblE LOAO SUMMARY
                                                           PEArtS
                                                1977
198-J
• t* OF
ANTS
V.
*;
f .
7.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
3533.
14. 8?
54.3
27.2
11.7
5.«6
LC-b
MtAN
283*.
11.84
21.2
0.51
->.26
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
648.9
2.71
23.1
11.5
2.19
1.10
LOG
M-SD
1638.
6.829
24.0
12.0
4.77
2.39
                                                                                                ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                                COEFF.  OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                                SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                                  3.1024
                                                                                                  0.7714
                                                                                                  2.5157
                                     0.5315
                                    -0.6311
                                    -0.2427
          Process Codes:  PR06H, PR07H, PR08H, PR50H,  PR51H*. PR52H, PR53H*. PR54H, PR55H
TN]
O

-------
                                                TABLE n

                                          RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                          PICKLES - FRESH PACKED

                                        1977                       1983

FLOW
CU.
BOD5
TSS

GAL/TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2229.
9.296
26.2
13.1
5.60
a. so
LOG
MEAN
2051*
8.551
19.0
9.52
3.82
1.91
ARITHMETIC
M_$n
1825.
7.612
4.34
2.17
1.91
0.957
LOG
M-SD
1878.
7.831
5.89
2.95
1.91
0.954
                                                                                       ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                       COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                       SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY

                                                                                         0.4288      -0.8582
                                                                                         1.2158      -0.5315
                                                                                         2.2874      -0.1356
Process Codes: CC50H, CC57H, PK26H, PK39H, PK41H,  PK50W,  PK76H
                                                 TABLF 32

                                          RAM WASTE LOAD SUMMARY

                                         PICKLES - PROCESS PACKED
                                        1977                      1983
o
U)
FLOW
CU.
BODS
TSS

GAL/TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KO/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2789.
11.59
48.8
24.4
12.0
5.99
LOG
MEAN
2298.
9.582
36.7
18.4
6.54
3.27
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
1575.
6.568
18.4
9.22
0.050
0.025
LOG
M-SD
1481.
6.178
17.2
8.62
1.57
0.785
                                                                                       ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                       COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                       SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY

                                                                                         2.0542       -0.5502
                                                                                         2.8083       -0.0441
                                                                                         3.2362      -0.4452
 Process Codes:   PK27H,  PK38H,  PK40H,  PK51H,  PK53H, PK54H, PK58, PK77H, PK80*. PK90

-------
                                                        TABLE 33

                                                RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY

                                              PICKLES  T SALTING STATIONS

                                              1977                       1983

FLOW
CU.
BOOS
TSS

GAL /TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
6.
6.
6.
6.
4.
4.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
338.5
24.1
18.1
1*09
0.546
LOG /
MEAN
253.1
1*055
15*9
7.95
0*834
0.417
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
68.41
0.2853
1.21
0.60
0.197
0.099
LOG
M-SD
76.86
0*3205
3.17
1.59
0.432
0.216
                                                                                             ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                             COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                             SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY


                                                                                               0*1683       -0.8199
                                                                                               0.6506       -0.4421
                                                                                               1.1694
                                                              0.4465
       Process Codes:  CC10H,CCHH,CC12H, CC13H, PK37H, PK42H
ro
o
en
1977
                                                        TABLE 34

                                                 RAv.  WAilE LOAD SUMMARY


                                                        PINEAPPLES

FLO* bAL/ToiM
CU.MEl cr5 L./'iON
Ko/KKG
TSS L-VTON
NUMBtw OF
HLAINiTS
2.
I*.
3.
3.
3.
rtKITHMFTIC
MEAN
3235.
13.49
2?. 6
11.3
6.9'j
3.4-J
Lob ARITHMETIC
MtAN M-SD
313o. 2573.
U.06 10.73
2v'.b 12.0
1',.3 6.00
3.46 5.07
f.73 2.54
LOG
M-SD
2739.
11.43
17.3
8.65
4.89
2.45
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC      LOG

                                                                                              COEFF.  OF    COEFF. OF

                                                                                              SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                                0.5928
                                                                                                1.0233
                                                                                                0.8915
                                                              0.4187
                                                              0.7038
                                                             -1.3042
          Process Codes:  PS01W, PS02H, PS03H

-------
                                                   TABLE 35a
                                           «A»  WAaTE LOAO  SUMMARY
                                                    OLIVES
                                         1977                        198J
FLO« GAL /ION
CU.MEre^S/KKG
8005 L'/rON
Ku/KKG
T5S L '/TON
Kb/KKG
Process Codes: OL11W,

FLO* (jAL/TON
CU.METtrfb/KKG
BOOS LiJ/TON
Ku/KKG
TSS L-VTON
rf.u/KKG
NUHHcS OF
PLANTS
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
OL12W, OL13W

NUMttEw OF
PLANTS
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
9911.
41.33
111.
55.5
23.8
11.9
RA-v
1977
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
1460.
6.0*7
14.4
7.?0
2.68
1.34
LUu ARITHMETIC
MtAN M-SD
915b. 5794.
3o.l8 24.16
8/.4 39.6
4.J.7 19.8
1^.0 8.11
^.49 4.06
TABLE 35b
ulASlt LOAU SUMMARY
PLUMS
1983
LUo ARITHMETIC
MtAN M-SD
119J. 517.5
4.977 2.159
a. 23 -2.61
4.12 -1.31
u.701 -2; 31
0.351 -1.15
LOG
M-SD
5578.
23.26
43.7
21.8
7.39
3.70

LOG
M-SD
744.0
3.103
3.26
1.63
0.254
0.127
ARITHMETIC LOG
COEFF. OF COEFF. OF
SYMMETRY SYMMETRY
-0.5196 -0.6639
0.5869 -0.3914
1.8524 0.3686
ADTTMuc'TTr* i n^
COEFF. OF COEFF. OF
SYMMETRY SYMMETRY
2.3645 1.0417
1.2071 0.4276
2.6316 1.4789
Process Codes:  PL50H*. PL52H, PL54H*. PL66M4

-------
                                                         TABLE 36
                                                      WASTE LOAO SUMMARY
                                                         KAISINS
                                               1977                       1983

CU.MEfE"
o
oo
FLO*   bAi_/ TON
 CU.METE3S/KK6
8005
TSS
                L :/TON
                K3/KKG
                L-/TON
                Mi/
RA* vVA^ie LOAO SUMMARY
STRAWBERRIES
1977 1983
NUH3LK OF
PLAINTS
3.
b.
b.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
4092.
17.00
13.6
6.8?
3.70
1.95
Luu
Mt-AN
314o.
13.13
lu.6
b.32
i.72
1.36
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
1423
5.937
8.53
4.27
2.46
1.23
LOG
M-SD
1662.
6.930
8.47
4.24
2.64
1.32
                                                                                               ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                               COEFF.  OF    COEFF.  OF
                                                                                               SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                                 1.7061
              0.1971
O.V172       -1.0490
1.2420       -0.5220
        Process Codes:  SW02H,  SW50W, SW51W, SW53H, SW55H

-------
                                                           TABLE 38
                                                     RAW  WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                                           TOMATOES -PEELED
                                                   1977                       1983

FLOW
CU,
BOOS
TSS

GAL /TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
15.
15.
14.
14.
12.
12.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2433.
10.15
9.40
4.70
16.7
8.37
LOG
MEAN
2146.
a. 950
8.18
4,09
12.3
6.17
ARITHMETIC
M-sn
1115.
4.651
6.18
3.09
2.88
1.44
LOG
M-SD
1184.
4.936
6.25
3.13
4.07
2.04
                                                                                                   ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                                   COEFK.  OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                                   SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                                    2.11*6
                                                                                                    3.7383
                                                                                                    4.1342
                                                                   0.3642
                                                                  -0.0&46
                                                                   0.0074
            Process Codes: T002H,  T004H, T005H*. T007H, T009H, T012H2, T013H, T015H,  T020H*, T023H*, T024H*. T025H,
                         T051H*. T052H*. T095H
r>o
O
vo
          TABLE 39
  RAM WASTE  LOAD SUMMARY
    TOMATOES-PRODUCTS
1977                       1983

FLOW
CU.
BOOS
TSS

GAL/ TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
1290.
5.381
3.28
1.64
6.45
3.23
LOG
MEAN
1132.
4.720
2.58
1.29
5.33
2.67
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
939.2
3.92
2.67
1.34
4.95
2.48
LOG
M-SD
920.7
3.84
«
2.08
1.04
4.34
2.17
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                              COEFF.  OF    COEFF.  OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                                2.9093
                                                                                                2.6Q42
                                                                                                3.8290
                                                                1.4854
                                                                0.8974
                                                                0.0842
       Process Codes:   TOO!*, T008H, T012H1, T020W, T080H*

-------
                                                      TABLE 40
                                                 RA<  WAjIfc. LOAO SUMMARY
                                               1977
1983

FLOW b^L/TON
CU.MEI KKb/ KKG
BuOb L / TON
(V.;/ NKG
Tbb L../TON
IvJMBtw OF
PLANTS
i.
2.
c *
APITHMFTIC Lub
MEAN Mt-AiM
^f^i ib56o:«9
6.B7 f.t;^
8.7V o.«5
ARITHMETIC
486.7
2.03
0.656
0.328
3.61
1.81
LOG
5594.
23.33
0.950
0.475
4.11
2.06
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                              COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY

                                                                                                0.1338       -0.3614
                                                                                                0.6937       -0.5354
                                                                                                1.0670       -0.2896
       Process Codes:   AS03*. A805H
ro
h->
o
FLOw   GAL/I ON
 CU.MEI
               L.-/TON
TSi
               L:VTON
                                        1977
                                                        TABLE 41
                                                       jlE LOAD  SUMMARY
                                                         bEETS
1983
t« OF
ANTS
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
fa.
ArUTriMPfiC
6.6^3
47.1
23.6
11.7
S.flS.
McAN
12U.
3.054
3^.4
/.89
J.95
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
766.8
3.197
32.8
16.4
- 1.39
- 0.695
LOG
M-SD
802.2
3.345
34.3
17.2
7.53
3.77
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                              COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                                1.4440
                       1.2757
                       3.0565
                                     0.2962
                                                                                                       0.2839
                                                                                                       0.1332
          Process Codesi   BT28H, BT50*. BT52H, BT53H*. BT54*. BT55H*. BT57*

-------
                                                TABLE 42
                                        RAw  WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                               BROCCOLI
                                      1977                     1983
Nl
FLOW GAL/TON
CU.METERb/KKG
BODS LJ/TON
Ku/KKG
TSb Lr;/TON
KG/KKG
Process Codes: BR01H,


Nl
FLOW OML/TON
CU.ME lErJ^/f^KG
60Db L-J/rON
TSb L -/TON
JM6ES OF ARITHMETIC L0t> ARITHMETIC
PLANTS MEAN MEAN M-SD
3. 11892. 10945. 5005
3. 49.59 43.64 20.86
3. 33.0 1^.6 2.41
3. 16.5 *.83 1.21
3. 31.1 11.2 2 03
3. 15.6 t>.59 TJop
BR02U, BR04H
TABLE 43'
RA •< rtAolt' LOAO SUMMARY
riKU^btLS SPROUTS
1*77 1983
JMrftrf CF AKITHMEI'IC Luu ARITHMETIC
PLM^TS ^EAM Mt.AN M-SD

-------
                                                             TABLE 44
                                                    f?A»"  WAblE LOAD SUMMARY
                                                            CARROTS
                                                  1977                        198.3

FLOW
Cu.
BUUS

TSS


bAL/TON
ME! t^/KK6
Lcf TON
tVi/rsKG
L ./ TON
*t;/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
7.
7.
7.
*'
6.
6.
.ARITHMETIC LUb
MEAN MIAN
3?b9. 2910.
13.59 l£.13
46.6 3^.0
23.3 1*«5
40.9 2J.9
20.5 1^.0
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
2346.
9.783
31.9
15.9
9.64
4.82
LOG
M-SD
2323.
9.686
30.7
15.4
13.4
6.69
HKl I nwt 1 iv, LUU
COEFF. OF COEFF. OF
SYMMETRY SYMMETRY
1.1842 0.3060

1.4140 -0.6348

1.5145 -0.4731

         Process Codes:   CT01*. CT20H, CT51H*. CT58H, , CT59H*. CT60H*. CT61H*
ro
t-*
po
         TABLE 45
  RA» WAsIE LOAD  SUMMARY
         CAULIFLOWER
1977                        1983

FLOW GAL/TON
B005 L=/TON
Ku/KKG
TSS L;/TON
NUMdtr! OF
PLANTS
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
21647.
90.27
?!o7
6.85
3.43
MC.AN
8V. 54
10.5
b.28
3.13
2.57
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
20446
85.30
7.52
3.76
-0.231
-0.116
LOG
M-SD
20469.
85.36
7.60
3.80
3.91
1.96
HKl 1 nnc. 1 1<-
COEFF. OF
SYMMETRY
0.6706
0.5968
3.5065
l_uo
COEFF. OF
SYMMETRY
0.3299
-0.2127
1.1985
         Process  Codes:  CU02W,  CU03H, CU50H

-------
ro
*-•
CO
                                                        TABLE 46
                                                 RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                                      CORN - CANNED
                                               1977                     1983


FLOW GAL /TON
CU.METERS/KKG
BOOS
TSS
Process

FLOW
CU.ML'
tfUUii
TSS
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
10.
10.
10.
10.
8.
8.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
LOG
MEAN
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
1306. 1071, 511.8
5.446 4,466 2.134
38.6
19.3
15.4
1.71
Codes: C056H2, C061H, C064H, C069H*. C070H*

GAL/ rOi\l
Fc,-
-------
                                              TABLE 48
                                       RAv WAbTE LOAD  SUMMARY
                                    UtHYDKATEu ONION ANO  GARLIC
                                     1977                      1983
FLO* GAL/ TON
BuD5 L >/TON
TSS L /TON
Ko/KKb
Process Codes:

FLO* GAL/ TON
BOOS L-/TON
TSS L^/TON
Ku/KKG
PLANTS
4.
H.
4.
H.
3.
J.
ON01W, ON02H

NUMBt* OF
HLA.NTS
J.
J.
J.
3.
3.
3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
5?15. i
21. 7S
14.9
7.47
15.5
7.75
, ON03H, GL02W
RA«
OE'*1
1977
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
5512.
17.9
8.98
5.89
L^o ARITHMETIC
Mc^N M-SD
>77t. 2064.
1^.9j 8.61
1-S-O I0.fi
D.SO 5.39
11.8 1.55
D.93 0.778
TABLE 49
*A;>r£ LOAO SUMMARY
rORAlEo VEGETABLES
1983
Li>G ARITHMETIC
MtAN M-SD
j30->. 4764.
Zc.\\ 19.87
Ib.b 14.2
/.89 7.12
li.3 9.88
D.64 4.94
LOG
M-SD
3060.
12.76
10.3
5.16
6.55
3.28

LOG
M-SD
4756.
19.83
14.2
7.10
10.00
5.00
                                                                                   ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                   COEFF. OF    COEFF.  OF
                                                                                   SYMMETRY     SYMMETKY
                                                                                     1.8759
                                                                                     2.0751
                                                                                     1.2753
                                                                                     2.4269
1.2720
0.8750
0.^962
                                                                                   ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                   COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                   SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
1.7501
                                                                                     0.5697       -0.9322
                                                                                     0.2485       -0.0324
Process Codes:  DV01H, DV10H, DV11H

-------
                                                TABLE 50
                                        RA* WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                              DKY BEANS
                                      1977                      1983


FLOW GAL/TON
CU.METtRi/KKG
SODS
TSS
L.-/TON
Ku/KKG
LC./TON
KG/KKG
NUMBtft OF ARITHMETIC LOG
PLANTS MEAN1 McAN
7. 4892. 4313.
7. 20.40 17.99
7. 35.7 31/.7
7. 17.8 lb.4
S. 13.6 ci.80
b. 6.82 4.40
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
3800.
15.85
14.9
7.47
-3.09
-1.55
LOG
M-SD
3826.
15.96
15.0
7.50
4.70
2.35
                                                                                     ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                     COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                     SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                     1.4247
                                                                     1.0737
                                                                                       2.2047
                                                                                                    -1.4998
                                                                                                    -0.0417
                                                                                  0.5166
 Process Codes:
BD25H*. BD34H, BD38H, BD48W, BD51H, BD52H, B054H
                                                TABLE 51
                                        RA* WAblE  LOAD SUMMARY
                                              LIMA BEANS
                                      1977                      1983

FLOW
CU.MEl
HUU,
TSS

GAL /TON
L /TON
KG/WsG
L j/TON
tvu/KKG
MUMBtH OF
PLANTS
j.
3.
3.
J.
3.
3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
7104.
29.37
33.5
16. B
?6.4
13.2
LUb ARITHMETIC
MtAN M-SD
651. ,. 1777
2>.15 7.414
27.8 7.09
13.9 3.55
2o.7 3.43
U.4 1.71
LOG
M-SD
4746.
19.79
12.9
6.46
8.64
4.33
                                                                                     ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                     COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                     SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                       2.9761
                                                                                       0.3829
                                                                                       0.5022
                                                                                   1.9139
                                                                                 -0.2003
                                                                                  -0.3193
Process Codes:  BI03W, BI31W, BI40H

-------
RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
MUSHROOMS
1977 1983

FLOW
CU.
BODS
TSS

GAL/TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
RLANTS
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
6310.
26.31
19.9
9.98
10. 6
5.38
LOG
MEAN
5385.
22.46
17.4
8.73
9. 6Q
4,80
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
3405.
14.20
14.0
7.02
6.88
3.45
LOG
M-SD
3202.
13.35
13.1
6.53
7.24
3.62
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                              COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY

                                                                                                1.3671      -0.2356
                                                                                                0*5580      -1.0349
                                                                                                0.8280
                                                             -0.2163
         Process Codes: MU01H, MU02H, MU03H, MU04H, MU05H, MU06H, MU07H
rs>
ft—»
o>
         TABLE  53
  RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
     ONIONS -  CANNED
1977                      1983


FLOW GAL /TON
CU.METERS/KKG
BOOS
TSS
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
5758.
24. 01
53.5
26.8
25.8
12.9
LOG
MEAN
5516.
23.00
45.1
22.6
18.7
9.36
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
4090.
17.06
47.9
24.0
6.32
3.16
LOG
M-SD
4073.
16.98
47.8
23.9
7.94
3.97
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                              COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY

                                                                                               -0*7450       -0.9118
                                                                                               -0*5276       -1.4022
                                                                                                0.0733       -0.6184
         Process Codes:  ON26H, ON35H, ON51H

-------
                                               TABLE 54
                                          RAW WASTE  LOAD SUMMARY
                                              PEAS - CANNED
                                        1977
1983

FLOW
CU.
BODS
TSS

GAL/TON
METERS/KKG
LS/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
18.
18.
18.
18.
17.
17.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
5896.
24.59
52.3
26.2
14.3
7.16
LOG
MEAN
4721.
19.69
44.2
22.1
10.8
5.38
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
2716.
11.33
41.5
20.8
9.32
4.66
LOG
M-SD
29Q8.
12.13
40.2
20.1
9.08
4.54
                                                                                        ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                        COEFF.  OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                        SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY

                                                                                          1.3842       -0.1823
                                                                                          1.4226       -1.0446
                                                                                          2.6562       -0.3283
 Process Codes: PE02H, PE26*. PE31H,  PE42*.  PE53H, PE60H, PE67H*. PE68H*. PE69H*,  PE70H*,  PE73H, PE75H, PE76H, PE78H*,
              PE79H*. PE80H*. PE81H, PE85H*
                                                 TABLE 55
                                          RAM  WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                               PEAS - FROZEN
                                        1977                       1983


FLOW
CU.
BODS

TSS



GAL /TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
40S7.
17.04
4*. 5
22.3
14.9
7.0)
LOG
MEAN
3483.
14.52
36,6
18,3
9.78
4.90
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
2473.
10.31
16.4
8.22
5.87
2.94
LOG
M-SD
3622.
10*93
20.2
10.1
6.21
3.11
                                                                                        ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                        COEFF.  OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                        SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                          2.0586
                                                                                           1.5454
                                                                                           1.2873
                                      0.4019
                                     0.3630
                                    -0.2324
Process Codes:   PE27W, PESO*,  PE55H*, PE59H*.  PE62H

-------
                                                     TABLE 56
      FLOW   GAL/TON
       CU.METERS/KKG
      BODS    L8/TON
              KG/KKG
TSS
              LB/TON
              KG/KKG
RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
PJMENTOES
1977 1983
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
6967.
29.05
56.0
28.0
5.95
3. 98
LOG
MEAN
6914.
28.83
54.5
27.3
5.77
2.89
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
5761 .
24.04
37.6
18.8
3.90
1.95
LOG
M-SD
6114.
25.50
43.0
21.5
4.50
2.25
                                                                                            ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                            COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                            SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
      PROCESS CODES:   PI80H1, PI80H2
ro
•-•
CD

-------
                                                TABLE 57
                                        RAM WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                         SAUERKRAUT  - CANNING
                                      1977                      1983

FLOW
CU.
8005
TSS

GAL/TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
959.4
4.001
8.16
4. Q8
i.78
0.891
LOG ,
MEAN
843.3
3.517
7.02
3.51
1.21
0.606
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
602.9
2.5H
6.87
3.44
1.25
0.625
LOG
M-SD
665.1
2.774
6.95
3.48
1.20
0.601
                                                                                     ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                     COEFF. OF    COEFF.  OF
                                                                                     SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                       0.9845
                                                                                       1.7613
                                                                                       3.3326
 0.4848
-0.0911
 0.0693
PROCESS CODES  SA02H, SA27A, SA28H, SA51H
                                               TABLE 58
                                        RAM  WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                         SAUERKRAUT - CUTTING
                                       1977                       1983


FLOW GAL/TON
CU.METERS/KKG
BOOS
TSS
L8/TON
KG/KKG
L8/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
129.0
0.5381
3.23
1.62
6.599
• .300
LOG ARITHMETIC
MEAN M.SD
103.4
0.4311
2.49
1.25
0.375
0.188
66.64
0.278
1.33
0.667
0.168
0.084
LOG
M-SD
74.89
0.3123
1.24
0.622
6.198
0.099
                                                                                     ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                     COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                     SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                       0*3859
                                                                                       0*4548
                                                                                       0.5630
-0.6913
-0.2402
-1.4385
 Process Codes:   SA05H, SA06H, SA09H, SA97H, SA98H

-------
                                                          TABLE 59
                                                  RAM WASTE  LOAD SUMMARY
                                                   SNAP bEANS -  CANNED
                                                1977                      1983

FLOW
CU.
BODS
TSS

GAL/TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
11.
11.
11.
11.
11.
11.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
4266.
17.79
10.7
5.36
6.69
3.35
LOG
MEAN
3691.
15.39
6.25
3.13
4.03
2.02
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
2693.
11.23
-1.76
-0.88
1.47
0.736
LOG
M-SD
2631.
10.97
2.96
1.48
1.92
0.961
                                                                                                ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                                COEFF.  OF    COEFF.  OF
                                                                                                SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY

                                                                                                  1.1520      -1.0866
                                                                                                  2.4865
                                                                                                  1.8472
                                                              -1.1574
                                                              -0.9081
         Process  Codes:   BN25H, BN35H*. BN43H*. BN45W, BN55H, BN58H, BN59H*. BN62H, BN63H*, BN65H*. BN66H*
ro
IS}
o
        TABLE 60
  RAM WASTE LOAD  SUMMARY
   SNAP BEANS  - FROZEN
1977                      1983

FLOW
CU.
BODS
TSS

GAL /TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
4162.
17.35
14.9
7.45
7.25
3.63
LOG
MEAN
3816.
15.91
12.1
6.05
&.01
3.01
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
3405.
14.20
11.4
5.7
6.82
3.41
LOG
M-SD
3437.
14.33
12.0
6.00
6.83
3.42
                                                                                                ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                                COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                                SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                                  0.6Q61
                                                                                                  1.9059
                                                                                                  2.5625
                                                              -0.1476
                                                              -0.2602
                                                              -0.1367
       Process Codes:   BN26H*.  BN50H

-------
                                             i    TABLE 61
                                         RAw WAbTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                            SPINACH  -  CANNED
                                       1977                      1983

FLOW
CU.
8005
TSS

GAL/TON
MEfERS/KKG
L.-/TON
*!j/KKG
L^/TON
Ku/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
f.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
9662.
40. ?9
18.9
9.47
15.4
7.73
LUG
MtAN
903V.
3/.69
lt>.4
Q.23
13.0
o.52
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
3160.
13.18
3.83
1.92
6.84
3.42
LOG
M-SD
2776.
1 1 .58
7.46
3.74
8.55
4.28
                                                                                      ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                      COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                      SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                       -1.2185
                                                                                        1.0100
                                                                                        0.2775
-2.7242
-0.1528
-1.0941
Process Codes:   SP08H, SP14*. SP53H, SP54H
                                                 TABLE 62
                                         RA« WAbiE  LOAD SUMMARY
                                            SPIifACH -  FROZEN
                                       1977                      1983

FLOw
CU.ME
tiOOS
T = S

bA.i_/TON
:Ttn!^/lsKG
L - / 1 ON
K.u/lM
-------
                                                       TABLE 63

                                                 RAW  WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                                         SQUASH
                                               1977
1983

NUMBER OF
PLANTS
FLOW GAL /TON 4.
CU.METERS/KKG 4.
8005
TSS
bB/TON 4.
KG/KKG 4.
bB/TON 4.
KG/KKG 4.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
1621.
0.756
38.6
19.3
5.88
3.94
LOG
MEAN
1341.
5.592
33.6
16.8
4.56
2.28
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
^128.6
-0.5364
5.92
2.96
3.27
1.64
LOG
M-SD
739.8
3.085
7.99
4.00
4.25
2.13
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                              COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                                3.3152
                                                                                                0*^285
                                                                                                2.7613
                                     2.1982
                                    -1.6181
                                     0.3345
         Process Codes:  SQolH, SQ26H*. SQ50H, SQ51H
tNJ
t\J
ro

-------
                                                       TABLE 64
                                                RA« WAoie  LOAO  SUMMARY
                                                    SWttT  POTATOES
                                              1977                      1983

FLOW
cu.
60DS
TbS

UAL/ TON
METtrtS/KKG
L./TON
rtc/KKG
L-i/TON
Kli/KKG
NUMBtrt OF ARITHMETIC
PLANTS MEAN
4. 1278.
4. 5.32?
4. 85.1
4. 42.6
4. 46.6
4. 23.3
Mr. AN
993.2
4.150
60.2
3J.2
11.4
ARITHMtTIC
M-SD
505.2
2.11
22.7
11.4
11.3
5.65
LOG
M-SD
692.5
2.888
44.8
22.4
23.5
11.8
                                                                                             ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                             COEFF. OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                             SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                               1.9830
                                                                                               1.^663
 1.5561
              0.5004
              0.1152
                                                                                                           -0.9870
        Process Codes:   ST25H1, ST30H*, ST40*. ST70H
to
                                                       TABLE 65
                                                RAW  WA6TE LOAO SUMMARY
                                                     WHilE POTATOES
                                               1977                       1983

FLOW
CU.
8005
TSS

GAL/TON
METERS/KKG
L-3/TON
KG/KKG
L3/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2550.
10.63
56.3
28.2
75.7
37.9
LOG
MtAN
199*.
a.305
5<*.6
27.3
74.8
37.4
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
827.7
3.452
&.3
19.7
61.1
30.6
LOG
M-SD
758.6
3.163
4Q.1
20.1
64.0
32.0
                                                                                             ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                             COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                             SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
-0.4033
 0.1429
                                                                                               0.5280
                                                                                                            -0.6239
                                                                                                            -0.0432
               0.4698
         Process Codes:  P045H, P050H, P051H

-------
                                                TABLE 66



                                 COMPOSITION  OF COMMON ADDED  INGREDIENTS
Sauce
(Prin. Ingr. )
Butter
Cheese
Salad Oil
Starch
Sugar
Tomato
Wheat
Protein
(Percent)
0.6
16.0
	
0.3
	
2.5
13.3
Fat
(Percent)
81.0
21.4
100.0
	
	
0.3
2.0
Carbohydrate
(Percent)
0.4
8.2
	
87.6
99.5
24.8
71.0
Typical Sauce
BOD Composition
Raw BOD
kg/kkg
7.3
4.1
8.9
6.1
6.9
2.0
6.3
8.0
(Ib/ton)
14.6
8.2
17.8
12.2
13.8
4.0
12.6
16.0
ro
ro

-------
                                                          TABLE 67      |
                                                   RA*  WASTE LOAO SUMMARY
                                                           BABY FOOD
                                                  1977                       1983

NUMBER OF
PLANTS
FLOW GAL/TON 2.
CU.METERS/KKG 2.
8005
TSS
Lb/TON 2.
KG/KKG 2.
L.-./TON 2.
KO/KKG 3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN '
2002.
8.350
12.0
5.9*
6.35
3.18
L0fc>
MtAN
1769.
7.376
9.12
4.56
3.20
1.60
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
1263
5.269
8.78
4.39
0.056
0.028
LOG
M-SD
1310.
5.463
8.93
4.47
1.13
6.567
                                                                                                 ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                                 COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                                 SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY

                                                                                                   2.3467       -1.1927
                                                                                                   1.3207       -0.8280
                                                                                                   2.6574       -0.3482
           Process Codes:  BF01H*. BF26W
PO
ro
en
                            NUMBER OF
                              PLANTS
                                                            TABLE 68
                                                   RAW WASTE LOAD  SUMMARY
                                                        CHIPS -  CORN
                                                 1977                      1983
            ARITHMETIC
               MEAN
 LOG
 MEAN
ARITHMETIC
    M-SD
LOG
M-SD
ARITHMETIC       LOG
COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
         FLOW   GAL/TON
          CU.METERS/KKG
               2883.
                 12.03
2883.
  12.03
   2883.
    12.03
2883.
  12.03
         BODS    L6/TON
                 KG/KKG
                 78.2
                 39.1
  70.4
  35.2
    78.2
    39.1
  70.4
  35.2
 0.9902
                                                                                                       0.3550
TSS     LB/TON
        KG/KKG
                                             66.6
                                             33.3
                             59.8
                             39.9
               66.6
               33.3
                   59.8
                   39.9
               1.6696
               -0.1275
          Process Codes:
KK01H

-------
                                                         TABLE 69
                                                     RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                                          CHIPS - POTATO
                                                                              1983
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
FLOW GAL/TON
CU.METERS/KKG
BODS
TSS
L8/TON
KG/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KKG
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
* » 1
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
1497.
6.244
22.3
11.2
30.2
15.1
ff
* r •••
LOG ARITHMETIC
MEAN M-SD
1407.
5.867
18.5
9.28
21.1
10.6
953.8
4.000
7.40
3.70
7.09
3.55
LOG
M-SD
1053.
4.393
9.85
4.93
5.60
2.80
ARITHMETIC LOG
COEFF. OF COEFF, OF
SYMMETRY SYMMETRY
1.2209 0.5109
1.3213 -0.7T48
1.5099 -1.4*86
          Process Codes: PP25H*. PP26H*. PP27H*. PP28H*. PP80H
ro
ro
                                           TABLE 70
                                   RA« rtAblt. LOAO SUMMARY
                                      CHIKS -  TORTILLA
                                 1977                       198J
NUMBER  CF  ARITHMFTIC
  PLANTS       MEAN
                                                                ARITHMETIC
                                                                    M-SD
                                                                    LOG

                                                                    M-SD
                                          ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                          COEFF. OF     COEFF.  OF
                                          SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
      FLOW   b4L/TONi
                         4878
                           20.35
4878
  20.35
                                           4878
                                             20.35
4878
  20.35
              L' /"ION
                            65.0
                            32.5
  59.4
  29.7
                                             65.0
                                             32.5
  59.4
  29.7
1.0360
                                                                                                 -0.0684
      TSS
Li/TON
Kb/KKG
                                          84.5
                                          42.2
  72.1
  36.1
                                             84.1
                                             42.2
  72.1
  36.1
                                                                                                 -0.1713
                                                                                                 -1.31B6
      Process Codes:  TC01H

-------
FLOW    6AL/TON
  CU.METt.KS
        L .- vrON
TbS     L.-/TON
                                                 TABLE 71
                                         ^A.v  WAsfE  LOAO SUMMARY
                                               ETnNIC FOODS
                                       1977                      1983
NUMHtH OF
PLANTS
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
ARITHMETIC Luo
MEAN Mu«N
3?32. JlOt.
13.40 1^.96
13.7 13.6
6.S4 t>.79
5.13 *.81
2.S7 
1.43
ME. AN
63 i . 7
.973
ARITHMETIC
M-SD -
405.9
1.693
9.39
4.94
0.725
0.363
LOG
M-SD
492.0
2.052
10.0
5.02
1.23
0.616
                                                                                      ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                      COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                      SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                        0.8465
                                                                                       -0.2603
                                                                                        1.8688
 0.7387
-1.1062
 0.8161
 Process Codes:  JJ51H, JJ01H

-------
                                                         TABLE 73
                                                 HA* WAi>lE LOAD SUMMARY
                                                MAYONNAISE AND DRESSINGS
                                               1977                      198J

FLOW OML/TON
CU.METtriS/KKG
huUS L: /TON
TSS L-/TON
KO/K.KG
NUi"itic.f< OF
PLANTS
3.
j.
3.
J.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
612*.^4
13. S
6.7 =
S.7S
LUU
MtAN
55i.3
£.299
3.46
3.13
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
535.2
2.233
9.80
4.90
3.92
1.96
LOG
M-SD
2.258
10.1
5.08
4.35
2.18
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                              COEFF.  OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY     SYMMETKY
                                                                                                2.9804
                                                                                                2.9835
                                                                                                1.5640
                                                                                   0.8319
                                                                                   0.8322
                                                                                   0.3707
         Process Codes:
SD01H, SD02H, SD03H*
ro
ro
oo
                              TABLE 74
                       RAW WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                               SOUPS
                     1977                      1983

FLOW
CU.
BOBS
TSS

GAL /TON
METERS/KKG
LB/TON
KG/KK6
LB/TON
KG/KKG
NUMBER OF ARITHMETIC
PLANTS MEAN
, 7348.
1 30.62
1 30.4
n 21.4
1 10.7
LOG
MEAN
7342.
30.62
89.7
19.5
9.78
ARITHMETIC
M-SD
7342.
30.62
30.4
15.2
21.4
10.7
LOG
M-SD
7342.
30.62
29.7
14.9
19.5
9.78
                                                                                              ARITHMETIC      LOG
                                                                                              COEPF.  OF    COEFF. OF
                                                                                              SYMMETRY     SYMMETRY
                                                                                                3.1623
                                                                                                l.*329
                                                                                   3.1623
                                                                                              -1.3029      -1.7017
                                                                                   1.3200
          Process Codes:  SL01H

-------
                                                   TABLE 75

                                            RAM  WASTE LOAD SUMMARY
                                     TOMATO - STAKCH - CHEESE SPECIALTIES
                                          1977                      1983

NUMBER OF
PLANTS
FLOW GAL/TON 4.
CU,METERS/KKG 4.
BODS
TSS
LB/TON 4.
KG/KKG 4.
LE/TON 3.
KG/KKG 3.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
6286.
26.21
17.1
8.54
7.33
3.67
LOG ARITHMETIC
MEAN M-SD
5716.
23.84
9.58
4.79
5.24
2.62
2148.
8.96
5.85
2.93
5.28
2.64
LOG
M-SD
2370.
9.883
6.49
3.25
5.23
2.62
                                                                                        ARITHMETIC       LOG
                                                                                        COEFF. OF     COEFF. OF
                                                                                        SYMMETRY      SYMMETRY
                                                                                          1.6053
                                                                                          2.1078
                                                                                          0*1654
-0.0654
-1.4767
-0.3395
Process Codes:  CS01H, CS03H, CS04H1, CS50H1

-------

-------
                           SECTION VI

                SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS


WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF POLLUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

The  wastewater  parameters  of major pollutional significance to
the fruit and vegetable processing industry are: five-day  (20°C)
biochemical  oxygen  demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS)  r
oil and grease (O6G), fecal coliforms, and pH.  Of peripheral  or
occasional importance are chemical oxygen demand (COD), nitrogen,
phosphorus, total dissolved solids, and temperature.

RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF MAJOR PARAMETERS

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Two general types of pollutants can exert demand on the dissolved
oxygen  regime  of  a  body  of  receiving water.  These are: (1)
chemical species which exert an immediate dissolved oxygen demand
(IDOD) on the water body  due  to  chemical  reactions;  and  (2)
organic  substances which indirectly cause a demand to be exer-ted
on the system because  indigenous  microorganisms  utilizing  the
organic  wastes  as  substrate  flourish  and  proliferate, their
natural respiratory activity utilizing the surrounding  dissolved
oxygen.   Fruit  and vegetable wastes, because of natural sugars,
contain constituents that exert an immediate demand on  receiving
water.  These products contain levels of organics such that their
strengths are most commonly measured by the BODji test.

The biochemical oxygen demand is usually defined as the amount of
oxygen   required  by  bacteria  while  stabilizing  decomposable
organic matter under aerobic conditions.  The term "decomposable"
may be interpreted as meaning that the organic matter  can  serve
as  food  for  the  bacteria,  and  energy  is  derived from this
oxidation.

The BOD does not in itself cause direct harm to a  water  system,
but  it  does  exert  an indirect effect by depressing the oxygen
content of the water.  Fruit and vegetable processing  and  other
organic   effluents   exert  a  BOD  during  their  processes  of
decomposition  which  can  have  a  catastrophic  effect  on  the
ecosystem by depleting the oxygen supply.  Conditions are reached
frequently  where  all  of  the oxygen is used and the continuing
decay process causes the production  of  noxious  gases  such  as
hydrogen  sulfide  and  methane.  Water with a high BOD indicates
the presence of decomposing organic matter  and  subsequent  high
bacterial counts that degrade its quality and potential uses.

Dissolved  oxygen   (DO)   is  a water quality constituent that, in
appropriate  concentrations,  is  essential  not  only  to   keep
organisms living but also to sustain species reproduction, vigor,
and  the development of populations.  Organisms undergo stress at
                                   231

-------
reduced DO concentrations that make  them  less  competitive  and
able  to  sustain  their  species within the aquatic environment.
For  example,  reduced  DO  concentrations  have  been  shown  to
interfere  with fish population through delayed hatching of eggs,
reduced size and vigor of embryos, production of  deformities  in
young,  interference  with  food digestion, acceleration of blood
clotting, decreased tolerance to certain toxicants, reduced  food
efficiency   and  growth  rate,  and  reduced  maximum  sustained
swimming  speed.   Fish  food  organisms  are  likewise  affected
adversely  in  conditions  with suppressed DO.  Since all aerobic
aquatic  organisms  need  a  certain  amount   of   oxygen,   the
consequences  of total lack of dissolved oxygen due to a high BOD
can kill inhabitants of the affected area.

If a high BOD is present, the quality of  the  water  is  usually
visually  degraded  by  the presence of decomposing materials and
algae blooms due to the uptake of degraded  materials  that  form
the foodstuffs of the algal populations.

The  BOD![  test may be considered as a wet oxidation procedure in
which the living organisms serve as the medium for  oxidation  of
the  organic  matter to carbon dioxide and water.  A quantitative
relationship exists between the  amount  of  oxygen  required  to
convert a definite amount of any given organic compound to carbon
dioxide,  water,  and  ammonia,  and this can be represented by a
generalized equation.  On the basis of this  relationship  it  is
possible  to  interpret  BODjj  data in terms of organic matter as
well as in  terms  of  the  amount  of  oxygen  used  during  its
oxidation.   This  concept  is fundamental to an understanding of
the rate at which BOD^ is exerted.

The BODji  test  is  widely  used  to  determine  the  pollutional
strength of domestic and industrial wastes in terms of the oxygen
that  they  will  require  within  the  first  five-day period if
discharged into natural watercourses in which aerobic  conditions
exist.  The test is one of the most important in stream pollution
control  activities.  By its use, it is possible to determine the
degree of pollution in streams at any  time.   This  test  is  of
prime  importance  in  regulatory work and in studies designed to
evaluate the  purification  capacities  of  receiving  bodies  of
water.

The  BOD5.  test   (Standard Methods, 1971; Methods of the Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1971) is  essentially  a  bioassary
procedure  involving the measurement of oxygen consumed by living
organisms while utilizing the organic matter present in  a  waste
under  conditions  as  similar as possible to those that occur in
nature.  Since this is a  bioassay  procedure,  it  is  extremely
important  that  environmental  conditions  be  suitable  for the
living organisms to function  in  an  unhindered  manner  at  all
times.   This  requirement  means  that  toxic substances must be
absent and that accessory nutrients needed for  microbial  growth
(such  as  nitrogen, phosphorus, and certain trace elements) must
be present.   Biological  degradation  of  organic  matter  under


                                 232

-------
natural  conditions  is  brought  about  by  a  diverse  group of
organisms that carry  the  oxidation  essentially  to  completion
 (i.e.,  almost entirely to carbon dioxide and water).  Therefore,
it is important that a mixed group of organisms  commonly  called
"seed"  be present in the test.  For most industrial wastes, this
"seed" should  be  allowed  to  adapt  to  the  particular  waste
 ("acclimate")  prior to introduction of the culture into the "BOD
bottle." In order to make the test quantitative, the samples must
be protected from the air to prevent reaeration as the  dissolved
oxygen  level  diminishes.   In  addition, because of the limited
solubility of oxygen in water  (about nine mg/1 at  20°C),  strong
wastes  must  be diluted to levels of demand consistent with this
value to ensure that dissolved oxygen will be present  throughout
the period of the test.

The  oxidative reactions involved in the BOD5_ test are results of
biological activity, and the rate at which the reactions  proceed
is   governed  to  a  major  extent  by  population  numbers  and
temperature.  Temperature effects are held constant by performing
the test at 20°C, which is  more  or  less  a  median  value  for
natural  bodies  of water.  The predominant organisms responsible
for the stabilization of most organic matter  in  natural  waters
are native to the soil.

The  rate  of  their  metabolic  processes  at 20°C and under the
conditions of the test (total darkness, quiescence, etc.) is such
that time must be reckoned in days.  Theoretically,  an  infinite
time  is  required  for  complete biological oxidation of organic
matter, but for  all  practical  purposes  the  reaction  may  be
considered  to be complete in 20 days.  A BOD test conducted over
the 20 day period is normally considered a good estimate  of  the
"ultimate BOD."  However, a 20 day period is too long to wait for
results  in most instances.  It has been found by experience with
domestic  sewage  that  a  reasonably  large  percentage  of  the
"ultimate"  or  total BOD is exerted in five days.  Consequently,
the test has been developed on the basis of  a  5-day  incubation
period.   It  should  be remembered, therefore, that  BODJ5 values
represent only a portion of the total BOD.  The exact  percentage
depends  on  the  character  of  the "seed" and the nature of the
organic matter and can be determined only by experiment.  In  the
case  of  domestic  and  some industrial wastewaters, it has been
found that the BOD5_ value is  about  70  to  80  percent  of  the
ultimate BOD.

Total Suspended Solids

This  parameter  measures  the  suspended  material  that  can be
removed from the wastewaters by laboratory  filtration  but  does
not  include  coarse  or  floating matter that can be screened or
settled out readily.  Suspended solids are  a  vital  and  easily
determined  measure  of  pollution  and  also  a  measure  of the
material that may settle  in  tranquil  or  slow-moving  streams.
Suspended  solids  in  the  raw  wastes  from fruit and vegetable
processing plants correlate well with BOD5_ and COD.   Often,   high
                                 233

-------
levels  of  suspended  solids  are  the  primary  parameters  for
measuring the effectiveness of solids  removal  systems  such  as
screens, clarifiers, and flotation units.

Oil and Grease

The standard method for determining the oil and grease level in a
sample  involves  multiple  solvent  extraction of the filterable
portion of the sample with trichlorotriflouroethane (Freon)  in  a
Soxhlet  extraction apparatus.  As cautioned in Standard Methods,
(1971)  this  determination  is  not  an   absolute   measurement
producing  solid, reproducible, quantitative results.   The method
measures, with various  accuracies,  fatty  acids,  soaps,  fats,
waxes,  oil,  and  any  other  material which is extracted by the
solvent from an acidified sample and  which  is  not  volatilized
during  evaporation  of  the  solvent.   Of  course  the  initial
assumption is that the oils and greases are  separated  from  the
aqueous  phase  of  the  sample  in  the initial filtration step.
Acidification of the sample is said to greatly  enhance  recovery
of the oils and grease therein (Standard Methods, 1971).

Fecal Coliforms

Fecal  coliforms  are  used  as  an  indicator  since  they  have
originated from the intestinal tract  of  warm  blooded  animals.
Their  presence  in  water  indicates  the  potential presence of
pathogenic bacteria and viruses.

The presence of coliforms, more specifically fecal coliforms,  in
water is indicative of fecal pollution.  In general, the presence
of   fecal  coliform  organisms  indicates  recent  and  possibly
dangerous fecal contamination.  When  the  fecal  coliform  count
exceeds  2,000  per  100  ml  there  is  a  high correlation with
increased numbers of both pathogenic viruses and bacteria.

Many microorganisms, pathogenic to humans  and  animals,  may  be
carried in surface water, particularly that derived from effluent
sources  which  find  their way into surface water from municipal
and industrial wastes.  The  diseases  associated  with  bacteria
include    bacillary    and    amoebic    dysentary.   Salmonella
gastroenteritis, typhoid, and paratyphoid fevers,  leptospirosis,
chlorea,  vibriosis,  and  infectious  hepatitis.  Recent studies
have emphasized the value of fecal coliform density in  assessing
the  occurrence  of  Salmonella,  a  common bacterial pathogen in
surface water.  Field studies involving irrigation  water,  field
crops, and soils indicate that when the fecal coliform density in
stream  waters  exceeded  1,000  per  100  ml,  the occurrence of
Salmonella was 53.5 percent.

pH, Acidity, and Alkalinity

The pH, depending upon the  process  involved,  can  be  of  sig-
nificance,  especially  in  terms  of  treatability.   Acidic  pH
conditions  (pH of five or  lower)  may  be  produced  during  the
                                  234

-------
slicing,   grinding,  or  macerating  processes  of  the  various
commodities dealt  with  in  this  document.   For  example,  the
discharge  of  wastewater  from steam peeled carrots and blanched
prunes was observed to be acidic enough to require treatment with
lime before final plant discharge.

In discussions in Section III, it was  shown  that  most  peeling
processes  involve  the  use  of  lye  (sodium hydroxide), a very
powerful alkaline substance.  The exposure of various commodities
to hot lye and the subsequent removal  of  the  peel  with  water
sprays  can  contribute  significantly  to  producing an effluent
stream with a pH of nine or more.  In this  case,  neutralization
with  an  inorganic  acid  is  necessary  prior  to  final  plant
discharge.  The pH of the wastewater then should be  returned  to
its  normal  range  before  discharge.   The  effect  of chemical
additions for pH adjustment should be taken  into  consideration,
as  new  pollutants  could  result.   Acidity  and alkalinity are
reciprocal terms.  Acidity is produced by substances  that  yield
hydrogen  ions  upon  hydrolysis,  and  alkalinity is produced by
substances that yield hydroxyl ions.  The terms  "total  acidity"
and  "total  alkalinity"  are often used to express the buffering
capacity of a solution.  Acidity in natural waters is  caused  by
carbon  dioxide, mineral acids, weakly dissociated acids,  and the
salts of strong acids and weak bases.  Alkalinity  is  caused  by
strong bases and the salts of strong alkalies and weak acids.

The  term  pH is a logarithmic expression of the concentration of
hydrogen ions.  At a pH of seven, the hydrogen and  hydroxyl  ion
concentrations  are  essentially  equal and the water is neutral.
Lower pH values indicate acidity  while  higher  values  indicate
alkalinity.    The   relationship   between  pH  and  acidity  or
alkalinity is not necessarily linear or direct.

Waters with a pH below six are corrosive to  water  works  struc-
tures,  distribution  lines,  and household plumbing fixtures and
can thus add such constituents to drinking water as iron,  copper,
zinc, cadmium, and lead.   The  hydrogen  ion  concentration  can
affect  the  "taste"  of  the  water.   At  a low pH water tastes
"sour".  The bactericidal effect of chlorine is weakened  as  the
pH  increases,  and  it  is  advantageous to keep the pH close to
seven.  This is very  significant  for  providing  safe  drinking
water.

Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or
kill  aquatic life outright.  Dead fish,  associated algal blooms,
and foul stenches are  aesthetic  liabilities  of  any  waterway.
Even moderate changes from "acceptable" criteria limits of pH are
deleterious  to  some  species.  The relative toxicity to aquatic
life of many materials is increased by changes in the  water  pH.
Metalocyanide  complexes can increase a thousand-fold in toxicity
with a drop of 1.5 pH units.  The availability of  many  nutrient
substances  varies  with  the alkalinity and acidity.  Ammonia is
more lethal with a higher pH.  The lacrimal fluid  of  the  human
eye  has  a  pH  of approximately seven and a deviation of 0.1 pH
                                  235

-------
unit from the norm may result in eye irritation for the  swimmer.
Appreciable irritation will cause severe pain.

Minor Parameters

Of  the  minor  parameters  mentioned in the introduction to this
section,  five  were  listed  -  chemical  oxygen  demand  (COD),
nitrogen,  phosphorus,  temperature,  and total dissolved solids.
At no time during the course of this study was   phosphorus  found
to  be  of  significance.   Furthermore,  phosphorus  levels  are
sufficiently low to be of very little  importance,  except  under
only   the  most  stringent  conditions,  i.e.,  those  involving
eutrophication which dictate  some  type  of tertiary  treatment
system.

Agricultural  chemicals  and  pesticides  are  known  to exist in
wastes  waters  from  fruit  and  vegetable  processing   plants,
primarily  in  the  initial wash of the raw commodities needed to
remove  surface  residuals.    However,   available   information
including analyses of various fruits and vegetables indicated low
levels  of  pesticides  in  process  wastewaters in comparison to
recommended allowable levels (Water Quality Criteria - 1972).   At
the  present  time,  therefore,  pesticides  are  not  considered
significant  pollutants  in  the  fruit,  vegetable and specialty
industry.

Chemical Oxygen Demand

The chemcial oxygen demand (COD)  represents an  alternative to the
biochemical oxygen demand, which in many  respects  is  superior.
The  test  is  widely  used  and allows measurement of a waste in
terms of the total quantity of oxygen required  for  oxidation  to
carbon  dioxide  and  water  under  severe  chemical and physical
conditions.  It is based on the fact that all organic  compounds,
with  a  few  exceptions, can be oxidized by the action of strong
oxidizing agents under acid conditions.

During the COD  test,  organic  matter  is  converted  to  carbon
dioxide  and water regardless of the biological assimilability of
the  substances;  for  instance,  glucose  and   lignin  are  both
oxidized  completely.   As  a result, COD values are greater than
BODJ5 values and may be much greater when significant  amounts  of
biologically  resistant  organic matter are present.  In the case
of fruit and vegetable processing wastes, this  does not present a
problem.

One drawback of the COD test is its inability to demonstrate  the
rate   at   which  the  biologically  active material  would  be
stabilized under conditions that exist in nature.  In the case of
fruit and vegetable processing  wastes,  this  same  drawback  is
applicable  to the BODE> test, because the soluble nature of fruit
and  vegetable  processing  wastes  lends  them  to  more   rapid
biological  oxidation  than domestic wastes. Therefore, a single
measurement of the biochemical oxygen demand at a given point  in
                                 236

-------
time (five days) is no indication of the difference between these
two rates.

Another  drawback of the chemical oxygen demand is analogous to a
problem encountered  with  the  BOD:   high  levels  of  chloride
interfere  with  the  analysis.   Normally, 0.4 grams of mercuric
sulfate are added to each  sample  being  analyzed  for  chemical
oxygen  demand.  This eliminates the chloride interference in the
sample up to a chloride level  of  10  mg/1.   At  concentrations
above  this  level,  further  mercuric  sulfate  must  be  added.
However,  studies   indicated   that   above   certain   chloride
concentrations   the   added   mercuric   sulfate  itself  causes
interference.

The major advantage of the COD test is the  short  time  required
for  evaluation.   The  determination  can be made in about three
hours rather than the five days required for the  measurement  of
BOD.  Furthermore, the COD requires less sophisticated equipment,
less  highly-trained  personnel, a smaller working area, and less
investment in laboratory facilities.  Another major advantage  of
the  COD test is that the seed used in the BOD5 test to inoculate
the culture should have been acclimated for a period  of  several
days,  using  carefully prescribed procedures, to assure that the
normal lag time  (exhibited by all microorganisms  when  subjected
to a new substrate) can be minimized.

For  the  above  reasons  the  contractor  recommends that COD be
considered the primary pollutant  parameter  for  measurement  of
organics  in fruit and vegetable processing wastes.  The effluent
limitations recommended, however, will still be in terms of five-
day BODj>  (since insufficient information is available on the  COD
monitored  after  treatment  systems  are  installed)  such  that
sufficient information can be generated to allow conversion  from
BODji to COD in the future.

Nitrogen

The  amount of nitrogen present in fruit and vegetable processing
wastes is  important  principally  because  of  its  low  levels.
Nitrogen  is required by all forms of life as a major constituent
of protein and several other biomolecules.  Most treatment and/or
disposal methods of fruit and vegetable wastes involve some  form
of  biological stabilization of the organic matter present.  This
biological activity and the  resulting  waste  stabilization  are
greatly inhibited if sufficient nitrogen for microorganism growth
is  not  present.   This  is  a  problem with fruit and vegetable
wastes which normally have high concentrations  of  carbohydrates
but  low  levels  of  nitrogen.   In  order to get adequate waste
stabilization, it may be necessary to add nitrogen to the  waste.
This added nitrogen must be carefully controlled so that excesses
are  not  discharged  to  receiving  streams.  Excess nitrogen in
receiving waters may cause an oxygen demand when the  ammonia  is
oxidized,  and  it  may  enhance  eutrophication  in waters where
nitrogen is the limiting element.
                                   237

-------
The forms of nitrogen important to living organisms are  ammonia,
organic  nitrogen,  nitrite,  and  nitrate.    Nitrite and nitrate
concentrations in  fruit  and  vegetable  processing  wastes  are
insignificant.   Thus, only ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen
are important.

The total kjeldahl nitrogen test as outlined in Standard  Methods
(1971)  was  used  to  monitor  nitrogen  levels both to show any
nitrogen deficiency that would affect treatment  and  any  excess
that  could  affect the receiving water.  Total kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN)  includes both ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen.  Since
nitrogen is not a major pollutant released by fruit and vegetable
processors, it is sufficient to report  total  kjeldahl  nitrogen
rather than organic and ammonia nitrogen separately.

Temperature

Temperature  is  important  in  those  unit  operations involving
transfer  of  significant  quantities  of  heat.   These  include
evaporation,  cooking,  cooling of condensers, and the like.  The
temperature of the waste from a unit operation may be  relatively
high;  however, the temperature of the total effluent is generally
not significant.


Total Dissolved Solids

Total dissolved solids are a measure of dissolved inorganic salts
and  solublized  organics.   Relative  to  inorganics, a high TDS
level may indicate an excessive discharge of  salt  brine.   High
TDS  levels may also be predictors of high BOD5> levels in as much
as the organic fractions dissolved are generally  natural  sugars
from  the  various fruits and vegetables.  These levels, however,
must be compared with natural water supplies which in some  cases
inherently  contain TDS levels in excess of 1,000 mg/1.  For this
reason, the TDS test would be used as  an  indicator  and  not  a
control tool.

The presence of chloride ion in the waters emanating from pickle,
sauerkraut, olive, and other brine vegetable processing plants is
frequently  of significance when considering biological treatment
of the effluent.  These discharges  must  be  considered  in  the
light of intermittent and fluctuating processes.

Aerobic  biological  systems  can  develop  a  resistance to high
chloride levels, but to do this they must be  acclimated  to  the
specific   chloride   level  expected  to  be  encountered.   The
subsequent chloride concentrations should remain within a  fairly
narrow  range in the treatment plant influent, either through in-
plant control of brine dumps, or  through  flow  equalization  of
brine  waste streams before discharge to the treatment plant.  If
chloride levels fluctuate widely, the resulting shock loadings on
the biological system will reduce its  efficiency  at  best,  and
possibly prove fatal to the majority of the microorganisms in the


                                 238

-------
system at worst.  For this reason, in situations where biological
treatment   is  anticipated  or  is  currently  being  practiced,
measurement of chloride ion content must be included in the  list
of  parameters  to  be  routinely  monitored.   The argentometric
method was used to determine  chloride  concentrations  for  this
study.

Flow

In  the  fruit  and  vegetable  processing industry, as a general
rule, the  amount  of  pollutant  dissolved  or  suspended  in  a
wastewater  stream  is a function of the contact time between the
product  and  the  water.   Minimizing  contact  time   minimizes
pollution.  Therefore, it is important to note water usage and to
minimize it.

Furthermore,  the effluent guidelines listed in this document are
based on weight of waste produced per unit  of  raw  material  or
finished  production  weight.  This conversion requires knowledge
of the wastewater flows at the time of sampling.

For these reasons and reasons  of  design,  it  is  necessary  to
monitor  wastewater  flows  in  fruit  and  vegetable  processing
plants.  On a non-routine basis, flows can be measured using  the
"bucket  and  stopwatch"  technique  or the "float and stopwatch"
technique or (in certain cases)  a  portable  flow  meter  may  be
employed.   For  permanent  installations,  flow measurement in a
Parshall flume having unrestricted discharge is recommended.

Production

The production rate at the  time  the  flows  and  waste  concen-
trations  are  taken  is required to determine the waste produced
per unit of production.  In almost all cases it has been found to
be best to measure the rate at which the raw product  enters  the
plant  rather than the final product leaving.  Canned specialties
are an exception, however, because of  the  many  ingredients  in
each  formula  and the fluctuating production schedules employed.
The specialties1 raw waste loads and  effluent  limitations  were
therefore defined in terms of finished product, except for soups.
In  the  vegetables segment, limitations based upon final product
have been found to be more meaningful only  for  the  cauliflower
subcategory.

ANALYTICAL METHODS

The analytical methods for the samples collected for this project
were  based  on Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater , 13th Edition (1971), and Methods  for  the  Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA (1971).  There were a few minor
modifications,  since  the  organic  content  of the samples were
extremely variable from one to another (e.g.,  less than  one  to
BODI5  of  more  than  20,000  mg/1) .   A brief description of the
analytical method follows.
                                  239

-------
Total Suspended Solids

Total suspended solids is reported in terms  of  screened  solids
and  suspended  solids.   Screened  samples were obtained from 20
mesh Tyler screen oversize  particles  and  suspended  solids  by
filtering the undersize through a 4.2 cm Whatman GF/C glass fiber
filter.   The  screened and filtered solids were dried in an oven
for one hour at about 104°C before weighing.

Five-Day BOD

BOD|> was determined according to standard  Methods  (1971) .    For
samples  with  BOD^  of  higher  than  20  mg/1,  at  least three
different dilutions were made for each sample.   The results among
the different dilutions were generally less than 6 percent.    The
data reported were the average values of the different dilutions.
For  samples with BODji of less than 20 mg/1, one or two dilutions
with two duplicate bottles were incubated. Most of replicates  in
this low range were within ± 5 percent, but some had as much as _*
30 percent difference.  Seed for this dilution  water  was  taken
from the primary clarifier effluent from domestic sewage.  It was
rough filtered to remove any large particles prior to use.

Chloride

Chloride levels in the samples were determined for the purpose of
making  corrections  for  COD test.  The argentometric method was
used.  Samples were adjusted to a pH of seven to eight and  after
addition  of  potassium  chromate  indicator,  were titrated with
0.282 N silver nitrate solution.

Since chloride correction was not  necessary  when  the  chloride
level  was  below  1,000  mg/1, a special screening technique was
developed to sort out those samples with a chloride level of less
than 1,000 mg/1.  One ml of samples was  pipetted  into  a  small
beaker  and  diluted to ten ml with distilled water.  Three drops
of phenolphthalein and 0.5 N sodium hydroxide were added dropwise
until a pink color persisted.  Then the  sample  was  neutralized
with  0.02  N sulfuric acid dropwise until the indicator showed a
very faint pink color.  This  would  make  the  sample  pH  about
eight.   To  this,  1.0  ml of 0.0282 N silver nitrate was added.
When the chloride level was less  than  1,000  mg/1,  a  definite
reddish  silver  chromate  precipitate  was formed.  The chloride
level in these samples was reported as less than 1,000 mg/1,  and
no  further precise determination was pursued.   When the chloride
level was higher than 1,000 mg/1, the red precipitate  would  not
form  when 1.0 ml of silver nitrate was added.   In this case, the
sample was titrated with 0.0282 N silver nitrate solution with  a
semimicroburet until the end point.

Chemical Oxygen Demand

COD  tests  were  based  on  Standard  Methods   (1971).  When the
chloride content was less than 2,000  mg/1,  O.U  g  of  mercuric


                                240

-------
sulfate was added to the refluxing flask.  Chloride levels higher
than  2,000 mg/1 were always accompanied by very high COD levels,
e.g., pickle processing wastes.  It was necessary for  analytical
purposes to dilute these strong wastes which subsequently reduced
the chloride levels to less than 2,000 mg/1.

Total Dissolved Solids

Total  dissolved  solids were determined by evaporating a portion
of  the  filtered  liquor  resulting  from  the  removal  of  the
suspended  solids.   A  known volume of liquid was placed into an
evaporating dish which in turn was transferred to  a  steam  bath
until  the  liquid  was  completely evaporated.  Standard Methods
(1971), with EPA modification, called for subsequent final drying
in an air convection oven at 180°C to constant weight.   However,
with  this  method  employed,  many  of  the samples "charcoaled"
because of their high carbohydrate content.  In order to  prevent
this  pyrolytic  breakdown, therefore, it was necessary to reduce
the drying temperature and time to 105°C and four to  six  hours,
respectively.

Oil and Grease

Oil  and grease were determined by Soxhlet extraction using Freon
113 as the solvent, according to Standard Methods,  (1971).   All
samples were acidified at the sampling site with sulfuric acid to
a pH of less than two.


Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Total   kjeldahl  nitrogen   (TKN)  was  determined  according  to
Standard Methods (1971).  Basically, the  test  consists  of  di-
gesting  the  sample  by boiling it with sulfuric acid, potassium
sulfate, and mercuric sulfate catalyst  to  convert  the  organic
nitrogen  to  ammonia.   The digested solution is then made basic
with a sodium hydroxide-sodium thiosulfate reagent.  The  ammonia
is then distilled and measured by titrating with sulfuric acid or
by Nesslerization.  If ammonia is distilled off before digestion,
it  must  be  measured  and  added  to  the organic nitrogen from
digestion to give total kjeldahl  nitrogen.   Concentrations  are
reported in mg/1 of nitrogen.
                                  241

-------

-------
                           SECTION VII

                CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION

In  Section  Vr  determination  has  been  made of the wastewater
volume and pollutant  concentrations  generated  by  the  various
subcategories of the industry.  In this section of the study, the
alternate  treatment  technologies applicable to these wastes are
considered.  To the maximum extent possible,  it  will  be  shown
that   a   variety  of  different  treatment  systems  are  being
successfully used to produce exemplary results-this in  order  to
give  individual  plants a variety of alternatives from which the
most cost-effective method can be selected which  best  fits  its
unique  situation.   In Section VIII, a method of costing various
treatment unit process chains is presented.

The modular approach to treatment is  used  in  this  section  in
order to allow the evaluation of alternate treatment chains, both
as  to probable treatment efficiency and average cost.  There are
sixteen treatment modules  presented,  ranging  from  screens  to
advanced tertiary treatment.  Some of the modules, e.g., lagoons,
have several variations described.

Numerous  factors bear upon the selection of an optimum treatment
system.  The significance of each factor  will  depend  upon  the
circumstances  of  the  individual plant.  For example, one plant
may have an abundance  of  inexpensive  land  available  that  is
suitable  for  land  treatment or lagoon treatment, while another
plant  has  no  such  land  available.   In  addition   to   land
availability and cost, other factors to be considered include:

         Seasonality of plant operation
         Total volume, average daily volume, maximum daily
         volume
         Range of important effluent characteristics such as
         BOD!>, TSS, pH, etc.
         Range of treatment system operating temperature to
         be expected in processing plant's climate
         Reliability required, i.e., how often and how long
         could treatment systems failure be tolerated
         Skill of operating personnel
         Interest of plant management
         Other environmental factors such as energy required,
         noise, odor, solids residue disposal, etc.
         Distance to available municipal system
         and long term operating/surcharge cost trade-offs
         Distance to available land
         And the treatment efficiencies
         of various alternate treatment systems
                                  243

-------
IN-PLANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

The   food   industry,   through  its  large  corporate  research
facilities  and  allied  organizations,  has  spent  considerable
effort dedicated to the reduction of in-plant waste.   As a result
of  this  effort,  progress  has  been made in the development of
important new alternate methods of accomplishing certain  process
steps and in increasing management awareness of the importance of
personnel education.

This  section  of the report discusses methods for reducing waste
generation by means of changes in unit processes.  Each  category
and/or  commodity  is  not discussed separately since the methods
discussed are generally applicable to more than one commodity.

Harvesting-Transportation

Food processing, when viewed on an overall basis, begins with the
planting of the various crops  or  the  maintenance  of  existing
crops.  The harvesting operations have been designed to yield the
maximum  amount of fruits or vegetables while utilizing the least
cost principles, and  producing  commodities  with  high  quality
standards.   Research  in  harvesting  is  an on-going process in
which design  is  experimentally  modified  and  evaluated  under
laboratory and field conditions to produce higher yields per unit
cost at no sacrifice in quality.  Similarly, research efforts are
continuously being directed to reduce those field parameters that
are  most  responsible  for the various in-plant liquid and solid
waste streams generated.  Those on-going studies include:

    1.   Improved field trimming operations  to  remove  unwanted
         stems, tops, leaves, and dirt.

    2.   Implementation of additional field labor for removal  of
         defective units.

    3.   Machinery research to further reduce rough handling  and
         subsequent bruising and other related damage.

    U.   Investigation of preliminary field washing operations to
         reduce soil and other organic loading.

    5.   Joint  efforts  between  seed  research  and   machinery
         companies  to  develop new varieties or hybrids that are
         compatible with each other.

In  conjunction  with  harvesting  techniques,  new  methods   of
transportation  are  being  developed.   New varieties of vehicle
suspension, experimental containers,  and  "harvest-time  vehicle
destinations"  have been utilized to allow for delivery of fruits
or vegetables with the highest raw product  quality  economically
possible.   Further  improvements  should  continue to yield even
less damage which ultimately lowers in-plant wastes.
                                  244

-------
Receiving, Washing, and Sorting

Harvested crops are generally brought to the processing plants in
bulk loads, bins, or lug boxes, and often dumped  into  washwater
tanks.   The  recirculated  water  in  these tanks pre-washes the
product to remove leaves, stems, and soil residues.  If the  crop
was  pre-washed  in the field, this step would be unnecessary and
the resultant water use and effluent generation  eliminated.   If
this  proves  impractical, washing can almost always be done with
water recirculated from another unit process in the plant,   e.g.,
cooling  water.   In  addition,  it  is normal to recirculate the
initial washwater to the maximum extent feasible.

During the summer of 1973, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in
cooperation with EPA and industry successfully  demonstrated  for
tomatoes the use of a washer which utilizes soft rubber discs and
foam  to  mechanically scrub the incoming tomatoes with a minimum
use of water.  An earlier study showed  the  advantage  of   using
high pressure, low volume sprays to reduce wastewater volume.

For  some commodities air cleaning is a feasible alternative to a
first washing step.  In  general,  air  separation  equipment  is
useful in removing waste material differing from process material
in  shape,  density,  size  and/or  surface  roughness.   If  air
cleaning is used, the separate contaminants should, of course, be
handled as a solid waste.

After pre-washing, the product is often  sorted  by  size  and/or
quality.  Discards and culls generated during this step should be
kept out of the wastewater.  These solids should be used whenever
possible  or  disposed  as  a  solid  waste.   Uses might include
secondary products, e.g., nectar or  concentrate,  or  innovative
uses  of  the  solid  waste  for  animal  feed  or  the making of
charcoal.

A convenient method of eliminating waste  generation  during  the
sorting  step  is to provide convenient means for the laborers to
discard the unwanted material into a dry solid  handling  system.
Many  of the plants visited had installed barrels adjacent to the
sorting lines or built dry  conveyors  to  receive  the  unwanted
material.  Unfortunately, however, it is still a prevalent custom
in  many  other  plants  to flume discards from the sorting lines
into the wastewater stream.

In-Plant Transport

Commodities are moved around in the plant from one  process  step
to  another by means of conveyor belts, water carriage, pneumatic
transport, or lug bins carried by fork lifts.

Water carriage is very popular because it often serves to combine
several process steps:   washing,  cooling,  and  transport.   In
addition,  it  is  usually  efficient  and  does  not  damage the
produce.  Whenever possible,  however,  an  alternate  method  of
                                 245

-------
transport  should  be  used because large quantities of water are
used, and the water in  which  fruits  or  vegetables  are  being
transported   tends  to  leach  out  soluble  organics  into  the
wastewater stream.  While it is impractical to completely discard
this method of transport, for most commodities a conveyor belt or
pneumatic transport can be substituted between many unit  process
operations.

Where  water  carriage  cannot  be  replaced  by  a dry transport
method, a plant should seek  to  minimize  the  volume  of  water
wasted by recirculating to the maximum extent feasible.  Reuse of
cooling  water  for  water  carriage  purposes  is  very  common.
Conveyors usually utilize sprays at periodic  intervals  to  wash
the  conveyor  belt and prevent buildup of organic slimes.  These
sprays should be high-pressure,  low-volume.   In  addition,  the
spray  water  used should be recycled or reclaimed to the maximum
extent compatible with satisfactory sanitation.

Pneumatic transport is used in some instances to move solid waste
such as seeds, pits, and a certain amount of pulp.  In this  way,
these  solids  are prevented from entering the wastewater stream.
A tomato products plant reports greatly reduced waste  generation
after  installation  of a pneumatic system to remove residue from
its finishing operation.

Peeling

Peeling and subsequent peel removal washing  operations,  typical
of  many  fruit  and  vegetable processes, usually generate large
volumes of high strength wastewater.  In most  cases,  the  waste
streams contain high BOD, COD, and total suspended solids levels.
Peel  can be removed from fruits or vegetables by one method or a
combination of  several  methods  including  hydraulic  pressure,
immersion  in  hot  water  or  lye  solution,  exposure to steam,
mechanical knives, mechanical abrasion, hot air  blast,  exposure
to  flame,  and  infra-red  radiation.  The more extensively used
procedures  for  peeling  root  crops   include   steam/abrasion,
immersion  in  lye  solution/hydraulic or abrasion, and abrasion.
Frequently used procedures for peeling fruits include  mechanical
knives  and  immersion in lye solution.  Commodities that undergo
some form of peel removal are:  apricots, onions, beets, carrots,
garlic,  pineapples,  tomatoes,  peaches,  pears,  pimentos,  and
potatoes  (white and sweet).

Most  peeling  methods  are  designed  to minimize peel loss with
minimum  sacrifice  of  product  identity  or  quality.    Recent
technology,   however,  has  placed  emphasis  upon  reduction  of
pollution  entering  the  plant  wastewater  streams,  while  not
sacrificing product yield or quality.

The dry caustic peeling system has gained great acceptance during
the past four years since its development at the Western Regional
Research  Laboratory,  USDA,  Berkeley,  California.   Originally
designed  for  use  on  white  potatoes,  the  system  has  shown
                                  246

-------
commercial  application  also for sweet potatoes, beets, carrots,
tomatoes,  and  peaches.   Several  designs  of  the  system  are
commercially  available.   The principal pollutant load reduction
feature of each is that the loosened peel is removed mechanically
by rotating rubber discs instead of the conventional watersprays.
The rubber discs wipe off the peel, using little or no water, and
peel waste is separately discharged as a slurry  which  does  not
enter  the regular plant effluent.  The peel waste slurry is then
handled separately and usually disposed to land by truck hauling.

These results indicate the importance of a single unit operation.
However, waste management programs including steps outlined later
in this section (See  Water  Conservation  and  Reuse)   are  also
needed  if  significant  improvements  in  the total effluent raw
waste load are to be realized.

The major manufacturer of dry caustic peeling  equipment  reports
that  over 200 units are installed, the majority for white potato
peeling.  At least five commercial units are  also  in  operation
for   peeling  tomatoes,  sweet  potatoes,  carrots,  beets,  and
peaches.  Successful demonstrations  have  also  been  shown  for
peeling  pears  and  several  Canadian potato chip plants use the
system.

Other experimental work includes freezer-heat (cryogenic) peeling
and hot  vapor  peeling  studies  of  tomatoes.   Both  of  these
concepts   have   potential   for  reducing  product  losses  and
contaminants to the effluent  streams  but  are  not  proven  for
commercial application.

The  following paragraphs discuss the peeling operations found in
the plants investigated for this project.  Of  these  plants,  62
percent  used  lye  as  the peel softening or loosening agent, 12
percent used steam and/or hot water, 5 percent used a combination
of lye  and  steam,  18  percent  had  no  peel  presoftening  or
loosening,  and 3 percent gave no information as to the softening
or loosening agent used.  Table 76 shows an individual  commodity
summary of peeling methods currently being used.

About  forty percent of the visited lines with peeling operations
used water sprays for peel removal..  This  includes  cascade  and
tumble  lye  peelers.   Thin-skinned commodities such as tomatoes
and apricots used water sprays  while  thick-skinned  root  crops
such  as  beets and onions used mechanical abrasion following lye
or steam softening or loosening.  Thirty percent used  mechanical
abrasion  for  peel removal.  Six percent of the processing lines
with  peeling  operations,  used  a  mechanical  knife  for  peel
removal.  These were pear processing lines.  Four pear processing
lines  used  a  lye/  water spray removal peeling operation.  Two
processing lines used hand peeling.  These were both small volume
tomato processing lines, one of which also used a lye/water spray
peeling operation.  Nine percent of those processing  lines  with
peeling  operations  used  dry  caustic  peeling  systems.  These
included two tomato processors, two beet processors, one  apricot
                                  247

-------
                                                 TABLE 76
                           SUMMARY OF PEELING METHODS AND PEEL DISPOSAL METHODS

                                       UTILIZED  AT  PLANTS VISITED
ro
•P»
00
Commodity











Apricots
Peaches
Pears
Beets
Carrots
Onions
Peppers
Pimientos
Potatoes
Tomatoes
Canned Spec.
Potato Chips
Total
No.
Pits.
Incl.









9
15
8
13
12
5
5
4
8
32
8
6
125
No.
Lines
Incl.









16
17
10
13
12
5
5
4
. 8
51
1
6
148
No.
Lines
With
Peel.
Op.
£r






6
15
10
12
12
5
1
2
7
23
1
6
100
Softening


M
0)
-P
\ id

(u
Q) -P
•P O
CO K



5
4



1
1
1

12







CU
I*i
^
5
13
4
4
5
1
1
2
6
21


63

cu
!>i
i_j|
x^
£
rd
cu
-P
CO

1

3
1







5






0)

o
52


6

2
4





6
18


•
0
m
c
H

O
^
1
1







1


3
Removal

>
rd
p.
co

M
0)
-P
(d
12
4
12
4

2
1
1
2
2
12


40


c
0
•H
CO
rd
j_i
,0
i
>-i
Q
1
1

2




2
2


8


.
o

c
H

0
2;
1
1

1
1




3


7
Disposal

cu
W -P
rd co
(0
•o s
cu
rH ^3
t3 -H

rd O
ffi CO
1
1
2
1
1



1
4

2
13
0
1 \ J_j
fi 0)
•H -P
03

XI CU
0 -P
CO CO
•H fd
Q S
4
14
7
10
11
5
1
2
6
18
1
3
78


.
o

c
H

O

1

1
1





1

1
5




>_i
-H rH

-------
processor,  one  peach processor, one sweet potato processor, and
two canned potato processors.  Ten percent  of  those  processing
lines  with peeling operations gave no information as to the peel
removal method.

Of those processing lines with a peeling  operation,  15  percent
handled  the  peels  as  solid  waste, either through dry caustic
peeling or through a screening operation at the peeling operation
with dry removal from the plant; 77 percent dumped the peels into
the plant wastewater system; and 5 percent gave no information as
to peel disposal.  One tomato processor utilized a  negative  air
conveyance  system to remove peels from the processing line.  One
tomato processor utilized dry caustic peeling  and  then  dumpted
the  peels  into  the plant wastewater system.  One canned potato
processor  followed  a  dry  caustic  peeling  operation  with  a
mechanical  abrasion  peeling  operation.   Only  four processing
lines used reclaimed water in the peeling operation.  In three of
the four lines the reclaimed  water  was  from  the  can  cooling
operation, and in the remaining line the reclaimed water was from
the wash operation.

Size Reduction

Sizing  includes  such operations as pitting and coring, slicing,
dicing, pureeing, juicing, and concentrating.  In  all  of  these
operations the cells of the raw product are broken with resulting
loss   of   soluble   organics.    In   pureeing,   juicing,  and
concentrating, however, the solubles largely become part  of  the
finished  product,  and,  in  general,  the  waste  loads are not
excessive.  For example, the waste  generation  per  unit  weight
processed  from a tomato paste operation is less than that from a
peeled  whole  tomato  operation.   By  contrast,  those   sizing
operations  where  the  product emerges in a sliced or diced form
are heavy generators of organic pollution.

Blanching

Blanching of vegetables for canning, freezing, or dehydration  is
done  for  one  or  more  reasons:   removal of air from tissues;
removal of solubles which may affect clarity of brine or  liquor;
fixation  of  pigments;  inactivation  of  enzymes; protection of
flavor; leaching of undesirable flavors  or  components  such  as
sugars;   shrinking  of  tissues;  raising  of  temperature;  and
destruction of microorganisms.

water blanching may be accomplished in  several  different  ways.
The  most  common type of water blancher consists of a continuous
stainless steel mesh  conveyor  situated  in  an  elongated  tank
(typically four to five feet wide and twenty to thirty feet long)
which is usually half-filled with heated (150°-210°F)  water.  The
product to be blanched is continuously fed onto the mesh conveyor
at  a  constant  rate  (to maintain desired bed depth)  so that the
product is totally submerged.  Residence times vary with the type
of end product desired and the vegetable being processed.
                                  249

-------
wcatDttfto>>ocnjott)|TJtT)>t>o^otBW>
Mn>fl>(D(Dcni-(^rtp>i-iM(l>(Di-jH-3'MfDto
fU(D{D{Ufl)fOrtH-l-!H-eCp)&)0)iQ(DC!l-{>-<
Ort333P>H-fl>!Dcn53i-(oti3tni-t(Df-!i-'-
X'cncnencnHOpjSlH-rowencrcD KJCTH-O
(D •»-.-. o> 3* O" 3 en 0) en H- (D (D O
"-< v£ o HI (D en en n> n en rt
(D en M CU C ??" '-('I Cn hi ^ W
OaSM-UCnCCCM H-
flj 3 i< CO H- H- (DO
T3 13 0) rt (D en Q>
(D en 3
p> (D
in
HJ N) I-1 MM
MOJM<10000UlCr>MNJ*»U)VD
U) M
M MCTlOOONJ VOOO
CO M
M OCTiOOOtO *^M
it>. M LO CO tSJ M
M
M M to cn to to
M
cn NJ tvj co to
•fe. M M MM
M
M to M IsJ -J M CO
M
N) CO -~J M M
N)
M
M M M NJ -J M CO


M
M M M N3 -J M CO



0
0
O
DJ
H-
ft
^<
H-13 3
3 M O
O rt •
M en
• »
No. lines incl.
No. lines w/blanch
Steam
Hot water
No info.
Air
Water
No cooling
No info.
Fresh
Reclaimed
No info.
Disch. into
wastewater
Wash/ v
convey £
M
Other
No info.
Method
Cooling
method
Water
input
Water
(disposition
TABLE 77
SUMMARY OF BLANCHING METHODS AND POST-BLANCH COOLING PRACTICES
FOR THOSE PLANTS VISITED.

-------
           TABLE 77   (Continued)
ro
en
Commodity















Broccoli
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Corn
Garlic
Greens
Mushrooms
Okra
Onions
Peas
Peppers
Pimentos
Potatoes
Spinach
Squash
Sweet potato
Tomatoes
Zucchini
Canned spec.
Cherries, brined
No.
pits,
incl













2
12
2
4
19
2
9
2
3
5
33
5
4
8
13
5
1
32
2
8
6


•
rH
0
c
•H

M
0)
c
•H
rH

•
o
E5
2
13
2
5
23

9
2
3

33
5
4
8
13



2
2

X!
O
£
(0
rH
X)
s

CO
0)
c
•H
rH

•
O
S3
2
5
2
2
16

9
1
3

33
1
2
1
13



2
2

Method










£
(d
Q)
4->
CO
2
2
1
1
5

1



4
1
2

5










M
0)
•P
m
£

-P
o
K

1
1
1
4

2

1

10



4



1
2






•
O
IM
C
•H

0
&

2


1

6
1
2

19


1
4



1


Cooling
method











!H
•H
<<

1


5

1



1








1









S-l
0)
4J
(0
S
2
3
2
2
7

5

3

25

1
1
7



1





tn
C
-H
rH
O
O
O
»
o
s




3

3
1


6
1
1

5



1
1






•
O
m
c
•H

O
s

1


1





1



1






Water
input









,£
01
H
c i
\ Q)
-C >
CO G
m o
& o




2





7



2










rl
0)
x:
-P
o






1











1







•
o
<+H
c
•H

0
2

1


1





1



1







-------
Z9Z
i-3 cn ^ ^ O O
O ») O H- H O
rt £ rt o H- H$
P) (D PJ *T < 3
H h rl- H (D
*• O fl> W O
n w 3*
OJ 0 H-
Cl 3- H3
ft H- tn
^
en
CO
en M
W Ul  H  I-1
N>
M I-1
0 1-"
I-1
en
CO 10
CO
vo
en
ro NJ
o>
^j
H
00
03
CTi
£*
00 NJ
CT>
^J
V£>
•^J
O>
-J
^.
M
M
to
cn
0
0
O
Da
H-
s
H-na z
3 M O
O rt •
M en
• •
No. lines incl.
No. lines w/blanch
Steam
Hot water
No info.
Air
Water
No cooling
No info.
Fresh
Reclaimed
No info.
Disch. into
wastewater
Wash/ »
convey S
fn
Other
No info .
Method
Cooling
method
Water
input
Water
disposition
                                         Dd
                                         o
                                         o
                                         3
                                         rt
                                         H-
                                         3
                                         C
                                         (D

-------
A second type of hot water  blancher  is  a  tube  or  pipe  type
arrangement  through  which  the vegetable is conveyed by pumping
heated water and product together (e.g., peas and sliced or diced
carrots).   The length of the pipe, the velocity of the hot water-
product combination, and the temperature of  the  water  are  all
variables that can be changed to produce the desired end product.
A  third  type  of  water  blancher  typically  used on dry beans
consists of an auger  which  screw-conveys  the  product  through
heated water.

Steam  blanching is typically done in an elongated (three to five
feet wide and twenty to thirty feet long)   stainless  steel  tank
through  which a continuous stainless steel mesh chain is passed.
The chamber is typically fed by several inputs of steam  so  that
when vegetables are run through the blancher, they are surrounded
and  permeated  by  the  steam.   Length of blancher, product bed
depth, and speed of conveyor are the controlling variables.

Vegetables are typically water blanched to inactivate enzymes, to
remove air, and to leach solubles for clarity  of  brine.   These
are  factors  in the USDA grades of canned vegetables.  Blanching
in water removes more solubles  including  minerals  sugars,  and
vitamins,    than   does   steam   blanching.   The  leaching  and
solubilizing  directly  affects  the  wasteloads,  however,  with
resultant blanching water entering the waste stream as carryover.
Significant  percentages of both BODJ5 and TSS can be generated by
the use of hot water blanching.     ~

Steam blanching, while basically performing the same tasks as hot
water blanching, has been shown to significantly reduce  leaching
of  solubles.  Only the condensate water enters the waste stream.
This effluent, while being extremely high in BOD5>  and  suspended
solids concentrations, is of very small volume.

It is usually quality and grading factors that dictate which type
of  blanching  is to be used, however, for any particular type of
vegetable.  As can be readily seen from Table 77, many styles  of
blanching  are  used on each commodity.  This table refers to the
plants investigated during this study.

The pollution loads from blanching are a significant  portion  of
the  total  pollution  load  in  the  effluent  stream during the
processing of  certain  vegetables.   During  recent  years  con-
siderable   research  has  been  done  on  alternate  methods  of
blanching, methods which would minimize the waste generated.  The
most promising of these  methods,  known  as  IQB,  is  described
below.

A  blanching  process  known as individual quick blanch (IQB)  has
been  extensively  evaluated  since  1970,  primarily  under  the
sponsorship  of  the  U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  The
IQB process is a two-stage unit operation.  In the  first  stage,
the food piece is exposed to a heat source (condensing steam)  for
such  duration  that the mass-average temperature is in the range
                                253

-------
required for blanching (generally  greater  than  85°C  (185°F)).
The  piece  is then transferred to a second stage where the piece
is  held  adiabatically  until   the   thermal   gradients   have
equilibrated  to  the mass average temperature and the objectives
of blanching have been accomplished.  The process results in less
waste generation because:

    1.   Steam condensation  is  limited  to  that  required  for
         heating  the  product  into  the  blanching  temperature
         range;

    2.   There is a minimial opportunity for  tissue  damage  and
         subsequent loss of cellular juices; and

    3.   There is no overheating of some of  the  tissues  as  in
         deep  bed  steam  blanching  which  can result in tissue
         damage.

Lund reported on the application of IQB to  vegetables  prior  to
canning.   In that study, peas, corn, lima beans, and green beans
were blanched, canned, stored, and objectively  and  subjectively
evaluated.    Evaluation   of   IQB,   IQB  with  predrying,  and
conventional pipe blanching showed that up to a 99% reduction  in
wastewater  generation  could  be achieved with vegetables, e.g.,
peas, corn, lima beans, but is still  tentative  for  large  unit
size   vegetables;   e.g.,   whole   broccoli,  whole  asparagus,
cauliflower, etc.

The American Frozen Food Institute   (AFFI)  in  cooperation  with
USDA  and  a northern California processing plant is initiating a
study on a further modification of IQB beginning  in  late  1974.
The  modification  involves the reuse of the steam condensate for
cooling purposes following the blanch.

A second new blanching process known as "hot-gas  blanching"  has
been  studied  on  a  pilot  plant  basis by the National Canners
Association  (NCA) with partial sponsorship by EPA.  A  report  by
NCA  concluded that the new method of blanching, now called "hot-
gas blanching" shows exceptional promise in  reducing  wastewater
volume to very low levels while providing commerically acceptable
blanching.

A  third experimental method is microwave blanching.  This method
has been known for  many  years  but  has  never  become  popular
because  of  high  cost  and  technical  difficulties.   One  new
blancher which requires less water per pound of  product  is  now
being  used  in  a  cauliflower,  broccoli,  brussels sprouts and
asparagus processing operation.  It is a sealed system which uses
venturi tubes to recycle the steam  heat  through  the  blancher.
Unlike  conventional  continuous steamflow blanchers, it utilizes
steam only on demand from its  preset  control  instruments.   It
eliminates  the  steam  stack,  yet  provides  a vapor-free plant
environment.
                                   254

-------
Of those processing lines with blanching operations,  25  percent
used steam blanchers, 33 percent used hot water blanchers, and U2
percent gave no information as to the type of blancher used.  All
but  one  of the blanchers were described as continuous blanchers
with continuous overflow recirculation, with the blanchers  being
dumped  at  various  intervals,  usually at the end of the day or
shift.  One dry bean processing line exhibited a batch  blancher,
dumping after each blanching operation.

Thirty  percent  of  the processing lines with a blanch operation
exhibited no  post-blanch  cooling  operation.   These  were  all
canning  operations.   All freezing lines with a blanch operation
exhibited some type of post-blanch cooling operation.   Of  those
processing lines with a post-blanch cooling operation, 16 percent
used  an  air  cooling operation, 78 percent used a water cooling
operation, and 6 percent gave no information as  to  the  cooling
method.

Ninety-four  percent  of  those  processing  lines  with  a water
cooling operation used fresh water for this operation.  One plant
used reclaimed  water.   The  remaining  five  percent  were  pea
processors  who  used  a brine quality grader after the blanching
operation to cool the peas while grading for quality.

Eighty six percent of those lines with a water cooling  operation
discharged  the  water  used  in  this  operation  into the plant
wastewater system; 13  percent  reused  this  water  for  washing
and/or  conveyance;  and  one  processor reused this water in its
freezer condenser system.

Preservation

The wide range of commodities covered within the  scope  of  this
document  lend  themselves  to five basic preservation processes:
freezing, retorting, pasteurization,  dehydration,  and  chemical
preservation.   The first three usually are responsible for using
considerable volumes of water for either cooking  or  cooling  or
both,  while  the  latter two use virtually no related processing
water.

Freezer defrost water, usually coming in large volumes for  short
time  periods,  contributes  significantly  to  a  plant's  total
effluent.  Typically, those waters are discharged directly to the
main waste stream, but they are, in  some  instances,  discharged
under permit to navigable streams.  The water quality in terms of
BOD5_  and  TSS of this effluent is usually identical to a plant's
incoming water supply.  Reuse of this water  has  generally  been
observed  to  be infrequent.  It is principally used for in-plant
fluming prior to any final product washings.

Retorting of tin or glass requires the use of  large  volumes  of
water,  in  the  case  of  tin for cooling, and for glass both in
cooking and cooling.  Conventional retorting is done  usually  by
either  "still"  or  "continuous"  means.  The continuous cookers
                                 255

-------
offer labor, energy, and water saving advantages in  as  much  as
the  container  being  processed  is  usually  rotated on flights
through pressurized cooking vessels, and either low  pressure  or
atmospheric cooling vessels, or both.

The  use  of  cooling  towers greatly reduces the volume of water
used for cooling cycles.  This water, when  properly  maintained,
can  be  reused  for  several  weeks or longer.  These waters can
alternately be recycled for various  fluming  and  first  washing
operations.   Direct  discharge  of  cooling  waters to navigable
streams has also been frequently observed.

The process of pasteurization followed by cold water  sprays  can
contribute  significantly to a plant's effluent.  Water reuse, as
in the above section, can be greatly increased through the use of
cooling towers.

Tomato evaporation and concentration  operations  can  contribute
large  volumes of water to a plant operation.  The use of cooling
towers to condense evaporated water and the reuse of  this  water
for  condenser  cooling  is  very typical in this industry.  This
water has  also  been  utilized  as  make-up  water  for  initial
washings of tomatoes.

Water Conservation and Reuse

Substantial reduction in both processing raw waste load (flow and
pollutant  content) and wastewater treatment cost can be realized
by careful in-plant water management and  reuse.   The  following
examples  were  obtained from plant investigations and literature
reviewed during this study:

    1.   Installation of automatic shut-off valves on water hoses
         may save up to 60 gallons per minute per hose.   Without
         automatic  shut-off  valves,  employees  do not turn off
         hoses.  Cost for a long life valve is approximately $UO.

    2.   Installation of  central  clean-up  systems   (valved  or
         triggered  hoses).   These commercial systems generate a
         controlled high pressure supply of  hot  or  warm  water
         containing  a  detergent.   They  are  reported to clean
         better with less volume of water used.

    3.   Installation of low-volume, high-pressure systems on all
         water sprays which cannot be eliminated.

    4.   Elimination of all unnecessary  water  overflows.   Many
         plants  operate  water  valves  wide  open regardless of
         actual need.  Examples are  make-up  water  supplies  to
         recirculating flumes, spray lines, and washers.  One way
         to  help  solve  this  problem  is installation of quick
         opening ball valves in water lines after  globe  valves.
         The  globe  valve  is  used  by  the operator for on-off
         operation.
                                  256

-------
5.   Elimination of water carriage for the product by  flumes
     or  pumps, except where absolutely necessary to cool the
     product.  Water carriage should not be used for the sole
     purpose of conveying the product.  Keeping  the  product
     away from water will decrease pollutant generation.

6.   That portion of very dilute wastewater  (cooling  water,
     defrost   water,   etc.)    which   is   not   reused  or
     recirculated, should be discharged separately  from  the
     process  wastewater.  Care should be exercised, however,
     to prevent the  direct  discharge  of  high  temperature
     cooling water without adequate cooling.

7.   Maximization of in plant water recirculation by multiple
     use of water in the same unit process or reuse in  other
     unit processes.  Can cooling water provides an excellent
     source  of  water  to  be  reused.   Table  78 shows can
     cooling water disposition  by  commodity  as  determined
     during  plant  visits  conducted  during this study.  Of
     those processing lines with can cooling  operations,  40
     percent discharged the can cooling water separately from
     the  processing  water; 56 percent discharged this water
     with  the  process  water;  and  4   percent   gave  ' no
     information  as  to  the  disposition of the can cooling
     water.  Ten percent of those processing lines  with  can
     cooling  operations,  recirculated the can cooling water
     through a cooling tower;  14  percent  recirculated  this
     water  through  a  canal, tank, pond, or other means; 74
     percent exhibited no significant  recirculation;  and  3
     percent  gave  no information as to recirculation of can
     cooling water.

8.   Counter-current systems are used  extensively  in  which
     the fresh water is introduced to the product last in the
     process  and  then  reused  in  earlier  stages  of  the
     process.   In  this  way,  the  product  is  exposed  to
     successively  cleaner water as it progresses through the
     process unit.

9.   Good housekeeping  is  an  important  factor  in  normal
     pollution   control.    Spills,  spoilage,  trash,  etc.
     resulting from sloppy operation  may  be  a  heavy  con-
     tribution   to  liquid  wasteloads.   Improvements  will
     result from  educating  operating  personnel  in  proper
     attitudes   toward   pollution   control  and  providing
     strategically located waste containers,  the  basic  aim
     being  to  avoid  loss of product and normal solid waste
     into the liquid waste stream.

10.  In addition to implementation of water conservation  and
     reuse,  the  processor  should  look  at his handling of
     solid waste.  A well-operated  plant  will,  insofar  as
     possible,  avoid  solid  waste  contact  with the liquid
     waste stream.  Where this is  not  feasible,  the  solid
                              257

-------
                                                   TABLE  78
                         SUMMARY  OF  CAN COOLING WATER RECIRCULATION AND DISPOSITION
Commodity














Apricots
Berries, cane
Blueberries
Cherries
Figs
Grapes
Peaches
Pears
Plums
Prunes
Raisins
Strawberries
Dried fruit
Artichokes
Asparagus
Beans , dry
Beans , lima
Beans , snap
Beets
No.
pits.
incl.













9
3
4
12
1
6
15
8
8
7
2
6
1
1
8
10
6
26
13
No.
lines
incl.













13
5
6
16
1
7
15
8
11
7
2
9
1
2
8
10
6
29
13

£3
-P
•H
S &>
C
M -H
QJ iH
C O
•H 0
rH O

• C
O flJ
S3 0
8
1
4
11
1
6
11
8
7
5

2

1
6
10
4
20
12
FROM PLAI
Discharge


CO
w
0)
o
0
M
O<
^
X 0)
+> •<->
•r< HJ
* s
6

2
9
1
5
9
6
5
4

1


4
3
3
10
4




>i
rH
0)
-P
«J
H
(0
CU
0)
w
2
1
1
2

1
2
2
2


1

1
1
5
1
10
8






•
o
«H
c
•H

O
2


1






1




1
2



IT VISITS
Recycle within
Cooling System

n
0)
>
0
4J

tn
c
•H
H
0
o
u
2




1
2
2







1

1
1









V4
QJ
XJ
4J
0



3




1





1
4
1
1











0)
c
o
K
6
1
4
8

5
8
6
6
5

2

1
5
4
3
17
11






•
o
M-l
c
•H

0
23




1

1








1

1

Reuse for
Other Processes



>i
0)
>
c
0
o
\
X!
0)
«J
&
2


1


8
1
1





2


2
4



•0
(!)
0)
M-f

M
Q)
iH
•H
O
«


1





1








1
1









n
0)
.c
+J
0
1




1

2
1








2
1










0)
c
o
S3
5
1
3
10
1
5
3
5
5
5

2

1
4
10
4
15
7






•
0
4-1
C
-H

O
S3



















ro
en
oo

-------
6S3
Tomatoes
Zucchini
Canned spec.
oo
oo to to
*»
00
M
tO M 00
M
WWWhJhJ^^JOOSOOOOOOtOt30
rt 01 ju rt 3 fl> 3 I-13H- 4 P- O o X1
3* Q O rt H 01 O CD n ^ HI rt o fl>
T5 3* (D O 01 O M01 M*<
O 01 01 3 O P- CD
rt 01 S a-
OJ fl>
rt M H3
O fl>
(D {a
01 01
M 00 MM
M on oo oo »^ Cn oo on oo to ^o to vo ^ to to to M
M OJ M IO M
tO M
H™' t^^ O^ 00 i^^ ^O tO (JL) H™* ^O (J1 O^ ts^ 00 l~^
K)*»^ Onto >&>
M
tO M
to oo
tO M
OHMM OOMMMtO MOO M M
to
10 M
00 t£fe On 00 M O M M 1 — * IO tO M G*t
tO M
to
OO
M IO M 10 I-1
MM *> 00
00
M M
M M
-JMtOMil^i^OOlOMO^OOMlOOn 10M

O
O
0
p-
rt
P-13 2
3 M O
O rt •
M 01
P- M
3 P- 2!
0 3 O
M (D •
• 01
No. lines with
can cooling
D
H-
With process 01
water §•
pi
LJ
Separately na
(D
No info.
o w
Cooling tower § ^
i_ii^«
... . P- O
Other 3 M
^ (D
WSJ
^< p-
None 01 rt
rt ff
(D P-
No info. 3 3
Wash/convey o
Boiler feed {^ g
01
TJ ra
H
Other ° g1
None 01
m
01
No info.
                                               00
                                               3
                                               rt
                                               H-
                                               3
                                               C
                                               (D
                                               0.

-------
          TABLE 78   (Continued)
ro
01
o
Commodity














Cherries, brinec
Corn chips
Olives
Pickles
Potato chips
Sauerkraut
Total
No.
pits.
incl.













6
1
6
11
6
5
353
No.
lines
incl.













7
1
6
11
6
5
402

&
•P
•H
£ tr>
C
W -H
Q) r-H
C 0
-H 0
i
iH

0
j->

Cn
C
•H
rH
O
O
U





1
26









n
(U
rC
4J
0



3

1
37










i

c
o
0
\
&
(0
03
S






51



T3
(U
(U
>W

M

-------
         waste  is  removed prior to reaching the waste treatment
         system.  Screens of  20  mesh  or  smaller  are  usually
         adequate to remove a large portion of settleable solids.
         Continuous  removal  of  the  screenings is desirable to
         avoid excessive leaching of solubles by the liquid waste
         stream from separated solids.

    11.  It isr of course, impossible to predict  with  exactness
         the  effect  of in-plant pollution control such as water
         use reduction and water reuse.  Volume reductions of  50
         percent  and  upwards  are  not unusual, however, and in
         most cases, it is  reported  that  volume  reduction  is
         accompanied  by  reduction  in  total  organic pollution
         generated.
SCREENS

Discrete waste solids in fruits  and  vegetables  waste  streams,
such  as  trimmings,  rejects,  and  pits,  are  effectively  and
economically separated from liquid wastes at almost  all  canning
plants by screening.

Screening  has several objectives, including:  recovery of useful
solid by-products; a first stage  end-of-pipe  primary  treatment
operation;   or   pretreatment   for  discharge  to  a  municipal
wastewater treatment system.

Screening efficiency is affected by the following:

    1.   Mechanical features

         a.   wastewater flow rate;
         b.   area of screen;
         c.   screen inlet and outlet locations;
         d.   screen motion;
         e.   screen opening size;
         f.   screen fabric  (wedgewire, flat, or round).

    2.   Wastewater properties

         a.   discrete particle dimensions;
         b.   concentration of discrete materials;
         c.   shape of discrete material  (irregular, round,
              fibrous) ;
         d.   consistency of discrete material  (hard, soft,
              sticky).

Screens are often characterized by  the  size  of  the  openings.
There  are  several  methods  of  designating  the open area in a
screen.  Wire screen openings are usually measured in meshes  per
inch, and are available in increments of the Tyler Standard Sieve
sizes.   For  example,   the popular 20 mesh screen has a standard
wire diameter which is woven in a rectangular grid with 20  wires
                                  261

-------
per  linear  inch.   A  second  method of screen size measurement
describes the clear opening between screening  elements  (usually
flat or wedgewire in shape)  either in mm or mils.   For example, a
0.76  mm opening is equal to 30 mils (0.030 in)  and approximately
equivalent to a 40-mesh screen as described above.   Bar  screens,
because of their very large openings, are measured by their clear
opening, usually in cm.

There  are  many  different types of screens in common use within
the fruits and  vegetables  industry,  including:    bar  conveyer
(endless  belt); rotary vibrating or oscillating;  tangential; and
centrifugal.

pH CONTROL SYSTEMS

It is sometimes necessary to install pH control systems to  treat
wastes   from   the  fruit  and  vegetable  processing  industry.
Typically, municipal ordinances require wastes discharged to  its
sewers  to  be  between pH 6 and 9, and many biological treatment
systems cannot tolerate wide ranges in raw waste pH.  Wastes with
low pH result from processing of acidic fruits;  e.g.,  plums  and
wastes  with  high  pH  result from the use of lye during peeling
such as a typical peach peeling.

If it is necessary for the  individual  plant  to  install  a  pH
control  system,  it  will  generally be found that the automatic
control of pH for the neutralization of waste streams can present
problems including:

    1.   The relationships between the amount of  reagent  needed
         and the controlled variable; pH being non-linear.

    2.   The pH of the wastewater can vary rapidly over  a  range
         of several units in a short period of time.

    3.   The flow will change while the pH is changing since  the
         two variables are not related.

    4.   The change of pH at neutrality can be sensitive  to  the
         addition  of  a reagent so that even slight excesses can
         cause large deviations in pH from the initial setpoint.

    5.   Measurement of the primary variable, pH, can be affected
         by materials which coat the measuring electrodes.

    6.   The buffer capacity of the waste has a  profound  effect
         on  the relation between reagent feed and pH and may not
         remain constant.

    7.   A relatively small amount of reagent must be  thoroughly
         mixed with a large volume of liquid in a short period of
         time.
                                    262

-------
Figure   55   schematically  illustrates  the  components  of  an
automatic pH control system designed to handle a waste having  pH
which  could  be either high or low at different times.  If pH of
the raw waste were only high or only low, the appropriate acid or
caustic feed pump head could be  eliminated  from  the  schematic
flow diagram.

The  heart  of  the  control  system is the pH probe and analyzer
which requires daily maintenance and calibration to  ensure  that
it is generating an accurate reading of the pH in the neutralized
waste.   A  false reading from this device will trigger incorrect
dosages of chemicals and result in aggravation of  a  pH  problem
instead of correction.

GRAVITY SEDIMENTATION

Gravity sedimentation is a solids separation operation classified
as  primary treatment.  Gravity sedimentation is commonly applied
to fruits and vegetables wastewaters as  follows:   (1)  settling
ponds  or grit chambers for raw wash waters, (2)  clarification of
screened wastewaters prior to further treatment such as activated
sludge or spray irrigation,  and  (3)   solids  removal  prior  to
discharge into municipal systems.

Settling Ponds

Settling  ponds are commonly used for clarifying raw product wash
waters,  especially  for  root  crops,   mechanically   harvested
tomatoes,  and  other relatively dirty raw products.  These ponds
can be either batch or continuous flow types.   Laboratory  bench
scale  testing  can be used to rationally determine the detention
time required  for  proper  clarification  and  necessary  solids
storage.  The settleable matter will collect on the bottom of the
pond.   The  ponds are usually built 10 to 15 ft deep in order to
store solids for at least one  year's  operation.   The  settling
pond  effluent  is  commonly  recycled  to  the  final wastewater
treatment system.

If improperly designed, ponds of this type can develop odors from
anaerobic digestion of settled organic  material.   This  problem
can  be  avoided  if adequate liquid velocities are maintained to
retard settlement of  the  lighter  organic  material.   Settling
ponds are drained and cleaned periodically.

Mechanical Grit Chambers

A  mechanical  grit  chamber,  either  aerated  or  unaerated, is
excellent for specific grit removal.  The settling basin is small
because of very short retention times, usually from one  to  five
minutes.  The unaerated grit chambers are more economical but may
remove  organic  matter with the grit and make disposal of solids
more difficult.  Both  types  of  grit  chambers  use  mechanical
equipment  such  as  screw  conveyers  or  bucket  elevators  for
transporting settled grit from the settling chamber to a  storage
                                   263

-------
                       FIGURE   55


   SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM  FOR  pH CONTROL  SYSTEM
           TREATING WASTE WITH VARIABLE FLOW
               AND BOTH HIGH AND LOW pH

  INDUSTRIAL
   WASTE
FLOW MEASURING
FLUME OR WEIR


•^

FLOW
TRANS-
MITTER




METERED CAUSTIC FEED
M'ETEREO AGIO FEED
W






PUMP HEAD
* I--ACID
FEED
STROKE
LENGTH
CONTROLLER
L
ACID
STORAGE
TANK






PUMP HEAD
» 2 CAUSTIC
FEED
STROKE
LENGTH
CONTROLLER
1
t
1
1
— *•
FLOW RECORDER
WITH HI-LOW
ALARMS AND
CONTROLLER
I
1
\
VARIABLE
STROKE
SPEED


'

CONTROLLER

CAUSTIC
STORAGE
TANK
                                PH  RECORDER-
                             CONTRCLLER  W / HI-LOW
                                 ALARMS AND
                            INTERRUPTER — -CONTROLLER
   TO SEWER
   OR FURTHER
   TREATMENT
     KEY


RAW WASTE

CHEMICALS-

ELECTRIC SIGNAL
                               264

-------
hopper.   The  main advantages of grit chambers are their compact
size and ability to be more selective in  what  weight  suspended
solids are settled out.
Gravity Clarifiers

Gravity  sedimentation is a primary treatment operation to reduce
suspended  solids  and  BOD.   Center   upflow   or   rectangular
continuous  flow  clarifiers  are  normally  used.  The clarified
effluent is discharged over an effluent  weir,  and  the  settled
solids  are  moved  by  scraping  or suction to a sludge pump wet
well.  The sludge is then pumped to sludge handling or  digestion
facilities as described in another section.  Surface skimmers can
be used to remove floating material for separate disposal.


Primary Clarifier Design Considerations

Clarifiers  for  fruits  and  vegetables  primary  treatment  are
usually designed for 25 to 41 cu m/day/sq m (600 to 1,000 gal/day
sq ft) as reported by Talburt and Smith (Ref.  15), Filbert  (Ref.
16),  and  Grames  and  Kueneman  (Ref. 17).  Grames and Kueneman
recommended, because of poor settling, a maximum overflow rate of
25 cu m/day/sq m (600 gal/day/sq ft)  and a deep side water  depth
from  2.75 to 3.66 m (9 to 12 ft).  They also recommended the use
of rake mechanisms with sludge thickening pickets.  This  creates
a  combined  clarifier  and  thickener  and  produces a sludge of
maximum solids concentration.

Primary clarifiers have  the  objective  of  removing  settleable
matter  in  screened or raw wastewaters.  Usually a percentage of
suspended  solids  in  the  influent   can   be   removed.    The
concentration  of  suspended  solids and percentage settleable is
very waste specific and depends upon the commodity being treated.
In screened domestic sewage, approximately 35 percent of the BOD5_
and 65 percent of the suspended solids can be removed by  primary
sedimentation.    With   fruits   and  vegetables  wastes,  these
percentages are often lower.  Tomato  and  tree  fruit  lye  peel
wastewaters,  for  example,  settle  very  poorly.   In  general,
wastewaters from processing of root crop vegetables are  high  in
suspended solids which separate well in primary clarifiers.

Wolski  (Ref 18)  speculated that fruits and vegetables wastewaters
were  difficult  to treat by most treatment chains because of the
constant fluctuation in their composition.  He theorized that the
fluctuations could  be  partially  stabilized  by  primary  sedi-
mentation.   He  determined  a minimum detention time of 45 to 50
minutes and a maximum overflow rate of 60  cu  m/sq  m/day  (1470
gal/day/sq  ft).   He  found the suspended solids were reduced by
greater than 40 percent and the BOD5_ reduced by 17 to 30 percent.

Primary sedimentation is not at present  a  common  operation  in
most   fruits  and  vegetables  treatment  chains.   For  certain
                               265

-------
commodity wastes, however, this operation has  potential  in  the
upgrading   of   existing  biological  treatment  plants  and  in
accomplishing greater efficiencies with new  designs.   Streebin,
Reid,  and  Hu   (Ref.  19)  demonstrated  a full-scale, two-stage
aeration process for treating vegetable wastes.  The demonstrated
plant did not have primary clarification.   They  theorized  from
laboratory testing that with the addition of a primary clarifier,
which  in  this case would remove approximately 50 percent of the
raw BOD, the capacity of the complete system would be doubled.

AIR FLOTATION

Air flotation is normally  a  primary  treatment  operation  that
removes  suspended  solids  in the form of a floating sludge.  It
also has potential as  a  tertiary  step  following  lagoons  for
removal  of  algae and other suspended solids.  Air flotation can
be either purely physical or physical-chemical with the  addition
of   chemical  coagulants.   Air  flotation  units  generate  air
bubbles, and the buoyancy of the air bubbles rising  through  the
wastewater lifts suspended materials to the surface.  The floated
sludge is then skimmed from the surface.

Air  flotation  has  been  rarely  used  in fruits and vegetables
wastewater  treatment.   However,  this  technology   should   be
considered  in  future  treatment  trains  because  of:   (1) the
characteristically poor  settling  quality  of  many  fruits  and
vegetables  wastes;   (2)  the  dilute  sludges obtained from many
primary clarifiers and accompanying dewatering problems; (3)  the
fairly  concentrated  sludges  obtained from air flotation units;
and (4)  the compact size of air flotation  units  resulting  from
the small detention time necessary.

Three alternative air flotation systems are available:  (1)  vacuum
flotation;  (2)  dispersed  air  flotation; and (3)  dissolved air
flotation.

Air Flotation Design

Design parameters important in dissolved air flotation  are:  (1)
chemical  coagulant  (qualitative and quantitative optimization is
important); (2) air/solids ratio;  (3)   hydraulic  loading  in  cu
m/sq  m/min (gal/sq ft/min); and (4) solids loading in kg/sq m/hr
(Ibs/sq ft/hr) .

The NCA (Ref.  20) pilot tested  a  recycle  pressurization,  dis-
solved  air  flotation  system  on rinse water from peach caustic
peel solution and screened tomato processing effluent.  Tables 79
and 80 show the results of the NCA test.   Removal  of  suspended
solids  from  the  peach  rinse  waters  ranged from 64.8 to 93.2
percent.   The  removals  were  inversely  proportional  to   the
influent   flow  rate.   From  the  screened  tomato  wastewater,
suspended solids removals  ranged  from  60.7  to  83.5  percent.
Again,  percent  removals were inversely proportional to influent
flow rates.
                                 266

-------
                                                TABLE 79

                             SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL FROM PEACH RINSE  WATER
                               BY DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION FROM NCA  (1970)
rv>
Inf]
Raw
(gpm)
7.5
15.0
20.0
25.0
20.0
30.0
30.0
.uent
Recycle
(gpm)
7.5
15.0
20.0
25.0
10.0
15.0
10.0
Hydraulic
Loading
(gpm/ ft2)
1.0
1.9
2.6
3.2
1.9
2.9
2.6
Influent
Solids
(mg/1)
1,400
1,500
1,300
700
900
1,500
200
Effluent
Solids.
(mg/1)
90
180
340
190
230
590
70
Percent
Removal

93.2
87.7
74.0
71.0
72.0
66.1
64.8
Solids
Loading
(lbs/hr/ft2)
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.8
0.9
2.2
0.3

-------
                                               TABLE  80



                       SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL FROM SCREENED TOMATO WASTEWATER

                              BY DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION  FROM NCA  (1970)
ro
cr>
CO
Influent
Raw
(gpm)
7.5
15.0
30.0
Recycle
(gpm)
7.5
15.0
15.0
Hydraulic
Loading
(gpm/ft2)
1.0
1.9
2.9
Influent
Solids
(mg/1)
1,100
1,100
500
Effluent
Solids
(mg/1)
180
240
180
Percent
Removal

83.5
77.7
60.7
Solids
Loading
(lbs/hr/ft2)
9.7
19.5
15.9

-------
                   TABLE 81

CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION OF VEGETABLE PROCESSING
WASTES FROM U.S.  DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (1967)
Waste
Tomato
Chemicals (mg/1)
Lime
8.3
4.0
Red Beets 9.0
10.0
10.0
Corn
9.10
6.0
Carrots 5.0
3.0
Peas
Wax Beans
7.5
6*0
Alum
1.0
—
—
—
--

FeS04
—
4.0
9-12
3.25
1.0
3.25
2.5
Reduction Efficiency
%
SS
86.5
90.0
—
—
--
—
BOD
39.0
50.0
43.0
59.0
48.0
60.0
50-75
75.0
75.0
50-75
50-75
                         269

-------
                 Figure 55  BOD removal by chemical precipitation

                                 from peach and tomato wastes

                                      from Parker (1969).
o
a:
LU
a.
a
o
ca
                     100
200
300
400
5OO
                                LIME DOSAGE - mg/1
                                           270

-------
There were no chemical additions during the NCA  tests  described
above.   Many  fruits  and vegetables characteristically have low
suspended solids concentration relative  to  dissolved  organics,
and  most  oxygen  demanding material is in colloidal and soluble
forms.  A chemical  addition  system  to  enhance  dissolved  air
flotation may increase removal efficiency somewhat.  Parker (Ref.
21)  estimated  that  with  peach  and  tomato wastes, only 15-25
percent of the BOD5 was associated with suspended solids.  Parker
also investigated BOD5 removal by  chemical  precipitation,  with
results  shown  in  Figure  56.   It appears that only 30 percent
removal of BOD5_ was achieved with  reasonable  chemical  dosages.
The  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior  (Ref.  22) reported the
results of various investigators.  The results are shown in Table
81.  These results correlate well with the NCA study on suspended
solids removal.  The BOD5 removals, however, are somewhat  higher
than  the  Parker  results,  being  in  the UO-75 percent removal
range.

NUTRIENT ADDITION

In order to maintain optimum  process  efficiency  in  biological
systems,  minimum  quantities  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  .are
required  for  cell  synthesis.   Without  a  proper  nutritional
balance, soluble BOD5_ reduction and liquid-solid separations will
be   impaired.    Virtually   all  fruit  processing  wastes  are
nutritionally deficient along  with  some  vegetable  commodities
such  as  potatoes.   The  nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
that must be maintained are process and  commodity  specific  and
must   be  determined  by  laboratory  or  field  investigations.
Usually the required nitrogen and phosphorus can  be  related  to
BOD_5 removed.

Table  82  shows  the  nutrient  values in the raw wastewater for
various commodities.  The minimum nutrient ratios were assumed to
be 2 kg of N and 0.5 kg of P per 100 kg BODjj applied.  Using this
criteria, the commodities that are nutrient deficient are  marked
on  Table  82.   In  the  cost analysis provided in Section VIII,
activated sludge treatment systems for these commodities  include
nutrient addition.
LAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

General

With  the  increasing  stringency  of  regulatory agency effluent
limitations and the  cost  of  achieving  them,  plants  in  this
industry  have  increasingly  turned  to  land treatment of their
wastewater.  Among these plants surveyed which do  not  discharge
to  municipal  systems, 73 percent reported discharge to land via
spray irrigation and other types of  irrigation  or  percolation-
evaporation  ponds.  Some of the plants which reported using land
treatment may not provide complete  containment  (zero-discharge)
because   of   "unofficial"   run-offs  into  tailwater  ditches.
                                      271

-------
                                          TABLE 82
               NUTRIENT VALUE OF RAW COMMODITIES AND REQUIRED NUTRIENT  ADDITION

                             FOR BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
NUTRIENTS
REQUIRED (1)

X




X
X


COMMODITY
CORN
TOMATOES ^
PEAS
BEETS
BEANS
CARROTS
PEACH
PINEAPPLE
SPINACH
SAUERKRAUT
BOD/N/P
RATIO
100/2. 8/. 5
100/4/.6
100/6/.7
100/3.1/3.9
100/4. 4/. 8
100/2. 3/. 5
100/1. 4/. 3
100/.6/.1
100/7. 7/. 6
100/4/.5
NUTRIENTS
REQUIRED (1)
X



X

X
X


COMMODITY
GRAPES
CAULIFLOWER
OKRA
ONION
PIMENTO
RHUBARB
FIGS
PRUNES
ASPARAGUS
BROCCOLI
BOD/N/P
RATIO
100/1. 6/.1
100/6. 8/. 9
100/5/.6
100/3. I/. 5
100/2. 8/. 3
100/3. O/. 5
100/1. 3/. 2
100/.7/.2
100/6.5/1
100/7.2/1
ro
^i
ro
      (1)  Assuming required nutrient ratio BOD/N/P of 100/2/0.5.

      (2)  Although this commodity achieves the 100/2/0.5 ratio,  actual  practice has

            shown that nutrient addition is necessary for successful biological waste-

            water treatment.

-------
                                     TABLE 82    (continued)
NUTRIENTS
REQUIRED(l)
X
X


X
X
X
X
X

X
X
COMMODITY
POTATOES
PEARS
LIMA BEANS
SQUASH
APRICOTS
STRAWBERRIES
CRANBERRIES
CHERRIES
OLIVES
MUSHROOMS
BLUEBERRIES
PICKLES
(avg. sweet
& dill)
BOD/N/P
RATIO
100/2. 4/. 4
100/1/.01
100/5. 4/. 6
100/3. 7/. 7
100/1. 6/. 23
100/1. 6/. 3
100/.7/.1
100/1. 7/. 2
100/1. 2/.1
100/7/1.9
100/.9/.1
100/1/.2
NUTRIENTS
REQUIRED (1)




X
X
X
X
X
X
X

COMMODITY
BRUSSEL SPROUTS
ZUCCHINI
ARTICHOKES
DRY BEANS
POTATO CHIPS
JAMS & JELLIES
RAISINS
SWEET POTATO
DEHYD. ONION
PLUMS
CANE BERRIES

BOD/N/P
RATIO
100/7. 2/. 7
100/5/.8
100/4. 4/. 8
100/5. 4/. 6
100/1. I/. 2
100/.1/.01
100/.7/.2
100/1. 3/. 2
100/2. I/. 004
100/.6/.1
100/1. 8/. 2

rv>
^i
CO
           (1)  Assuming required nutrient ratio BOD/N/P  of  100/2/0.5.

-------
Nevertheless, where conditions are suitable,  land  treatment  is
often   the  simplest,  most  inexpensive  method  of  treatment.
problem.

Land treatment of wastewater is particularly well suited for this
industry because of the seasonality of high organic  strength  of
the  wastewater.   However,  large  land  areas  are required for
successful operation.  Spray irrigation is the most  widely  used
land  treatment  application method.  Other principal methods are
ridge-and-furrow irrigation, and flood  irrigation.   Percolation
ponds  are  covered  in  the  Lagoon  subsection of this section.
Overland flow and tile-drained fields are land treatment  methods
system  as  opposed  to a disposal system but are covered in this
subsection.  Tile drainage may also be required either to improve
hydraulic conductivity for irrigated land with poor drainage,  or
to  collect  subsurface  drainage  prior  to further treatment in
lagoons or second-pass irrigation.  Table  83  lists  the  plants
practicing  land treatment which were contacted during this study
and some data about each.  In all these methods,  the  wastewater
is  usually  at least screened prior to treatment.  The extent of
additional pretreatment necessary, if any, is dependent upon  the
treatment  methods used, characteristics of wastewater, potential
odor problems, pumping requirements, sprinkler nozzle  size,  and
regulatory agency requirements.  The National Canners Association
has  compiled  a  tabulation of individual state requirements for
land treatment showing state requirements vary from none  to  the
equivalent of secondary treatment prior to land treatment.

Experience   has  shown  that  land  treatment  systems  must  be
carefully designed to  achieve  successful  operation.   A  brief
overview  of  design  considerations  for  each type of system is
presented in the following subsections.

Wastewater Characteristics

The characteristics of food processing wastewaters that  must  be
considered  with  regard  to  land  treatment include BOD!>, total
suspended solids, total fixed dissolved solids, pH, heavy metals,
and the sodium adsorption  ratio  (SAR) .   These  characteristics
vary  widely  among  food  processing  wastes.   Ranges of values
observed  at  existing   land   treatment   systems   for   these
characteristics  are listed in Table 83.  The possible effects of
these characteristics are discussed in the following paragraphs.
                                  274

-------
                            TABLE 83

           CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS FOOD PROCESSING
             WASTEWATERS APPLIED TO THE LAND  (Ref.6)


Constituent                Unit            Value Range

BOD5                       mg/1             200-4,000
COD                        mg/1             300-10,000
Suspended solids           mg/1             200-3,000
Total fixed
 dissolved solids          mg/1             less than 1,800
Total nitrogen             mg/1             10-400
pH                          --              a.0-12.0
Temperature               deg. c            less than 68


The soil is  a  highly  efficient  biological  treatment  system;
therefore,  liquid loading rates at land treatment operations are
normally governed by the hydraulic capacity of  the  soil  rather
than  the  organic  loading  rate.  This operational independence
from BOD5^ loading is  a  distinct  advantage  of  land  treatment
systems  over  conventional  treatment  systems in treating high-
strength wastewaters.

There are limits, of course, to the organic loading that  can  be
placed  on  the land without stressing the ecosystem in the soil.
The effects of organic overloads on the soil include damage to or
killing of vegetation, severe clogging of the soil  surface,  and
leaching  of  undegraded  organic materials into the groundwater.
Defining the limiting organic loading rate for a system  must  be
done  on  an individual basis.  However, rule-of-thumb rates have
been developed based on experience.  A maximum BODS^ loading  rate
of  224 kg/ha/day (200 Ibs/acre/day) has been suggested as a safe
loading rate for pulp and paper wastewaters.  (Ref. 6)  A somewhat
higher rate can normally be used with food processing  wastewater
containing  a  higher percentage of sugars rather than starchy or
fibrous material.  Substantially higher loading rates of  greater
than  672 kg/ha/day  (600 Ibs/acre/day) have been used on a short-
term seasonal basis for  infiltration-percolation  systems.   For
overland  flow  systems,  organic loadings in the range of 44.8 -
112  kg/ha/day   (40  to  100   Ibs/acre/day)   have   been   used
successfully.

Suspended  solids  are  generally the major source of operational
problems such as clogged sprinklers  and  clogged  soil  surface.
Pretreatment  to  remove  solids  will  normally  minimize  these
problems.  The soil has a large capacity to adsorb heavy  metals.
Once  this  capacity  is  exceeded,  however,  the  metals may be
leached to  the  groundwater  (under  acid  soil  conditions)   or
inhibit plant growth.
                                    275

-------
Wastewaters  that  have  a  pH  between 6.0 and 9.5 are generally
suitable  for  daily  application  to  most  crops   and   soils.
Wastewaters  with  pH below 6.0 have been successfully applied to
soils that have a large buffering capacity.


The ratio of sodium to other  cations  called  sodium  adsorption
ratio  (SAR),  primarily  calcium  and  magnesium,  can adversely
affect  the  permeability  of  soils,  particularly  clay  soils.
Wastewaters  with  a  SAR  below  8  are considered safe for most
soils.

Spray Irrigation

This is a  method  of  applying  wastewater  on  land  through  a
sprinkler  system.   If  the  soil is permeable and terrain flat,
most of the wastewater percolates into the ground or is  consumed
by evapo-transpiration.  Pollutants in the wastewater are removed
by  biological activity or microorganisms in the top of the soil,
by the mechanical  action  of  straining  through  soil,  and  by
nutrient uptake of plants.

The  size  of spray area required is dependent on the quantity of
wastewater  applied,  schedule  of  application,  waste   charac-
teristics,  climate,  vegetation,  soil  conditions, and terrain.
Spray areas are usually divided into sections, and application of
wastewater rotated between sections; e.g., irrigate for  8  hours
followed  by  UO  hours  with no irrigation to permit the area to
"rest."  This "rest" period promotes reaeration and  drainage  of
the  soil,  microbial  degradation,  and  uptake  of  mineralized
nutrients by plants.

The vegetative cover is an important factor in  spray  irrigation
systems.    Dense   vegetation  reduces  soil  erosion,  improves
percolation, aids evapo-transpiration, and harbors microorganisms
which consume organics in the wastewater.  selection of  suitable
cover   is   governed   by   the   geographical   location,  soil
characteristics, and other  factors.   Reed  canary  grass,  tall
fescue,  and  red top have been successful in Texas.  Mixtures of
local  grasses  and  alfalfa  have  produced  good   results   in
Washington;  and  reed  canary  grass,  and a varied selection of
local grasses have been utilized in Pennsylvania.

Loamy, well-drained soil is most suitable for irrigation systems,
particularly where consumptive use and crop production is a major
goal of the operation.  A minimum soil depth of five  feet  above
groundwater is preferred to prevent saturation of the root zone.

Underdrain  systems  have been used successfully to adapt to high
groundwater or impervious subsoil conditions.   It  is  essential
that  soil  and  geological  testing be conducted of the disposal
area to determine its suitability prior to construction of a  new
system.  Drain tile collection systems may be installed some four
to  eight  feet below ground surface at 15.2 to 45.7 m  (50 to 150
                                  276

-------
ft) intervals.  The wastewater is applied to the  ground  surface
by  spray  irrigation  or other means at a higher rate than would
otherwise be feasible in soils with poor drainage.  At one system
investigated,  the  accumulated  drain   tile   volume   equalled
approximately  half  of  the  applied  volume to the surface, the
remainder presumably being lost to evapo-transpiration.

A properly designed and operated  drain  tile  field  can  be  an
excellent treatment unit.

Construction  costs  are  relatively  high, as shown in the spray
irrigation subsection of Section VIII, but the  operational  cost
is low.

Various  problems  have  occurred using spray irrigation systems.
Sprinkler nozzles have plugged due to solids in  the  wastewater.
During  winter  months, nozzles have plugged due to freezing, and
piping has frozen and ruptured.  Ponding  of  wastewater  on  the
wetted areas must be minimized to prevent odor problems.

In the spray irrigation subsection of Section VIII of this report
is found a rather comprehensive presentation of the components of
a spray irrigation system and their estimated costs.

Ridge and Furrow Irrigation

Ridge-and-furrow  systems  are usually constructed on level areas
with permeable soil.   These  systems  consist  of  a  series  of
rectangularly shaped furrows which receive wastewater from a main
feeder  ditch.  Raw crops provide consumptive use of the moisture
and nutrients applied in the furrows.  The  irrigation  field  is
usually divided into separate plots and the waste discharged to a
different  plot  each  day.  Several problems have occurred using
ridge-and-furrow irrigation systems.  Improperly  sloped  furrows
have  caused  ponding  at  the lower end while weed growth in the
furrows reduces hydraulic capacity.  Hand  cutting  and  spraying
minimize  this  problem.  Ineffective screening of wastewater may
cause solids accumulation in the  furrows  which  creates  odors,
reduces hydraulic capacity, and requires maintenance.

Flood Irrigation

Flood  irrigation  is  a  misnomer  applied to shallow ing basins
created by construction of low  berms  around  an  area  of  very
permeable  soil.   Wastewater is intermittently applied at a rate
approaching the hydraulic conductivity of the  soil,  allowed  to
percolate,  and  the  ground  allowed  to dry.  Occasionally, the
bottom of the spreading basin is disced and  harrowed  to  reduce
pore  clogging  and  aerate  the  soil.  The method is applicable
under very favorable conditions of soil permeability and hot, dry
climate;  e.g.,  some  localities  of  the  interior  valleys  of
California,  Oregon,  and  Washington.   The  method is obviously
relatively inexpensive  in  cost  and  may  be  considered  where
                                    277

-------
conditions are suitable and groundwater quality protection is not
a restriction.

Overland Flow

The  overland  flow  technique  is  a  method  of  land treatment
adaptable to impermeable or poorly drained soils.  The  technique
was pioneered in the U.S. in 195U by the Campbell Soup Company at
Napoleon,  Ohio,  and  was  studied  in  depth  at  the  Campbell
installation at Paris, Texas.  (Ref. 7, 8)  This  method  of  land
treatment  has been used by the city of Melbourne, Australia, for
direct application by flood irrigstion  of  raw  domestic  sewage
(especially during winter months) since 1897 (Ref. 58).

Overland  flow  differs from spray irrigation primarily in that a
substantial portion of the wastewater applied is designed to  run
off  and must be collected and discharged to receiving waters, or
in certain cases where wastewater is produced only during part of
the year, it is stored for deferred application.

Wastewater is applied by sprinklers to the  upper  two-thirds  of
sloped  terraces  that  are  30.5  to  91.U  m  (100 to 300 ft) in
length.  A run-off collection ditch or drain is provided  at  the
bottom  of  each slope.  Treatment is accomplished by bacteria on
the soil surface and within the vegetative litter as  the  waste-
water flows down the sloped, grass-covered surface to the run-off
collection  drains.   Ideally,  the slopes should have a grade of
two to four percent to provide  adequate  treatment  and  prevent
ponding  or  erosion.  The system may be used on naturally sloped
lands or  it  may  be  adapated  to  flat  agricultural  land  by
reshaping the surface to provide the necessary slopes.

The  hydraulic  loading  rates  possible  with  the overland flow
technique may range between  0.6  to  1.8  cm/day  (0.25  to  0.7
in./day)  resulting in a land requirement of about 450 to 1350 sq
m  (50 to 150 acres) plus buffer zone for each mgd applied.

As mentioned previously, the system is especially suited  to  use
with  slowly permeable soils such as clays or clay loams, but may
also be used on sandy soils with proper application and drainage.
With the slowly  permeable  types  of  soil  (and  with  properly
drained   sandy   soil),very   little  water  percolates  to  the
groundwater.  Most of it appears as surface runoff or is consumed
by evapo-transpiration.  A  cover  crop  is  essential  with  the
overland  flow  system  to provide slope protection and media for
the soil bacteria as well as to provide nutrient removal by plant
uptake.  A water tolerant perennial grass, such  as  reed  canary
grass  or  tall  fescue has been found to be suitable to the high
liquid loading rates.
                                 278

-------
Present Practices

Table 84 provides interesting data pertinent  to  existing  spray
irrigation  systems  investigated  during  this  study.  Table 85
shows reported costs incurred for  construction,  operation,  and
maintenance.  Table 86 provides information pertinent to overland
flow treatment systems.

LAGOON TREATMENT SYSTEMS

The  fruits  and  vegetables  processing  industry  has  utilized
lagoons for waste disposal since the  early  1930's.   The  early
lagoons  were  holding  lagoons  that  would  hold all the wastes
generated by a processor during the processing  season.   Holding
lagoons  are  still  popular within the industry, particularly in
the  Midwest.   Other  types  of  lagoons  in   use   today   are
percolation-evaporation   lagoons,   anaerobic  lagoons,  aerobic
lagoons or stabilization lagoons  (oxidation ponds),  and  aerated
lagoons.

Percolation-Evaporation Lagoons

In areas where there is very porous soil and hot, dry weather the
percolation-evaporation   lagoons  usually  perform  efficiently.
Most percolation-evaporation lagoons are  in  the  Southwest  and
California  where there is better probability of finding suitable
soil and climatic conditions.  Thorough site  investigations  for
percolation-evaporation  lagoons  are  necessary.  Data should be
obtained on percolation rates of surface  soils,  horizontal  and
vertical  permeability  of  subsurface  soils  and possibility of
pollution of groundwater aquifiers.  The best soil  type  appears
to  be  a  loamy  sand soil of approximately 85 percent sand, ten
percent silt, and five percent clay with percolation rates up  to
H ft/day.

A  percolation-evaporation lagoon is often operated from 15 cm (6
inches)  to 30 cm {12 inches)  in  depth,  and  raw  wastewater  is
comminuted  or  screened  prior  to  discharge  into  the lagoon.
Lagoons are usually operated in parallel and  alternately  filled
and  allowed  to  drain.   Reed   (Ref.  9)  reports  year  around
operation is possible in certain areas of Arizona with two  weeks
of  filling  followed  by  a  ten-day dry up period in summer and
twenty days in winter.

The national trend among state regulatory  agencies  is  to  look
more  closely  at waste disposal by percolation then has been the
case in the past.  Protection of groundwater quality is gradually
assuming  equal  importance  with  protection  of  surface  water
quality  and there are few places left where a food processor can
indiscriminately percolate wastes into the ground.

Where climatic conditions are  suitable,  as  in  the  southwest,
lined  evaporation ponds have been an effective way to dispose of
difficult to treat wastes such as olive processing  brines.   The
                                   279

-------
                                                TABLE  84




                                  DEMONSTRATED SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Process
Code
PA25
PE27, C028
BT28, PE26
P040
C082, PE53
PE 64
C051
PASO, PI82
GR50
*M32
CEO 3
CT35, P032
T052
BW59, PE69
CH57, PL54
C069, P050
ON25, PE30
No.
Oper.
Days
per
Year
120
180
90

120
180
80
180

150
190
270
365
120
150
180
365
Avg. Waste
Water
Volume
mid
1.9
2.5
2.6
0.3
0.6
7.8
0.1
0.8
0.9
0.5
0,01
38
1.3
1.4
0.4
0,8
0.4
mgd
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.2
2.1
0.04
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.004
10
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
Average
Influent
Cone. (mg/1)
BOD

3,261





600
795
2,390
274

350

2,300

800
TSS

1,391





475
241
420
49

225

1,000

350
Distance
to
Field
KM


1.5
0.8
1.6
1.9
0.03


0.2

2.7
2.4
0.8
0.8
2,4
3.2
MI


0.9
0.5
1
1.2
0.02


0.1

1.7
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
2
Size of
Irrig.
Field
HA
15
32
24
9.7
32
115
18
20
6.0
7.1
10
120
30
49
8.1
10
14
AC
36
80
60
24
80
283
45
50
15
18
25
295
73
120
20
25
35
Aver ate
Application
Rate
cm/day
1.3
0.5
1.0
0.3
1.0
1.2
0.08
0.4
1.4
0.7
0.04
3.2
3.2
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.4
in/day
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.03
0.15
0.5*
0.3
0.02
1.3
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.15
ro

-------
                                                TABLE 85



                             SUMMARY OF REPORTED COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND

                         OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
~— 	 . 	

Process
Code

BN42
CO28
PE26
C082, PE53
PASO, PI82
*M32
CE90
CT35, P032
TO52
CH57, PL52
BN35, ON35
TOO 9


Flow
Volume
mgd
0.3
.4
1,1-1.2
0.15
0.2

0.01
10
0.3
0.1
0.1
3.5
mid
1.1
1.4
.4-4,3
0.5
0.7

.4
36
1.1
.36
.36
12.6

Fields
Distance
From Plant Size
MI


1
1



1.7
1.5
0.8


KM


1.6
1.6



2.7
2.4
1.3


AC
53
80
60
80
50
50
10
300
75
20
35
165
HA
21
32
24
32
20
20
4
120
30
8
14
66


Const.
Cost
$1,000
240
250
250
75
30
100
36
300
30
50
28
500
Year
1969-71
1968
1967-70

1972
1962-73
1966
1951


1970
1960-72
Annual
Oper.
and
Maint.
$1,000

12
16
20
5
45

61
8
5
27
38
ro
oo

-------
                                                TABLE 86


                             SUMMARY OF OVERLAND FLOW TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
Process
Code
BF 26
*M30
SL03
T023
CE90
*M32
SL01
Influent
Flow
mid
1.9
3.0
13
12.5
0.4
0.4
15
mgd
0.5
0.8
3.5
3.3
0.1
0.1
4
Field
Area
HA
48
5
154
100
4
20
134
AC
120
12
385
250
10
50
335
Application
Rate
cm/
day
0.6
1
1.3
0.8
1.1
in/
day
0.25
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.45
Runoff
% of
Infl.
10
60
60
10
25
Influent
Avg. Cone.
BOD
950
190
490
500
1,040
2,780
500
TSS
140
45
245
711
1,100
365
Effluent
Avg. Cone.
BOD
10
65
8
12
5
170
TSS
21
17
24
25
51
Removal
Percent
BOD
99
66
98
98
99
94
TSS
85
62
90
96
95
ro
00

-------
amount  of  evaporation is highly variable depending on location.
Data from the local  weather  bureau  can  be  used  to  estimate
evaporation  and  rainfall  rates  and  their resulting effect on
waste disposal by evaporation.

Holding Lagoons

Holding lagoons are basins large enough to  hold  all  processing
wastewaters  discharged  by  a  plant during a processing season.
Generally, processing within the plant occurs during  the  summer
and fall and the wastes are stored until the next spring and then
discharged during high stream flow.

Holding  lagoons  are  a  common type of disposal facility in the
Midwest and Northeast and have been used for many years.  The ad-
vantages to the processor are:   investments  are  made  in  land
instead of treatment hardware; fairly good treatment results with
little  operation;  the  yearly  cycle of fill and draw coincides
well with the summer process season and spring high stream flows;
and  minimal  sludge  disposal  problems.    The   advantage   to
regulatory agencies is positive regulation of discharges on a cu.
meters/day  basis  during the time when the assimilative capacity
of the receiving water is at its highest.  The main disadvantages
are  possible obnoxious odors,  vector  breeding,  and  pollutant
percolation into groundwaters.

Holding  lagoons  are  often  operated  as parallel fill and draw
basins.  Natural bacteriological activity, primarily  facultative
and  anaerobic  and  to  a limited extent aerobic, stabilizes the
organic matter  in  the  stored  wastewater.   Wind  and  thermal
currents  mix  the  ponds to a limited extent.  After a period of
from  six  to  eight  months,  the  BODS^  and  suspended   solids
concentration may be reduced to a suitable level for discharge.

Table  87  lists effluent qualities and operational variables for
Wisconsin holding lagoon treatment from O'Leary and Berner  (Ref.
10) .  The raw waste concentrations and flows were not reported so
removal  efficiencies and detention times are not known.  Because
the lagoons were reported as holding lagoons, it is  assumed  the
lagoons  retained  a  full  year of process flow.  The discharged
effluents are quite good with BODjj concentrations generally below
30 mg/1 and suspended solids generally below 70 mg/1.

Many processors with existing holding  lagoons  are  using  their
holding  lagoons  as part of a more sophisticated treatment chain
in an attempt to meet more  stringent  discharge  standards,  and
reduce the odor potential of the lagoons themselves.  Some of the
variations are described below.

Some  processors have installed aeration systems in an attempt to
convert the holding lagoon into an aerated  lagoon  with  a  long
retention period.  See the section on Aerated Lagoons.
                                 283

-------
                      TABLE 87

       HOLDING  LAGOON EFFLUENT QUALITIES AND
OPERATIONAL VARIABLES FROM O'LEARY AND BEENER (1973)
Commodity
Vegetables
Sauerkraut
Peas/ Corn
Peas , Corn
Peas, Corn &
Misc. Veg.
Peas , Corn &
Misc. Veg.
Sauerkraut &
Carrots
Peas , Cream
Corn & Carrots
Sauerkraut
Total' Pond
Volume
(million
liters)
238.6
36.8
101.5
118.9
194.2
15.4
37.9
6.89
84.3
No.
Parallel
Ponds.
4
3
3
3
4
1
1
2
2
Effluent
Flow
liters/min
378.5
198.2
227.1
283.9
473.2
189.3
378.5
378.5
113.6
BOD
mg/1
6
40
28
37
17
12
5.4
32
26
S.S.
mg/1


70
7
22
18
14
56
100
                        284

-------
Other   processors  have  combined  holding  lagoons  with  spray
irrigation, before or after the  holding  lagoon.   Advocates  of
spray  irrigation  prior to lagooning report that the strength of
the waste is  sufficiently  reduced  to  minimize  odor  problems
during storage.

One  processor slowly discharges holding lagoon contents into the
municipal system at a nearby town.  The holding lagoon acts as  a
year long equalization tank, and protects the municipal treatment
works against large variations in influent volumes and strength.


Aerobic Lagoons

Aerobic   lagoons  or  stabilization  or  oxidation  lagoons  are
designed to  utilize  principals  of  natural  purification.   In
aerobic   or   stabilization   lagoons  wastewater  organics  are
decomposed  by  a  combination  of  aerobic,   facultative,   and
anaerobic  bacteria.   The  aerobic  bacteria  are  supplied with
oxygen by natural surface aeration and  an  abundance  of  oxygen
releasing  algae.   Bacteria  and algae in aerobic lagoons form a
symbiotic  relationship  which  accelerates  the   treatment   of
wastewaters.   Bacteria aerobically stabilizes the organic matter
with the release  of  carbon  dioxide.   The  carbon  dioxide  is
assimilated  by  algae  in  the  presence  of  sunlight, with the
production of more algae which release  oxygen  for  use  by  the
bacteria.

In  order  to  control  the  bacteria-algae  interaction, a small
degree of engineering design is necessary.  The ponds  work  best
at  a  rather shallow depth but the optimum depth varies with the
season, therefore, an effluent drawoff structure that can control
depths from three to six feet is  desirable.   Inlet  and  outlet
locations  must  harmonize  with  the  pond geometry to give food
mixing and prevent short circuiting.  Ponds in  series  are  more
efficient  than  single  large  ponds because they minimize short
circuiting and allow sedimentation of spent  algae  and  bacteria
before discharge.

Aerobic  lagoons  have  been  used  extensively in the fruits and
vegetables industry.  Forges (Ref. 11) reported that the  canning
industry utilized approximately 29 percent of the total number of
aerobic  lagoons  or  stabilization  ponds used by industry.  The
Missouri Basin Engineering Health Council (Ref. 12)  reported  the
median operational parameters and performance for aerobic lagoons
or  stabilization  ponds used by the canning industry as follows:
BOD5_ loading - 156 kg/ha/day (139 Ibs/acre/day) ; retention time -
38 days; depth - 1.77  m  (5.8  ft);  and  BOD5  reduction  -  98
percent.

There  have been many problems with the use of aerobic lagoons in
the fruits and vegetables industry with the primary problem being
extreme overloading of the ponds.  It appears that optimal design
organic loading is very close to domestic sewage design which  is
                                  285

-------
                                                TABLE 88


                  STABILIZATION LAGOON PERFORMANCE  IN TREATING FOOD PROCESSING WASTES

Product
Apricot,
peach
Apricot,
peach
Apricot,
peach
Apricot,
peach
Cannery
Cannery
Corn
Corn

Pea
Pea

Potato
Tomato
BOD, mg/1
in




















2936
774-3700




337-1050


1000

Tomato
Tomato, citrus
Tomato, citrus
Soup,
tomatoes,
poultry b











out











11-56


17-58








7.8^-35


BOD
Ibs/acre/day

90

800

500

600
4770
786

(6 ponds
in series)
70
(6 ponds
in series)

628
396
662
135


67
(2 ponds in
series)
Detention BOD %
daysj

106

47

78

70
2.5
72
9.6


84


116
17
26
22
17





removed

96a

79a

93a

883
40
90
59


96


91
74-81a
80-8ia
74-75a
85-88a

k
95-99



Reference

Parker (1966)

Parker (1966)

Parker (1966)

Parker (1966)
Canham (1949)
Canham (1949)
Eckenfelder (1958)

Dicksen (1963)
Dicksen (1963)

Dicksen (1963)
Olsen (1964)
Parker (1966)
Parker (1966)
Parker (1966)
Parker (1966)


Gilde (1967)


a - nutrients added b - centrifuged effluent
ro
00

-------
Figure 52 BOD  removal  efficiency relationship  for ponds.
                                                           O
                                                           O
      10
      CO
        in
       tn
            o>
         10
         tn
                                   IT I
                                    oo
                                    (0
         I  I I  I  I  t   I    I
                          I I  I I  I   I   I    I
                                                               2
                                                        eo
                                                   O
                                                   O
 O
 O
 CM
O
O
                     SAtfd '3WI1 NOIlN313a
                               287

-------
56 kg/ha/day (50 Ibs BOD5/acre/day)  for ponds in warmer climates.
For  application  in  colder  climates, organic loading should be
reduced to compensate for  lower  rates  of  microbial  activity.
Most  ponds,  however, have been operated at much higher loads as
shown in Table 88.  The BOD5 removal rates indicate  there  is  a
correlation  with  BOD_5 loading.  The results of Parker (Ref. 13)
are shown in Figure 57.

The advantages of  aerobic  lagoons  are  that  they  reduce  the
suspended  solids  and  colloidal matter, and oxidize the organic
matter.  They are simple, requiring minimal  attention  and  they
are  inexpensive.   The  major problems of aerobic lagoons within
this industry are odor problems which are  apparently  caused  by
overloading   due  to  concentrated  raw  wastes  and  inadequate
capacity for increased production, and high suspended solids  due
to  algae  growths.   Lagoons  are  also  dependent  on  climatic
conditions including sunlight, wind and temperature.


Anaerobic Lagoons

Anaerobic lagoons degrade organic  material  in  the  absence  of
dissolved  oxygen.   The  ponds  are  typically  deep and heavily
loaded with waste.  The organic waste is  degraded  by  anaerobic
bacteria  which  have  a  relatively  slow  reaction rate.  Under
anaerobic conditions, organic materials are converted to methane,
hydrogen  sulfide,  ammonia  and  organic  acids.    With   these
conditions,  undesirable  odors  are generally generated.   If the
odors can be tolerated, the ponds may reduce up to 80 percent  of
the  raw  organic  load.   Another  advantage is that sludge from
other operations can be mixed in the ponds and stabilized.

Some anaerobic lagoons are reported  to  be  relatively  free  of
obnoxious  odors.  A common feature of these ponds is a thick mat
of solids buildup on the pond surface, not unlike  the  scum  mat
which forms in the ordinary anaerobic digester tank in a domestic
sewage  treatment  plant.   This mat or a plastic cover of nylon-
reinforced Hypalon, polyvinly chloride or styrofoam on  the  pond
surface,   helps   to   prevent  odors  through  containment  and
prevention  of  surface  agitation.   Properly  installed  covers
provide a convenient means for odor control and collection of the
by-product methane gas.

Anaerobic  lagoons  are  usually  used  in  a  treatment chain as
primary treatment of screened  cannery  wastewaters.   Subsequent
treatment  is  usually some type of aerobic biological treatment.
Performance data of  anaerobic  ponds  are  shown  in  Table  89.
Optimal  design  criteria  appears  to  be no greater than 320 kg
BOD5>/ha/day  (286 Ibs BODj3/acre/day) .
                                 288

-------
                                             TABLE  39

                         ANAEROBIC LAGOON PERFORMANCE  ON SCREENED FOOD WASTES
ro
oo
UD
Product
Cannery
Citrus
Corn
Corn
Fruit,
sewage
Pea
Pea
Pea blanch
Tomato
Tomato
Tomato
Tomato
Tomato, lima
lbs/1000 cu ft/
mg/1
4600



360-1200


30000
550




day
9.6-430
214
70-104
70-104

110-430
81.5-159
81.5-159

7.5
5.1
.86
2.5-9.9
1975
Deter
Da}
1/6-37
1.3*
6-11.3
6-11. 3*

1/6-1A
2 . 8- 3 . S
2.8-3.S
10
7.4
9.25
37
7.5-10
2.5:
         * Contact anaerobic process

         ** With added sodium nitrate
(lab)
                                                                BOD, %
                                                               Removed
40-95
  87
25-69
  53

50-70
22-29
47-49
  90+
  80
  82
  98
  70+

  40
             Reference
Agardy, et al  (1967)
McNary, et al  (1953)
Canham  (1968T
Canham  (1968)

Norgaard, et ajL  (1960)
Canham  (1968)
Canham  (1968)
Oliver, e_t al  (1955)
Hert  (1958,1950)
Hert  (1948,1950)
Hert  (1948,1950)
Bplittstoesser,
 e_t al  (1969)
Canham  (1950)

-------
Aerated Lagoons

Aerated lagoons are basins in which oxygenation  is  accomplished
mechanically,  usually  by  fixed or floating surface aerators or
diffused air piping systems.  The lagoon is usually 2 to 4.5 m (7
to 15 ft)  deep and relatively small  in  area  when  compared  to
stabilization  ponds.  Two designs are in practice.  The first is
the completely mixed basin  in  which  all  solids  are  kept  in
suspension,  and  stabilization  of organics is entirely aerobic.
The second type is much  more  prevalent  and  is  known  as  the
partially  mixed  or  aerobic-anaerobic  aerated  lagoon.  In the
partially mixed aerated lagoon, oxygen transfer requirements  are
satisfied,  but  heavier solids settle to the bottom of the basin
where   they   undergo   anaerobic   biological    decomposition.
Eckenfelder   and  O'Connor   (Ref.  14)  developed  many  of  the
theoretical   relationships   pertinent   to    aerated    lagoon
performance.    Their   work,   since   substantiated   by  other
investigators, indicates  that  if  sufficient  oxygen  is  being
supplied  to  the process, then BOD5 removal is primarily a func-
tion of detention time, the biological solids concentration,  the
temperature, and the nature of the waste.  It is beyond the scope
of this report to discuss in detail the theoretical consideration
involved,  but general design considerations are discussed below.

Design Considerations - Design considerations for aerated lagoons
are generally as follows:

    1.   BOD5_ removal rate

    2.   Temperature

    3.   Oxygen requirements

    4.   Mixing and geometry

    5.   Nutrients

BOD5_ Removal Rate - When an  aerated  lagoon  is  assumed  to  be
completely mixed, the following relationship can be formulated:

    R = l/(l+kt)

    where:  R = BODj> removal fraction
            t = detention time
            k = removal rate

The  removal rate is waste specific and temperature sensitive and
must be determined by laboratory or  pilot  testing.   Therefore,
for  a specific waste and temperature, the BOD5_ removal is only a
function of detention time  (assuming a completely  mixed  aerobic
system) .
                                290

-------
Temperature - Temperature variations can exert a strong effect on
the  rate  of  BOD5_  removal in aerated lagoons.  How temperature
will affect any specific plant design  will,  of  course,  depend
upon   the  local  climate  and  the  seasonality  of  the  waste
generation.  The  engineer  will  normally  design  unit  process
facilities to meet effluent standards under the worst temperature
conditions.    In   the  fruits  and  vegetables  industry,  most
processing  occurs  during  mild  temperatures   and   thus   the
temperature  effect  on  lagoons  is  less important.  Also, many
north central processors handle waste in long  retention  lagoons
with   discharges   determined  by  water  quality  requirements.
Because of the long  retention  times,  temperature  effects  are
insignificant.   Nevertheless, temperature may affect the aerated
lagoon treatment of  some  commodities  such  as  dry  beans  and
mushrooms.   The  effluent  limitations  and the associated costs
reflect the worst temperature effect.

Oxygen Requirements - In an  aerated  lagoon,  the  total  oxygen
requirements  are  related  to  the  BODJ5 removal and the mass of
biological solids in suspension.  When the biological solids  are
maintained  at  a  low  level,  the  oxygen requirements are then
related only to BOD5 removal.  This relationship follows:

    mg oxygen/day = a* mg BOD5> rem/day

The coefficient a1 can vary from  0.9  to  1.4  for  most  biode-
gradable   wastes.    Frequently  an  extremely  conservative  a'
coefficient of 1.5 is used for design.

Oxygen is usually transferred to the waste in an  aerated  lagoon
by mechanical aerators.  The general oxygen transfer relationship
is presented in the Activated Sludge section.  Generally, aerator
design  can  be based on a transfer rate of 5.96 kg BOD5/KW/hr (2
Ibs BOD5/hp/hr).  This value is, however, temperature dependent.

Mixing and Geometry

Aerators serve two functions in biological  treatment  processes;
the  transfer  of  the  required  oxygen  and inducing sufficient
mixing to maintain uniform oxygen throughout the basin as in  the
case  of  aerobic  lagoons,  and keeping the biological solids in
suspension  in  the  activated  sludge  process.   For  activated
sludge,  the  power  required  for  oxygen  transfer  is  usually
considerably in excess of that required  for  mixing.   In  large
aerobic-facultative   lagoons   or   extended  aeration  systems,
however, power for mixing may control the aerator design.

The oxygen transfer  efficiency  for  most  aerators  is  usually
lagoon  volume  dependent  while the mixing efficiency is usually
geometry dependent.  For most organic mixed liquors, the  minimum
velocity  for  complete  solids suspendsion is 0.12 to 0.15 m/sec
(0.<* to 0.5 ft/sec).  At a H.21 m (1H ft)  lagoon depth,  a  power
of  3.93  to  5.91  KW/1000 cu m (20 to 30 hp/MG) is required for
full suspension.


                                291

-------
                                                 TABLE  90



                          REPORTED AERATED  LAGOON TREATMENT SYSTEM  PERFORMANCE
Process
Code
GR33
TO51
T052
PK60
ST40
; PN26
Volume
mid
0.8
0.4
1.1
0.8
0.8
1.9
mgd
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
Influent Qual.
BOD, mg/1
Ave. (Range)
1,300
(800-2,500)
1,000
1,100
3,280
(1,500-
5,800)
4,090
616
(510-710)
TSS , mg/1
Ave. (Range)
400
(40-620)
690
530
401
(135-825)
270
130
(88-220)
Effluent Qual.
BOD , mg/1
Avee (Range)
26
(18-40)
13
13
26
(8-50)
94
53
(33-70)
TSS, mg/1
Ave. . (Range)
25
(15-35)
44
44
136
(85-270)
41
92
(40-120)
Average
Percent
Reduction
BOD TSS
98
99
99
98
98
91
94
93
92
68
85
30
vo
r\>

-------
However, for the case where  complete  mixing  is  not  required,
uniform dissolved oxygen dispersion is from 1.0 to 2.0 KW/1000 cu
m   (6 to 10 hp/MG).  A single cell aerated lagoon can obtain good
removal of soluble BOD5, but the effluent will contain  suspended
solids in the same concentrations as the mixed liquor.  Usually a
greatly  improved  effluent  can  be  achieved  by  following the
aerated lagoon with a second  polishing  lagoon  where  suspended
solids are allowed to settle.

Nutrients  -  A  proper  nutritional  balance  with  nitrogen and
phosphorus being the most important is  essential  for  efficient
biological  treatment.   This  is  discussed  separately  in this
section because of its importance in treating nutrient  deficient
fruit and vegetable wastes.

Study  Results  -  Table 90 on the following page shows treatment
results reported on  well-designed  aerated  lagoons  which  were
investigated during the preparation of this document.
TRICKLING FILTER

General

The  trickling  filter  provides  a means of secondary biological
treatment which allows the wastewater to trickle over the  filter
media  giving opportunity for formation of a zoogleal film on the
media.  The zoogleal film  is  composed  of  bacterial  organisms
which  oxidize  and  remove suspended and dissolved solids in the
wastewater which it contacts.  As this film builds  up,  it  will
slough  off the media and is usually removed in a clarifier where
it settles  as  humus  sludge.   The  settled  sludge  is  either
returned  to  the  head of the treatment plant to settle with the
primary sludge or is managed separately.

The circular filter media bed, usually 0.9 to 2.4 m (3 to  8  ft)
deep, consists of rock, slag, broken stone, coal, bricks, plastic
material,  or  other  durable insoluble material with enough pore
space to allow good ventilation throughout the bed and permit the
wastewater*s passage through the bed without "ponding" due to the
heavy zoogleal growth.  The most popular media  today  is  molded
plastic.   The  bed  consists of pre-fab, honeycombed units which
are usually stacked relatively high.

When the wastewater completes its flow through the media,  it  is
collected  in  an  underdrainage  system.   The  underdrainage is
designed to allow  ventilation  throughout  the  filter  bed  and
promote aerobic organisms in the bacterial growth.

The  wastewater  is  uniformly  dispersed  over  the filter-media
surface by a rotary type  distributor  or  a  fixed  nozzle  dis-
tributor.   The  rotary  type distributor consists of two or more
horizontal pipes supported a few inches above the filter bed by a
central column.  The wastewater enters the column and is  fed  to
                               293

-------
each of the horizontal pipes (arms).  Each arm has orifices along
its  length  which  distribute  the wastewater to the media.  The
jet-like action from these orifices causes the whole distribution
system  (central column, arms)  to rotate, thereby  allowing  equal
dispersion of wastewater over the entire surface area of the bed.

Recirculation  is  often  used  to  increase  the  efficiency  of
trickling filters.  A portion of the effluent  (from  either  the
trickling  filter or final clarifier)  is returned to the influent
wastewater flow.  This increases the  contact  time  between  the
wastewater  and the zoogleal film and seeds the lower portions of
the  bed  with  active  organisms  to  promote  a  more  thorough
treatment.   Recirculation  also  promotes  more  continuous  and
uniform  growth  sloughings,  thereby  preventing   ponding   and
enhancing   ventilation.   In  addition,  recirculation  prevents
intermittent drying of the growth.

Design Considerations

There are three classifications of  trickling  filters;  standard
rate, high rate, and roughing filters.  These differ by hydraulic
and organic loadings applied.

The  standard rate filter hydraulic range is 1.0 to 4.1 cu m/day/
sq m (25 to 100 gal/day/sq ft), and its organic range  is  80  to
400  kg  BOD5/1000  cu  m (5 to 25 Ibs BOD5/1000 cu ft) of filter
media.  Its bed depth is usually 1.8 to 2.4m (6 to  8  ft) .   It
may or may not use recirculation.

The  high-rate  filter  hydraulic  range  is  4.091  to  40.91 cu
m/day/sq m (100 to 1000 gal/day/sq ft), and its  organic  loading
range  is 400 to 4800 kg/ BOD5/1000 cu m  (25 to 300 Ibs BOD5/1000
cu ft)  of filter media.  Bed depth is normally 3 to 5 ft.   Under
most circumstances it will have recirculation.

The  roughing  filter  is  actually  a  high-rate  filter with an
organic loading exceeding 4800 kg BOD5/1000 cu m  (300  Ibs  BOD5/
1000  cu  ft)  of filter media.  Overall BOD5_ reductions are lower
than a high-rate filter (40 to 70  percent  removal  efficiency)  .
This  type of filter is used primarily to reduce the organic load
on subsequent treatment processes   (a  second  trickling  filter,
activated  sludge,  etc.).   The roughing filter is often used in
treatment processes which receive a  strong,  organic  industrial
wastewater.   Plastic  media  is often utilized with an extremely
deep filter bed,  a  high  recirculation  rate,  and  forced  air
ventilation.

Some  trickling  filter  treatment  processes utilize a two-stage
method.  That is,  two  trickling  filters  in  series.   As  was
mentioned  in  the  case  of  the  roughing  filter,  it could be
necessary due to the organic level of the wastewater.
                                294

-------
ACTIVATED SLUDGE

General

The activated sludge process is  a  biological  treatment  system
where  wastewater  is  mixed  with  an  acclimated  suspension of
microorganisms in an aeration basin or tank.  The  microorganisms
remove the organics from the wastewater and use this food for new
cell  growth.   This  process  requires  the  addition of oxygen,
usually by either mechanical aerators or by diffused air from air
compressors.  The microbiological growths are then separated from
the treated waste by settling  in  a  secondary  clarifier.   The
settled  sludge  is  then recirculated back to the aeration basin
for mixing with the aeration basin influent.

The  activated  sludge  process  is  presently  being   used   by
approximately  fifteen  to  twenty  processors  in  the fruit and
vegetable processing industry.  Table 91 lists  performance  data
pertinent  to  the  better  activated  sludge.  Plants not listed
either lacked performance data,  or  were  not  functioning  well
because of design or operating deficiencies.  As can be seen from
the  table the process is capable of outstanding performance when
conservatively designed to anticipate unfavorable  variations  in
waste   volume,   characteristics,   ambient   temperature,  etc.
Pretreatment in the form of pH control, nutrient addition,  solid
separation,  BOD!3  reduction,  etc.  may  be  required  to insure
optimum performance of the activated sludge treatment module.

Design Considerations

Commonly, the  industry  uses  a  modification  of  the  standard
activated  sludge  designs  utilized  for  treatment  of domestic
sewage.   The  design  modifications  normally  include  extended
retention  times  (normally 21 hours or longer), completely mixed
aeration basin, and larger secondary clarifiers.

The complete mix method is usually preferred when treating fruits
and vegetables wastes because:

    1.   When  completely  mixed,  the  aeration  tank  partially
         serves  as  an  equilization basin to smooth out organic
         load variations which have a harmful effect  on  a  plug
         flow system;

    2.   In the completely mixed system, the  oxygen  utilization
         rate  is  constant  throughout  the  tank  and  aeration
         equipment can be equally spaced;

    3.   The lined earthen basins, which are  normally  used  for
         aeration   because   they   are   more  economical  than
         reinforced concrete or steel, are easier  to  design  as
         completely mixed aeration basins.
                                295

-------
                                                •TABLE /91


                         REPORTED ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Process
Code
GR32

BN43

BN47
TO50

T051

SL01

ST01

SD03
Average
Volume
mid
1.9

1.5

1.1
5.7

6.1

19

1.5

1.9
mgd
0.5

0.4

0.3
1.5

1.6

5.0

0.4

0.5
Influent Qual.
BOD, mg/1
Ave. (Range)
4,000
(1,900-9,000)
370
(240-730)
320
500
(30-1,600)
1,900
(900-2,500)
520
(420-600)
3,900
(1,000-9,000)
5,700*
TSS , mg/1
Ave. (Range)
170
(80-500)
220
(120-400)
170
20
(6-40)
320
(100-400)
360
(200-850)
1,440
(350-5,100)
1,200
Effluent Qual.
BOD , mg/1
Ave . ( Range )
10
(2-32)
11
(3-18)
20
11
(3-30)
15
(3-90)
25

165
(50-490)
450*
TSS, mg/1
Ave. (Range)
5
(1-20)
10
(3-40)
19
10
(1-20)
15
(5-65)
30

140
(10-300)
190
Average
Percent
Reduction
BOD TSS
99

97

94
98

99

95

96

92
97

95

89
50

95

92

90

84
ro
to
CTl
           *  Measured as COD

-------
           TABLE  91    (Continued)
vo
Process
Code
BN26
BD34
*C54
CS08
PN25
Average
Volume
mid
0.4
0.8
4.6
1.9
1.9
mgd
0.1
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.5
Influent Qual.
BOD, mg/1
Ave. (Range)
580
(100-1,800)
600
(90-1,800)
260
(20-450)
3,500
(2,000-
6,500)
210
(20-700)
TSS , mg/1
Ave. (Range)
230
(40-1,000)
450
(80-1,200)
140
(10-600)
4,500
(1,700-
8,300)
160
(30-480)
Effluent Qual.
BOD , mg/1
Ave . ( Range )
15
(6-20)
43
(15-90)
12
(2-90)
15
(10-30)
7
(5-21)
TSS , mg/1
Ave . ( Range
20
(12-34)
45
(25-160)
20
(2-140)
35
(20-60)
36
(15-59)
Aver
Perc
Reduc
BOD
97
93
95
99
97
age
ent
tion
TSS
92
90
87
99
78
            *  Measured as COD

-------
The principal reasons for the longer detention times are:

    1.   The wastes are usually  higher  in  BOD5  than  domestic
         sewage  and a longer period of aeration time is required
         for stabilization.

    2.   Operational flexibility.

    3.   Better ability to handle peak and shock loads.

    4.   Simplification  of   operation   with   a   minimum   of
         operational control.

The  larger secondary clarifiers are generally needed because the
aerated  mixed  liquor  often  has   relatively   poor   settling
characteristics when compared to domestic waste.

The  design  of  an  activated  sludge  process  for a fruits and
vegetables plant requires  knowledge  or  evaluation  of  several
design parameters.  These parameters include:

    1.   BOD5 removal chracteristics;
    2.   Oxygen requirements;
    3.   Sludge production;
    U.   Oxygen transfer;
    5.   Solid-liquid separation;
    6.   Nutritional requirements;
    7.   Temperature effects.

BODj>  Removal  Characteristics  -  A  model for BOD5 removal in a
completely mixed activated sludge system is:

          Se=(Sa-Se)
              Xakt

          Where:  Se = effluent soluble BODS
                  Sa = influent BOD5
                  Xa = aeration tank mixed liquor volatile
                        suspended solids (MLVSS)
                   k = reaction rate
                   t = aeration detention time

This model is first  order  and  assumes  a  linear  relationship
between  concentration  of BOD5_ remaining and removal rate.  With
this model the reaction rate can be determined  graphically  from
experimental data.

Oxygen  Requirements  -  In  the  aeration  tank  there  are  two
microbiological  processes  taking  place   simultaneously   that
require  oxygen,  organic  growth   (synthesis), and organic decay
(endogeneous respiration).  The  total  oxygen  required  can  be
computed from the following relationship:

          0^/day  (mg) = a*BODS  (mg)/day + b' MLVSS  (mg)



                              298

-------
The  coefficient  a1 can be determined from the slope and b1 from
the intercept of a plot of Ib O2/(day)/(mg MLVSS)  versus mg  BODS
removed/(day) / (mg  MLVSS).   The  data  to  make  the  plot would
normally be experimental data collected from  a  bench  or  pilot
scale treatment system.

Sludge Production - Sludge will accumulate in an activated sludge
system because of the following:

    1.   Synthesis of new cells;

    2.   Accumulation of non-biodegradeable suspended solids
         present in the influent waste, and;

    3.   Oxidation of aeration tank volatile suspended solids.

Sludge  accumulation  can  be  computed  from  the  following re-
lationships:

            Sludge  (Ibs VSS/day) = F mg VSS/day
                                 + mg BOD5 rem/day
                                 - b mg MLVSS

            Where:  F = that fraction of the volatile solids
                         in the influent waste that are not
                         biodegraded during the aeration pro-
                         cess.
                    a = fraction of BOD^ converted to new cells
                    b = fraction of the total aeration vola-
                         tile solids oxidized per day

Oxygen Transfer - The rate oxygen is transferred to wastewater in
an  aeration  basin  is  primarily  dependent  upon   the   basin
temperature,  the dissolved oxygen concentration in the basin and
the characteristics of the wastewater  which  alters  the  oxygen
transfer in comparison to clean water.

Solid-Liquid  Separation  -  To  produce  low  BODj> and suspended
solids concentrations in the effluent an activated  sludge  plant
must  perform solid-liquid separation efficiently.  The clarifier
following  the  aeration  basin  performs  this  function.   When
treating  fruit  and  vegetable  wastes  which  are  often highly
soluble, many activated sludge plants produce a bulking  or  poor
settling  mixed  liquor.   In order to minimize this problem, the
following factors should be considered:

    1.   Clarifier Overflow Rate  -  Clarifiers  within  domestic
         activated  sludge plants are usually designed at 32.3 cu
         m/day/sq m (800 gal/day/ sq ft).  For soluble  wastes  a
         maximum  design  criteria of 16.45 cu m/day/sq. m.  (400
         gal/day/sq ft) is justified.
                                  299

-------
    2.   Clarifier Depth - Because the sludge sometimes tends  to
         bulk  in  a  deep  clarifier,  long  detention  time  is
         justified.  A suggested minimum side water depth of 3.66
         m (12 ft) is often required for sludge blanket control.

    3.   Sludge Removal Mechanism - A suction removal is superior
         to a scraper unit because of the fluffy  nature  of  the
         sludge.

    H.   Sludge Recycle - A minimum  capability  of  100  percent
         recycle because of the voluminous nature of the sludge.

    5.   Sludge Management - The  food  to  microorganisms  (F/M)
         ratio (mg BOD5/mg MLVSS/day)  in the aeration tank should
         be  maintained  at  a  low constant value.  Mixed liquor
         with F/M ratios exceeding 0.2 usually show poor settling
         characteristics.

    6.   Nutrients - This was discussed in a previous section.

Activated sludge systems which perform poorly in  treating  fruit
and  vegetable  wastes  usually  exhibit  very poor liquid-solids
separation.   The  above  factors  if  considered  and   properly
investigated should minimize these problems.

Temperature  Effects - Temperature variations can exert an effect
on  biological  treatment  processes.    The  rate  of  biological
reactions   will   generally  increase  with  temperature  up  to
approximately 30°C.  The effect of temperature  reduction  is  to
slow  bacterial  metabolism.   The exact degree of slow-down, and
it's effect on  the  process  efficiency  is  waste  and  process
specific.   Generally,  treatment  processes  with long detention
times (e.g.,   aerated  lagoons),  are  sensitive  to  temperature
effects  and  comparatively short term activated sludge treatment
stystems  are   not   significantly   affected   by   temperature
variations.
MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION

The  action  of  a  rapid  sand  filter  consists  of  straining,
flocculation,  and  sedimentation.   Particles  are  removed   by
entrapment  between  grains  of the filter media primarily at the
filter's surface.  The use of coarser  sand  or  anthracite  coal
minimizes  the  premature  clogging of the filter surface.  Mixed
media filters are special versions of  rapid  sand  filters  that
permit  deeper  bed-penetration by gradation of particle sizes in
the bed.  Up-flow filters  are  also  special  designs  of  rapid
filters.

Filters  are  cleaned  by reverse flushing or backwashing.  Clean
water is forced up through the  filter  media  washing  away  the
material that had been removed by the filter's action.  The dirty
                               300

-------
backwash  water  is  returned to a previous step in the treatment
process for further treatment.  The filters are equipped with  an
automatic  backwash feature which initiates a backwash cycle when
a preset pressure difference between the top and  bottom  of  the
filter  indicates  the  pores  are  clogging  and  solids removal
capability rapidly decreasing.

Performance of filters will depend  on  designr  hydraulic  flow,
wastewater  characteristics,  and  pretreatment of the wastewater
prior to filtration.  Proper design is specific to the wastewater
being treated, and laboratory testing is very important prior  to
selection  of  a  filter.   Often,  chemical  coagulation  is  an
essential prelude to filtration if the suspended solids are  very
small,  e.g.,  algae.   Chlorination  prior to filtration is also
frequently necessary to minimize slime growth in the filter which
causes clogging and odor problems.

As previously indicated, the use of filters  occur  mainly  as  a
final  step  in  a  treatment  chain  to  remove suspended solids
sufficiently to meet regulatory agency  criteria.   Stabilization
ponds,  for  example, are often very effective in removal of BOD5_
from wastewater but produce effluents with high suspended  solids
due  to  algae  growth.   Experience  with domestic wastewater at
Lancaster,   California,    (Ref.   25)    indicates   that    high
concentrations  of  algae  can  be removed with properly designed
filters preceded by  chemical  coagulation  and  floculation.   A
second use for filters is the following unit process to secondary
clarifiers of activated sludge systems.  Here, the purpose of the
filter  is  to remove suspended solids which have not settled out
in the secondary clarifier, a rather common circumstance  in  the
activated  sludge  treatment of wastes generated by the fruit and
vegetable processing industry.

It is believed that sand, anthracite, or mixed media filters will
be  increasingly  used  for  tertiary  treatment  of  fruit   and
vegetable  processing  wastewater  in  order  to remove suspended
solids  carry-over  from  secondary  treatment  processes.   Four
processors  who  presently use filters were included in the field
investigations conducted for this study.

A slow sand filter is a specially prepared bed of sand  or  other
mineral  fines  on  which  doses of wastewater are intermittently
applied and from which effluent is removed  by  an  underdrainage
system.   BOD5  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 is
often   of   a  high  quality  with  BOD5_  and  suspended  solids
concentrations  of  less  than  10  mg/1.   Table  92  shows  the
performance  of  a rapid sand filter on activated sludge effluent
from a processor.

Additional filtration techniques and other treatment methods have
been evaluated (Ref. 50,  51)  for  use  in  upgrading  municipal
wastewater   stabilization  ponds  to  remove  suspended  solids,
                                 301

-------
                               TABLE  92

               RAPID MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION PERFORMANCE
                  WITH ACTIVATED SLUDGE  EFFLUENT (1)

                         Activated Sludge         Multi-Media Filtration
                             Effluent                   Effluent	
Raw Waste
Influent
  BOD5                   BOD5         TSS         BODS              TSS
Seasonal
 Average(2) 4096          20.6         28.1         8.1                8.4

Maximum
 Month(2)                 34.0         78.1        13.0                9.2

Maximum
 Day(3)                  114.0        216.0        32.0               20.0
(1)  Grape processing - GR32
(2)  Logarithmic averages
(3)  Actual maximum values
                                 302

-------
                                                       TABLE  93
                                   EFFLUENT QUALITY FOR VARIOUS TREATMENT PROCESSES
       Process
    Chemical Treatment  (Solids
     Contact)
    Granular or Mixed Media
     Filtration w/Chem.
    Intermittent Sand Filtration
    Sand Filtration w/Chem.
     Coag.
CO      J
o
00  Extended Aeration
    Total Containment
    Activated Carbon
    Reverse Osmosis
    Electrodialysis
    Ion Exchange
    Dissolved Air  Floatation
    Microstraining
    Ultrafiltration

      *P04_ only
     **NH3-N03 only
S.S. COD
mg/1 mg/1
0-7 17
0-5 13-17
0-3 —
2-5 26
35 —
0.6 10-12
— 0-1.0
— 8.0
— 3.7
6 3
5 6
0 20
BOD5
mg/1
2.9-5
3.1-5.8
3-5
2-3
20
1.0
	
—
	
—
3

-------
primarily in the form of algae.  While raw waste  waters  treated
in  this  industry  are typically more concentrated than domestic
sewage, the algae types and BOD5 and TSS concentrations which are
produced by stabilization lagoons and  oxidation  ponds  in  this
industry  are  largely  identical.  Therefore, filtration methods
considered in these publications as applied  to  the  fruits  and
vegetables  industry  would be expected to achieve the same range
of effluent quality experienced in municipal  application.   Table
93  presents the effluent quality and costs for various treatment
processes  for  municipal  application.   The  actual  cost   for
application  of  these  methods in this industry may be different
from those presented, however the order  of  magnitude  indicated
compares  well  with  that  presented  in  Section  VIII  of this
document.
SLUDGE HANDLING

General

The handling, treatment,  and  disposal  of  sludge  is  a  major
capital  and  operating problem associated with the separation of
solids in primary clarifiers, secondary clarifiers, air flotation
tanks, etc.  Due to the relatively high BODjj and suspended solids
levels, the volumes of sludge generated in the treatment of  food
processing wastes are usually greatly in excess of sludge volumes
generated  during  the  treatment  of domestic waste for the same
wastewater volume treated.   Wherever  feasible,  therefore,  the
design  engineer  for  a food processing waste treatment facility
should use treatment chains which incorporate  treatment  modules
that  produce  a  minimal  amount of waste sludge on a continuous
basis; e.g., aerated  ponds,  land  disposal,  extended  aeration
activated sludge, etc.

A  number of alternate methods are practiced for sludge treatment
and disposal, for municipal  waste.   For  the  purpose  of  this
study,  however,  discussion (and cost estimates in Section VIII)
will be limited to aerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion, vacuum
filtration and sludge handling.

Aerobic Digestion

The aerobic stabilization of biological solids resulting from the
treatment of wastewaters is the basis for such  modifications  of
the  activated  sludge process as "total oxidation" and "extended
aeration."  However, in many treatment  plants  separate  aerobic
digesters  are  used  for the stabilization of mixtures of excess
activated  and  primary  sludges.   The  mechanism  of  microbial
degradation  is  different  for  the various mixtures of sludges.
The degree of stabilization of the  organic  solids  also  varies
with sludge type.

Mechanism  -  The  mechanism  by  which  wastewater  sludges  are
stabilized aerobically is dependent  upon  the  type  of  sludge,
                                304

-------
i.e.,  primary,  waste  activated,  or  a  combination.   Aerobic
stabilization of primary sludge is a sequential  process  similar
to  that  of anaerobic sludge digestion.  The particulate organic
material must be converted to  soluble  compounds  which  can  be
subsequently  used  by  the  microbial  population as a source of
nutrients and  energy.   Bacterial  utilization  of  the  aqueous
compounds produces carbon dioxide, water, and cell material.


The  aerobic  stabilization  of  primary  sludge  results  in  an
environment in which the food  to  microorganism  ratio  is  low.
Therefore, the organic material originally in the sludge particle
is  almost  quantitatively  converted to bacterial cell material,
and the change in the volatile solids concentration  is  minimal.
However, the aerobic stabilization of excess activated sludge may
be  considered  to  be  a  continuation  of  the activated sludge
process.  Therefore, little additional cell synthesis occurs, and
the primary process involves endogenous respiration of cell  mass
to water, carbon dioxide, mineralized products, and ash.

Application  -  the successful application to fruit and vegetable
processing wastewater sludges depends on the type of sludge,  the
organic  loading  and  the  detention  time.  Organic loading and
detention time are dependent variables.  For a system treating  a
mixture of activated sludge and primary sludge, the efficiency of
volatile  solids  removal  is correlated to sludge age at organic
loadings between 640 and 1760 kg/1000 cu m/day  (40  to  110  Ibs
VS/1000  cu  ft/day) volatile solids and detention times of 15 to
30 days.   The  equation  describing  the  relationships  between
sludge age and efficiency of volatile solids removal is:

Volatile Solids Removal  (percent)  = 2.84 + 35.07 log (sludge age)

Sludge  age  is  defined  as  the ratio of the weight of volatile
solids in the digestor to the weight of volatile solids added per
day.   There  exists  an  optimum  sludge  age  beyond  which  no
significant  reduction  in  the  concentration of volatile solids
occurs.

The recommended loadings  for  aerobically  treated  mixtures  of
primary  and  activated  sludges  or primary and trickling filter
sludges is less than 1600 kg total solids/1000 cu m/day (100  Ibs
TS/1000  cu  ft/day), and the minimum suggested detention time is
20 days.  The recommended  detention  time  for  waste  activated
sludge is about ten days; however, fifteen days is preferred.

Design  of  the  aerobic  digestion  tanks,  either  circular  or
rectangular, will depend on a variety of  factors  including  the
following:

    1.   Influent TSS and BODS concentrations.
                                  305

-------
    2.   Percent  solids  removal  in   primary   and   secondary
         clarifiers.

    3.   Percent solids to digester from clarifiers.

    U.   Required retention time.

Major components of aerobic systems include  the  tank,  floating
mechanical aerator, and sludge pumps.

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic  digestion  in  separate digestion tanks is a rarity in
treating sludge from fruit and vegetable waste treatment  because
of  the seasonal nature of the operation and operational problems
associated with anaerobic digestion.  Anaerobic  digestion  is  a
difficult  process to control as temperature, pH, and sludge feed
must be closely regulated.  Therefore, aerobic digestion, because
of its simplicity, appears to be better suited to most fruit  and
vegetable waste treatment systems.

VACUUM FILTRATION

Vacuum  filters  have been widely accepted as a mechanical method
of  sludge  dewatering  with  both   domestic   wastewaters   and
industrial  wastewaters.   The rotary continuous vacuum filter is
an economical method of sludge dewatering if the unit is properly
designed and the  operation  is  optimized.   For  some  sludges,
chemical  conditioning is required.  This technology is advancing
rapidly and should reduce the cost of operating vacuum filtration
units for most purposes.  (Ref. 23).

A vacuum filter basically consists of a  cylindrical  drum  which
rotates  partially submerged  (usually 25 percent) in a vat or pan
of sludge.  The filter  drum  is  divided  into  compartments  by
partitions  or seal strips.   A vacuum is applied between the drum
deck and filter medium causing filtrate (liquid) to be  extracted
and  filter  cake  to be retained on the medium during the pickup
and cake drying cycle.  The discharge cycle varies with the  type
of  filter  medium  used.  An agitator is suspended in the vat to
keep the sludge solids  in  suspension.   Four  types  of  vacuum
filters  are  drum-type  filters, string discharge filters, belt-
type filters and coil-type filters.

The dewatering rate of a vacuum filter sludge cake has been found
to be  a  complex  phenomena  which  cannot  be  expressed  as  a
convenient equation form.  Because of the interaction between the
variables  affecting  final  cake  moisture  content, correlation
methods derived from both empirical analysis and theory have been
employed.  The basic objective of vacuum filtration of sludge  is
dewatering  to  the  degree  required  for  the particular method
employed for sludge cake disposal  and  to  achieve  the  desired
moisture  removal  at  the  least possible cost.  It is essential
that sludge dewatering by vacuum filtration be carried out by  an
                                  306

-------
integrated   installation  that  would  be  reliable,  reasonably
consistent in  performance,  and  flexible  enough  to  meet  the
varying  conditions  normally  encountered in handling wastewater
sludges.

Specific objectives to be achieved in a given  sludge  dewatering
plant must be a compromise between a number of desirable results,
such  as a low sludge-cake moisture content, a high filter yield,
high-solids recovery, good filtrate clarity,  low  unit  cost  of
sludge  cake  production, and ease of vacuum filter operation and
maintenance.  It  is  not  possible  to  maximize  all  of  these
desirable  objectives.   Rather,  it  is  the  task of the design
engineer or plant operator to  achieve  the  optimum  balance  of
these  specific  objectives for a particular wastewater treatment
plant.

Rickter (Ref. 24) reported the use of vacuum filtration  for  the
dewatering  of  potato waste primary sludge and activated sludge.
For  this  waste,  the  solids  concentration  of   the   primary
clarifier-thickener  underflow  averaged about 48 percent and the
vacuum filter cake averaged 62 percent solids without coagulants.
When an anionic polymer was added to the silt water entering  the
clarifier-thickener,  the  underflow solids increased to about 53
percent, and  the  filter  cake  solids  increased  to  about  72
percent.

Final  disposal  of  sludge  primarily  from vacuum filtration or
aerobic digestion, is effected by either land  filling  of  caked
solids,  or  land spreading of digested sludge through irrigation
equipment or tank spreaders.

CHLORINATION

The disinfection of domestic and industrial wastewater is usually
achieved  through  chlorination.    Chlorine,   when   added   to
wastewaters,  forms  various  compounds including HOCl, OCC1, and
chloramines.  The  germicidal  effect  is  believed  due  to  the
reaction  of  the  chlorine  compounds  achieved  with  essential
enzymes of the bacterial cell,  thereby  stopping  the  metabolic
process.  Among the conditions affecting germicidal effectiveness
are  pH,  temperature,  contact  time,  and  mixing chlorine dose
concentration.  Residual pH affects germicidal power through  its
relation  to  the  formation  of  HOCl  which  is many times more
effective than OCC1 and chloramines.

Chlorine is used principally to disinfect treated effluent  prior
to  its discharge into surface waters.  To be effective, chlorine
requires a contact time of  not  less  than  fifteen  minutes  at
maximum  flow  rates at which time there should remain a residual
of not less than  0.2  to  1.0  mg/1.   Under  these  conditions,
chlorination  of effluent from secondary treatment will generally
result in more than a 99.9  percent  reduction  in  the  coliform
content  of the effluent.  The range of chlorine dosage generally
                                  307

-------
required for disinfection varies from 3 to 30 mg/1 depending upon
the quality of the effluent.

BODf> can be reduced by the use of  chlorine.    Approximately  two
mg/1 of BOD5 is satisfied by each mg/1 of chlorine absorbed up to
the  point at which orthotolidine residual is produced.   Chlorine
alone can reduce BOD5 by as much as 15 to 35   percent.    Chlorine
for  BOD5_  reduction,  however,  is not cost-effective  and is not
recommended.

An important potential use for chlorine is to kill algae prior to
algae removal operations  performed  on  lagoon  effluent.   Dead
algae  are much easier to remove by flotation, sedimentation, and
filtration than are live  algae,  according  to  experience  with
removal  of  algae  from  domestic  wastewater  lagoon  effluents.
Chlorination  of  algae  laden  lagoon  effluents  requires  high
dosages  of  chlorine  (up  to  25  mg/1)  because chloramines are
formed.  Chloramines are not as effective a killing agent as  the
other compounds chlorine forms in water.

Chlorine  is  also effective in the oxidation of hydrogen sulfide
and is used for odor control.  It may be applied  whenever  there
is a decomposition odor problem.  In general, control will result
from the application of t to 6 mg/1 and without the production of
a residual.

Chlorine  is  available  as liquified chlorine, in powdered form,
and in solutions.  Liquified chlorine in 68 kg  (150 pound)  and
970  kg  (1  ton)  cylinders  is  genrally  used  for all but the
smallest    facilities.     Chlorination    facilities     include
chlorinators,   chlorine   handling   and  storage,  mixing,  and
detention facilities for effluent.  Since chlorine is a hazardous
substance, special safety precautions in storage and handling are
required.

Chlorination is employed for  final  wastewater  disinfection  by
several  fruit  and vegetable processors in the U.S, in each case
on a secondary effluent prior  to  direct  discharge to  surface
waters.

CARBON ADSORPTION

Activated  carbon  has  proven  its ability to adsorb the organic
material in wastewater.  Because activated carbon does   not  rely
on  bacterial  action,  it can remove both biodegradable and non-
biodegradable material.

Carbon  adsorption  is  an  expensive  tertiary  treatment  step,
usually  following  conventional  secondary  treatment  units when
high water quality is desired.  Because of  its  relatively  high
cost  and  tertiary  application,  carbon adsorption has not been
used for wastewater treatment by fruit and vegetable processors.
                                    308

-------
Carbon adsorption is a unit operation in which  activated  carbon
adsorbs soluble and trace organic matter from wastewater streams.
Either  granular  or  powdered  activated  carbon  can be used to
remove up to 98  percent  of  colloidal  and  dissolved  organics
measured  as  BOD^  and  COD in a wastewater stream.   The organic
molecules which make up the organic material attach themselves to
the surface of the activated  carbon  and  are  thereby  removed.
Larger  particles  should  be  filtered  from  the  wastewater in
treatment systems  upstream  from  carbon  adsorption  since  its
effectiveness  is  substantially  reduced  by  gross particles of
organic matter.  Since this technology is well established in the
water treatment industry, it presumably can be operated with  the
properly  conditioned  feedstream  on  an  efficient and reliable
basis.

Operation and maintenance problems do not seem to be significant,
particularly if the quality of the  feedwater  is  maintained  by
appropriate  upstream  treatment  systems.   Regeneration  is  no
problem in the packed and expanded bed systems and presumably can
be worked out for powdered carbon systems before the mid 1980's.

ELECTRODIALYSIS

Electrodialysis is one of several  commercial  systems  available
for  removal  of  TDS.   It  has  not  been  applied to fruit and
vegetable wastewaters, and would be in the future  only  if  less
costly  methods  of  dissolved  solids removal were not feasible.
Probable application then would be on high chloride brine wastes;
e.g., from pickle processing.  If land is available and  climatic
conditions  suitable, lined evaporation ponds would be normally a
more economical solution.

The electrodialysis process incorporates  a  number  of  chambers
made  by  alternating  anionic  and  cationic  membranes that are
arranged with contaminated wastewater solution  in  the  chambers
between  the  differing  membranes.   Electric current is applied
across the membrane chambers causing the cations to  move  toward
the  cathode  and  the  anions  toward the anode.  However, after
passing from the chambers containing the wastewater into adjacent
brine chambers,  the  ions  can  travel  no  further  toward  the
electrodes.   Their  path  is  blocked  by  a  membrane  that  is
impermeable to that particular ionic species.   In  this  manner,
the wastewater stream is depleted while the adjacent brine stream
is enriched in the ions which are to be removed.

Power  costs  limit the salinity of the effluent wastewater after
treatment in the electrodialysis system to approximately  300  to
500  mg/1  of  salt.   This  limitation is imposed because of the
increase in electrical resistance in the treated wastewater  that
would occur at lower concentrations of salt.

The  residual pollution from an electrodialysis unit would be the
brine solution used and generated in the chambers  of  the  unit.
This  brine  solution might be handled by a blowdown system which
                                309

-------
removes  the  quantity  of  salt  added   per   unit   of   time.
Electrodialysis  is  an  old process in fairly widespread use for
the purpose  of  desalting  brackish  water.   The  treatment  of
wastewater in electrodialysis systems has not been done except on
an  experimental  basis.  There is no reported application of the
process on wastewater from the  fruit  and  vegetable  processing
industry.   The  process,  however, does have the potential to be
used in this industry for difficult desalting applications.

REVERSE OSMOSIS

Reverse osmosis is a process for removal of dissolved  solids  in
wastewater.  Generally used in tertiary applications, this method
pressurizes   the   mineralized   feedwater  on  one  side  of  a
semipermeable membrane  (more permeable  to  pure  water  than  to
dissolved salts and other ions), forcing the pure solvent through
the membrane and leaving a concentrated brine.  There are several
types of equipment on the market, including tubular, flat, spiral
wound, and hollow fiber membranes.

The  success  of  the  system  is  dependent  upon  selection and
maintenance of the membrane.  Reverse osmosis has been  effective
for  the  treatment  of pulp and the paper mill wastes, acid mine
drainage, and municipal supplies with  a  high  mineral  content.
Like  electrodialysis,  reverse osmosis would find application in
this industry  primarily  for  the  treatment  of  high  TDS  and
chloride brine wastes; e.g., pickle brine wastewater.

There  has  been  no  direct  application > of reverse osmosis for
treatment  of  fruit   and   vegetable   processing   wastewater.
Investigations  in  the  pulp  and  paper  industry indicate that
wastes of similar concentration are amenable to reverse  osmosis.
At  these  dissolved solids concentrations, the osmotic pressures
encountered are high, requiring higher  applied  pressures.   The
major advantages of reverse osmosis follow:

    1.   The equipment is easy to operate.

    2.   Energy requirements are relatively low.

    3.   An elevated operating temperature is not required.

    t.   The  process  is  non-selective  in   dissolved   solids
         capture, producing a high purity product water.

The principal operating problem appears to be membrane fouling as
the  pores  become  plugged  with  solids,  oils, etc.  The major
disadvantage,  however,  is  treatment  and   disposal   of   the
concentrated  brine  waste from the reverse osmosis unit that may
constitute up to 25 percent of the total treated volume.
                                  310

-------
                          SECTION VIII

           COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION

The  estimated  costs  and  power  consumption  of  the   various
treatment  modules  described in Section VII are detailed in this
section.  It is, of course, necessary to make certain simplifying
assumptions in  preparing  general  cost  estimating  data.   The
assumptions  made,  and  the  sources  for  other  cost  data are
presented in a manner which should allow the reader to understand
how the costs were developed.

The cost and  energy  data  for  the  treatment  modules  can  be
summated  to  estimate  the total for various alternate treatment
chains.  To the summation should  be  added  the  cost  of  land,
engineering  and  contingencies,  interest, and increases in cost
occuring between June  1974,  and  the  actual  estimating  date.
Examples of the procedure involved are presented in this section.

Non-water   quality   aspects  such  as  noise  and  solid  waste
management are discussed at the end of this section.

APPROACH TO COST ESTIMATION OF TREATMENT MODULES

End-of-pipe treatment processes and operations are  costed  on  a
modular  basis.   The  basic  approach  was to keep the treatment
modules as independent as possible to have maximum flexibility in
assembling and costing end-of-pipe treatment trains for  each  of
the industry subcategories.

The treatment modules were costed on as realistic and practical a
basis  as  possible.   Prime  sources  of  cost  information were
equipment  manufacturers.    In   many   cases,   the   equipment
manufacturers  provided estimates and reviews of installation and
operation  costs.   In  a  further  attempt  to  make  the  costs
realistic,  a  prominent Los Angeles area contractor specializing
in  the  construction  of  waste  treatment  facilities  provided
valuable  information  detailing  how  his  firm bids the various
components of typical treatment works, e.g., percentage of  labor
installation costs, power hook-up, overall overhead, etc.

Costs  derived from literature were also used, especially several
EPA sponsored reports (1,2,3,4,5) which provided cost  estimating
curves   for  waste  treatment  components.   Several  literature
sources provided cost data for specific facilities built to treat
fruit and vegetable wastewater, and they were used to cross check
the developed cost data.

The capital construction cost data  obtained  through  the  field
investigation  reports was highly variable and often difficult to
correlate  because   of   incompleteness.    In   general,   this
                                  311

-------
information again was used as a cross check against the developed
cost   data.   In  addition  to  its  incompleteness,  the  major
difficulties with using much of the capital  cost  data  obtained
from  industry  were:   (1)  treatment facilities had often grown
over many years, and no one could  really  state  what  the  true
construction  costs  were,  let  alone relate them to 1974 costs,
and; (2)  very often the majority of  the  treatment  systems  had
been  constructed  by plant personnel rather than an outside con-
tractor,  resulting in low costs being reported.  Typical examples
of the second situation were the majority of the spray irrigation
systems which had been completely constructed by  the  processing
plant personnel.

All  costs  were updated to June, 1974, by use of the Engineering
News-Record Construction Cost Index, published by McGraw-Hill.

The treatment modules were  sized  by  selecting  an  appropriate
design  criterion  or  a  family of criteria if several variances
were expected.  The modules were then  generally  sized  at  flow
volume intervals of 0.04 0.38, 1.13, 2.27, 3.78, 11.36, and 18.92
1,000  cu m per day  (0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 3.0, and 5.0 mgd).
Other variables found in various tables and figures include BODj>,
TSS, retention time, volumetric capacity, surface area, etc.

Operation and maintenance costs were  calculated  on  a  per  "day
basis  because  of  the  seasonal  nature of the industry and the
uncertainties  in  the  number  of  operating  days.   The  daily
operation  in  hours/day  is also variable; however, except where
otherwise noted, a 24-hour operating day was assumed for  costing
operational costs per day.

In  summary,  the  basic  assumptions  that  affect all treatment
module costs are:

    1.   No land costs are included.

    2.   No engineering costs are included.

    3.   No construction contingencies are included.

    4.   Excavation fill or  borrow  costs  were  estimated  from
         $2.00  to  $12.00/cu  yd,  depending  upon  the  type of
         construction.

    5.   Personnel costs for operation were estimated at $5.00/hr
         total costs.

    6.   Electrical power costs were estimated at $0.02/KWH.

    7.   All capital construction work  is  done  by  an  outside
         contractor using his normal profit margins.

    8.   Replacement costs  included  expended  parts,  supplies,
         repairs, etc.; it does not mean capital recovery.
                                  312

-------
SPRAY IRRIGATION

Capital Cost

A typical spray irrigation system for land disposal would include
the following components:

    1.   Pump station.

    2.   Main  transmission  pipeline  from   pump   station   to
         irrigation field.

    3.   Spray field distribution system.

In addition, the total system often might include  the  following
components:

    4.   Holding lagoon for screened  wastewater  prior  to  pump
         station above.

    5.   Grit  removal  and/or  primary  treatment  facility  for
         solids removal.

    6.   Tailwater holding lagoon for storage of runoff from  the
         field.

    7.   Drainage tile collection system  constructed  under  the
         spray irrigation field.

    8.   Low head pumping station to pump drainage from 6. or  7.
         above  back  to  the start of the system or sometimes to
         disposal.

    9.   Drainage return transmission pipeline.

Figure 58 schematically illustrates the basic system and  typical
additional components which may be required.

There   are,   of   course,   numerous  variations  of  component
combinations being used in actual practice.  For costing purposes
a sequence has been chosen of the following components  described
above:   1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 and as shown in Figure 58.  Table
94 summarizes the total estimated cost for  the  selected  system
for  various  flow  volume  capacities.   Individual  subsections
following Table 94 provides a comprehensive  explanation  of  how
the  costs  for each component were derived, including tables and
curves which can be used to estimate  costs  based  on  different
sets  of assumed conditions.  A study of the tables and curves in
these subsections and  a  comparison  with  other  treatment  and
disposal   methods  show  clearly  that  when  suitable  land  is
available at a reasonable distance, spray  irrigation  with  zero
discharge  is  a cost-effective treatment and disposal method for
this industry.  Table 94 shows that under the assumed conditions,
a typical spray irrigation system will cost from  $62,000  for  a
                               313

-------
                         FIGURE  i>8
  SCHEMATIC  FLOW DIAGRAM OF  TYPICAL  SPRAY  FIELD SYSTEM
WITH  ZERO DISCHARGE.   SOLID  LINES DESIGNATE  BASIC  SYSTEM.
        DASHED LINES  INDICATE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES
            OFTEN REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE SYSTEM.
                                 FOOD
                               PROCESSING
                                 PLANT
                               SCREENING
      .JL.
  5. GRIT REMOVAL
 I  OR  PRIMARY  |
 I   TREATMENT  |
 7.  DRAIN TILE
I   COLLECTION
I    SYSTEM    I
        |	
                               HOLDING

                               LAGOON
                                         I-

                             I.  HIGH HEAD
                              PUMP STATION
                             2.TRANSMISSION
                                MAIN TO
                              SPRAY FIELD
                                                      ,	1	
                                                       9.  DRAINAGE
                                                           RETURN    I
                                                       TRANSMISSION   '
                                                            MAIN      I
                             3. SPRAY FIELD
                              DISTRIBUTION
                                 SYSTEM
                                   T
                               ._JL.
                             6. TAILWATER
                                HOLDING
                                LAGOON

8.
                                LOW HEAD
                                 PUMP     | -
                           I     STATION
	I
                              314

-------
                             FIGURE  59



               ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL  COSTS FOR ZERO

               DISCHARGE SPRAY IRRIGATION  SYSTEMS (1)
   o
   o
   -OT-

   z
   CO
   o
   o
                   3.8
7.6   mid    II
(1)   Taken from Table 126.   Excludes land costs.
                               315

-------
                                                TABLE   94
                    ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF ZERO DISCHARGE SPRAY  IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Effluent
volume
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($1,000)
High
head(l)
pump
station
11
22
31
43
55
82
100
Hold-
ing
Lagoon
(3)
7
9
14
21
30
63
85
Transmis-
sion (1)
main
1.3
4.0
5.3
7.9
11
18
24
Spray
field(2)
distrib.
system
0.7
7
22
44
74
220
370
Tailwater (3)
holding
pond
7
8
11
14
19
39
53
Low
headd)
pump
station
10
11
14
18
22
31
38
Return (4)
trans .
main
0.3
1.0
1.3
2.0
2.8
4.5
6.0
Total
37
62
99
150
210
460
680
CO
          (1)  Study accompanying text for assumptions made.
          (2)  Assume application rate of 12.7 mm per day  (0.5 in per  day).
          (3)  Assume retention time of 5 days, depth of 10 ft.
          (4)  Assume @ 25% of cost of transmission main ,  based  on  a lesser distance than
              the transmission main.

-------
system  of  0.37  mid   (0.1  mgd)  up to $680,000 for a system to
handle 18.92 mid (5 mgd).  Figure 59 shows graphically  the  cost
data presented in Table 91.

Cost of High-Pressure Pump Station

Many  different  types  of arrangements are found in practice for
design of the pump stations to supply  spray  irrigation  fields.
The  major spray systems covering many hundreds of acres may have
a very sophisticated pump station including elaborate  electrical
interlocks  and  controls with the distribution system.  A simple
system may consist of one pump installed  with  no  cover  and  a
minimum  of  accessories.   In  pricing  the  pump  station,  the
following assumptions have been made conservative,  for  a  well-
designed, medium-size system.

    1.   Assume two pumps, each of  which  can  pump  the  entire
         volume  needed  separately.  In other words, 100 percent
         standby is provided.

    2.   Assume pumping head will equal 70,300 kgf/sq m (100 psi)
         or 70.1 m (230 ft)  of head.

    3.   Assume 85 percent efficiency by pumps.

    4.   Assume application time of 24 hours.   In  other  words,
         all  daily  wastewater  generated  is  pumped  during 24
         hours.

    5.   Cost of the pump  station  includes  concrete  pad,  wet
         well,  electrical  connections, pump controls, piping at
         the pump  station,  and  engineering.   No  building  is
         included nor is any land cost credited.


Cost of Main Line from Plant to Spray Irrigation Field

Obviously,  this  cost  increment  is  highly variable since some
plants may have available land adjacent to the processing  plant,
and  others  would  have  to transport the waste a long distance.
For estimating purposes, the irrigation field is  assumed  to  be
located  402  m  (1/4  mile)   from  the  processing plant.  Other
assumptions are as follows:

    1.   The pipe is buried about 1.2 m (4 ft) deep.

    2.   Right-of-way costs are zero.

    3.   The pipe cost equals $1 per inch diameter ft installed.

    4.   The maximum velocity through the pipe equals  1.5  m/sec
         (5 ft/sec).

    5.   The minimum pipe size equals 25 mm (1 in.).
                               317

-------
    6.   The use time is 24 hours daily.   In  other  words,  all
         daily wastewater generated is pumped during 24 hours.


Cost of Spray Irrigation Distribution System

There  are  a  variety  of  different  types  of spray irrigation
systems used by the industry.  These include:

    1.   Portable laterals with quick-disconnect adapters to tees
         in a main line.

    2.   Rotary system on wheels  which  slowly  revolves  around
         central pivot point.

    3.   Permanently placed laterals on ground surface.

The most common is the last named system which consists  of  rows
of  "rainbird'1 type sprinkler heads mounted on permanent laterals
connected to a main line at specific intervals.  In  pricing  the
distribution  system,  costs  have  been  based upon this type of
distribution system.  The assumptions made are as follows:

    1.   Rainbird  sprinklers  are  mounted  at  48  m   (160  ft)
         intervals on the laterals and cost $8.00 each installed.

    2.   Laterals are at 61.0 m  (200 ft) intervals, are 101.6  mm
         (4  in.) diameter aluminum pipe, are installed on top of
         the ground, and cost  $2.00/ft  installed,  including  a
         shut-off valve at the main.

    3.   The main line feeding the laterals is 254  mm   (10  in.)
         diameter aluminum pipe and costs $8.00/ft installed.

For  each  ten acres, assuming a 201 m  (660 ft) square field, the
total cost of the distribution system is calculated as follows:

    1.   Main line cost = 660 ft x $8.00/ft = $5,280.

    2.   Number of laterals == (660 ft - ((50 ft.) x 2)) =3.8
                                     200

         length of laterals =  (660 ft - 50 ft) x 3.8
                            =  2318 ft

         cost of laterals = 2318 ft x $2.00/ft - $4,636

    3.   Number of sprinklers =  4,026 ft/160 ft = 15

         cost of sprinklers = 15 x $8.00 = $120

Total estimated cost of distribution system for  each  ten  acres
equals  $5,280  +  $4,636  +  $120  =  $10,036  or  approximately
$l,004/acre = $2,480/hectare.
                                  318

-------
Figure  60  illustrates  the   relationship   between   rate   of
application   in  mm/day  and  acreage  required.   The  rate  of
application is  the  average  rate;  i.e.,  the  actual  rate  of
application on a segment of the spray field may be four times the
average rate one day, followed by three days of no irrigation.


Cost of Tailwater and Holding Lagoons

Another  section  of  this  report  details  the cost analysis of
various size lagoons.  For the purposes of the  spray  irrigation
system cost analysis, the following assumptions have been made:

    1.   Each lagoon will have a capacity of five days.

    2.   The lagoon will be 3 m (10 ft)  deep with  3m  (10  ft)
         wide  (at  the  top)   berms sloped at 2:1 and no lining;
         i.e., dirt bottom and sides.

    3.   The tailwater holding lagoon is size at  50  percent  of
         the capacity of the upstream lagoon due to an assumed 50
         percent  water  loss  to evaporation, evapotranspiration
         and percolation during irrigation.


Cost of Drainage Tiles for Irrigation Field

Drainage tile may be used under the  spray  irrigation  field  in
cases  where  it  is  desired to increase the surface application
rate.  The optimum drain tile size,  spacing,  slope,  etc.  vary
between  sites depending upon soil conditions, application rates,
and other factors.  Tile depth varies from 0.61 m (2 ft) to  2.94
m  (8 ft) , tile spacing from 15.24 m (50 ft)  to 45.72 m (150 ft)  ,
and pipe slope is generally 0.2 percent.

For the purpose of cost  estimation,  the  following  assumptions
have b'&en- jnadfi:

    1.   A main drain of 381 mm (15 in.) concrete pipe  installed
         at  a  depth  of  2.44  m  (8  ft)  and costing $49.21/m
         ($15/ft) .

    2.   Tile drains consisting of 101.6 mm (4 in.)  unglazed clay
         tile installed at 1.82 m (6 ft) depth, 30.48 m (100  ft)
         spacing,  and costing $13.12/m  ($4/ft).

    3.   Gridiron arrangement of tile drains.

For 4.05 hectare (10 acres), assumed square,  at 201.2 m (660  ft)
to the side costs are as follows:

    Main drain = 660 ft x $15/ft = 9,900

    Number of tiles = 660 + 1 = 7.6 100
                                319

-------
                          FIGURE  t>U


         AREA REQUIRED FOR SPRAY IRRIGATION FIELD
              AS A FUNCTION OF  APPLICATION  RATE
             4000 •—
  ISOO
             30OO
   IOOO
(U
-P
O
0)
Q
UJ
or
5
O
UJ
or
UJ
cc  soo
          to
          UJ
          o
          Q
          UJ
          o
          cc
          UJ
          cc
             2000
             IOOO
                                   «    5    6    7
                                   VOLUME IN mgd

                                    	I	
                                                               10
                             10           ZO           3O
                            VOLUME IN MILLION LITERS PER DAY
                                                                 40
                                320

-------
    Length of tiles = 7.6 x 660 = 5,000 ft

    Cost of tiles = 5,000 x $U = $20,000

    Total  cost  per  acre  =  20,000 + 9,900 = $7,U13/hectare 10
    ($3,000/acre for collection system)

Cost of Low-Pressure Pump Station

A wet well and pumping station are usually required to store  and
pump  the  drainage  from the tile field.  The pumps are normally
high-volume, low-head to return the drainage water to an adjacent
storage lagoon or pump to the point of disposal  into  a  stream.
Costs  for  the  drainage  pumping  facility  are  based  on  the
following assumptions:

    1.   A volume pumped equivalent to 50 percent  of  the  water
         applied  to the surface of the field; it is assumed that
         50  percent  of  the  applied  water   is   removed   by
         evaporation, transpiration, and percolation.

    2.   A pumping head of 6.096 m  (20 ft)  and pump efficiency of
         85 percent.

    3.   A wet well capacity of one-half of one  percent  of  the
         applied  flow per day; e.g., a field with an application
         of 3.78 mid  (1 mgd)  would have a wet well  of  19,000  1
         (5,000 gal) .

    U.   Dual pumps with 100 percent standby capacity.

    5.   24 hour daily service;  i.e.,  entire  daily  wastewater
         generation is handled in 24 hours.

    6.   To estimate cost of pump station use 50 percent of plant
         effluent volume shown; e.g., for plant  effluent  volume
         15 mid  (4 mgd), use estimated cost of $19,000.

A  wet well and pumping station may be required to store and pump
the tailwater from the irrigation field drainage from  the  tiles
if  tiles are used.  The pumps are normally high-volume, low-head
to return the drainage water to a storage lagoon.  Costs for  the
low-pressure   pumping   facility  are  based  on  the  following
assumptions:

    1.   A volume pumped equivalent to 100 percent of  the  water
         applied  to  the surface of the field; this assumes that
         on occasion the field is saturated, and  run-off  equals
         applied wastewater.

    2.   A pumping head of 6.096m (20 ft) and pump efficiency  of
         8 5 percent.

    3.   Dual pumps with 100 percent standby capacity.
                                   321

-------
                                               TABLE  95
CO
ro
ro
                                 ESTIMATED DAILY COST OF OPERATION AND

                                MAINTENANCE FOR SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Plant effluent
volume
mid
0.04
0.37
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.35
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Direct
labor
($/day)
15
20
25
31
40
68
80
Expended
parts
and
supplies
($/day)
4
7
11
16
23
50
74
High head
pump
energy
cost
($/day)
0.2
2
5
11
17
48
86
Low head
pump
energy
cost
($/day)
0.1
1
1
1
1
4
6
Total
O & M
cost
($/day)
19
30
42
59
81
170
250
                Major assumptions:



                1.   Direct labor and overhead cost is $5.00/hr.


                2.   Expended parts and supplies equal 4% of capital  cost.


                3.   Energy cost equals $0.02/kw-hr/ operation 24 hrs/day.

-------
    4.   24 hour daily service;  i.e.,  entire  daily  wastewater
         generation is handled in 24 hours.

    5.   Cost of the pump  station  includes  concrete  pad,  wet
         well,  electrical  connections,  pump controls piping at
         the pump  station,  and  engineering.   No  building  is
         included nor is any land cost credited.

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Table 95 on the following page summarizes labor, power, and parts
replacement  costs  for  various  size  spray irrigation systems.
Assumptions used in generating the cost data are  listed  at  the
bottom of the table.

RIDGE AND FURROW IRRIGATION

Capital Cost

Cost components of the typical ridge and furrow irrigation system
include:

    1.   Low head pump station to pump plant effluent to field.

    2.   Main transmission line from pump station  to  irrigation
         field.

    3.   Furrow distribution system.

In addition, the total system will often  include  the  following
components:

    H.   Holding lagoon for screened wastewater.

    5.   Tailwater holding lagoon for storage of runoff from  the
         field.

    6.   Drainage tile collection system  constructed  under  the
         irrigation field.

    7.   Low head pumping station to pump drainage from 5. or  6.
         above  back  to  the start of the system or sometimes to
         disposal.

    8.   Drainage return transmission pipeline.


There  are,  of  course,   numerous   variations   of   component
combinations being used in actual practice.  For costing purposes
the following sequence of components as described above have been
chosen::   1,  2,  3,  5,  7,  and  8,  all  as  described above.
Derivations  of  costs  for  all  system  components  except  the
distribution  system  are developed in Spray Irrigation Costs.  A
study of these costs and a comparison with  other  treatment  and
                                  323

-------
disposal  methods  shows  clearly  that  when  suitable  land  is
available at a reasonable distance, ridge and  furrow  irrigation
with  zero  discharge  is a cost-effective treatment and disposal
method for this industry.  A typical ridge and furrow  irrigation
system  will  cost  from  $42,000  for  a system of 0.1 mgd up to
$247,000 for a system to handle five mgd.  Land  costs  for  land
taken  out of productivity are included for the tailwater holding
lagoon but not for the ridge and furrow  irrigation  distribution
system.
LAGOONS

Capital Cost

Costs  are estimated for lagoons of various capacities and depths
from Figure 61.  Costs for lagoon construction will  vary  widely
between  locales  because  the costs are so highly dependent upon
the prevailing cost of earth excavation.  Our assumed  excavation
cost  of  $5.30/cu m ($4.00/cu yd)  is a resonable average for the
nation; however, actual excavation prices  could  vary  over  100
percent  up  or down due to local situations (e.g., type of soil,
proximity  of  contractors  with  large  earth-moving  equipment,
etc.).   As with the other treatment systems, the estimated costs
in this section do not include land costs.  Land  costs  will  be
added  separately  to the estimated costs of treatment chains for
the individual commodities.

Estimated costs for aerated lagoons to treat various  waste  flow
volumes and strengths are presented in Table 96.

Major assumptions include the following:

    For subcategories with raw wasteloads in excess of 3000 mg/1,
    primary  treatment  will  be  provided to decrease the lagoon
    influent BOD5 to less than 3000 mg/1.

    Aerator hp required = one hp per hour for every  two  Ibs  of
    BOD5 in the raw waste.

    Retention time required is expressed by the formula
    T =    E
         (l-E)k
    where  E  equals  the  percent  BODJ5 removal and k equals the
    reaction constant,  k is assumed to equal 0.8.   The  percent
    BODJ3  removal  desired  was  assumed to range from 85 percent
    reduction up to 98 precent reduction.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

In Table 97 are presented  estimated  operation  and  maintenance
costs  for  aerated  and unaerated lagoons.  Assumptions made are
listed as footnotes to the table.
                                  324

-------
                     FIGURE 61

   CAPITAL COST OF  LAGOON CONSTRUCTION OF VARYING
                  DEPTH  AND CAPACITY
    600
    400
O
O
O
O
0    200
                  MG
  100
200
       0
                  ML
  378
CAPACITY
756
Notes:
        Does not  include cost of land
        Assumed excavation cost = $5.2/cu m  £4 /cu  yd)
        Rip-rap lining,  sides only = $7.2/sq m ($6/sq  yd)
                              325

-------
                                               TABLE   96
                          ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF  AERATED LAGOONS BASED ON VARYING

                         DAILY WASTE VOLUMES AND STRENGTHS (NOT INLCUDING LAND COSTS)
Average
daily
volume
mid
0.04









1.13




2.27




mgd
0.01




0.1




0.3




0.6




Ave .
BOD,
mg/1
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
Mechanical aerator
H.P.
req'd(l)
0.4
0.9
1.8
3.7
5.2
3.5
8.7
17
35
52
10
26
52
105
156
21
52
104
208
313
Installed
cost of
aerators
$1,000(2)
0.5
1
2
3
3
3
4
6
10
13
5
8
13
23
35
7
13
23
40
56
Low head
pump
cost
$1,000
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
14
18
18
18
18
18
Ret.
time
days (3)
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
Total
Req'd
vol.
MG
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3
4.5
6
7.5
9
6
9
12
15
18
Lagoon
cons ' t.
cost (4)
$1,000,
12
12
12
13
13
32
34
36
38
42
42
50
58
66
77
58
77
90
110
120
Total
cost(5)
$1,000
22
23
24
26
26
46
49
53
59
66
61
72
85
100
130
85
110
13d
176
190
CO
r\j
cr>

-------
          TABLE   96   (Continued)
Average
daily
volume


mid
3.78




11.36




18.92





mgd
1.0




3.0




5.0






Ave.
BOD,
mg/1
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
Mechanical aerator


H.P.
req'd(l)
35
87
174
348
521
105
261
522
1,043
1,564
174
435
869
1,737
2,606
Installed
cost of
aerators
$1,000(2)
10
20
38
70
97
23
56
110
200
290
38
83
170
320
490

Low head
pump
cost
$1,000
22
22
22
22
22
31
31
31
31
31
38
38
38
38
38


Ret.
time
days (3)
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30

Total
req1 d
vol.
MG
10
15
20
25
30
30
45
60
75
90
50
75
100
125
150

Lagoon
cons ' t.
cost (4)
$1,000
80
110
130
140
150
150
180
200
240
260
190
240
280
320
360


Total
cost (5)
$1,000
110
150
190
230
270
200
270
340
410
530
270
360
490
630
890
CO
ro
        Notes:
           (1)  Based upon 2  Ibs  of BOD per H.P.  per hour.
           (2)  Based upon manufacturers  estimates, includes power supply and all
               accessories.
           (3)  Based upon BOD removals of 85 percent for weak wastes (e.g., 200 mg/1 BOD)
               up  to BOD removals  of 9  percent for strong wastes (e.g., 3,000 mg/1 BOD).
           (4)   Taken from Figure  15   with 3 m (10 ft)  depth, assuming 2 separate lagoons
               in  series to  accommodate the required volume.
           (5)  Does not include land cost's.

-------
              TABLE 97

    ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR AERATED LAGOONS
Aver
Dai
Vol
mid
0.04




0.38




1.13




2.27




3.78





11.36




age
iy
mgd
1
0.01




0.1



i
0.3




0.6




1.0





3.0




Ave.
BOD
mg/1
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000

200
500
1,000
2,000
3/000

Energy (1)
0.2
0.4
0.7
1.4
2.0
2.3
4.1
7.1
12
20
8.6
12
25
39
57
18
27
49
80
120
14
32
63
126
188

42
97
190
380
560

Labor (2)
30
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
60
60
60
60
60

80
80
80
80
80

Replace-
ment (3)
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
3.8
4.0
4.4
4.8
5.4
5.0
5.9
7.0
8.2
11
6.8
9.0
11
14
16
9.0
12
16
19
22

16
22
23
39
48

Total
32
32
33
34
34
46
48
52
57
65
54
58
72
87
110
65
76
100
130
180
83
100
140
200
270

140
200
300
500
690
                . 328

-------
TABLE 97  (cont.)
Average
Daily
Vol.
mid
18.92




mgd
5.0





Ave.
BOD
mg/1
200
500
1,000
2,000
3,000



Energy (1)
78
160
320
630
940









Labor (2)
80
80
80
80
80
Replace-
ment (3)
22
30
40
56
73

Total
180
270
440
770
1100
(1)  Energy cost assumed @ 2C/KWH, 24 Hr./day operation^
    For both aerators and low head pump.

(2)   Labor cost assumed @ $40/man-day.

(3)   Replacement cost assumed @ 3% of capital cost.
                           329

-------
pH CONTROL

Capital Cost.

Fruit and  vegetable  processing  wastewaters  sometimes  require
extensive pH control due to large pH fluctuation.

Table  98  summarizes  estimated  capital  costs  for pH control.
Assumptions made in generating these costs are noted at the  foot
of the table.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table  99  summarizes  estimated  daily operation  and maintenance
costs for pH control.

CLARIFIERS

Capital Cost

In estimating the capital cost of  various  diameter  clarifiers,
the  complete  clarifier  package  has been considered, including
steel tanks, collector mechanism, inlet structure,  outlet  weirs
and   baffles,   sludge   recirculation  pumps, piping,  valves,
electrical system, and installation.  The costs do  not  include
engineering,  contingencies,  and  construction interest because
these are added later as a percentage of the  complete  treatment
chain.   These  estimates  are  applicable  to  both  primary and
secondary clarifiers.

Table  100  itemizes  the  total  estimated  capital  costs   for
clarification systems based on physical size only.  Figure 62 and
Figure  63  show estimated total capital costs based on Table 100
with various overflow  rates.   The  overflow  rate  is  normally
estimated  on the basis of waste strength as represented by total
suspended solids  (TSS) concentration.  The higher  the anticipated
TSS concentration,  the  lower  the  overflow  rate  for  optimum
removal  efficiency.   Conversely,  the  lower  the  incoming TSS
concentration, the higher the  permissable  overflow  rate.   The
cost  for  sludge  handling and treatment is included in the cost
estimate for the digester and vacuum filter.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table 101 summarizes estimated operation  and  maintenance  costs
for  final clarification systems.  Assumptions made in generating
this data are listed below the table.

AIR FLOTATION

Capital Cost

Some fruit and vegetable wastewater  solids  have   poor  settling
characteristics   (i.e.,  tomatoes,  pears).   For   these  wastes,
                                330

-------
                         TABLE 98
            ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST IN $1,000
                      FOR PH CONTROL

Item

Steel mixing tank(l)
Flow measuring flume
(40-2,000 gpm range)

Flow transmitter
Flow recorder-control-
ler with hi-low alarms
pH probe and analyze
with ultrasonic
cleaner

pH recorder with hi-
low alarms and
interrupter controller

Dual head chemical
feed pump with com-
pound variable speed
and strike length
control

Chemical storage
tanks (acid and
caustic)
Eye wash fountain and
emergency shower

Electrical control
panel

1 . Roofing and fencing

Installation (2)
Total cost ($1,000)



0.01
5

0.5

0.7

0.8


1.3



0.9





2.0



0.8

0.3


1.2

0.4

8.9
23



0.1
15

0.5

0.7

0.8


1.3



0.9





2.0



0.8

0.3


1.2

0.4

8.9
33

Plar

0.3
20

0.5

0.7

0.8


1.3



0.9




1
2.0
.
i

0.8
•
« 0.3
i
1
1.2

; o.4

; 8.9
38

it eff
(mg<
0.6
28

0.5

0.7

0.8


1.3



0.9



•

\ 2.0



0.8

i 0.3

,
1.2

1 0.4

I 8.9
i- ... — •'- - -4
' 46 !
i i
Luent J
a)
1.0
31

0.5

0.7

0.8


1 3
1. J



0.9
'




2.0



1.2
i
0.3 i
i

1.2
j
0.6 (

9.5
50
- -i
Plow

3.0
41

0.5

0.7

0.8


1.3



0.9





2.0



3.0

0.3


1.2

0.8

12
69'
	 	


5.0
49

0.5

0.7

0.8


1.3



0.9





2.0



5.0 !

0.3


1.2

1.0

14
79

Cost taken from Ref. 28; cost includes installation.

Installation costs assumed @ 100% of total capital cost
(excluding mixing tank).
                          331

-------
                        TABLE  99

               ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND
             MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PH CONTROL
Plant
effluent
flow
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0


Cost ($/day)
Energy (1)
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.1
1.8
5.4
9.0
Labor (2)
7
10
10
10
20
40
40
Replace . ^)
3
4.5
5.2
6.3
6.8
9.5
11
Chem. (4)
0.2

7
14
24
72
120
Total
10
17
23
31
53
130
180
(1)Assumed @ 2c/kwh for the mixing tank.
(2)Assumed @ $40/man-day.
(3)Assumed @ 5% of capital cost.
(4)Chemical dosage assumed at 100 mg/1 and
   cost at $.03/lb.
                         332

-------
                                                 TABLE  100
                              ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF CLARIFICATION SYSTEMS

                                                  Cost ($1,000)


Tank
dia.
"10 "~~
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95


Tankd)
3.3
5.8
7.6
10
13
16
20
23
27
32
36
40
46
52
57
63
70
76


Basic (4)
collector
5.0
5.8
6.3
6.6
12
12
12
13
13
14
13
14
16
16
17
17
17
18


InletU)
well
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8.5
8.5
8.5
9
9
9
9

Weirs (4)
and
baffles
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
Pump ( 5 )
for
sludge
recirc.
7.5
7.9
8.2
8.5
8.8
9.3
9.9
10
11
12
13
14
14
16
17
18
19
21

Piping '2)
elect. ,
valves
6.1
6.8
7.2
7.5
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
19


Install!3)
5.0
5.8
6.3
6.6
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
16
16
17
17
17
18


Total
35
41
45
48
65
70
75
81
86
96
100
110
120
130
140
150
150
160
co
CO
CO
         Notes:
            (1)
            (2)
            (3)

            (4)
            (5)
Tank of 1/4" steel, 12'  deep, cost of $0.70/lb steel  includes  installation.
Assumed at 50% of collector and pump cost.
Tank installation included in tank price - this  figure  for  installation of
accessories only.
Costs taken from prominent manufacturers sales price  book.
Cost based on reference 1 with 400 gpd/ft^ overflow rate.

-------
                          TABLE
          ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
                    COSTS BOR CLARIFIERS
Plant effluent
flow
mid mgd
0.04 0.01
0.38 0.1
1.13 0.3
2.27 0.6
3.78 1.0
11.36 3.0
18.92 5.0
Cost ($/day) (4)
Energy (1)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
1.4
2.4
Labor (2)
8
10
10
15
20
30
40
Replacement ( 3 )
5
6
9
11
13
23
32
Total
13
16
19
26
34
54
74
(1)   Assume energy cost @ 2c/kwh, for clarifier rake
     mechanism.and sludge return pump.
(2)   Assume labor cost @ $5/hr or $40/man-day.
(3)   Assume replacement parts cost @ 5% of capital cost.
(4)   Based on 400 gpd/ft2 overflow rate system.
                         334

-------
                        FIGURE 62
         ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR CLARIFIERS
     AT SELECTED  OVERFLOW RATES, BASED ON TABLE
ISO
140
         i
        O.I
         i
0.2
0.3
0.4
 I	
0.5    0.6
   mgd
 i	i
0.7
0.8
 i
0.9
1.0
                          335

-------
                           FIGURE  63


           ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST  FOR CLARIFIERS FOR

          SELECTED OVERFLOW RATES,  BASED ON TABLE
   300
   250
O
O
O

•OT-
   200
    150
o
o
    100
    50
                            2   mgd   3
                3.8
7.6   mid   II
15
19
          Curves  are interpolated for lower overflow rates

          at  higher volumes.
                           336

-------
dissolved  air  flotation  provides  better   primary   treatment
capability than does settling.  In addition, wastewater with over
50  mg/1  of grease and oil should be treated by flotation before
entering biological treatment systems.

Tables 102  and  103  summarize  capital  costs  for  pressurized
dissolved  air flotation systems with and without the addition of
chemical flocculants.  The cost for sludge handling and treatment
is included in the cost estimate for the digester.

Operations and Maintenance Costs

Table  10U  summarizes  operation  and  maintenance   costs   for
dissolved air flotation.

NUTRIENT ADDITION

Capital Cost

The  capital  cost  of  a  nutrient  addition facility includes a
proportional pump to add the nutrient proportioned  to  the  flow
and  storage  facilities for the nutrient material.  For flows in
excess of 1 mgd, the capital cost was estimated at $10,000.   For
flows less than 1 mgd, the capital cost was estimated at $5,000.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Figure  6H  shows the daily cost of nutrient addition per million
gallons  as  a  function  of  wastewater  BOD5>  based  upon  the
assumptions  shown at the bottom of the figure.  The figure shows
that nutrient cost is very significant at the  higher  levels  of
BODS.
TRICKLING FILTER

Capital Cost

The  cost of the plastic media roughing trickling filter includes
the trickling filter itself with  all  its  accessories  and  the
recirculati ng pumps.

Table  105  shows  costs  of trickling filters with loading rates
varying from 200 to 1000 gpd/sq ft.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table 106 summarizes estimated operation  and  maintenance  costs
for  trickling filtration including only the trickling filter and
recirculation systems.
                                   337

-------
                             TABLE  102

               ESTIMATED CAPITAL  COST OF  AIR FLOTATION
                      WITH CHEMICAL ADDITION
Daily Volume
MLD
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
MGD
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Influent TSS
less than 1000 mg/1
$1000
27
36
53
65
78
117
146
Influent TSS
more than 1000 mg/1
$1000
33
49
67
83
96
149

Notes:
   _ Based on hydraulic  loading of  2.0  gpm/ft  and suspended
     solids loading of 1.0  Ibs/hr/ft2.

   - Costs taken trom Ref.2^*
                                 338

-------
                             TABLE  103

           ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF AIR FLOTATION  SYSTEMS
                    WITHOUT CHEMICAL ADDITI'fcN
Daily Volume __
MLD
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
MGD
0.01
0.01
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Influent TSS
las a than 1000 rag/1
$1000
25
30
43
57
69
1Q1
130
Influent TSS
more than 1000 mg/1
$1000
30
44-
57
71
84
129
168
Notes:
   _  Based on hydraulic loading of  2.0  gpm/ft   and suspended
     solids loading of 1.0 lbs/hr/ft2

   -  Costs taken from Ref. 30,
                                339

-------
                         TABLE 104
         ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE
            COSTS  OF AIR FLOTATION SYSTEMS WITH
                     CHEMICAL ADDITION
Plant
effluent
volume

raid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92

mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0

Cost ($/day)


Energy (1)
0.01
0.05
0.14
0.20
0.46
0.93
1.4

Chemical (2)
8:8*
1.6
3.2
5.4
16
27

Labor (3)
18
10
10
20
20
30
Replace-
ment (4)
8.0
11
14
16
24
32

Total
11
23
27
42
61
89
(1)Based on $0.02 per kwh, air requirement assumed @ 0.05
  cu- ft/gal using diffuser type aeration.
(2)Based on dosage of 20 mg/1 of lime.
(3)Based on $5.00/hr.
(4)Based on 6 percent of capital cost of the systems with
  influent TSS ^ 1,000 mg/1.
                         340

-------
                           FIGURE 64

            ESTIMATED COSTS FOR NUTRIENT ADDITION
     300
     200
 o
     100
               1000     2000      3000
                           BOO mg/l
4000
5000
Note:  The following  assumptions were made in generating
       this figure:
       (1) BOD:N:P ratio  required is 100:5:1.
       (2) Nutrients  used are aqua ammonia (NH3)
           !? $0.08/113,  and phosphoric acid (H3PO4)
           9 $0.20/lb.
       (3) Raw wastewater is  60% deficient in both
           nitrogen and phosphorus.
       (4) Costs of chemical  storage and feed pump are
           negligible compared to the cost of the chemicals,
                          341

-------
         TABLE  105
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS  FOR
     TRICKLING FILTERS
Plant effluent
volume
mid
0.04




0.38




1.13




2.27




3.78




11.36




18.92


I

mgd
0.01




0.1




0.3




0.6




1.0




3.0




5.0




Hydraulic
load
(gpd/ft2)
200
400
600
800
1,000
200
400
600
800
1,000
200
400
600
800
1,000
200
400
600
800
1,000
200
400
600
800
1,000
200
400
600
800
1,000
200
400
600
800
1,000
Area
(ft2)
50
25
17
12
10
500
250
167
125
100
1,500
750
500
375
300
3,000
1,500
1,000
750
600
5,000
2,500
1,667
1,250
1,000
15,000
7,500
5,000
3,750
3,000
25,000"
12, 50$
8,333
6,250
5,000
Costd) (2)
($1,000)
6.3
5.0
4.6
4.4
4.4
22.07
14.30
11.28
9.64
8.58
47.34
29.01
22.07
18.31
15.93
79.25
47.34
35.41
29.01
24.92
117.57
69.18
51.13
41.51
35.41
282.77
162.0
117.47
94.00
79.25
'431.05
244.2
175.90
140.03
117.57
          342

-------
TABLE 105 (con't.)
(1) All costs taken from "Cost of Wastewater
    Treatment Processes," Dorr-Oliver, Inc.,
    The Advanced Wastewater Treatment Research
    Laboratory, FWPCA, Dec. 1968.

(2) Cost includes concrete, distributor, media
    and underdrainage.
                         343

-------
                       TABLE 106
       ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
            (COSTS FOR TRICKLING FILTERS
Plant effluent
flow
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($/day)
OjDeration(l)
0.1
0.3
1
2
3
10
16
Labor(2)
5
10
20
30
40
80
120
Replacement ^)
1
2
3
5
7
15
22
Total







Notes:

1)  Assume power cost @ 2.0c/KWH, with 24 hr/day
    operation of filter and recirculation pump.
2)  Assume labor cost of $5/hr or $40/man-day.
3)  Assume replacement cost @ 4% of capital cost
    for trickling filter with 600 gpd/ft2 loading
    and recirculation ratio of 2.
                          • 344

-------
ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION BASIN

Capital Cost

Typical activated  sludge  systems  include  aeration  basin  and
aeration  system  (including  aerators,  piping,  and  instrumen-
tation) , clarifier, and other facilities.  Cost estimates for the
clarifier and other facilities are included in other subsections.

Table  107 summarizes and Figure 65 depicts aeration basin capital
costs at various retention times  and  flow  volumes.   Long-term
aeration  basins  (retention time of one to three days)  have been
selected as more effective and less expensive  than  conventional
activated  sludge aeration tanks (retention time of six to twelve
hours) for  treating  this  industry's  wastewater.   The  larger
aeration  period  and  larger  basin  size  aid  in  assimilating
possible high sludge loads and  also  in  neutralizing  minor  pH
fluctuations.  Assumptions used in determining specific costs are
listed below the table.

Table  108  delineates  mechanical  aerator  capital  costs  as a
function of waste strength (BOD) and volume (mgd).  Aerators were
sized to provide one hp per hour per two Ibs  BOD5_  entering  the
system.

Basin  retention time determinations are summarized in Table 109.
The Eckenfelder formula for complete mix activated sludge systems
was used  to  aid  in  calculating  the  proper  balance  between
retention  time,  MLVSS  concentration, and raw waste strength to
yield the desired BODI3 removal percentages.  The activated sludge
subsection of Section VII describes the Eckenfelder formula.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table  110 summarizes estimated daily  operation  and  maintenance
costs for activated sludge aeration systems.  Assumptions made to
compute the costs are provided at the bottom of the table.

AEROBIC DIGESTION

Capital Cost

Included  in  the  aerobic  digestion  cost  is  an earthen basin
(including accessories such as sludge piping, valves,  etc.)  and
the mechanical surface aeration equipment.

Table  111  summarizes  costs  for aerobic digestion systems as a
function of treatment plant influent volume  and  solids  to  the
digester.

In   estimating  costs  for  aerobic  digestion  to  handle  food
processing  wastes,  we  have  assumed  that  the   sludge-solids
concentration  is four percent into the aerobic digester and that
the digester retention time is 15  days.   Solids  going  to  the
                                   345

-------
            TABLE  107

   ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST
OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION BASINS
Pla
Eff
Volu
mid
0.04





0.38





1.13





2.27





3.78





11.36





nt
1.
me
mgd
0.01





0.1





0.3





0.6





1.0





3.0





Infl.
BOD
mg/1
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,000
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,000
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,000
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,000
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,000
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,000
Basin
Ret'n
Time
Days
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Excav.
and
Line
$1,000
16
17
17
18
19
20
24
25
25
26
28
29
29
33
33
39
42
48
39
51
51
60
69
78
51
64
69
84
91
100
100
135
135
175
180
220
Aera-
tors
$1,000
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.8
3.0
2.8
4.1
4.6
7.9
12
13
4.1
7.8
12
21
30
38
6.3
13
18
38
56
70
10
23
28
56
83
110
24
56
83
150
250
350
Pipe
Pump &
Instr.
$1,000
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
18
19
20
20
24
24
28
30
32
26
34
34
40
46
52
34
46
46
56
66
76
76
108
108
140
162
192
Total
$1,000
30
31
32
34
36
38
4*
45
46
52
59
62
53
65
69
88
100
120
71
98
100
T40
170
200
95
140
140
200
240
290
200
300
330
460
590
760
              346

-------
TABLE 107    (Continued)
Plant
Effl.
Volume
mid
18.92





mgd
5.0






Infl.
BOD
mg/1
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,000
Basin
Ret'n
Time
Days
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Excav.
and
Line
$1,000
150
190
190
240
250
280

Aera-
tors
$1,000
38
83
140
250
400
570
Pipe
Pump &
Instr.
$1,000
120
166
166
210
248
284


Total
$1,000
310
440
500
700
900
1100
NOTES:

  1.  Excavation and placement cost assumed for square
      basins, 12 ft deep, as follows:
  2.
   3.
      MG
                $/cu yd
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-10
10-15
12
11
10
9
8
Lining cost assumed as follows

MG	$/sq yd
      0-2
      2-4
      4-6
      6-1$
      10-15
                   9.00
                   8.25
                   7.50
                   6.75
                   6.00
 Aerator size and cost based on completely mixed
 basins and 2 Ib BOD per H.P. per hour*
                          347

-------
                             FIGURE 65



             ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS  OP ACTIVATED

                      SLUDGE AERATION  BASINS
    290
O
o
o

-OT-
OT

O
O
     100 I-
     50\-
            0.1
0.3
mgd
0.6
1.0
            0.38
        mid
                               348

-------
                                               TABLE  108


                          ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION
Plant Eff.
Vol.
mid
0.04





0.38





1.13





2.27





mgd
0.1





0.1





0.3





0.6





Ave . BOD
(mg/1)
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
Required
Ret. Time
(days) (3)
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Mechanical Aerator
H.P.
Req. (1)
0.35
0.87
1.4
2.6
4.3
6.1
3.5
8.7
14
26
43
61
10
26
42
78
130
180
21
52
83
160
260
360
No. of
Units
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
4
5
H.P. per
Unit
0.5
1.0
0.75
1.5
2.25
3
5
10
15
30
50
60
10
30
50
40
75
60
20
60
50
75
75
75
Installed Cost
($1,000) (2)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.8
3.0
2.8
4.1
4.6
7.9
12.0
13.0
4.1
7.9
12.0
19
28
38
6.3
13
23
28
56
70
CO
-Pi
10

-------
           TABLE 108 - Continued
Plant Eff.
Vol.
mid
3.78





11.36





18.92





mgd
1.0





3.0





5.0





Ave . BOD
(mg/1)
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
Required
Ret. Time
(days) (3)
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Mechanical Aerator
H.P.
Req. (1)
35
87
140
260
430
600
100
260
420
780
1,300
1,800
170
430
700
1,300
2,200
3,000
No. of
Units
1
2
2
4
6
8
2
4
6
11
18
25
3
6
10
18
29
41
H.P. per
Unit
40
50
75
75
75
75
50
75
75
75
75
75
60
75
75
75
75
75
Installed Cost
($1,000) (2)
9.6
23
28
56
83
110
5.5
56
83
150
250
350
38
83
140
250
403
570
co
en
o
            (1) Based upon  2  Ibs of BOD per H.P. per hour.
            (2) Based upon  manufacturers, estimates, includes power supply and all
               accessories.
            (3) Based upon  BOD removals of 85 percent for weak wastes  (e.g., 200 mg/1 BOD)
               up to BOD removals of 96 percent for strong wastes  (e.g., 3,000 mg/1 BOD).

-------
                      TABLE 109

           DETERMINATION OF AERATION BASIN
           RETENTION TIME FOR VARIOUS BOD
         CONCENTRATIONS TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED
                  BOD REDUCTIONS(1)

Influent
BOD
mg/1
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500

BOD removal
desired
percent
85
91.6
93.0
94.7
95.6
96.3

Effluent
BOD
mg/1
30
42
55
80
110
130


MLVSS
mg/1
2,830
3,635
4,515
4,437
4,345
4,320
Required
retention
time
days
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
(1)Retention time computed from Eckenfelder formula
   for complete mix activated sludge systems, See
   Reference 41  , Activated Sludge System  Subsection
   of Section VII of this document.
                       351

-------
               TABLE
ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION  BASINS
Average
Daily
Vol.
mid
0.04





0.38




mgd
0.01





0.1




1

1.13





2.27






3.78






0.3


Ave.
BOD
mg/1
i
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
200
500
)
Cost ($/Day)
Energy (1)
0.18
0.36
0.54
1.1
1.6
7.2
1.8
3.6
800 ! 5.4
1,500 1 11
2,500
3,500

200
16
21

3.6
500 1 11
800 18
1,500 ! 33
2,500
3,500
0.6






1.0





1
200
500
800
1,500
51
64
7.2
21
36
64
2,500 j 100
3,800 130

200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500


14
36
54
110
160
210

Labor (2)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Replace-
ment (3)
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.2
5.8
6.2
6.3
7.1
8.1
8.5
i
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

7.2
8.9
9.4
12
14
16
9.7
13
14
19
Total
44
45
45
46
46
47
48
50
52
58
64
70

51
60
67
85
100
120
57
74
90
120
23 1 160
27

40 ( 13
40
40
40
40
40
19
19
27
33
200

67
95
110
180
230
40 1 290
! J 	 1
               352

-------
TABLE  HO  (cont.)
Average
Daily
Vol.

mid
11.36





18.92






mgd
3.0





5.0






Ave^
BOD

mg/1
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500
200
500
800
1,500
2,500
3,500


Cost ($/Day)

Energy (1)
36
110
160
300
480
670
64
160
270
480
780
1100

Labor (2)
60
60
60
60
60
60
80
80
80
80
80
80
Replace-
ment (3)
27
41
45
63
81
100
42
60
68
96
120
150

Total
120
210
260
420
620
830
190
300
420
590
980
1300
  (1) Assiaae en*rgy  cost @ 2C/KWH, 24 hr/day operation.
  (2) Assuiae labor cost § $40/man-day.
  (3) Assume replacement cost @ 5% of capital cost.
                           353

-------
         TABLE  111
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF
AEROBIC DIGESTION SYSTEMS
Plant eff.
flow
mid
! 0.04
:
.



0.38





1.13





2.27





3.78





11.36





mgd
0.01




1
0.1





0.3





0.6





1.0





3.0





Influent
SS (3)
(mg/ir
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000'
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
Cost ($1000)
Tank
0.68
1.2
1.7
2.2
4.3
5.7
2.23
4.29
6.57
9.16
19.74
28.83
4.29
8.54
13.75
19.74
45.49
68.94
6.57
13.75
22.57
33.04
79.99
123.77
9.16
19.74
33.04
49.57
123.77
193.44
19.16
45.49
79.99
123.77
325.44
522.28
BlowJr25
26.7
26.8
26.8
26.9
27.3
27.6
27.02
27.40
27.96
28.70
32.43
36.14
27.40
28.52
30.93
32.43
43.60
54.80
27.96
30.93
33.55
38.01
60.39
82.76
28.70
32.43
38.01
45.48
82.76
120.01
32.43
43.60
60.39
82.76
182.00
297.00
Acces-
sories (1)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.7
1.00
1.29
1.97
2.75
5.92
8.65
1.29
2.56
4.13
5.92
13.65
20.68
1.97
4.13
6.77
9.91
24.00
37.13
2.75
5.92
9.91
14.87
37.13
58.03
5.75
13.65
24.00
37.13
97.63
156.68
Total
28.38
29.00
29.50
29.76
32.90
35.00
30.25
32.98
36.50
40.61
58.09
73.62
32.98
39.62
48.81
58.09
102.74
144.42
36.50
48.81
62.89
80.96
164.38
243.66
40.61
58.09
80.96
105.92
243.66
371.48
58.09
102.74
164.38
243.66
605.07
975.96
          354

-------
TABLE 111 (con't.)
Plant eff.
flow
mid
18.92





mgd
5.0





Influent
Cost ($1000)
ss (4)| (2)

100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
28.83
68.94
123.77
193.44
522.28
841.66
( T \
Blower '
36.16
54.80
82.76
120.01
297.00
495.00
Acces-
sories d)
8.65
20.68
37.13
58.03
156.68
252.50

Total
73.62
144.42
243.66
371.48
975.96
1,589.16
(1)  Assumed at 30 percent of tank cost and includes inlet
    structure, supernatant pump, sludge pump, piping, and
    electric.
(2)  Includes  blowers, air header and piping, and blower
    house; air required assumed @ 25 cfm/1000 ft^ of
    digester capacity; costs taken from Reference 32.

(3)  Number representing solids to digester is equivalent
    to the solids removed in air flotation (if used)
    plus 90 percent of the sum of the TSS to the aeration
    basin and 60 percent of the BOD to the aeration basin.
                          355

-------
                      TABLE
    ESTIMATED DAILY OPERSTION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
                 FOR AEROBIC DIGESTION
Plant Eff. Flow
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92

mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
COST (S/DAY)
Energy^
0.2
1.3
4.0
8.1
13
40
67

Labor^2)
16
20
20
20
30
40
40

Replacement ^)
4
6
8
11
15
33
51

Total
20
27
32
39
SB
113
158

(1)   Assume Energy cost at 2C/KWH.

(2)   Assume Labor cost at $40/man-day.

(3)   Assume Replacement at 5% of capitol costs, and
     1000 mg/1 SS concentration in plant influent.
                      356

-------
digester  are  comprised  of  all solids removed in dissolved air
flotation, if used, plus all  solids  removed  by  the  secondary
clarifier not recirculated as MLVSS to the aeration basin.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Estimated  daily  operation  and  maintenance  costs  for aerobic
digestion are summarized in Table 112.

VACUUM FILTRATION - SLUDGE HANDLING

Capital Cost

Table 113 on the  following  page  summarizes  estimated  capital
costs  for  vacuum  filters.   In  generating  this data, we have
assumed that solids entering the digester  are  comprised  of  60
percent  of  the  solids  into the aerobic digester (the other 40
percent being destroyed in the digester) plus all solids  removed
by primary gravity settling (if used).

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table  114  summarizes  daily operation and maintenance costs for
vacuum  filtration  of  varying  flows   with   an   assumed   SS
concentration of 1000 mg/1.

Since many processors will not require the use of this dewatering
equipment, the capital and operating costs have been developed to
adequately  cover  the  cost of other methods of sludge handling,
such as land  spreading  of  digested  or  primary  sludge  where
dewatering is not necessary.
EMERGENCY RETENTION PONDS

Capital Cost

Due   to   the   great  fluctuations  possible  in  raw  effluent
characteristics from fruit and vegetable processing plants,  even
the  best  designed biological treatment systems may show erratic
performance  at  times.   To  safeguard  against  this,   it   is
advantageous  to follow conventional biological treatment systems
with  an  emergency  retention  pond  when  fruit  and  vegetable
wastewater is being handled.

As  shown in Table 115 retention ponds of short detention periods
(here assumed at two days) are relatively inexpensive.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table 116 summarizes estimated operation  and  maintenance  costs
for aerated polishing ponds.
                               357

-------
                  TABLE 113




ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF VACUUM FILTRATION
Plant effluent
flow
mid
0.04





0.38





1.13





2.27





3.78





11.36





mgd
0.01





0.1





0.3





0.6





1.0





3.0





Influent
SS (3)
(mg/1)
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
Dry solids
(1,000 lb/
day)
0.008
0.025
0.050
0.083
0.25
0.42
0.08
0.25
0.50
0.83
2.5
4.2
.25
.75
1.5
2.5
7.5
13
.50
1.5
3.0
5.0
15
25
0.83
2.5
5.0
8.3
25
42
2.5
7.5
15
25
75
130
Required
filter
area
(ft2) (1)
0.08
0.26
0.52
0.86
2.6
4.4
0.8
2.6
5.2
8.6
26
44
2.6
7.8
16
26
78
140
5.2
16
31
52
160
260
8.6
26
52
86
260
440
26
78
160
260
780
1,400
Cost
($1,000) (2)
26
27
27
27
28
30
27
28
30
33
46
60
28
32
39
46
87
130
30
39
50
67
150
230
33
46
67
93
230
360
46
87
150
230
630
1,100
                 358

-------
TABLE 113   (con't.)
Plant effluent
flow

mid
18.92





mgd
5.0






Influent
SS 1 1.\
00 ( J )
(mg/1)
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000

Dry solids
(1 000 lb/
day)
4.2
13
25
42
130
210
Required
filter
area
(ft2) (1)
44
140
260
440
1,400
2,200


Cost
($1,000) (2)
60
130
230
360
1,100
1,700
(1)  Assume loading rate of 4 Ibs/ft /hr and 24 hour/day
    operation.
(2)  All costs adapted from Reference 33.
(3)  Number representing solids to vacuum filter is equivalent
    to 60  percent of the solids into the aerobic digester plus
    all the solids removed by primary gravity settling (if
    used).
                          359

-------
                          TABLE 114

          ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
                 COSTS FOR VACUUM FILTRATION
Plant effluent
flow
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0

Cost ($/day) (4>
Energy '!)
0.5
1
2
4
6
15
24
Labor (2)
15
20
20
25
30
40
40
Replacement ( 3 )
4.4
5.4
7.6
11
15
38
59
Total
20
26
30
40
51
93
120
(1)  Assume:
         Energy cost @ 2c/kwh.
         Energy costs taken from Ref.34.
         24  hour/day operation.
(2)  Assume labor costs @ $40/man-day.
(3)  Assume replacement costs @ 6% of capital cost.
(4)  Assume costs are for system with 1,000 mg/1
    SS influent.
                         360

-------
                         TABLE  115




    ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF EMERGENCY  RETENTION PONDS

Plant Eff .
Flow
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($1,000) (2)

Lagoon (1)
Vol. (MG)
0.02
0.2
0.6
1.2
2.0
6.0
10.0

Lagoon (3)
Construction Cost
6
7
10
13
17
34
48
(1)   Assume 2 day retention.



(2)   Assume 200 mg/1 influent BOD.





(3)  Based on 3m (10 ft) depth, unlined pond.
                         361

-------
                          TABLE 116

         ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
            COSTS  FOR EMERGENCY RETENTION PONDS
Plant Eff .
Flow
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0

Cost ($/Day)
Labor (1)
3
5
6
8
9
11
12
Total
3
5
6
8
9
11
12
(1)  Labor cost assumed @ $40/man-day.
                         362

-------
RAPID SAND FILTRATION  (MULTI-MEDIA)

Capital Cost

Figure  66 on the following page graphically summarizes estimated
capital  costs  for  sand  filtration  of   secondary   effluent.
Assumptions  made  in  generating  the  data are listed below the
figure.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table 117 summarizes estimated operation  and  maintenance  costs
for  sand  filtration.   A  further  breakdown of energy costs is
provided in Table 118.

CHLORINATION SYSTEM

Capital Cost

The capital cost of a chlorination system includes the following:

    1.   Chlorinators to measure and apply the chlorine.

    2.   Chlorine cylinder storage.

    3.   Housing for the above.

To simplify the calculations, we are  assuming  that  a  chlorine
application  rate  of  20  mg/1  is  required  to  disinfect  the
effluent.  Table 119 provides estimated  size  and  cost  of  the
chlorination facility required.

The  cost  for the chlorine contact basin is included in the cost
of the polishing pond.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

The operation and maintenance costs for a  chlorination  facility
are  estimated  on  Table  120.   Assumptions  made  are shown as
footnotes to the table.

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

Capital Cost

Table 121 summarizes anaerobic digestion costs as a  function  of
treatment  plant  influent  volume and solids to the digester(s).
In estimating  costs  for  anaerobic  digestion  to  handle  food
processing  wastes,  we  have  assumed  that  the  sludge  solids
concentration into the digester is  four  percent  and  that  the
digester retention time is UO days.  Solids going to the digestor
are  comprised  of all solids removed in dissolved air flotation,
if used, plus all solids removed by the secondary  clarifier  not
recirculated as MLVSS to the aeration basin.
                                  363

-------
                          FIGURE  66



ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR RAPID SAND OR MULTI- MEDIA FILTRATION
       500
       400
     o
     o
     o
     z 300
     o
     o
       200
        IOO
                               2
                               i
     mgd
4
 i
                    3.8
7.6   mid   II
15
19
        Notes:
          (1)   Assume 4 gpm/ft  hydraulic loading rate.


          (2)   All costs taken from Ref.35.
                               364

-------
                         TABLE  117

         ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
              COSTS FOR RAPID SAND FILTRATION
Plant
effluent
flow
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18. »2
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($/day)
Energy. (1)
0.1
1
2
5
8
25
41
Labor (2)
11
16
16
16
25
40
40
Replacement (3)
3
5
11
16
23
48
68
Total
14
22
29
37
56
110
150
(1)Assume energy cost at 2c/kwh
(2)Assume labor cost at $40/man-day.
(3)Assume replacement cost at 5% of capital  cost.
                          365

-------
                       TABLE  118

          ESTIMATED  DAILY  ENERGY COSTS FOR
                 RAPID SAND FILTRATION
Plant effluent
flow
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Energy cost ($/day) (D
Main
stream(2)
pump
0.1
0.79
2.4
4.9
7.9
24
39
Back
wash (3)
pump
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.20
0.29
0.88
1.5
Surface
wash (4)
pump
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.3
0.4
Total
0.12
0.83
2.5
5.1
8.3
25
41
(1)A11 costs  taken from Ref .36  and based on 4 gpm/ft2
   application rate.
(2)Total dynamic head assumed at 100 ft, 80% pump
   efficiency.
(3)Backwash assumed at 5% of main stream, 75 ft head,
   80% pump efficiency.
(4)Surface wash pump assumed to operate 15 min/day at
   1.4 gpm/ft2, with a head of 300 ft; 80% efficiency
   is also assumed.
                       366

-------
                                               TABLE  119
                               CAPITAL COST OF CHLORINATION FACILITIES
co
cr>

Daily volume
mid
0.04
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.'36
18.92
mgd
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
'5.0

Ibs CL2(1)
per day
1.7
17
51
100
170
500
840

Cost of
chlorinators (2)
$1,000
0.5
1
2
2
3
5
7
Cost of
cylinder
storage
$1,000
0.5
1
1
1
2
3
3

Cost of
housing v '
$1,000
0.5
1
2
2
2
3
4

Total
cost
$1,000
2
3
5
5
7
11
14
             (1)Based  on  assumed  chlorine  application rate of 20 mg/1.
             (2)Based  on  100  percent standby capacity and normal accessories
               and  installation.
             (3)Based  on  $30/ft2.

-------
                       TABLE 120

           OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST OF
                CHLORINATION EQUIPMENT

Daily volume


mid
0.04
0.38
1.34
2.2?
3.78
11.36
18.92

mgd
0701
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Daily cost
Chlorine
cost(l)
$
0.2
2
6
11
19
55
92
Labor
cost (2)
$
20
20
20
20
20
40
40
Replacement
parts (3)
$
0.01
1
2
2
3
5
7
(4)
Total
$
20
23
28
33
42
100
139
(1)Based on $0.11/lb in ton cylinders.
(2)Based on $5/hr.
(3)Based on 0.1 percent per day of chlorinator
   cost only.
(4)Power costs are assumed negligible.
                        368

-------
                                                 TABLE  121




                             ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
IQ
Plant effluent
flow
mid
0.38





1.13





2.27





3.78





mgd
0.1





0.3





0.6





1.0





S^5)
(mg/1)
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
Sludge
vol.U)
cf3
33
100
200
330
1,000 -
1,700
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
200
600
1,200
2,000
6,000
10,000
330
1,000
2,000
3,300
10,000
17,000
Digester
vol. (2,4)
1,000 cf3
1.3
4.0
8.0
13.0
40.0
(33.0)
4.0
12.0
24.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
8.0
24.0
24.0
40.0
40.0

13.0
40.0
40.0
33.0


Number
of
tanks
1
1
1
1
1
2




3
5


2
2
6

1
1
2
4

•
Total cost
($1,000(3)
26
35
46
60
120
210
35
56
85
120
370
610
46
85
170
240
730

60
120
240
430



-------
           TABLE 121 (Continued)
CO
~«J
o
Plant effluent
flow


mid
11.36





18.92






mgd
3.0





5.0







SS
(mg/1)
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000
100
300
600
1,000
3,000
5,000

Sludge
vol. (1)
cf3
1,000
3,000
6,000
10,000
30,000
50,000
1,700
5,000
10,000
17,000
50,020
84,000

Digester
vol. (2,4)
1,000 cf3
40.0
40.0
40.0



33.0
40.0
40.0
39.0
40.0
40.0

Number
of
tanks
1
3
6



2
5
10
17
50
84

Total cost
($1,000(3)

120
370
730



210
610
1,200
2,000
6,100
10,000
            (l)Assuae  4%  solids.
            (2)Assume  40  day  retention.
            (3)Costs based  on Reference  1;  where capital costs exceed $1,000,000, it has
              been assumed that an alternate sludge treatment/disposal would be used
              rather  than  anaerobic digestion.
            (4)Assume  40,000  cu. ft. is  maximum digester capacity; larger volumes are
              accommodated by multiple  tanks of identical size.
            (5)Number  representing solids to digester is equivalent to the solids removed
              in air  flotation (if used)  plus 90 percent of the sum of the TSS to the
              aeration basin and 60 percent of the BOD to the aeration basin.

-------
                        TABLE  122
              ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION  AND
        MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR ANAEBOBIC  DIGESTION
Plant Eff .
Vol-
• mid
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
mgd
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
Cost ($/day)

Energy (1,4)
1.5
1.9
3.8
7.6
Labor(2)
40
40
40
40
Replacement (3)
7
13
27
47
Total
48
55
71
95
(1)   Assume energy cost @ 2C/KWA,
C2.)   Assume labor cost @ $40./man-day.
(3)   Assume replacement cost @  4%  of  capital investment, for
     1,000 ppm TSS in influent.
(4)   Taken from Ref. 37.
                          371

-------
Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table  122  summarizes  estimated daily operation and maintenance
costs for anaerobic digestion.  Assumptions made in  arriving  at
these figures are listed below the table.

CARBON ADSORPTION

Capital Cost

Figure  67  summarizes  capital costs for carbon adsorption.  The
construction cost curve is based on carbon towers designed for  a
surface loading of four gal/min/sg ft.  Costs include the towers,
initial carbon charge, tower pumps, carbon regeneration furnaces,
carbon  handling  and storage equipment, and all other mechanical
and electrical equipment.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Carbon adsorption for  food  processing  wastewater  applications
would  only be used as a polishing tertiary treatment.  Table 123
summarizes operation and maintenance costs which would  be  added
on  to  primary and secondary system costs.  Table 12U summarizes
component energy costs for carbon adsorption.

ELECTRODIALYSIS

Capital Cost

Table 125 summarizes capital costs for electrodialysis membranes,
electrical equipment, and auxiliary equipment.  Assumptions  made
in generating this data are listed as footnotes of the table.

Other  electrical  and  auxiliary  equipment costs are taken from
Ref. 38.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table  126  summarizes  operating  and  maintenance   costs   for
electrodialysis.  Assumptions are listed beneath the table.

REVERSE OSMOSIS

Capital Cost

The  capital  cost of reverse osmosis is comprised of three major
components:  the membrane,  the  feedwater  pump,  and  auxiliary
equipment.

Table  127  on  the following page summarizes total capital costs
for reverse osmosis treatment.  Assumptions made are listed below
the table.
                                   372

-------
                           FIGURE  67

         ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR CARBON ADSORPTION
   2000
 O  1500
 O
 O
   1000
 (O
 O
 O
    500
Notes:
                                mgd
                 3.8
7.6   mid   II
15
19
     - Aesume loading rate =  4 gpm/ft2

     . Costs taken from Brown and Caldwell/ Lompoc
       Valley Regional Wastewater Management Study
       and Preliminary Design, June, 1972.
                            373

-------
                        TABLE 123
             ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND
        MAINTENANCE  COSTS  FOR CARBON ADSORPTION
Plant
flo
mid
0.3$
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
eff.
w
mgd
0.1
0.3
0.6
1
3
5
Cost ($/day)
Power {^
($)/day
0.7
2.14
4.30
7.17
20.32
33.68
Labor (2)
($)/day
40
40
40
40
40
40
Replace-
ment ( 3 )
49
62
80
104
212
279
Total
($)
90
104
124
151
282
353
(1)Assumed power cost of 2«/KWH.
(2)Assumed labor cost of $40/man-day.
(3)Assumed parts replacement cost at six percent of capital
   investment, includes equipment and carbon.
                          374

-------
                        TABLE
                                124
              ESTIMATED DAILY ENERGY  COSTS
                  FOR CARBON ADSORPTION

Plant eff.
flow
mid
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($/day) (D


Main
stream
.61
1.83
3.66
6.1
17.32
28.86

Back
wash
.02
.07
.14
.24
.71
1.18

Carbon
regeneration
.06
.22
.46
.77
2.1
3.32

Surface
spray
.01
.02
.04
.06
.19
.32


Total
.70
2.14
4.30
7.17
20.32
33.69
(1)Assume power cost at $0.02/KWH.
                            375

-------
                         TABLE  125
       ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF ELECTRODIALYSIS(4)
Plant effluent
flow
mlci
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.3-6
18.92
mgd
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($1,000)
Membrane (1)
7.3
22
43
70
188
291
Electrical (2)
equipment
55
166
332
553
1,658
2,764
Aux. (3)
equipment
31
74
119
175
400
582
Total
93
262
494
798
2,246
3,637 '
(1) Assume:
      .   6  ft cell length.
         20 can/sec product stream velocity.
         1.0 mm  cell thickness.
(2) Assume $150/kw required.
(3)Assume product to brine ratio of 3.
(4)All costs taken from Reference 38.
                          376

-------
                         TABLE  126

         ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
                 COSTS FOR ELECTRODIALYSIS
Plant effluent
flow
mid
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.3.6
18.92
mgd
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0

Cost ($/day)
Energy (1)
120
366
730
1,216
3,646
6,076
-Labor (2)
40
40
40
80
80
80
Replacement (3)
18
50
95
153
431
698
Total
178
456
865
1,449
4,157
6,854
(1)Assume energy cost @ 2c/kwh,  all  costs  taken from
   Reference 40.
(2)Assume labor cost @ $40/man-day.
(3)Assume replacement cost @ 7%  of capital cost.
                          377

-------
                        TABLE 127

                 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
          OF TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEMS  (1)
Plant Eff.
Flow
mid
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.3.6
18.92
mgd.
0*1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($1,000)
Membrane (2)
Module
29
86
156
252
714
1,136
Auxiliary (3)
Equip.
91
195
325
438
990
1,396
Pumping (4)
Equip.
37
102
192
308
795
1,331
Total
157
383
673
998
2,499
3,863
(1)   All costs taken from Ref.  41.
     See individual component tables for full description
     of assumptions made.
(2)   Includes:
          membrane.
          membrane supports.
          pressure vessels and associated equipment.
          spare membranes.
(3)   Includes:
          process instrumentation.
          tank and vessels.
          piping,
          feedwater treatment and chemical injection equip-
          ment .
          intake water system .
(4)   Includes:
          high pressure pumps and drivers.
          interconnecting pipes and valves.
          process pumps and drivers.
          aeeessory electrical equipment•
                          378

-------
                         TABLE  128
                 ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATION
          AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF REVERSE OSMOSIS
Plant Eff.
Flo™
mid
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.3.6
18.92
mgd
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($/Day)
Energy (1)
19
58
120
190
580
970
Labor(2)
40
40
40
80
80
80
Replacement (3)
30
73
130
190
480
740
Total
89
170
280
460
1,100
1,800
(1)   Power cost assumed @ 2C/KWH, 24 hr./day operation.

(2)   Labor cost assumed @ $40-/man-day.

(3)   Replacement cost assumed @ 7% of capital  investment.
                          379

-------
                         TABLE  129
      ESTIMATED DAILY ENERGY COSTS FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS
Plant eff.
flow

mid
0.38
1.13
2.27
3.78
11.36
18.92
mgd
0.1
0.3
0.6'
1.0
3.0
5.0
Cost ($/day)

Feedwater
Pump(l)
1.0
3.1
6.2
10.0
31.0
52.0
Product
Water
Pump (2)
0.7
2.1
4.2
6.9
21.0
35.0
Reject
Brine
Pump (3)
0.3
0.8
1.6
2.6
7.8
13.0
Feedwater
Process
, Pump (4)
17
52
100
170
520
870
Total


19
58
120
190
580
970
(1)   Assume 60 psi output pressure, 80% pump efficiency,

(2)   Assume 80 psi output pressure, 80% efficiency, 0.5
     recovery ratio.

(3)   Assume 30 psi output pressure, 80% efficiency, 0.5
     recovery ratio.

(4)   Assume 1,000 psi output pressure, 80% efficiency.
                          380

-------
Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table 128 summarizes operating and maintenance costs for  reverse
osmosis treatment.  Energy costs are defined in greater detail in
Table 129.

APPROACH TO COST ESTIMATION OF SUBCATEGORY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

Treatment  costs  are  given in the following tables (Tables 130-
185) for each commodity for eight  treatment  alternatives.   The
treatment  alternatives include screening, average aerated lagoon
treatment  and  in-plant  controls,  average   activated   sludge
treatment   and  in-plant  controls,  land  treatment  via  spray
irrigation, improved aerated lagoon treatment plus additional in-
plant controls plus chlorination  with  and  without  multi-media
filtration   and   improved   activated   sludge  treatment  plus
additional in-plant controls plus chlorination with  and  without
multi-media  filtration.   The effluent quality (BOD5 and TSS)  is
given for each treatment  alternative  with  screened  raw  waste
loads given below alternative A.  Costs for commodities are given
for  their  typical processing season; costs for some commodities
are  based  on  cold  temperature  conditions.    The   following
subsections   summarize   the   approach   used  in  costing  the
alternatives for each subcategory.

The basic cost estimating approach consists of taking the average
raw waste (flow volume in mgd; BOD5_ in mg/1; and TSS in mg/1) for
each  subcategory  as  shown  in  Section  V  and   treating   it
sufficiently to meet the effluent guidelines set forth in Section
IX or X of this document.

The  characteristics  of  the  raw  waste  loads determined which
treatment modules were used and also the loading rates, detention
times, etc. at which the units  for  all  treatment  chains  were
operated.   Capital  and  operation  and  maintenance  costs  for
individual treatment modules were taken directly from the  tables
and  curves  presented  in  the  individual treatment module cost
subsections of Section VIII.

For treatment alternatives B thru H, screening was assumed to  be
already installed at plants and was therefore not included in the
costs.   While most plants currently have some form of lagooning,
the entire lagoon  system  costs  were  included  in  the  lagoon
alternatives.

Spray Irrigation

Cost estimates for each model plant (Table 130-185)  for the spray
irrigation treatment alternative (D) were taken directly from the
total  capital  cost  curve  (Figure  59)  and  the operation and
maintenance  tabulation  (Table  95)  developed  in   the   spray
irrigation  cost  subsection  of  Section VIII.  No other modules
were used in conjunction with spray irrigation.
                                    381

-------
                                                            TABLE 130

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL APRICOT PLANT
                                                 (70 Day Operating Season at 310 kkg/day)
co
00
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Unit Cost
Land Coit
Engr. & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Capital Recovery
O&M Cost
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (l-g/kkg)
TSS (kg/kkg)
A B_
272
200
22
50
49
40
9

15.5 1.9
4.2 3.4
C_
584
460
4
120
119
94
25

1.9
3.4
D
648
310
260
78
71
63
8

0
0
E_
283
209
22
52
56
42
14

0.6
1.1
£_
595
469
4
122
126
96
30

0.6
1.1
.G
583
449
22
112
110
91
19

0.6
0.6
it
895
709
4
182
180
145
35

0.6
0.6
   KETtRNAriVL A
   ALTERNATIVE B
   ALTERNATIVE C
   ALTERNATIVE D
   ALTERNATIVE E
   ALTERNATIVE F
Screening"
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
   ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative ETius Multi-Media Filtration
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                        TABLE 131

                                 ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CANEBERRY PLANT
                                     (60 Day Operating Season at 19 kkg/day)
                                                 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 36 177 58
Unit Cost 28 140 43
Land Cost 1 2 4
Engr. & Cont. 7 35 11
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 8 34 10
Capital Recovery 6 28 9
O&M Cost 2 6 1
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 2.8 0.5 0.5 0
TSS (kg/kkg) 0.6 0.9 0.9 0
ALILRNAUVt A: Screening
40
31
1
8
10
7
3

0.14
0.22

181
143
2
36
36
29
7

0.14
0.22

67
53
1
13
15
11
4

0.14
0.14

208
165
2
41
41
33
8

0.14
0.14

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional




In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

Controls Plus

Chlorination


ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus  Multi-Media FHtration

-------
                                                         TABLE  132

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL  BRINED CHERRY PLANT
                                            (335 Day Operating  Season  at  11  kkg/day)
                                          (Costs Based  on  Cold  Temperature  Conditions)
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
A i P_ 2
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 95 227 70
Unit Cost 72 180 50
Land Cost 5 2 8
Engr. & Cont. 18 45 12
co
00
*" TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 30 81 18
Capital Recovery 15 37 10
O&M Cost 15 44 8
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BCD5 (I'.q/kkg) 21.8 1.8 1.8 0
TSS (kg/kkg) 1.4 3.3 3.3 0
ALlLKNAllVh A: Screening
£
98
74
5
19


38
16
22

0.
0.

F_
230
182
2
46


89
38
51

38 0.38
97 0.97

G.
136
104
5
27


50
22
28

0.38
0.38

H.
268
212
2
54


101
44
57

0.38
0.38

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional

In-plant

Controls Plus
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls PI
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration



Chi ori nation
us Chi ori nation





ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE
                                     ESTIMATED  TREATMENT  COSTS  ($1000)  FOR A  TYPICAL SOUR CHERRY PLANT
                                             (55  Day  Operating  Season at 50 kkg/day)
   TOTAL CAPITAL COST
    Unit Cost
    Land Cost
    Engr.  & Cont.
co
00
                                                     TREATMENT  ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D          E
-






17.2
1.0
82
62
4
16
16
13
3
1.1
2.1
252
200
2
50
49
41
8
1.1
2.1
116
73
25
18
17
15
2
0
0
87
66
4
17
18
14
4
0.54
0.95
257
204
2
51
51
42
9
0.54
0.95
149
116
4
29
29
24
5
0.54
0.54
319
254
2
63
62
52
10
0.54
0.54
01  TOTAL ANNUAL COST
    Capital  Recovery
    O&M Cost
   EFFLUENT QUALITY
    BOD5_ (kg/kkg)
    TSS  (ko/kkg)
   ALTERNATTVEA:  Screening
   ALTERNATIVE B:  Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
   ALTERNATIVE C:
   ALTERNATIVE D:
   ALTERNATIVE E:
   ALTERNATIVE F:
   ALTERNATIVE G:
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E ?! us-Multi-Media Filtration
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 134
                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL SWEET CHERRY PLANT
                                           (55 Day Operating Season  at 78 kkg/day)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
                                                 C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 82 252 1
Unit Cost 62 200
Land Cobt 4 2
Engr. & Cont. 16 50
co
$ TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 16 49
Capital Recovery 13 41
O&M Cost 38
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (l.g/kkg) 9. 7 0.7 0*7
TSS (kg/kkg) 0.6 1.3 1.3
ALThKNAHVL A: Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant
16
73
25
18

17
15
2

0
0

87
66
4
17

18
14
4

0.
0.

257
204
2
51

51
42
9

24 0.
46 0.

149 319
116 254
4 2
29 63

29
24
5

24 0.24
46 0.24


62
52
10

0.24
0.24

Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation

ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Addi
ALTERNATIVE 6: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

In-plant

Controls PI
tional In-plant Controls




us Chi ori nation
Plus Chi ori nation





ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 135

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CRANBERRY PLANT
                                           (120 Day Operating  Season  at 28 kkg/day)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 65 202 87
. Unit Cost 50 160 59
Land Cost 3 2 13
Engr. & Cont. 12 40 15
co
S3 TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 16 49 16
Capital Recovery 10 33 12
U&M Cost 6 16 4
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 10.0 1.1 1.1 0
TSS (kg/kkg) 1.4 1.9 1.9 0
ALTLMAliVL A: Screening
69
53
3
13

20
11
9

0.33
0.62

206
163
2
41

53
34
19

0.33
0.62

113 250
88 198
3 2
22 50

30
18
12

0.33
0.33


63
41
22

0.33
0.33

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional




In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

Controls Plus

Chlorination



ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                       TABLE  I36

ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL DRIED FRUIT PLANT
         (365:Day Operating Season at 26 kkg/day)
                TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

               C          D         E
H
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 65 202 87
Unit Cost 50 160 59
Land Cost 3 2 13
Engr. & Cont. 12 40 15
co
CD TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 28 80 23
Capital Recovery 10 33 12
O&M Cost 18 47 11
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BCD5 (kg/kkg) 12.4 1.2 1.2 0
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 1-9 2.1 2.1 0
ALItKNAl *Vt A: bcreenl g
68 205
52 162
3 2
13 41

37 89
18 41
19 48

0.35 0.35
0.70 0.70

112
87
3
22

52
25
27

0.35
0.35

249
197
2
50

104
48
56

0.35
0.35

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional



In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Mult.i -Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration


Chi on nation





-------
                                                           TABLE 137

                                    ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL GRAPE JUICE CANNING PLANT
                                             (365  Day Operating  Season at  136 kkg/day)
                                           (Cdsts  Based on  Cold  Temperature  Conditions)
  TOTAL CAPITAL COST
   Unit Cost
   Land Cost
   Engr. & Cont.
                       B.

                      154
                      110
                       16
                       28
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D         E
340
270
  2
 68
147
 90
 35
 22
159
114
 16
 29
345
274
  2
 69
240
179
 16
 45
  H.

426
339
  2
 85
8TOTAL ANNUAL COST
   Capital Recovery
   O&M Cost
                       48
                       22
                       26
117
 55
 62
 33
 18
 15
 59
 23
 36
128
 56
 72
 82
 36
 46
 151
  69
  82
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
10.
1.
7
2
0.7
1.3
0.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.
0.
30
50
0.30
0.50
0.30
0.30

0.30
0.30
  ALiLHNAllVt A
  ALTERNATIVE B:
  ALTERNATIVE C:
  ALTERNATIVE D:
  ALTERNATIVE E:
  ALTERNATIVE F:
  ALTERNATIVE G:
  ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration
Screening
Average A-..rated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE  138

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL GRAPE JUICE PRESSING PLANT
                                              (60 Day Operating Season  at 752 kkg/day)
CO
   TOTAL CAPITAL COST
    Unit Cost
    Land Cobt
    Engr. & Cont.
   TOTAL ANNUAL COST
    Capital Recovery
    O&M Cost
                       IB

                      115
                      87
                        6
                      22
                      23
                      18
                       5
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
£
327
260
2
65
65
54
11
2
170
100
45
25
23
20
3
IE
121
92
6
23
26
19
7
333
265
  2
 66
 68
 55
 13
221
172
  6
 43
 44
 35
  9
 H.

533
445
  2
 86
 86
 71
 15
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
0-g/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
1
0
.9
.4
0.14
0.26
0.14
0.26
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.
0.
06
06
   ALItRNAUVt A
   ALTERNATIVE B:
   ALTERNATIVE C:
   ALTERNATIVE D:
   ALTERNATIVE E:
   ALTERNATIVE F:
   ALTERNATIVE G:
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Hus Multi-Media Filtration
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                           TABLE 139

                                    ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL OLIVE PLANT
                                              (365 Day Operating Season at 40 kkg/day)
  TOTAL CAPITAL COST
   Unit Cost
   Land Cost
   Engr. & Cont.
 B_

112
 85
  6
 21
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D         E
302
240
  2
 60
208
120
 58
 30
119
 90
  6
 23
308
245
  2
 61
231
180
  6
 45
 H_

420
335
  2
 83
OJ
  TOTAL ANNUAL COST
   Capital Recovery
   O&M Cost
 40
 17
 23
107
 49
 58
 41
 24
 17
 52
 18
 34
119
 50
 69
 81
 36
 45
148
 68
 80
TSS (kg/kkg)
ALI'LRNAIlVh A:
ALTERNATIVE B:
ALTERNATIVE C:
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
ALTERNATIVE H:
43.7 3.5 3.5 0.0 1.15 1.15
7.5 6.4 6.4 0.0 1.98 1.98
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
Screening
Average A-.rated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chi ori nation
Alternative E Plus Multi -Media Filtration
Alternative F Plus Multi -Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 140

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CANNED PEACH PLANT
                                           (75 Day Operating Season at 197 kkg/day)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 188 502 322 196 510
Unit Cost 140 400 170 146 406
Land Cost 13 2 110 13 2
Engr. & Cont. 35 100 42 37 102
!8 TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 37 106 40 41 110
Capital Recovery 28 81 35 29 82
O&M Cost 9 25 5 12 28
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (l-g/kkg) 14.1 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.51 0.51
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 2.3 2.2 2.2 0.0 0.88 0.88
ALlhKNAUVh A: Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus
358 672
276 536
13 2
69 134
70 139
55 108
15 31

0.51
0.51




Chlorination

0.51
0.51





ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E F ius Multi-Media Filtration


ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                           TABLE 141

                                    ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL FROZEN PEACH PLANT
                                              (75 Day Operating Season at 476 kkg/day)
  fOTAL CAPITAL COST
   Unit Cost
   Land Cost
   Engr. & Cont.
                                      B_

                                    188
                                    140
                                      13
                                      35
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D         E
502
400
  2
100
322
170
110
 42
196
146
 13
 37
510
406
  2
102
358
276
 13
 69
  H.

672
536
  2
134
co
  TOTAL ANNUAL COST
   Capital Recovery
   O&M Cost
                                     37
                                     28
                                      9
106
 81
 25
 40
 35
  5
 41
 29
 12
110
 82
 28
 70
 55
 15
139
108
 31
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS~
(kg/kkg)
(ka/kkg)
11
1
.7
.9
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.26
0.31
0.26
0.31
0.26
0.26
0.
0.
26
26
  ALlLRNATiVt A: Screeni.-.g
  ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
                 Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
                 Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
                 Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
                 Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
  ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus -Multi-Media Filtration
  ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE C;
ALTERNATIVE D;
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:

-------
                                                         TABLE  142

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL PEAR PLANT
                                           (60 Day Operating Season at 217 kkg/day)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
                                      B_

                                     178
                                     140
                                      13
                                      35
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
477
380
  2
 95
322
170
110
 42
196
146
 13
 37
485
386
  2
 97
358
276
 13
 69
647
516
  2
129

TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                                      35
                                      28
                                       7
 98
 78
 20
 39
 35
  4
 38
 29
  9
101
 79
 22
 67
 55
 12
130
105
 25
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (f:g/kkg)
TSS (kg/kkg)
21.2
3.3
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.37
0.76
0.37
0.76
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
ALlERNAlivt. A: screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average /Crated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
               Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls Plus  Chlorination
               Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls  Plus  Chlorination
               Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media FHtration

-------
                                                           TABLE  143

                                    ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL  FRESH PICKLE PLANT
                                             (110 Day Operating Season at 27  kkg/day)
  TOTAL CAPITAL COST
   Unit Cost
   Land Coit
   Engr. & Cont.
co
vo
C71
  TOTAL ANNUAL COST
   Capital Recovery
   O&M Cost
B_

64
48
 4
12
15
10
 5
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
C_
214
170
2
42
50
35
15
P.
70
50
8
12
13
10
3
E_
68
51
4
13
18
11
7
218
173
  2
 43
 53
 36
 17
106
 81
  4
 21
 26
 17
  9
256
203
  2
 51
 61
 42
 19
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (N/kkq) 9-5 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
TSS~~ (kg/kkg) 1-9 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36
ALTLRNAUVt A:
ALTERNATIVE B:
ALTERNATIVE C:
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE 6:
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Plus Multi -Media Filtration
  ALTERNATIVE  H: Alternative  F  Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 144

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL PROCESS  PICKLE  PLANT
                                           (250 Day Operating  Season  at 63  kkg/day)
                                         (Costs Based on Cold  Temperature Conditions)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
119
 90
  7
 22
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
290
230
  2
 58
110
 70
 22
 18
124
 94
  7
 23
295
234
  2
 59
186
144
  7
 35
                                                                                                       H.

                                                                                                     357
                                                                                                     284
                                                                                                       2
                                                                                                       71
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                                      33
                                      18
                                      15
            85
            47
            38
            23
            14
             9
           40
           19
           21
            92
            48
            44
           56
           29
           27
            108
             58
             50
BOP5 (ka/kka) 18-4 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
TSS~ (ka/kkg) 3-3 I-8 ]-8 °-° °-61 °-61 °-32 °-32
ALFtRlNAIiVh A:
ALTERNATIVE B:
ALTERNATIVE C:
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
ALTERNATIVE H:
Screeni.-.g
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls PI
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls
Alternative E Plus -Multi -Media Filtration
Alternative F Plus Multi -Media Filtration
us Chi ori nation
Plus Chi ori nation

-------
                                                           TABLE  145

                                    ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL  PINEAPPLE PLANT
                                            (210  Day Operating Season at 1,042 kkg/day)
  TOTAL CAPITAL  COST
   Unit Cost
   Land Cost
   Engr.  &  Cont.
                       B_

                      303
                      220
                       28
                       55
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D         E
728
580
  8
140
1,190
  530
  530
  130
318
232
 28
 58
743
592
  8
143
806
622
 28
156
  H.

1,231
  982
    8
  241
co
  TOTAL ANNUAL  COST
    Capital  Recovery
    O&M Cost
                       76
                       45
                       31
220
120
100
  150
  110
   40
101
 47
 54
245
122
123
206
127
 79
  350
  202
  148
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (Lg/kkg)
TSS (kg/kkg)
10.3
2.7
1.2
2.0
1.2
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.55
0.91
0.55
0.91
0.5E
0.55
0.55
0.55
   ALILHNAriVt  A
   ALTFRNATIVE  B
   ALTERNATIVE  C
   ALTERNATIVE  D
   ALTERNATIVE  E
   ALTERNATIVE  F
   ALTERNATIVE  G
Screening
Average A-:rated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration.
   ALTERNATIVE  H:  Alternative F  Plus  Multi-Media  Filtration

-------
                                                           TABLE 146

                                    ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL PLUM PLANT
                                               (70 Day Operating Season at  53 kkg/day)
  TOTAL CAPITAL COST
   Unit Cost
   Land Co^t
   Engr. & Cont.
                       B.

                       57
                       43
                        3
                       11
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D         E
202
160
  2
 40
76
53
10
13
61
46
 3
12
206
163
  2
 41
99
76
 3
20
 H.

244
193
  2
 49
CO
oo TOTAL ANNUAL COST
   Capital Recovery
   O&M Cost
                       12
                        9
                        3
 41
 33
  8
13
11
 2
15
10
 5
 44
 34
 10
22
16
 6
 51
 40
 11
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
0-3/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
4.
0.
1
4
0.
0.
4
8
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.22
0.15
0.22
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
  ALTERNATIVE A
  ALTERNATIVE B
  ALTERNATIVE C
  ALTERNATIVE D
  ALTERNATIVE E
  ALTERNATIVE F
  ALTERNATIVE G
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
  ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE 147

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL RAISIN PLANT
                                              (365 Day Operating Season at 149 kkg/day)
<£>
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D         E
H
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 64 202 95 68 206
Unit Cost 50 160 64 53 163
Land Cost 2 2 15 2 2
Engr. & Cont. 12 40 16 13 41
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 26 77 24 35 86
Capital Recovery 10 33 13 11 34
O&M Cost 16 44 11 24 52
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BCD5 (kg/kkg) 6.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.11 0.
TSS (kq/kkg) 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.28 0.
ALlhKNAliVt A: Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
118 256
93 203
2 2
23 51
51 102
19 42
32 60

11
28




ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus -Multi -Media Filtration

0.11
0.11




Chlorination

0.11
0.11





Plus Chi ori nation



   ALTERNATIVE H:  Alternative F Plus  Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                           TABLE 148

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL STRAWBERRY PLANT
                                             (35 Day Operating  Season at 49 kkg/day)
  TOTAL  CAPITAL COST
    Unit  Cost
    Land  Cost
    Engr.  &  Cont.
 B_

68
52
 3
13
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D         E
227
180
  2
 45
119
 75
 25
 19
73
56
 3
14
232
184
  2
 46
135
106
  3
 26
294
234
  2
 58
o
o
  TOTAL ANNUAL  COST
    Capital  Recovery
    O&M Cost
13
11
 2
 42
 37
  5
 16
 15
  1
15
12
 3
 44
 38
  6
 26
 22
  4
 55
 48
  7
EFFLUENT DUALITY
BOD5
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/.kkg)
5.
1.
3
4
1
1
.1
.9
1.1
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.33
0.52
0.33
0.52
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33,
              A:  screening
  ALTERNATIVE B:  Average Aerated  Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
  ALTERNATIVE C:  Average Activated  Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
  ALTERNATIVE D:  Land  Treatment via Spray Irrigation
  ALTERNATIVE E:  Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
  ALTERNATIVE F:  Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
  ALTERNATIVE G:  Alternative  E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
  ALTERNATIVE H:  Alternative  F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 149

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL PEELED TOMATO PLANT
                                           (90 Day Operating Season at 930 kkg/day)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
  B_

300
220
 25
 55
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
848
670
  8
170
770
360
320
 90
311
229
 25
 57
859
679
  8
172
661
509
 25
127
  H.

1,209
  959
    8
  242
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
 59
 45
 14
180
140
 40
 85
 73
 12
 68
 47
 21
189
142
 47
133
104
 29
  254
  199
   55
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 4.1 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.
TSS-(kgAkg) 6.2 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.
ALTERNATIVE A:
ALTERNATIVE B:
ALTERNATIVE C:
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
ALTERNATIVE H:
24
37
0.24
0.37
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chi ori nation
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chi ori nation
Alternative E Hus Multi -Media Filtration
Alternative F Plus Multi -Media Filtration

-------
                       TABLE 150

ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL TOMATO PRODUCT PLANT
        (90 Day Operating Season  at  1,602  kkg/day)
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
A B_ C_ £
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 286 826 712
Unit Cost 210 660 330
Land Cost 24 6 300
Engr. & Cont. 52 160 82
•fv
° TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 55 164 78
Capital Recovery 43 130 67
O&M Cost 12 34 11
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 2.7 0.5 0.5 0.0
ALTERNAliVh A: i>creeni:,g
£
297
219
24
54

63
45
18

0.18
0.25

£
837
669
6
162

172
132
40

0.18
0.25

G
622
479
24
119

122
97
25

0.18
0.18

H.
972
739
6
227

231
184
47

0.18
0.18

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional


In-plant Controls Plus
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus -Multi -Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi -Media Filtration



Chi ori nation


Controls Plus Chi ori nation







-------
                                                         TABLE 151

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL ASPARAGUS PLANT
                                           (60 Day Operating Season at 33 kkg/day)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
                                      B_

                                     110
                                      83
                                       6
                                      21
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
                                    264
                                    210
                                      2
                                     52
276
150
 88
 38
118
 89
  6
 23
271
216
  2
 53
268
209
  6
 53
421
336
  2
 83
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                                      19
                                      16
                                       3
                                     53
                                     43
                                     10
 35
 31
  4
 22
 17
  5
 56
 44
 12
 48
 41
  7
82
68
14
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
2.
3.
1
4
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.16
0.21
0.16
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.
0.
16
16
ALIhKNAiivt A:"Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
               Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
               Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
               Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
C:
D:
E:
F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 152

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL BEET PLANT
                                            (120 Day Operating Season at 284 kkg/day)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
                       B.

                      349
                      270
                       11
                       68
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
502
400
  2
100
198
100
 60
 28
355
275
 11
 69
508
405
  2
101
467
365
 11
 91
 H.

620
495
  2
123
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                       75
                       55
                       20
111
 81
 30
 26
 20
  6
 80
 56
 24
116
 82
 34
102
 74
 28
138
100
 38
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
19
3
.7
.9
0.5
1.3
0.5
1.3
0.0
0.0
0
0
.25
.72
0.25
0.72
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
ALFLKNAiiVh A: Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C:                    "  "                 "
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 153

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL BROCCOLI PLANT
                                           (270  Day Operating Season at 56 kkg/day)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Co;>t
 Engr. & Cont.
                       B_

                     115
                      87
                       6
                      22
314
250
  2
 62
300
160
100
 40
123
 93
  6
 24
322
256
  2
 64
285
223
  6
 56
484
386
  2
 96
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                      36
                      17
                      19
102
 51
 51
 49
 33
 16
 47
 18
 29
113
 52
 61
 84
 44
 40
150
 78
 72
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
9
5
.8
.6
2.3
3.7
2.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.4
1
1
.0
.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
ALILRNAflVl A
ALTERNATIVE B:
ALTERNATIVE C:
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE 6:
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Flus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 154

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL BRUSSELS SPROUT PLANT
                                           (90 Day Operating Season at  102 kkg/day)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Enar. & Cont.
                                    148
                                    110
                                     10
                                     28
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
354
280
  4
 70
412
210
150
 52
157
117
 10
 30
363
287
  4
 72
369
287
 10
 72
  IH

575
457
  4
114
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                                     29
                                     22
                                      7
76
57
19
 74
 67
  7
 35
 24
 11
 89
 59
 30
 74
 58
 16
128
 93
 35
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
3.
10.
4
8
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1
1
.0
.0
ALlhKNAHVh A: bcreem,,g
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant  Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
               Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant  Controls  Plus Chlorination
               Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus  Additional  In-plant  Controls  Plus Chlorination
               Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE D
ALTERNATIVE E
ALTERNATIVE F
ALTERNATIVE G
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 155

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL CARROT PLANT
                                           (200 Day  Operating  Season at  109 kkg/day)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
                                      B_

                                     125
                                      93
                                       9
                                      23
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
364
290
  2
 72
188
110
 50
 28
131
 98
  9
 24
370
295
  2
 73
243
188
  9
 46
                                                                                                       H,

                                                                                                     482
                                                                                                     385
                                                                                                       2
                                                                                                      95
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                                      34
                                      18
                                      16
                                                 95
                                                 59
                                                 36
            31
            22
             9
           41
           19
           22
           102
            60
            42
           65
           37
           28
            126
             78
             48
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg)
TSS (kg/kkg)
19.5
12.0
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
ALHRNATlVt A:
ALTERNATIVE B:
ALTERNATIVE C:
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
ALTERNATIVE H:
               Screening
               Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
               Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
               Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional Inrplant Controls Plus Chlorination
               Alternative E Plus Multi -Media Filtration
               Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 156

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CAULIFLOWER PLANT
                                            (180 Day Operating Season at 37 kkg/day)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cobt
 Land Coit
 Engr. & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
134
100
  9
 25
 32
 20
 12
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
£
316
250
4
62
85
51
34
D
380
200
130
50
55
41
14
E.
143
107
9
27
41
22
19
325
257
  4
 64
 94
 53
 41
331
257
  9
 65
 81
 53
 28
513
407
  4
102
134
 84
 50
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5
TSS
(l-g/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
5.3
2.6
1.3
2.0
1.3
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.9
1.5
1.9
1
1
.5
.5
1
1
.5
.5
ALlhKNAMVt A: screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls  Plus  Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls  Plus  Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Fius Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 157

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CANNED CORN PLANT
                                           (70 Day Operating  Season at  229  kkg/day)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                                      B_

                                     133
                                     100
                                       8
                                      25
                                      26
                                      20
                                       6
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
C_
327
260
2
65
66
54
12
£
158
94
40
24
22
19
3
E_
138
104
8
26
29
21
8
332
264
  2
 66
                                                                                69
                                                                                55
                                                                                14
226
174
  8
 44
           45
           35
           10
                                                                                                     420
                                                                                                     334
                                                                                                       2
                                                                                                      84
             85
             69
             16
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS~
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
14.
6.
4
7
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.22
0.12
0.22
0.
0.
12
12
0.12
0.12
ALThKNATivt A: bcreeni;,g
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
               Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
               Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
               Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE C
ALTERNATIVE D
ALTERNATIVE E
ALTERNATIVE F
ALTERNATIVE G
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                           TABLE  158

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL FROZEN CORN PLANT
                                               (70 Day Operating Season at 77 kkg/day)
  TOTAL  CAPITAL  COST
    Unit  Cost
    Land  Cost
    Engr.  &  Cont.
                                      B.

                                    133
                                    100
                                      8
                                     25
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D          E
                                    327
                                    260
                                      2
                                     65
158
 94
 40
 24
138
104
  8
 26
332
264
  2
 66
226
174
  8
 44
 H.

420
334
  2
 84
o TOTAL ANNUAL  COST
    Capital  Recovery
    O&M Cost
                                     26
                                     20
                                      6
                                     66
                                     54
                                     12
 22
 19
  3
 29
 21
  8
 69
 55
 14
 45
 35
 10
 85
 69
 16
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
20.
5.
2
6
1.2
2.4
1.2
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.56
0.93
0.56
0.93
0.
0.
56
56
0.56
0.56
  ALTERNATIVE A:  Screening
  ALTERNATIVE B:  Average  Aerated Lagoon  Treatment and  In-plant Controls
                  Average  Activated  Sludge  Treatment and In-plant Controls
                  Land  Treatment via Spray  Irrigation
                  Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
                  Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE C
ALTERNATIVE D
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
E:
F:
  ALTERNATIVE  G: Alternative  E Plus  Multi-Media Filtration
  ALTERNATIVE  H: Alternative  F Plus  Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                       TABLE 159

ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL DEHYDRATED ONION AND GARLIC PLANT
   060 Day Operating Season at 228  kkg/day)
                TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

               C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 215 524 455
Unit Cost 160 420 220
Land Cost 15 4 180
Engr. & Cont. 40 100 55
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 49 128 59'
Capital Recovery 33 85 45
O&M Cost 16 43 14
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 6.5 1.6 1.6 0.0
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 5.9 2.4 2.4 0.0
ALltKNAUVt A: Screen!:. g
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
225
168
15
42
59
35
24

0.59
0.87


534
428
4
102
138
87
51

0.59
0.87


463
358
15
90
108
74
34

0.59
0.59


772
618
4
150
187
126
61

0.59
0.59


ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVt. E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-pl

ant

Controls Plus

Chi ori nation


ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chi ori nation
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi -Media Filtration









-------
                       TABLE 160

ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL
   C335 Day Operating Season at  149 kkg/day)
DEHYDRATED VEGETABLE PLANT
                TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

               C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 184 429 368
Unit Cost 140 340 190
Land Cost 9 4 130
Engr. & Cont. 35 85 48
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 5? 143 64
Capital Recovery 28 69 39
O&M Cost 29 74 25
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (kg/kkg) 7-9 J-9 J-9 °-°
TSS- (kg/kkg) 5.7 2.9 2.9 0.0
ALTERNATIVE A: Screening
193
147
9
37
71
29
42

0.9
1.3

438
347
4
87
157
70
87

0.9
1.3

380
297
9
74
119
60
59

0.9
0.9

612
497
4
111
205
101
104

0.9
0.9

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional

In-plant

Controls PI
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi -Media Filtration





us Chlorination
Plus Chlorination








-------
                                                         TABLE  161

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL DRY BEAN PLANT
                                    (365 Day Operating Season at 21 kkg/day)
                                    (Costs Based on Cold Temperature Conditions)
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
A B_ C. D_
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 85 227 92
Unit Cost 63 180 62
Land Cos»t 6 2 14
Engr. & Cont. 16 45 16
w TOTAL ANNUAL COST 31 81 24
Capital Recovery 13 37 13
O&M Cost 18 44 11
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (l:g/kkg) '5-4 I-6 \-6 JJrjJ
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 4-4 2-8 2-8 °-°
ALIHRNAHVt A: Screening
E_
89
66
6
17
40
14
26
0.7
1.1

F_
231
183
2
46
90
38
52
0.7
1.1

G.
139
106
6
27
56
22
34
0.7
0.7

H.
281
223
2
56
106
46
60
0.7
0.7

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional




In-plant Controls Plus Chi ori nation
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E F ius Multi-Media Filtration

Controls

Plus Chi ori nation


ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE  162

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL LIMA BEAN PLANT
                                     (40 Day Operating Season at 79 kkg/day)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 149 340 258
Unit Cost 110 270 140
Land Coit 11 2 83
Engr. & Cont. 28 68 35
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 25 62 30
Capital Recovery 22 55 28
O&M Cost 372
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (rg/kkg) 13-9 2.4 2.4 0.0
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 10-4 4.0 4.0 0.0
ALitKNAllvt A: screening
155
115
11
29
27
23
4

0.9
1.3

346
275
2
69
64
56
8

0.9
1.3

293
225
11
57
51
46
5

0.9
0.9

472
385
2
85
88
79
9

0.9
0.9

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Controls

ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant


Controls Plus
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls PI
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration




Chlorination



us Chlorination


ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 163

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL MUSHROOM PLANT
                                     (_300  Day Operating Season at 12 kkg/day)
                                     (Costs  Based on  Cold Temperature Conditions)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
H
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 62
Unit Cost 47
Land Cost 3
Engr. & Cont. 12
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 22
Capital Recovery ^
O&M Cost 12
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 8.7 1.9
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 4.8 3.2
ALltRNAUVh A: bcreeni g
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment
177
140
2
35
61
28
33

1.9
3.2

76
53
10
13
19
11
8

0.0
0.0

68
50
3
13
30
11
19

0.63
0.95

181
143
2
36
69
29
40

0.63
0.95

106
82
3
21
43
18
25

0.63
0.63

221
175
2
44
82
36
46

0.63
0.63

and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and
In-plant
Controls



ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVb E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment
Plus
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment PI
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Mult.i -Media Fi
Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chi ori nation
us Additional In-plant
Hration

Controls

Plus Chi ori nation


ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE  164

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CANNED ONION PLANT
                                       (300  Day Operating Season at 13 kkg/day)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
ALTERNATIVE D
ALTERNATIVE E
ALTERNATIVE F
ALTERNATIVE G
                                                                                           G
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Unit Cost
Land Cost
Engr. & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Capital Recovery
O&M Cost
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (l-.g/kkg)
TSS (kg/kkg)
56
43
2
11
24
9
15

22.6 2.1
9.4 3.7
214
170
2
42
74
35
39

2.1
3.7
81
56
11
14
19
11
8

0.0
0.0
60
46
2
12
32
10
22

0.9
1.7
218
173
2
43
82
36
46

0.9
1.7
103
80
2
21
45
17
28

0.9
0.9
261
207
2
52
95
43
52

0.9
0.9
ALihKNAlivh A: bcreemng
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
               Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls  Plus  Chlorination
               Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls  Plus  Chlorination
               Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media FHtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 165

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CANNED PEA PLANT
                                        (80 Day Operating Season at 75 kkg/day)
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
A B_ C_ D_
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 130 314 195
Unit Cost 98 250 110
Land Cost 82 57
Engr. & Cont. 24 62 28
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 26 65 26
Capital Recovery 20 51 22
O&M Cost 6 14 4
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (Lg/kkg) 22.1 1.8 1.8 0.0
TSS (kg/kkg) 5.4 3.3 3.3 0.0
AL LRNA1IVL A: Screening
E_
136
103
8
25
29
21
8

0.7
1.3

£_
320
255
2
63
68
52
16

0.7
1.3

.G
248
193
8
47
49
39
10

0.7
0.7

H.
432
345
2
85
88
70
i i"i
18

0.7
0.7

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Controls



ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Hus Multi -Media Filtration

Controls PI



Chlorination
us Chlorination






ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                           TABLE  166

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000)  FOR A  TYPICAL  FROZEN PEA PLANT
                                            (80,Day Operating Season at 102 kkg/day)
   TOTAL  CAPITAL  COST
    Unit  Cost
    Land  Cost
    Engr.  &  Cont.
B_

130
 98
  8
 24
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D          E
314
250
  2
 62
195
110
 57
 28
136
103
  8
 25
320
255
  2
 63
248
193
  8
 47
432
345
  2
 85
00 TOTAL ANNUAL  COST
    Capital  Recovery
    O&M Cost
 26
 20
  6
 65
 51
 14
 26
 22
  4
 29
 21
  8
 68
 52
 16
 49
 39
 10
 88
 70
 18
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
18.
4.
3
9
1.3
2.5
1.3
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.54
0.93
0.54
0.93
0.54
0.54
0.
0.
54
54
  ALlhKNAl,vt A:  bcreeni"g
  ALTERNATIVE B:  Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
  ALTERNATIVE  C: Average  Activated  Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
  ALTERNATIVE  D: Land  Treatment  via Spray Irrigation
  ALTERNATIVE.  E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
  ALTERNATIVE  F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
  ALTERNATIVE  G: Alternative  E Plus -Multi-Media Filtration
  ALTERNATIVE  H: Alternative  F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE 167

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL PIMENTO PLANT
                                            (100 Day Operating Season at 17 kkg/day)
IO
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 76 227 102 80
Unit Cost 58 180 67 61
Land Cost 4 2 18 4
Engr. & Cont. 14 45 17 15
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 18 51 17 21
Capital Recovery 12 37 14 13
O&M Cost 6 14 3 8
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (hg/kkg) 27.3 2.6 2.6 0.0 1.3
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 2.9 4.6 4.6 0.0 2.0
ALUKNAIIVE A: Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Prrated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
231 132 283
183 103 225
2 4 2
46 25 56
54 32 65
38 22 47
16 10 18

1.3 1.3 1.3
2.0 1.3 1.3




ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
Controls Plus Chlorination
   ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                             TABLE  168

                                      ESTIMATED TREATMENT  COSTS  ($1000)  FOR A  TYPICAL  SAUERKRAUT CANNING  PLANT
                                                (365 Day Operating  Season  at 43 kkg/day)
                                                (Costs Based on  Cold Temperature Conditions)
ro
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D          E
H
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 77 190 61 81
Unit Cost 56 150 45 59
Land Cost 7 257
Engr. & Cont. H 38 11 15
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ' 26 71 17 34
Capital Recovery ^ 31 9 12
O&M Cost 15 40 8 22
EFFLUENT QUALITY „ ,. n .
BODS (l-g/kkg) 3'5 °'3 °-3 °-° °-14
TSS (kg/kkg) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.26
ALltKNAfiVt A: Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
194
153
2
39
79
32
47

0.14
0.26



112 225
84 178
7 2
21 45
45 90
17 37
28 53

0.14 0.
0.14 0.




14
14



Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi -Media Filtration

Plus Chlorination



   ALTERNATIVE  H: Alternative  F  Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE 169

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL SAUERKRAUT CUTTING PLANT
                                                 (60 Day Operating Season at 175 kkg/day)
-P.
ro
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Unit Cost
Land Cost
Engr. & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Capital Recovery
O&M Cost
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (kg/kkg)
TSS (kg/kkg)
37
27
3
7
8
6
2

1.2 0.1
0.2 0.1
164
130
2
32
32
26
6

0.1
0.1
53
40
3
10
9
8
1

0.0
0.0
40
29
3
8
10
7
3

0.02
0.04
167
132
2
33
34
27
7

0.02
0.04
65
49
3
13
15
11
4

0.02
0.02
192
152
2
38
39
31
8

0.02
0.02
   AL!tRNAirvl~A~
   ALTERNATIVE B
   ALTERNATIVE C
   ALTERNATIVE D
   ALTERNATIVE E
   ALTERNATIVE F
   ALTERNATIVE G
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
Alternative E Plus -Multi-Media Filtration
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 170

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CANNED SNAP BEAN PLANT
                                              (70 Day Operating Season at 96 kkg/day)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 90
Unit Cost 68
Land Cost 5
Engr. & Cont. 17
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 18
Capital Recovery 14
O&M Cost 4
r\>
ro
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (kg/kkg) 3-1 °-8
TSS~(kg/kkg) 2.0 1.2
ALlLKNAllvt A: Screening
252 195
200 110
2 57
50 28
51 25
41 22
10 3



0.8 0.0
1.2 0.0

96
73
5
18
21
15
6



0.49
0.66

258
205
2
51
54
42
12



0.49
0.66

208
163
5
40
41
33
8



0.49
0.49

370
295
2
73
74
60
14



0.49
0.49

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray
Treatment and In-plant Controls
Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge




In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

Controls

Plus Chlorination


ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE  171

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL FROZEN SNAP BEAN PLANT
                                             (70  Day  Operating  Season at 93 kkg/day)
ro
CO
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Unit Cost
Land Cost
Engr. & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Capital Recovery
O&M Cost
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg)
TSS (kg/kkg)
90
68
5
17
18
14
4
6.1 1.4
3.0 2.3
252
200
2
50
51
41
10
1.4
2.3
195
110
57
28
25
22
3
0.0
0.0
96
73
5
18
21
15
6
0.67
0.99
258
205
2
51
54
42
12
0.67
0.99
208
163
5
40
41
33
8
0.67
0.67
370
295
2
73
74
60
14
0.67
0.67
   ALI'LKNALWTC
   ALTERNATIVE B
   ALTERNATIVE C
   ALTERNATIVE D
   ALTERNATIVE E
   ALTERNATIVE F
   ALTERNATIVE G
Screeni g
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
   ALTERNATIVE  H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE 172


                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CANNED  SPINACH  PLANT
                                              (180 Day Operating Season at 68 kkg/day)
ro
-£k
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE


                                                    C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 117 302 322
Unit Cost 88 240 170
Land Cost 7 2 110
Engr. & Cont. 22 60 42
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 30 81 47
Capital Recovery 18 49 35
O&M Cost 12 32 12
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 8-2 2.0 2.0 0.0
W w ^ i» y/ ••»••* J / _ _ *tT *\T f\ f\
TSS~ (kg/kkg) 6-5 3-l 3.1 0.0
ALTLRNAliVE A: Screening
125
94
7
24
37
19
18
0.53
0.76

310
246
2
62
88
50
38
0.53
0.76

287
224
7
56
71
45
26
0.53
0.53

472
376
2
94
122
76
46
0.53
0.53

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aorated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional




In-plant Controls Plus Chi ori nation
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

Controls Plus

Chi ori nation



   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE 173


                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL FROZEN SPINACH PLANT

                                                (180 Day Operating Season  at 88  kkg/day)
ro
in
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE


                                                    C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 117 302 322
Unit Cost 88 240 170
Land Cost 7 2 110
Engr. & Cont. 22 60 42
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 30 81 47
Capital Recovery 18 49 35
O&M Cost 12 32 12
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5 (kg/kkg) 4.8 1.1 1.1 0.0
TSS (kg/kkg) 2.0 1.8 1.8 0.0
ALILKNAIlVt A: Screening
125
94
7
24
37
19
18

0.65
0.88

310
246
2
62
88
50
38

0.65
0.88

287
224
7
56
71
45
26

0.65
0.65

472
376
2
94
122
76
46

0.65
0.65

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional


In-plant Controls PI
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Hus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration


Controls



us Chi ori nation
Plus Chi ori nation








-------
                                                            TABLE 174

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL SQUASH PLANT
                                            (70 Day Operating Season at 216 kkg/day)
no
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Unit Cost
Land Cost
Engr. & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Capital Recovery
O&M Cost
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 16.8
TSS (kn/kkg) 2-3
116
88
6
22
23
18
5

0.6
1.3
327
260
2
65
64
53
11

0.6
1.3
172
100
47
25
23
20
3

0.0
0.0
122
93
6
23
26
19
7

0.16
0.30
333
265
2
66
67
54
13

0.16
0.30
222
173
6
43
44
35
9

0.16
0.16
433
345
2
86
85
70
15

0.16
0.16
   ALitKNAiiVE A:  Screening
   ALTERNATIVE B:  Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and  In-plant  Controls
                  Average Activated Sludge Treatment  and  In-plant  Controls
                  Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
                  Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus  Additional  In-plant  Controls  Plus  Chlorination
                  Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus  Additional  In-plant  Controls  Plus  Chlorination
                  Alternative E Plus -Multi-Media  Filtration
ALTERNATIVE C
ALTERNATIVE D
ALTERNATIVE E
ALTERNATIVE F
ALTERNATIVE G
   ALTERNATIVE H:  Alternative F Plus Multi-Media  Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE  175

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000)  FOR A  TYPICAL SWEET POTATO PLANT
                                             000 Day Operating Season  at  228 kkg/day)
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 435
Unit Cost 340
Land Cost 10
Engr. & Cont. 85
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 88
Capital Recovery 69
£ O&M Cost 19
XI
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 30.1 0.5
TSS (kg/kkg) 11. 5 1.5
ALTERNATIVE A: Screening
ALTERNAiIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment
712
570
2
140
152
120
32


0.
1.

and
149
90
37
22
22
18
4


5 0.0
5 0.0

440
344
10
86
92
70
22


0.26
0.86

717
574
2
141
156
121
35


0.26
0.86

521
409
10
102
108
83
25


0.26
0.26

798
639
2
157
172
134
*^ o
38


0.26
0.26

In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment
PI
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Fi
us Additional
In-plant
Controls Plus
Chlorination

Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Itratior.




ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                           TABLE  176

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000)  FOR A  TYPICAL  CANNED WHITE POTATO PLANT
                                               (150 Day Operating  Season at  59 kkg/day)
                                               (Costs Based on  Cold Temperature Conditions)
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D          E
PO
00
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 3^2 452 100
Unit Cost 240 360 64
Land Cobt 12 2 20
Engr. & Cont. 60 90 16
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 64 101 18
Capital Recovery 49 73 13
O&M Cost 15 28 5
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS (kg/kkg) 27.3 0.9 0.9 0.0
TSS (kg/kkg) 37.4 1.9 1.9 0.0
ALTERNATIVE A: Screening
316
243
12
61
68
50
18

0.26
0.80

456
363
2
91
105
74
31

0.26
0.80

368
285
12
71
80
59
21

0.26
0.26

508
405
2
101
117
83
34

0.26
0.26

ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional




In-plant Controls Plus Chi ori nation
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant
ALTERNATIVE 6: Alternative E Fius Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi -Media Filtration


Controls Plus


Chi ori nation






-------
                                                           TABLE  177

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS  ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL  BABY FOOD PLANT
                                             (365 Day Operating Season at 246 kkg/day)
                                            (Costs based on Cold Temperature Conditions)
   TOTAL  CAPITAL  COST
    Unit  Cost
    Land  Cost
    Engr.  & Cont.
 B_

218
160
 18
 40
                                                    TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                   C          D         E
379
300
  4
 75
247
130
 85
 32
224
165
 18
 41
385
305
  4
 76
349
265
 18
 66
                                                                                                       H,

                                                                                                     510
                                                                                                     405
                                                                                                       4
                                                                                                     101
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
ro
to
                                        58
                                        33
                                        25
           127
            61
            66
            46
            26
            20
           70
           34
           36
           139
            62
            77
          103
           54
           49
            172
             82
             90
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
4.
1.
6
6
0.7
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.27
0.44
0.27
0.44
0.
0.
27
27
0.27
0.27
   ALTERNATIVE  A:  Screening
   ALTERNATIVE  B:  Average  Aerated Lagoon Treatment  and  In-plant  Controls
   ALTERNATIVE  C:  Average  Activated  Sludge Treatment  and  In-plant  Controls
   ALTERNATIVE  D:  Land Treatment  via Spray Irrigation
   ALTERNATIVE  E:  Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus  Additional  In-plant  Controls  Plus  Chlorination
   ALTERNATIVE  F:  Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus  Additional  In-plant  Controls  Plus  Chlorination
   ALTERNATIVE  G:  Alternative  E Hus Multi-Media  Filtration
   ALTERNATIVE  H:  Alternative  F Plus Multi-Media  Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE  178

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL CORN CHIP PLANT
                                              (365 Day Operating Season at 35 kkg/day)
                                            (Costs Based on Cold Temperature Conditions)
   TOTAL CAPITAL COST
    Unit Cost
    Land Cost
    Enor. & Cont.
                       B_

                      124
                       90
                       12
                       22
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D         E
314
250
  2
 62
92
62
14
16
128
 93
 12
 23
 318
 253
   2
  63
178
133
 12
 33
 H.

368
293
  2
 73
co
o
   TOTAL ANNUAL COST
    Capital Recovery
    O&M Cost
                       41
                       20
                       21
101
 50
 51
24
13
11
 50
 21
 29
110
 51
 59
 66
 29
 37
126
 59
 67
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5
TSS~
(kg/kkg)
(ko/kkg)
35.
30.
2
0
1.2
2.7
1.2
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.
0.
7
7
   AL1EKNA1iVEA
   ALTERNATIVE B
   ALTERNATIVE C
   ALTERNATIVE D
   ALTERNATIVE E
   ALTERNATIVE F
   ALTERNATIVE G
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE 179

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000)  FOR A TYPICAL POTATO CHIP PLANT
                                              (365 Day Operating Season at 11 kkg/day)
                                            (Costs Based on Cold Temperature Conditions)
   TOTAL CAPITAL COST
    Unit Cost
    Land Cost
    Engr. & Cont.
B_

92
67
 8
17
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D         E
290
230
  2
 58
76
53
10
13
96
70
 8
18
294
233
  2
 59
134
100
  8
 26
                                                                                                       H.

                                                                                                      332
                                                                                                      263
                                                                                                        2
                                                                                                       67
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 Q&M Cost
                                         32
                                         14
                                         18
           98
           47
           51
            21
            11
            10
          41
          15
          26
          107
           48
           59
            55
            21
            34
            121
             54
             67
CO
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BCD5 (kg/kkg)
TSS (kg/kkg)
37.0
42.2
2.2
4.2
2.2
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.6
0.9
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
   AL'ltRNAHVt A: Screening
   ALTERNATIVE B: Average A-:rated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
   ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
   ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
   ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
   ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
   ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration.
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                            TABLE 180

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL  TORTILLA CHIP PLANT
                                             (365 Day Operating Season at 20 kkg/day)
                                           (Costs Based on Cold Temperature Conditions)
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
   TOTAL CAPITAL COST
    Unit Cost
    Land Cost
    Engr. & Cont.
                       B.

                      124
                       90
                       12
                       22
314
250
  2
 62
 £

92
62
14
16
128
 93
 12
 23
318
253
  2
 63
178
133
 12
 33
368
293
  2
 73
CO
ro
   TOTAL ANNUAL COST
    Capital Recovery
    O&M Cost
                      41
                      20
                      21
101
 50
 51
24
13
11
 50
 21
 29
110
 51
 59
 66
 29
 37
126
 59
 67
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
29.
36.
7
1
1.9
3.6
1.9
3.6
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.7
1.0
1.7
1.0
1.0
1
1
.0
.0
   ALTtRNAFlVt A
   ALTERNATIVE B
   ALTERNATIVE C
   ALTERNATIVE D
   ALTERNATIVE E
   ALTERNATIVE F
   ALTERNATIVE G: Al
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E FJus Multi-Media Filtration
            F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE  181

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL ETHNIC FOOD PLANT
                                          (365 Day  Operating Season at 82  kkg/day)
                                        (Costs Based  on  Cold Temperature Conditions)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr  & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
 B_

138
100
 13
 25
 41
 20
 21
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
C_
314
250
2
62
106
51
55
D.
163
95
44
24
34
19
15
E_
144
105
13
26
52
21
31
320
255
  2
 63
117
 52
 65
244
185
 13
 46
79
37
42
  H.

420
335
  2
 83
144
 68
 76
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BOD5
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
6.
2.
8
4
1.1
1.9
1
1
.1
.9
0.0
0.0
0.44
0.70
0.44
0.70
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
ALItKNAliVh A: Screeni-.g
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C: Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE D: Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
ALTERNATIVE E: Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE F: Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE  182

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL JAM  &  JELLY  PLANT
                                           (365 Day Operating  Season at  29  kkg/day)
                                         (Costs Based on  Cold  Temperature Conditions)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
                                      B.

                                      64
                                      49
                                       3
                                      12
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                 C          D         E
                                    202
                                    160
                                      2
                                    40
53
40
 3
10
67
51
 3
13
205
162
  2
 41
92
71
 3
18
230
182
  2
 46
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                                      24
                                      10
                                      14
                                     73
                                     33
                                     40
15
 8
 7
32
11
21
 81
 34
 47
42
15
27
 91
 38
 53
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
Ug/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
5.
1.
9
0
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.27
0.12
0.27
0.12
0.12
0.
0.
12
12
ALTERNATIVE A: Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average A-.rated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
               Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
               Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
               Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
ALTERNATIVE G: Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE C
ALTERNATIVE D
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
E:
F:

-------
                                                            TABLE 183

                                     ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL MAYONNAISE & SALAD DRESSING PLANT
                                             (365 Day Operating Season at 165 kkg/day)
                                           (Costs Based on Cold Temperature Conditions)
   TOTAL CAPITAL COST
    Unit Cost
    Land Cost
    Engr. & Cont.
                       B_

                     130
                      94
                      12
                      24
                                                     TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE

                                                    C          D         E
327
260
  2
 65
92
62
14
16
134
 97
 12
 25
 331
 263
   2
  66
184
137
 12
 35
  H.

381
303
  2
 76
CO
en
   TOTAL ANNUAL COST
    Capital Recovery
    O&M Cost
   AULKNAUVL A
   ALTERNATIVE B:
   ALTERNATIVE C:
   ALTERNATIVE D:
   ALTERNATIVE E:
   ALTERNATIVE F:
   ALTERNATIVE G:
                      41
                      19
                      22
115
 53
 62
21
10
11
 50
 20
 30
124
 54
 70
 66
 28
 38
140
 62
 78
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
(Lg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
5.
2.
5
6
0.2
0.5
0.
0.
2
5
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.28
0.13
0.28
0.13
0.13

0.13
0.13
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional  In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Mus Multi-Media Filtration
   ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 184

                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL SOUP PLANT
                                              (365 Day Operating Season at 618 kkg/day)
                                           (Costs Based on Cold Temperature Conditions)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cost
 Engr. & Cont.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 o&M Cost
                       B_

                     840
                     560
                     140
                     140
                     209
                     110
                      99
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
£
1,820
1,450
10
360
550
290
260
£
1,560
660
740
160
221
130
91
IE
858
574
140
144
263
113
150
1,838
1,464
10
364
1,478
1,074
140
264
2,458
1,964
10
484
604
293
311
418
213
205
759
393
366
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
(kg/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
14.
9.
9
8
2.
4.
7
5
2.7
4.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
2.2
1.4
2.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
ALTtRNAliVE A: Screening
ALTERNATIVE B: Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
ALTERNATIVE C:
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-pTant Controls Plus Chiorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
                                                         TABLE 185
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 Unit Cost
 Land Cobt
 Engr. & Cont.
                                  ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS ($1000) FOR A TYPICAL
                                   TOMATO-STARCH-CHEESE CANNED SPECIALITIES PLANT
                                      (365 Day Operating Season at  37 kkg/day)
                                    (Costs Based  on  Cold Temperature Conditions)
                       B_

                     134
                     100
                       9
                      25
                                                  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
264
210
  2
 52
130
 80
 30
 20
139
104
  9
 26
269
214
  2
 53
208
159
  9
 40
  H.

338
269
  2
 67
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
 Capital Recovery
 O&M Cost
                      40
                      20
                      20
 94
 43
 51
 30
 16
 14
 50
 21
 29
104
 44
 60
 70
 32
 38
124
 55
 69
EFFLUENT QUALITY
BODS
TSS
O-.g/kkg)
(kg/kkg)
4.
2.
8
6
1.1
1.8
1
1
.1
.8
0.0
0.0
0.45
0.65
0.45
0.65
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
ALIhRNAilVL A
ALTERNATIVE B:
ALTERNATIVE C:
ALTERNATIVE D:
ALTERNATIVE E:
ALTERNATIVE F:
ALTERNATIVE G:
Screening
Average Aerated Lagoon Treatment and In-plant Controls
Average Activated Sludge Treatment and In-plant Controls
Land Treatment via Spray Irrigation
Improved Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chiorination
Improved Activated Sludge Treatment Plus Additional In-plant Controls Plus Chlorination
Alternative E Plus Multi-Media Filtration
ALTERNATIVE H: Alternative F Plus Multi-Media Filtration

-------
Aerated Lagoon

Cost estimates for each  model  plant  (Table  130-185)   for  the
aerated  lagoon  treatment  alternatives  (B, E and G)  were taken
directly from the total capital cost curves (Table  96)   and  the
operation and maintenance tabulation (Table 97)  developed earlier
in the aerated lagoon cost section.

For  all  subcategories  except  sweet  and  white  potatoes, the
aerated lagoons were the only treatment module  used  in  costing
this  alternative.   Due to the high suspended solids and BOD5 of
sweet and white potato processing  wastewater,  however,  it  was
necessary  to  add  primary settling and vacuum filtration to the
white potato chain  and  primary  settling,  a  roughing  filter,
vacuum filtration, and increased aeration basin retention time to
the  sweet  potato chain.  The purpose of this additional primary
treatment was to reduce the BOD5_ and TSS  concentrations  in  the
influent  to the aerated lagoon.  The vacuum filter was necessary
to handle the solids from the gravity settling operation.

Activated Sludge

The activated sludge treatment alternatives (C,  F and  H)  listed
in  Tables  130-185 consisted of a core of five treatment modules
(activated sludge aeration basin, secondary clarifier,   emergency
retention  pond,  aerobic digestor, and sludge handling) to which
one or more of the following modules could be added, depending on
the subcategory raw wasteload characteristics:   primary  gravity
settling,  air  flotation,  nutrient  addition,   and/or trickling
filtration.

For each treatment module, costs were  taken  directly  from  the
capital  cost  curves  and  operation and maintenance tabulations
found in the corresponding subsections of Section  VIII  for  the
appropriate  flow volume, TSS, or BOD5_ concentration to the unit.
Following are general  descriptions  of  the  major  design  con-
siderations  and  assumptions  made in costing individual modules
for treatment chains for each subcategory.

         Primary Treatment.  Primary treatment was  comprised  of
         either gravity sedimentation or dissolved air flotation.
         Gravity  settling  was  assumed  required  when  the raw
         wastewater  TSS   concentration   exceeded   800   mg/1.
         Settling   was  replaced  by  air  flotation  for  those
         commodities   with   significant    oil    and    grease
         concentrations  in their raw wastewater.  It was assumed
         that either gravity settling or air flotation removed 30
         percent of the incoming  BOD5_  and  70  percent  of  the
         incoming  TSS.  Solids removed by primary treatment were
         pumped directly  to  the  vacuum  filtration  unit,  by-
         passing the aerobic digestor.

         Trickling Filter.  A plastic media trickling filter  was
         utilized  as a "roughing" filter in situations where the
                                 438

-------
influent BOD5 to the aeration basin would have  exceeded
2,000  mg/1.   If primary treatment was necessary and in
itself reduced the BOD5_ to below 2,000  mg/1,  then  the
roughing  filter  was not used.  It was assumed that the
roughing filter achieved a 30 percent reduction in  BOD5_
while the TSS concentration was not affected.

Aeration Basin.  Long-term (1.0  to  3.0  day  retention
time),  completely  mixed aeration basins were the heart
of the activated sludge treatment chain.  It was assumed
that the combination of  aeration  basin  and  secondary
clarifier,  effectively  removed 85 to 90 percent of the
incoming BODjj for weak wastes  (less than 500 mg/1  BOD5J
and  up  to  98 percent for strong wastes with raw waste
BOD5_ concentrations of up to 7,500 mg/1.  (BOD5_  removal
discussion  was presented in Section VII.)  As previously
discussed,  the  strong  waste  treatment  chain   often
included primary and roughing filter treatment to aid in
the BOD5_ and TSS reduction.

Secondary Clarification.  The  secondary  clarifier  was
included in every activated sludge treatment chain.  The
clarifier  was  sized and loaded according to the excess
solids concentration coming  from  the  aeration  basin.
The  return  activated  sludge  MLVSS recirculation from
clarifier to aeration basin was assumed  as  a  constant
factor  to which the effect of varying wastewater solids
loads were added to .effectively size  the  clarification
system.   Wasted  solids  (sludge)   from  the  secondary
clarifier to the aerobic digestor were assumed to  equal
60  percent  by weight of the BODJ5 entering the aeration
basin and 100 percent by weight of the TSS entering  the
aeration basin.

Aerobic Digestion.  The aerobic digesters were  included
in every activated sludge treatment chain and were sized
to   provide  an  ultimate  UO  percent  destruction  of
volatile solids over a  15-day  retention  period.   The
solids  load into the digestor was computed as the waste
sludge from the secondary clarifier (as described above)
plus the solids removed by the dissolved  air  flotation
unit, if one was included in the treatment chain.

Solids Handling.  Solids handling followed  the  aerobic
digestor  on  each  activated  sludge  treatment  chain.
Sufficient allowance in cost has been made to cover land
disposal of digested and/or primary  sludge,  or  vacuum
filtration where required.

Aerated Polishing Pond.  The aerated polishing pond with
two-day  retention  received  the  effluent   from   the
secondary  clarifier  and  served  as a safety factor to
stabilize or "polish"  the  final  effluent  should  any
upsets  of  the  biological  treatment  system occur. No
                         439

-------
         additional BOD5_  removal was  credited  to  the  aerated
         polishing pond.

Multi-Media Filtration

Cost  estimates  for  each  subcategory  (Tables 130-185)  for the
multi-media filtration were taken directly from the capital  cost
curve  (Figure  66)  and the operation and maintenance tabulation
(Table 117) .

Chlorination

Cost  estimates  for  each  subcategory  (Tables   130-185)    for
chlorination  were  taken  directly  from  the capital cost curve
(Table 119) and the operation and maintenance  tabulation  (Table
120) .

MULTI-PRODUCT PLANT TREATMENT COSTS

The  majority  of  the  fruits and vegetables plants process more
than one commodity during the year,  and  often,  more  than  one
commodity concurrently.

Two  models  are developed in this section to demonstrate costing
of  aerated  lagoon,  activated  sludge  and   spray   irrigation
treatment  facilities  (Alternatives B, C and D)  for multi-product
plants.  The first model consists of a plant that processes  peas
and  corn  consecutively;  the  second, of a plant that processes
peas followed by corn  and  lima  beans  run  concurrently.    The
listing below displays the process seasons.

    First plant:  Peas - 80 days, then corn - 70 days

    Second  plant:  Peas - 80 days, then corn and lima beans - 40
    days, then corn only - 40 days.

The  general  procedure  for  costing  the  wastewater  treatment
facilities  for  multi-product  plants  was  to  design  for  the
strongest waste in terms of BOD5_, TSS, and flow.  Tables 186  and
187  present  a  breakdown  of  this  procedure for the two model
plants.  As shown in the tables for the  "Corn  and  Pea11  plant,
different  elements  of  the  treatment  chains were dependent on
which system was more complex.  For example, the  irrigation  and
aerated  lagoon systems for peas were used for the "Corn and Pea"
plant while a mixture of corn and pea components was used to cost
activated sludge for the multi-product plant.  The  second  model
(pea  and  corn and lima bean) shows that the heaviest waste load
occurs when corn and  lima  beans  were  processed  concurrently.
Therefore,  the  treatment facility was designed for the combined
corn and lima beans flow, BODj>, and TSS.  It  should  be  pointed
out that the aeration basin for lima beans and corn is sufficient
so  that  a  roughing  filter is not needed for the multi-product
"corn only" processing plant.
                              440

-------
                                     TABLE 186
      ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS BASED ON SPRAY IRRIGATION,  AERATED LAGOON, OR
      ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT FOR TYPICAL CASE,  PEAS AND CORN	
Average Daily  Volume (mgd)  0.:39 (P) ,0.27 (C)
Operating Season June to Oct  = 150  days
Nutrient Deficient:   yes       no X
pH Control:  yes _    no
 Average Raw Waste Loads  Parameters
 BOD '(ing/i)     TSS  (mg/1)
 810 (P)          230  (P)
1800 (C)          560  (C)
                             A.   CAPITAL AND LAND COSTS
Unit Process
Influ. Cone.
BOD SS
mg/1 mg/1
PEAS
PEAS
CORN & PEAS




CORN
CORN
PEAS
CORN
CORN
PEAS
PEAS
PEAS
Design
Parameter

Treatment Chain
1. Spray Irrigation
2. Aerat. Lagoon
3. Activated Sludge
a. pH Control
b. Prim. Settling
c. Dis. Air Flot.
d. Nutrient Add.
e. Roughing Filter
f. Aeration Basins
g. Final Clarifier
h. Aer. Digestor
i. Vacuum Filter
j. Aer. Pol. Pond
4. Multi-Med. Filt.
5. Chlorination

Unit
mgd
days

mgd
gpd/sq ft
TSS
mgd ..
gpd/sq ft
days
gpd/sq ft
TSS mg/1
TSS mg/1
mgd
mgd
mgd

Quan.
0.39
20





800
2.0
400
1200
720
0.39
0.39
0.39
Unit
Cap'l Land
Cost Cost
$1,000 $1,000
90 60
9R 8
290 2




22
83
70
56
39
23
90
5
Engr. Total
and Cap ' 1
Cont. Cost
$1,000 $1,000
22 170
24 1 •}(>
72 360










22 110
1.2 6.2

-------
          TABLE 186  - (Continued)
ro
                                   B.  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
PEAS
Treatment Chain
1. Spray Irrigation
2. Aerated Lagoon
3. Activated Sludae
a. pH Control
b. Primary Settling
c. Dis. Air Flot.
d. Nutrient Addition
e. Roughing Filter
f. Aeration Basins
g. Final Clarifier
h. Aerobic Digester
i. Vacuum Filter
j. Aerated Polishing Pond
4. Multi-Media Filter
5. Chlorination
Cost
Parameter
Unit Quan.
mgd 0.39
	 "- •• •- _ " — • v n ' •
mgd

mgd
mgd
mgd
BOD
mga
mgd
mgd
mgd "
mgd
, it
mgd
mgd
mgd "
Est. Daily
0 & M Cost
$/day
46
70
190
70
22
36
34
28
JU
30
Est. Oper. Tot.. An '.1
Season 0-. & M Cost
Days $1,000
80 3.7
5.6
11 15

2.4
2.4

-------
        TABLE  186    (Continued)
                                  B.   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE  COST
CO
CORN
Treatment Chain
1.
2.
3.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
9-
h.
i.
j-
4.
5.

Spray Irrigation
Aerated Laaoon
Activated Sludge
pH Control
Primary Settling
Dis. Air Plot.
Nutrient Addition
Roughing Filter
Aeration Basins
Final Clarifier
Aerobic Digestor
Vacuum Filter
Aerated Polishing Pond
Multi-Media Filter
Chlorination
C. TOTAL
PEAS & CORN
Treatment Chain

1.. Spray Irrigation
2 . Aerated Lagoon
3. Activated Sludge
4 . MuTti - Med i a
5 . Chlorination
Cost
Parameter
Unit Quan.
mgd 0.27
11 ', 	 H •
mqd

'mgd
mgd
mgd
BOD
mga "
mgd
mgd "
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd ™"
mgd
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
Annual Capital
Recovery
$1,000
18
21
5^
18
r*o
Est Daily
0 & M Cost
$/day
38
60
190
25
60
18
30
29
25
26
27
TREATMENT COST
Annual
0 & M
$1,000
6.4
9.._8
31
4.2
4.3
Est. Oper. Tot.. An '.1
Season 0-- & M Cost
Days $1,000
70 2.7
4.2
13

1.8
1.9

Total
Annual Cost
$1,000
24
31
89
22
5.3

-------
                                     TABLE 187

       ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS BASED ON SPRAY IRRIGATION,'AERATED LAGOON, OR
       ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT FOR TYPICAL CASE,
                            0.39(P),
PEAS & CORN & LIMA BEANS
 Average Daily Volume (mgd)  0.27(C),  0.84(C&LB) Average Raw Waste Loads Parameters
 Operating Season June to  Oct =  150 days     BOD (mg/1)       TSS (mg/1)
 Nutrient Deficient:  yes 	  no  X           810(P)          230 (P)
 pH  Control:   yes      no  X                   1800(C)          560 (C)
                  	     	                   790(CSLB)       330(C&LB)
                             A.  CAPITAL AND LAND COSTS
Unit Process
Influ. Cone.
BOD SS
mg/1 mg/1 Treatment Chain
CORN & LIMA i. Spray Irrigation
CORN & LIMA 2. Aerat. Laaoon
3. Activated Sludge
a. pH Control
b. Prim. Settling
c. Dis. Air Flot.
d. Nutrient Add.
e. Roughing Filter
CORN & LIMA f. Aeration Basins
" g. Final Clarifier
" h. Aer. Digester
" i. Vacuum Filter
" j. Aer. Pol. Pond
CORN & LIMA 4. Multi-Med. Filt.
" 5 . Chlorination
Design
Parameter

Unit
mgd
days

mgd
gpd/sq ft
TSS
mgd
gpd/sq ft
days
gpd/sq ft
TSS mg/1
TSS mg/1
mgd
mgd
mgd

Quan.
0.84
20




(1)

1.5
400
590
350
0.84
0.84
0.84
Unit Engr.
Cap ' 1 Land and
Cost Cost Cont.
$1,000 $1,000 $1,000
150 120 38
160 15 40
360 4 90





120
90
73
45
31
140 - 35
6.5 - 1.6
Total
Cap'l
Cost
$1,000
310
220
450










180
8.1
(1)  Though roughing., filter would be needed for "corn only" processing plant, the
    aeration system designed to handle the added flow from lima beans can sufficiently
    remove the BOD from "corn only" processing without the use of a roughing filter.

-------
           TABLE  187   (Continued)
en
                                    B.  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
CORN
Treatment Chain
1. Spray Irrigation
2. Aerated Lagoon
3. Activated Sludge
a. pH Control
b. Primary Settling
c. Dis. Air Flot.
d. Nutrient Addition
e. Roughing Filter
f. Aeration Basins
g. Final Clarifier
h. Aerobic Digestor
i. Vacuum Filter
j. Aerated Polishing Pond
4. Multi-Media Filter
5. Chlorination
Cost
Parameter
Unit Quan.
mgd 0.27
	 -•• •- • 	 - - • ii ••
mgd

mgd
mgd
mgd
pop
mga
mgd
mgd "
mgd
mgd "
mgd
, ti
mgd
mgd
Est. Daily
0 & M Cost
$/day
38
60
160
60
18
30
29
25
26
27
Est. Oper. Tot., An '.1
Season 0'. .& M Cost
Days $1,000
3® 1.1
1.8
4.8

0.8
11 0. &

-------
cr>
            TABLE  187   (Continued)
                                     B.   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
             PEAS
                   Treatment Chain
   Cost
  Parameter
Unit      Quan.
Est. Daily
0 & M Cost
  $/day
Est. Oper.
 Season
  Days
Tot..AnM
0.& M Cost
  $1,000
1. Spray Irrigation
2. Aerated Lagoon
3. Activated Sludge
a. pH Control
b. Primary Settling
c. Dis. Air Plot.
d. Nutrient Addition
e. Roughing Filter
f. Aeration Basins
g. Final Clarifier
h. Aerobic Digestor
i. Vacuum Filter
j. Aerated Polishing Pond
4. Multi-Media Filter
5. Chlorination
mgd o.39
_ it r
mgd

mgd
mgd
mgd
POD
mga
-i ii
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd "
_. 	 	 _r —
46 80 3.7
70 " 5.6
.220 " 1.8




27
70
22
36
34
28
JU n 2>4
30 " 2.4

-------
TABLE 187
(Continued)
                          B.   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
CORN & LIMA BEANS

Treatment Chain
1. Spray Irrigation
2. Aerated Lagoon
3. Activated Sludqe
a. pH Control
b. Primary Settling
c. Dis. Air Flot.
d. Nutrient Addition
e. Roughing Filter
f. Aeration Basins
g. Final Clarifier
h. Aerobic Digestor
i. Vacuum Filter
j . Aerated Polishing Pond
4. Multi-Media Filter
5. Chlorination
Cost
Parameter
Unit Quan.
mgd 0.84
— . ., ...rf, 	 	 ,,. 	 „ . .,
mgd

mgd
mgd
mgd
BOD
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd "
Est. Daily
0 & M Cost
$/day
70
100
260





93
31
52
47
38
48
40
Est. Oper. Tbti-.An'.l
Season 0-. & M 'Cost
Days $1,000"
40 2.8
4.0
10










1.9
1.6
                      C.   TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL TREATMENT COST
PEAS & CORN & LIMA BEANS
Treatment Chain
1. Spray Irrigation
2. Aerated Lagoon
3. Activated Sludge
4. Multi-Media
5. Chlorination
Annual Capital
Recovery
$1,000
31
33
73
29
1.3
Annual
0 & M
$1;000
7.6
11
30
5.1
4.8
Total I
Annual Cost
$1,000
39
44
100
34
6.1

-------
                TABLE  188
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST FOR SINGLE AND
         MULTI-PRODUCT MODEL PLANTS
PLANT
COMMODITIES

Peas
Corn
Lima Beans
Peas & Corn
Peas & Corn
Lima Beans
TOTAL CAPITAL COST ($1,000)
Spray Irrigation
$170
$140
$230
$170
$310
Aerated Lagoons

$130
$120
$130
$130
$220
Activated Sludge

$330
$350
$350
$360
$450
                  TABLE 189
 ESTIMATED TOTAL  ANNUAL COSTS FOR SINGLE AND
         MULTI-PRODUCT MODEL PLANTS
PLANT
COMMODITIES

Peas
Corn
Lima Beans
Peas & Corn
Peas & Corn
Lima Beans
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ($1.000)
Sprgty Irrigation
22
19
24
24
39
Aerated Lagoons

26
22
23
31
44
Activated Sludge

68
70
63
89
100
                      448

-------
Table 188 summarizes the total capital costs for the three  basic
treatment  alternatives  (B,  C and D) for typical pea, corn, pea
and corn, and pea and corn and lima bean model plants.  Table 189
summarizes the total annual cost for the same model plants.

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

Electrical energy is required to  treat  food  processing  wastes
primarily for aeration and pumping.  The aeration horsepower is a
function of the wasteload, and the horsepower for pumping depends
on wastewater flow rate.

The   differences   that   exist   in  raw  waste  loads  between
subcategories result in highly variable  electrical  demands  for
treatment  chains  for the various subcategories.  Cost estimates
for  electrical  consumption  for  each  treatment   module   are
presented  in  the  respective  operation  and  maintenance  cost
tabulations earlier in Section VIII of this document.  Electrical
consumption for each treatment chain can be computed for each  of
the subcategories as follows:

         The operation and maintenance cost tabulations for  each
         treatment module in Section VIII show the cost of energy
         for that module.

         Commodity cost tables (Tables 130-185)  show the  modules
         included within,alternative treatment chains for each of
         the  subcategories  and  the  length  of  the processing
         season.

         Using these two sets of tables, the electrical cost  for
         various  treatment  chains for each of the subcategories
         can be computed.

         The electrical demand in terms of KWH  can  be  computed
         for  alternative  treatment chains by dividing the total
         energy costs by the unit cost of $0.02 per KWH.

Table 190 shows comparative daily  energy  costs  for  the  three
treatment  chains  for a medium strength waste.  Generally, spray
irrigation energy costs are about one-third the energy  costs  of
aerated  lagoons  and  one-fifth  the  energy  costs of activated
sludge treatment.  Since the spray irrigation energy costs remain
essentially the same regardless of  waste  strength,  the  energy
cost   of  spray  irrigation  compared  to  biological  treatment
increases with reduced waste strength and decreases  with  higher
waste strength.

SOLID WASTES

The  handling,  reuse,  and/or  disposal  of  solid residuals are
important  considerations  in  the  processing  of   fruits   and
vegetables.   Residuals  are the food and non-food materials left
over from a plant's production processes.  This category is  made
                                449

-------
en
o
                                               TABLE 190


                     ESTIMATED COMPARATIVE DAILY ENERGY COST FOR TREATMENT SYSTEMS (1,2)
Plant Effl.
Volume
mid
.38
1.1
2.3
3.8
11
19
mgd
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
3.0
5.0
Spray
Irri.
$/day
3
7
13
20
58
96
Aerated
Lagoons
$/day
7
21
36
64
190
320
Activated
Sludge
$/day
10
32
61
94
270
473
Multi-Media
Filter
$/day
1
2
4
6
15
Chlorination
$/day
1
1
1
1
2
24 I 2
              (1)   Costs based on BOD range of 800-1,000 mg/1.


              (2)   See operation and maintenance cost tables  for  individual treatment modules

                   elsewhere in Section VIII.

-------
up  of  wastes  which can be reused (by-products)  and those which
cannot be reused (solid waste).

Great strides have been made  by  the  industry  to  reuse  their
wastes to the maximum extent possible.  New uses for solid wastes
are  being  investigated  continually  in  order  to decrease the
amount requiring disposal and increase potential income.

Most by-products from fruit  and  vegetable  processors  go  into
animal  feed.  In a report by the National Canners Association in
1968, it was noted that 97 percent of all  food  byproducts  went
into  animal  feed.   Other  uses  for  by-products  include  the
production of charcoal, alcohol, vinegar, and other items.   Some
residuals  can  be  burned to recover their heat value, and still
others are used as landscaping mulch  (cherry pits)  and decorative
items and trinkets (carved peach pits).

Handling and Storage

Two general  methods  are  used  to  handle  solid  residuals  in
processing  plants:   dry and wet.  In the dry method, the wastes
are collected without the use of water and put  into  containers.
An  example is trimmings deposited into a barrel.   The wet method
employs water to flush  the  solids  from  the  processing  area.
Usually  sub-floor  gutters  are  used, and as solids accumulate,
they are continuously or intermitently  carried  away  by  water.
Previously-used  process  water  is  frequently used in these wet
systems.  Some plants use a combination wet and dry  method;  but
in cases where water is used, a separation of solid and liquid is
made before final disposal.  When this is necessary, screening of
the plant's wastewater is the most common separation method used.

The  wet  method  of  handling  solid  waste  affects  a  plant's
wastewater characteristics.  As solids are conveyed  in  a  water
medium,  soluble  solids  are  leached  and  become a part of the
wastewater  load.   Virtually  all  wastewater   parameters   are
degraded when this method of solid waste handling is employed.

Storage of solid waste on-site is normally of a temporary nature.
Residuals  are  stored  in  moveable  containers,   fixed hoppers,
trucks, or (rarely) in stockpiles.  Wastes  in  these  containers
are  generally moved to a loading area where they are transferred
to a truck for delivery to a disposal site.

In the previously mentioned NCA report, it was noted that for the
reported year (1968), solid waste from the industry was  disposed
of primarily by three methods with approximate tonnages as shown:

    1.   Filling (not necessarily sanitary landfilling) - 780,000
         tons.

    2.   Spreading on open fields - 825,000 tons.

    3.   Burning - 18,000 tons.
                                451

-------
As enfo-""-- "nt c' r?>cnil?tions against open  dumping  and  burning
become  ^ Dieter,  more  of  these  wastes  will  be delivered to
sanitary landfills.  The  costs  associated  with  this  type  of
disposal  will  further  encourage  processors to use greater and
greatoi percentages of the raw commodity.

Problems associated with the disposal of  solid  wastes  at  fill
sites  include  insects,  rodents,  and odors, in that order.  At
spread sites, odors replaced rodents as the second most prevalent
problem.  Odor was reported as the major problem at  burn  sites.
Water  pollution was not considered a major problem at any of the
three types of disposal sites.

In addition to  solid  wastes  generated  within  the  plant  and
through  screenings,  there  is the problem of disposal of sludge
generacr3 by waste  treatment  processes.   The  amount  of  this
sludge  \_£4es  with the type of treatment processes used and the
characteristic  of the raw waste.  The methods  of  disposal  for
the  treatment  i,  sdge  are  normally the same as for the plants1
other solid wastes.

AIR POLLUTION

Fruit and vegetable processors contribute little to the  nation's
air  pollution problem.  In "Pollution Problems in Selected- Food-
Industries," Washington,  D.C.,  1971,  the  National  Industrial
Pollution  Council  estimated  that  less than one percent of all
industrial air pollution is created by the  food  industry  as  a
whole.

Some  air  pollution  is  produced  by  the  fruit  and vegetable
industry.   Major  problem  areas  are  particulate  matter   and
particulate matter is often dispersed into the air during the dry
cleaning of raw products.  Processes contributing to this problem
are  agitation  by  mechanical devices or air jets used to remove
loose  dirt  and  other  debris.   Air-borne   peach   fuzz   was
particularly  irritating  to  the  employees  of  one plant.  The
problem was remedied b^ wetting the rollers over which the  fruit
was  being  conveyed.  Other dust problems were noted where leafy
vegetables were air cleaned before being washed.  These and  most
other  particulate problems were confined to the processing plant
and none affected the general public.

Another potential source of particulate pollution is  smoke  from
incinerators.   However,  it appears that few fruit and vegetable
processors are using on-site incinerators  for  the  disposal  of
waste solids.

Odors  are  often associated with food processing; however, these
apparently are not a serious problem in  those  segments  of  the
fruit  and vegetable industry included in this study.  Some odors
are generated in the cooking of these commodities, but these  are
normally  confined  to  the  processing  plant  where exhaust and
                                  452

-------
ventilating fans remove or disperse the odors to the point  where
they are not objectionable to employees.

Wastewater  treatment  facilities  are other sources of odor.  If
designed and operated properly, these operations  should  not  be
offensive.   However,  when poorly sited or overloaded, odors can
be  generated.   An  example  of  the  former  situation  was  an
anaerobic  lagoon  built  just  across  a  highway from a housing
development.   Equipment  which  is  designed  to  operate  under
anaerobic  conditions  should  have facilities to properly handle
the odor problem.  These could include a cover and gas collector.
The generated gas can be flared or collected  and  used  for  its
heating  value  in  maintaining  optimum  operating temperatures.
Other  sources  of  odor  problems  are  some  aerobic  treatment
facilities.   Air  flotation  systems appear to be prone to these
problems.  This is particularly true if there is a delay  in  the
disposal of skimmings or any solids which contain grease.  Again,
proper  design  and  operation  will help eliminate the source of
odors.  This approach is more effective in the long run than  any
attempt to control odors after they are generated.

NOISE POLLUTION

Fruit and vegetable processors generate little noise that affects
the  general  public.   Most  noise produced in the processing is
dissipated within the plant itself.  This noise, however, can  be
bothersome  to  employees.   Sources  of  noise noted during this
study were the operations in which empty cans  were  being  moved
within  the  plant  and filled, and the full cans sealed, thermo-
processed, and packed in shipping containers.

Noise associated with wastewater treatment is most often  created
by  air  flotation  systems or aerated lagoons.  Air compressors,
blowers, and large pumps may generate noise levels in  excess  of
the  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Administration standards.
Noise from such equipment  housed  in  inexpensive  buildings-  is
concentrated  and could be detrimental to employees' health.  The
noise pollution problem should be addressed in any future  design
of  waste  treatment facilities; however, it is not considered to
be a serious  problem  in  the  fruit  and  vegetable  processing
industry.
                                  453

-------
454

-------
                           SECTION IX

            EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
             APPLICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
                 TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
INTRODUCTION

The  wastewater  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 this 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 change.

         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 processes, 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.
                                455

-------
EFFLUENT  REDUCTION  ATTAINABLE  THROUGH  THE APPLICATION OF BEST
PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

The wastewater effluent limitations guidelines for the canned and
preserved  fruits  and  vegetables  industry  are  based  on  the
information  contained  in  Sections  III  through  VIII  of this
report.  The commodity description information in Section III and
the waste characterization data in Section V were used to develop
the three segments  and  58  commodity  subcategories  listed  in
Section  IV.  Separate limitations have also been established for
three sizes of  plants  due  to  potential  economic  impacts  as
discussed  in  Section  IV.  The treatment and control technology
information in Section VII, along with cost and other aspects  of
the  technologies  in Section VIII, were used to develop effluent
limitations  for  pollutants   selected   in   Section   VI   and
characterized  in  Section  V.   Based  on  this  information,  a
determination  has  been  made  that  the  quality  of   effluent
attainable  through  the  application  of  the  Best  Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA)  is as  listed  in
the tables below.

The  BPCTCA limitations can be achieved by end-of-pipe biological
treatment, either activated sludge or aerated or aerobic lagoons.
These biological treatment systems  are  primarily  designed  for
organic  (BODj>)   removal.   The anticipated effectiveness of BOD5
removal is based on results from processing plants  with  end-of-
pipe  treatment  using  aerated  lagoons.  These systems are also
effective in  removal  of  raw  suspended  solids,  although  the
effluent  suspended solids level from activated sludge is usually
lower in concentration than from aerated lagoons.   As  noted  in
Section VII, algae growth in lagoon systems has been a problem in
this   industry,  resulting  in  consistently  higher  levels  of
effluent  suspended   solids.    Thus,   the   suspended   solids
limitations  have  been  developed  using results from processing
plants with aerated lagoons, so that either activated  sludge  or
aerated  lagoons  could  be  employed  to  achieve  the  effluent
limitations.  Furthermore, the ratios between the maximum day and
maximum 30 day average BODJ5 and TSS and the annual  average  BOD_5
or  TSS  have  been  investigated  for  both activated sludge and
aerated lagoon systems.  The  maximum  day  and  maximum  30  day
average to annual average ratios for both BODj> and TSS are higher
for  activated  sludge  than for aerated lagoons.  However, since
the maximum day, maximum  30  day  average,  and  annual  average
effluent  BODj>  concentrations are all higher for aerated lagoons
than for activated sludge, the aerated lagoon  values  have  been
used as the basis for calculation of the effluent limitations.

Land treatment is widely practiced throughout the industry and is
a  highly  effective  technology  for treating wastes from plants
processing fruits and vegetables.  The effectiveness of  removing
BOD5  and suspended solids through land treatment is greater than
either form of biological treatment.  Land treatment technologies
described in Section VII should be selected  for  treating  these
wastewaters  in  instances where appropriate land is economically
                                456

-------
available to the processor.  However, because of  the  difficulty
of  having adequate land at all plants, land treatment is not the
best practicable technology  for  all  processors,  and  effluent
limitations  guidelines are based on biological treatment, either
activated sludge or aerated lagoons, not land treatment.

It is emphasized that the effluent limitations are based  on  the
performance  of  aerated or aerobic lagoons, and therefore either
activated sludge or aerated lagoons  or  land  treatment  can  be
utilized  to achieve the limitations.  Furthermore, none of these
technologies nor  any  other  specific  in-plant  or  end-of-pipe
facilities  are of themselves required.  Due to economics, space,
or other factors, many plants may choose to use  any  combination
of  alternative  in-plant  and/or end-of-pipe technologies.  Some
plants  may  choose  technologies  in  addition   to   biological
treatment.   A  specific  processing  plant may select biological
treatment, land treatment, or any other technology  as  the  most
effective method of meeting the limitations.

The  BPCTCA  effluent  limitations guidelines tabulated below are
proposed for medium size plants and promulgated   (interim  final)
for  large  plants.   Small plants are excluded and therefore not
required to meet these  limitations  as  a  result  of  potential
economic   impacts  identified  by  a  separate  study  which  is
discussed in Section IV of this document.  Definitions of  small,
medium, and large size plants also appear in Section IV.
                                  457

-------
BODS Effluent Limitations
Commodity Maximum
(Fruits) for any
one day
Metric units
English units
Apricots
Caneberries
Cherries
Sweet
Sour
Brined
Cranberries
Dried Fruit
Grape Juice
Canning
Pressing
Olives
Peaches
Canned
Frozen
Pears
Pickles
Fresh Pack
Process Pack
Salt Stations
Pineapples
Plums
Raisins
Strawberries
Tomatoes
Peeled
Products
(kg/kkg
(lb/1000
2.98
0.78

1.09
1.70
2.77
1.68
1.83
1.02
0.22
5.31

1.81
0.80
1.71

1.19
1.39
0.20
1.78
0.68
0.41
1.75

1 .20
0.48
Average Annual Average
of daily of daily
values for values for
thirty con- entire dis-
secutive charge period
days shall shall not
not exceed exceed
of raw material)
Ib of raw material)
1.94
0.51

0.71
1.09
1.81
1.09
1.19
0.67
0.14
3.47

1 .18
0.52
1 .12

0.78
0.91
0.14
1.16
0.44
0.27
1 .13

0.78
0.31

1.26
0.33

0.47
0.74
1.19
0.71
0.78
0.45
0.09
2.29

0.78
0.36
0.75

0.51
0.62
0.10
0.75
0.29
0. 18
0.73

0.50
0.19
           458

-------
TSS Effluent Limitations
Commodity Maximum
(Fruits) for any
one day




Metric units (kg/kkg
English units (lb/1000
Apricots 4.68
Caneberries 1.21
Cherries
Sweet 1.78
Sour 2.82
Brined 4.48
Cranberries 2.67
Dried Fruit 2.92
Grape Juice
Canning 1.70
Pressing 0.36
Olives 8.64
Peaches
Canned 2.93
Frozen 1.38
Pears 2.90
Pickles
Fresh Pack 1.93
Process Pack 2.38
Salt Stations 0.43
Pineapples 2.82
Plums 1.07
Raisins 0.72
Strawberries 2.69
Tomatoes
Peeled 1.85
Products 0.71
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
of raw material)
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed

Ib of raw material)
3.35
0.85

1.32
2.11
3.29
1.92
2.12

1.28
0.26
6.36

2.15
1.07
2.21

1.41
1.82
0.38
2.03
0.78
0.55
1.88

1.30
0.48
2.60
0.68

0.96
1.50
2.43
1.47
1.60

0.91
0.19
4.67

1.59
0.71
1.52

1.04
1.24
0.19
1.56
0.59
0.37
1.52

1.04
0.41
           459

-------
                    BODS Effluent Limitations
Commodity
 (Vegetables)
  Metric units
  English units

Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Brussels
 Sprouts
Carrots
Cauliflower
Corn
 Canned
 Frozen
Dehydrated
 Onion/Garlic
Dehydrated
 Vegetables
Dry Beans
Lima Beans
Mushrooms
Onions (Canned)
Peas
 Canned
 Frozen
Pimentos
Sauerkraut
 Canning
 Cutting
Snap Beans
 Canned
 Frozen
Spinach
 Canned
 Frozen
Squash
Sweet Potato
White Potato
 (Canned)
Maximum
for any
one day




i (kg/kkg
.s (lb/1000
0.85
0.81
3.61
1.25
1.73
1.98
0.70
1.89
2.40
2.91
2.46
3.64
2.99
) 3 . 1 7
2.74
2.03
3.97
0.49
0.07
1.16
2.12
3.02
1.77
0.86
0.78
1.30
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
of raw material)
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed

Ib of raw material)
0.55
0.54
2.34
0.81
1.14
1.28
0.46
1.24
1.55
1.88
1.60
2.36
1.94
2.07
1.79
1.33
2.58
0.32
0.04
0.75
1.37
1.95
1.14
0.57
0.53
0.86
0.34
0.39
1.47
0.51
0.76
0.81
0.32
0.83
0.98
1.19
1.05
1.52
1.24
1.35
1. 18
0.88
1.69
0.21
0.03
0.47
0.88
1.23
0.72
0.40
0.40
0.60
                               460

-------
                    TSS Effluent Limitations
Commodity
(Vegetables)
Maximum
for any
one day
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed 	
  Metric units
  English units
   (kg/kkg of raw material)
   (lb/1000 Ib of raw material)
Asparagus      1.26
Beets          1.55
Broccoli       5.37
Brussels
 Sprouts       1.85
Carrots        2.91
Cauliflower    2.93
Corn
 Canned        1.28
 Frozen        3.16
Dehydrated
 Onion/Garlic  3.56
Dehydrated
 Vegetables    a.32
Dry Beans      3.92
Lima Beans     5.64
Mushrooms      4.59
Onions  (Canned)5.09
Peas
 Canned        4.44
 Frozen        3.33
Pimentos       6.35
Sauerkraut
 Canning       0.78
 Cutting       0.12
Snap Beans
 Canned        1.73
 Frozen        3.25
Spinach
 Canned        4.49
 Frozen        2.62
Squash         1.57
Sweet Potato   1.67
White Potato
  (Canned)      2.39
              0.85
              1.27
              3.65

              1.26
              2.19
              1.99

              1.03
              2.37

              2.42

              2.93
              2.83
              3.99
              3.21
              3.71

              3.26
              2.47
              4.62

              0.57
              0.10

              1 .17
              2.27
               3,
               1
     05
     78
               1.25
               1 .48
               1.93
                   0.73
                   0.74
                   3.12

                   1.08
                   1.53
                   1.70

                   0.63
                   1.67

                   2.07

                   2.51
                   2.15
                   3.17
                   2.59
                   2.78

                   2.40
                   1.79
                   3.47

                   0.43
                   0.06
                     00
                     ,84
     2.60
     1.52
     0.78
     0.74
                    1.18
                               461

-------
                    BQD5 Effluent Limitations
Commodity
(Specialties)
Maximum
for any
one day
  Metric units
  English units
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed
   (kg/kkg of final product)
   (lb/1000 Ib of final product)
Added
 Ingredients   1.30
Baby Food      1.00
Chips
 Potato        3.35
 Corn          1.84
 Tortilla      2.88
Ethnic Foods   1.74
Jams/Jellies   0.39
Mayonnaise and
 Dressings     0.34
Soups          4.10
Tomato-Starch-
 Cheese Canned
 Specialities  1.77
              0.80
              0.65

              2.19
              1.22
              1.89
                13
              0.26

              0.23
              2.66
              1 .14
                   0.
                   0.

                   1.
                   0.
                   1.
                   0.
                   0.

                   0.
                   1.
      33
      42

      47
      85
      26
      73
      17

      15
      71
                   0.72
                                  462

-------
                    TSS Effluent Limitations
Commodity
(Specialties)
              Maximum
              for any
              one day
  Metric units
  English units
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed
                 (kg/kkg of final product)
                 (lb/1000 Ib of final product)
Added
 Ingredients
Baby Food
Chips
 Potato
 Corn
 Tortilla
Ethnic Foods
Jams/Jellies
Mayonnaise and
 Dressings
Soups
Tomato-Starch-
 Cheese Canned
 Specialities
               0.00
               1.56
               5.60
               3. 34
               14.79
               2.70
               0.68

               0.60
               6.34
               2.62
  0.00
  1.11

  4.22
  2.67
  3.59
  1.91
  0.53
  0.47
  4.47
  1.78
    0.00
    0.87
    2.96
    1.66
    2.54
    1.51
    0.35
    0.31
    3.56
    1.52
For medium and large plants in all fruit, vegetable and specialty
subcategories,  pH  shall at all times remain within the range of
6.0 to 9.5.  For the medium and large  plants  in  the  specialty
product  subcategories,  oil  and grease concentrations shall not
exceed 20 mg/1.  Within the vegetables segment,  the  limitations
for the cauliflower subcategory are in terms of kilograms (kg) of
pollutants per 1000 kilograms (kkg) of final product.  Within the
specialties  segment,  the  limitations for the soups subcategory
are in terms of kilograms (kg) of pollutants per  1000  kilograms
(kkg) of raw ingredients.

Any  medium  or  large  fruit,  vegetable,  or  specialty product
processing plant which continuously or intermittently  discharges
process  wastewater  during  the processing season shall meet the
annual average, maximum  thirty  day  average,  and  maximum  day
effluent   limitations  for  BOD5  and  TSS.   Processing  plants
employing long term waste stabilization, where all or  a  portion
of  the  process  wastewater  discharge  is stored for the entire
processing season and released at a controlled  rate  with  state
approval, shall meet only the annual average effluent limitations
for BODS and TSS.
                                463

-------
IDENTIFICATION   OF   THE  BEST  PRACTICABLE  CONTROL  TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

The suggested BPCTCA  for  the  58  subcategories  is  biological
treatment, either aerated or aerobic lagoons or activated sludge.
In  addition to biological treatment, BPCTCA for some commodities
may  include  primary  settling,  air  flotation,   or   nutrient
addition.   For  the  sweet  potatoes, white potatoes, beets, and
brined cherries subcategories, a  roughing  filter  is  suggested
with  activated sludge for BPCTCA.  Primary settling is suggested
with either aerated or aerobic lagoons or  activated  sludge  for
BPCTCA  for  white potatoes or sweet potatoes,  and air flotation
is suggested with activated sludge for potato chips, corn  chips,
soups,   mayonnaise   and   dressings,  and  tomato-starch-cheese
specialties.  Nutrient addition is suggested for  BPCTCA  for  22
subca tegori es.

The  application  of the best practicable control technology does
not require major changes in existing  industrial  processes  for
any  subcategory.   Incorporation  of  control  measures  can  be
accomplished with the adoption of  water  conservation  programs,
programs  for  finding  alternate  uses  for  products  currently
wasted,  and  steps  for  improving  house  keeping  and  product
handling  practices.   All  of  these control measures are normal
practices and are being utlized by many plants in the industry.


Either aerated or aerobic lagoons  or  activated  sludge  can  be
utilized to achieve BPCTCA, and are being utilized to achieve the
effluent  limits.   Many  other  plants  are  also  achieving the
limitations through land disposal techniques.   Land  application
practices  such as spray irrigation, ridge and furrow irrigation,
and flood irrigation can be economically feasible and technically
satisfactory methods of achieving the effluent limitations.

ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONTROL TECHNIQUE APPLICATIONS

The effluent limitations for the 58  industry  subcategories  are
based  on  effluent  data  from  27  biological treatment systems
including thirteen aerated lagoon systems and fourteen  activated
sludge  systems.  The results of these systems have been utilized
to develop a series  of  mathematical  expressions  which  relate
organic  waste  strengths  to  achievable  effluent  levels.  The
effluent levels were then applied to the raw waste load from each
subcategory to determine the effluent limitations guidelines.

The first step in the development of  effluent  limitations  from
existing  treatment  data was a thorough analysis of the effluent
data.   The  BODj>  and  TSS  effluent  concentrations  for   each
treatment  plant  were  separated  into  thirty  day  and  annual
periods.  The annual average  BOD5  and  TSS  concentration  were
calculated  from the BOD5_ and TSS for the entire discharge period
on  a  annual  basis;  the  maximum  thirty  day  BOD5>  and   TSS
concentrations  were  determined  from comparisons of the average
                               464

-------
BOD5 and TSS for each thirty day period; and the maximum day BOD5
and TSS concentrations were determined from comparisons  of  BOD^
and  TSS concentrations for each day during the discharge period.
Thus, three concentrations representing the annual  average,  the
maximum  thirty  day average, and the maximum day were determined
for each plant.  It must be pointed out  that  several  years  of
data  existed  for  a few plants (four), a full season's data for
most plants (seventeen) and less than  a  full  season  for  some
plants  (six).   Thus,  annual  averages, maximum thirty day, and
daily maximum values were available and calculated for twenty-one
plants and annual averages without maximum thirty day  and  daily
maximums were obtained for six plants.

Logarithmic  averages  and  arithmetic  averages  were calculated
because statistical analyses indicated some plant  effluent  data
was  more  accurately described by a log-normal distribution than
by a normal distribution.   However,  a  comparison  of  seasonal
average  BOD5  and  TSS  data  showed  the  effluent results were
similar.  For example, the arithmetic and logarithmic averages of
the annual average BOD5 and  TSS  discharge  concentrations  from
aerated  lagoons were 34 mg/1 BOD5> and 68 mg/1 TSS versus 30 mg/1
BODS^ and 61 mg/1, repsectively.  For activated sludge plants, the
arithmetic averages were 21 mg/1 BOD5 and 43 mg/1  TSS,  and  the
logarithmic  averages  were  19 mg/1 BODj> and 31 mg/1 TSS.  There
were similar differences for the maximum thirty day averages  but
the  maximum  day effluent concentrations were identical for each
distribution.   Based on the similarity of effluent values, it was
determined that both distributions adequately described the  data
and  thus,  there  was not sufficient justification for using the
lower  logarithmic  concentrations   which   required   increased
mathematical   efforts   on  the  part  of  plant  personnel  and
enforcement groups.  Accordingly,  arithmetic  determinations  of
annual  averages  and  maximum  thirty  day  averages  have  been
utilized.

The next step in the data analysis was to plot for each treatment
system the influent raw  waste  BOD5   concentration  versus  the
treated  effluent  annual  average, maximum month and maximum day
BODJ5 and TSS concentrations.   These  characteristics  have  been
plotted  and  appear  as Figures 68-73.  Regression analyses were
performed on  these  data  sets  to  determine  the  mathematical
correlation  between  the  influent  BOD^  and  the  six effluent
characteristics.  The following equations represent  the  results
of these analyses.

The  annual  average  effluent  BOD^5  and TSS concentrations were
expressed by the following relationship with  the  influent  BOD.5
concentration:

            Effluent BOD£ = 18 + .006 (Influent BOD5)
            Effluent TSS  = HI + .009 (Influent BOD5)

The  maximum thirty day effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations were
expressed as follows:
                                465

-------
                                                        FIGURE 68
01

-------
CTl
VO
                                                    467

-------
                                                            FIGURE 70
03

-------
CO
                                               469

-------
CM
C£.
CD

























1_(
t^
1,

I"




]




ll


3

t


^ •







;


















•
c


r
— 3
^a
j

•!







































^





2

L


.
.



t'








^































S






































1

i




v





il
M
I
IT
V
L









H

'














f




(



,
•
















i
\





























^






> I
Jl






?

s
3

L
t


•




\ \





\





•





i




>
















p






































-<











1












































3




\
'

















03
-7
-
pi
r
4




i

rt
yJ
^



J
^
4

1


bz
•*



















•ij




Y
1
f
1,
i

a























y
\














































































)'



















»»
-\











































































,',-






















1
\
)






































































































































































































V,
*)





































«




























































v
\


































































































\
\
\


































































































\
1

































































































^
\
1


































































































\
)

















































1




















-



























\
\














































H



















































1
\
1










































)t






\
\















































\
1







































'

-







-,
s















































\
V













«




















































































\
^



/

1


i-
^
r-























r
w














V
\














































\
1
f






























n
E

















S
^














































i
\




























-
-




















\
\















































\
\

















































i
\















































\
\





















f
»



























V
*\














































y
\


















T















































































\
\














)

L.

































\
\














































k
\











;







































\
i














































\
i








r-
b








































\
\












.
C
f
/
!





























\
\

















































\
\
\






t

1
«,

1
v
£






















c









\
^


















































\
\


4
/
J





























|













Tl


















































L
\
i











































r






















































\
1








































T





































•








n










*
\





































•^





































n






















\
\
r
































































































i
\
\






























]




































































\



























j








































































\

\
\









•s











3"
-

























































j

















\
^


































































































\
\




•





























































































i
\

a

































































































\
^

































































































































































*fl




































\
\








































n












































4)


f|









(
































































































•f























































































































































































































































































-4

B










































































































































































<




















^1




























































































































































































































































































































































































































*






















)









'



















p








f
'







E
}










}






















i
i
3
3
ff


















.










V









r|







--
<
r







^
f









J









































"* i

V


i '

|

/if
LL







j
j
^ -












































































n

:


>|












L
?














































































































































































































































































































































                                                         470

-------
FIGURE 73

-------
            Effluent BOD5 = HH + .006 (Influent BOD5)
            Effluent TSS  = 56 + .031 (Influent BOD5)

The  maximum  day  effluent  BOD5  and  TSS  concentrations  were
expressed as follows:

            Effluent BOD5 = 71 + .008 (Influent BOD5)
            Effluent TSS  =126 + .029 (Influent BOD5J

The  preceding analysis resulted in effluent concentrations which
were the average of the best twenty-seven treatment plants in the
industry.   However,  this  approach  was  modified  to  a   more
conservative  approach  to  further  allow for differences in raw
material quality, periods of multiple commodity changeover, plant
upsets,  vacation  and  peak  periods   and   seasonality.    The
conservative  "enveloping"  approach  was  to establish a minimum
BODJ5 removal rate of 85 percent  and  base  all  other  treatment
performance  levels  on  the highest effluent values, rather than
the average values, so that all or nearly all of the twenty-seven
treatment plants would achieve the annual  average,  the  maximum
thirty  day,  and  the maximum day effluent concentrations.  This
was accomplished by increasing the intercept  of  the  regression
expressions  to  a  level  where  all  or nearly all plants would
achieve the required effluent levels.   The  following  equations
represent the results of this conservative approach.

The  modified annual average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations
were determined by the following relationships with the  influent
BOD5_ concentration:

            Effluent BOD5 = 53 + .006 (Influent BOD§)
            Effluent TSS  =112 + .009 (Influent BOD5J

The  maximum thirty day effluent BODjj and TSS concentrations were
determined as follows:

            Effluent BOD5 = 8U + .006 (Influent BOD5_)
            Effluent TSS  =131 + .031 (Influent BOD5J

The  maximum  day  effluent  BOD5  and  TSS  concentrations  were
determined as follows:

            Effluent BOD55 =130 + .008 (Influent BOD5J
            Effluent TSS  =193 + .029 (Influent BOD5)

The  relationships  above  are  met  by  all or nearly all of the
twenty-seven treatment plants.  The annual average BOD5  and  TSS
effluent  concentrations are met by all plants except one aerated
lagoon   (ST40)  for  BOD5.   The  maximum  thirty  day   effluent
concentrations  are  achieved  by  all plants, except one aerated
lagoon  (GR33) for BOD5, and one aerated lagoon and one  activated
sludge  plant   (PE78 and TO96) for TSS.  The maximum day effluent
concentrations are achieved by all  plants,  except  one  aerated
lagoon  (GR33) for BODjS, and two aerated lagoons and one activated
                                472

-------
sludge  plant   (PN26,  PE78 and TO96) for TSS.  In summary,  the
three BOD5 limitations are achieved by eleven aerated lagoons and
all  fourteen  activated  sludge  plants  and   the   three   TSS
limitations  are  achieved by eleven aerated lagoons and thirteen
activated sludge plants.  All the limitations are met by  twenty-
two  treatment plants, nine aerated lagoons (ON26, CO78, MU50, BT
52, BN28, T051, TO52,  PK60  and  CH59)  and  thirteen  activated
sludge  plants  (CO59,  *C5U, GR32, BNH3, GN90, PO60, CT91, BN26,
PR51, PN25, CS99,  SL01 and TO99).

Some of the characteristics of the twenty-seven treatment  plants
are  that  nine  have  influent BOD5> concentrations less than 500
PPM, eleven have influent BOD5_  concentrations  between  500  and
2000 PPM, and seven have influent BOD5 concentration greater than
2000  PPM.   Plant sizes range from less than 1 million kilograms
(2.2 million pounds)  per year to over 50 million kilograms (1,100
million pounds) per year.  Eight plants  belong  to  single-plant
companies,  eight  plants  belong to companies owning between two
and ten plants, and eleven plants belong to companies owning more
than ten plants.

The  twenty-seven  plants  process  the  following   commodities:
caneberries;  cherries;  dried  fruit;  grapes;  peaches;  pears;
pickles;  plums;  strawberries;   tomatoes;   asparagus;   beets;
broccoli;   brussels   sprouts;   carrots;   cauliflower;   corn;
dehydrated vegetables; dry beans; lima beans; mushrooms;  onions;
peas;  sauerkraut;  snap  beans; spinach; squash, sweet potatoes;
white potatoes; jams and jellies; and soups.  From this  list  of
fruits,  vegetables and specialties, it is important to note that
all major commodities are processed at one or more of the twenty-
seven treatment plants.  Those commodities not appearing in  this
table  are  relatively minor when compared with other commodities
on a total production basis.  In addition, most if not all of the
plants processing these other commodities discharge to  municipal
treatment  systems  and  are  not  affected by these limitations.
Nevertheless, the fact the process wastewater  from  these  other
commodities  is  treated  in  conventional  biological  treatment
systems similar to the twenty-seven treatment plants  upon  which
the   limitations   have   been   established,  demonstrates  the
achievability and practicability of  these  limitations  for  all
industry commodities and subcategories.

A  final  consideration  which  should be discussed is the annual
average  of  all  plant  discharge  data.   This  limitation   is
necessary  for  all  industry dischargers because of the seasonal
and multi-product nature of this  industry  which  often  imparts
significant  variability  in  daily,  monthly  and seasonal waste
loads to treatment systems as noted above and in Sections IV  and
V.   Plants  within  each  industry  segment are characterized by
processing seasons varying from less than a month to  six  months
or a year, during which one to several commodities, styles and/or
products   are   processed   concurrently  and/or  consecutively.
Achievement  of high quality effluent discharges have nonetheless
been demonstrated throughout  the  processing  year  by  existing
                                 473

-------
treatment  systems within the industry.   As detailed below in the
subsection titled "Limitations for Multi-Commodity  Plants,"  the
maximum day and maximum thirty day limitations are based on peaks
and  thus  limit  pollutant  discharges   during  peak  production
periods and thus  during  peak  discharge  periods.   The  annual
average  limitations  are  dependent  on  neither  the production
schedule nor the length of  the  discharge  period.   The  annual
average, therefore, limits pollutant discharges during periods of
less  than  peak  production  and  thus  periods of less than peak
discharge.  In summary, the annual average  limitation  has  been
adopted  along  with  the  maximum  day   and  maximum  thirty day
limitations  for  plants  which  continuously  or  intermittently
discharge  process  waste  water  during the processing season to
simplify  compliance  monitoring  and  to  assure   that   fruit,
vegetable   and   specialty  processors   provided  the  necessary
conservative  design  and  diligent  operation  to  achieve   and
maintain  a  year round treatment  system performance approaching
that exemplified by the twenty-seven plants used to  develop  the
limitations.

The  annual  average  has  also been employed to handle the large
number of industry plants which  store  process  waste  water  in
large  stabilization  lagoons.  This treatment is necessitated in
many areas of the midwest and parts of the east  and  west  where
processing  plants  discharge  either to low flow or intermittent
streams which are limited in  their  ability  to  assimilate  any
wastewater.   With  stabilization  lagoons,  processors  have the
ability to contain most or all of an entire  processing  season1s
raw  waste  load.   Discharge  is normally allowed for controlled
periods during fall or spring  months when  stream  flow  is  at
prescribed  levels.  The amount of discharge is controlled by the
states and determined by the actual  stream  flow  rate  and  the
treated effluent BODS  (primarily).  This method of discharge does
not  lend  itself  to normal compliance  monitoring techniques and
limitations, since state approved discharge periods and allowable
effluent concentrations vary significantly.  Therefore, for those
plants which store all or a portion of the  process  waste  water
for the entire processing season, the only meaningful limitations
are  the  annual averages of BODJ5 and TSS, which permit a maximum
of total pollutant mass which can be discharged over  the  period
of  controlled  release based upon the total amount of processing
for the processing season.

Processes Employed

All plants within each subcategory studied utilize the same basic
production processes.  Although there are deviations in equipment
and production procedures, these deviations do not  significantly
alter   the   characteristics   of   the   wastewater  generated.
Application of the best technology currently available  does  not
require  major  changes  in existing industrial processes for the
subcategories studied.  Water  conservation  practices,  improved
housekeeping   and   product  handling  practices,  and  improved
maintenance programs are currently available and are  being  used
                                  474

-------
in  the  industry, and can be incorporated at all plants within a
given subcategory.

The technology to achieve these effluent limitations is practiced
within the subcategories under study.  The concepts  are  proven,
available  for  implementation,  and  applicable to the wastes in
question.   The  waste  treatment  techniques  are  also  broadly
applied  within  many  other industries.  The technology required
may necessitate improved monitoring of waste  discharges  and  of
waste  treatment  components  on the part of some plants, and may
require more extensive training of personnel in the operation and
maintenance  of  waste  treatment  facilities.   However,   these
procedures  are currently practiced in some plants and are common
practice in many other industries.

Total cost of Application

Based on information contained in Section VIII  of  this  report,
the  total  investment  cost  to  achieve  the  best  practicable
effluent limitations with aerated  lagoons  is  estimated  to  be
about  $33.5  million.   The  associated  annual  cost  would  be
approximately $9.7 million.  These estimations assume no in-place
treatment facilities.  When existing  facilities  are  considered
along  with  the  exclusion  from limitations of plants less than
1,816 kkg (2,000 tons) per year, the  total  industry  investment
cost  is  estimated  to  be  $24.5 million and the annual cost is
estimated (to be $7.6 million.

Costs per individual plant for meeting the 1977 limitations  with
aerated  lagoons  varied from $40,000 for small plants to as much
as $565,000 for a large plant.  The  corresponding  annual  costs
ranged  from  $9,000  to  $156,000.   Activated sludge costs were
higher,  ranging   from   $162,000   to   $1,809,000   with   the
corresponding   annual  costs  from  $36,000  to  $364,000.   The
investment costs for spray  irrigation  ranged  from  $46,000  to
$880,000.

Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact

Energy  requirements  for this industrial category to comply with
the effluent limitations are approximately 0.3  million  KWH/day.
This is a very small portion of the total energy consumed by this
industry for production.

Solid  waste  disposal  is  usually  accomplished  by landfill or
spreading on agricultural land.  An  increasing  portion  of  the
solid  waste  by-products  of production are being used primarily
for animal feed, while research into other methods  of  reuse  is
increasing.    The  disposal  of  solids  generated  by  treatment
systems should increase slighly but not  create  significant  new
disposal problems in terms of fill or land availability.

There  are no known radioactive substances used in this industry.
Noise  levels  associated  with   treatment   systems   are   not
                              475

-------
significant.   No  significant  air  pollution problems have been
identified for either  processing  or  waste  treatment  or  land
disposal.    Well   designed   and  operated  land  disposal  and
biological treatment systems do  not  produce  strong,  offensive
odors.   No  hazardous  chemicals  are  required  as part of this
treatment technology.

Factors To Be Considered in Applying BPCTCA Limitations

    1.   Land  treatment  by  spray  irrigation,  or   equivalent
         methods    providing   minimal   discharge   should   be
         encouraged.

    2.   The nature of biological treatment plants is  such  that
         on  the  order of four days may be required to reach the
         daily maximum limitation after initial start-up  at  the
         beginning of the processing season.


    3.   Thought was given to imposing a limitation upon TDS  and
         chlorides,  since  these constituents are found in heavy
         concentrations in wastes from  the  subcategories  which
         brine  or  pickle  their  product.   These subcategories
         include sauerkraut, pickles, and olives.   It  is  known
         that   treatment   technology  exists  to  remove  these
         constituents from the raw waste, but it is very  costly.
         (Ref.  
-------
         the minor commodity in processing unit operations.  Next
         select  from  this  list  of  major   commodities,   the
         commodity   which   most  closely  resembles  the  minor
         commodity  in  wastewater  volume  and  characteristics.
         This  commodity  and  the  minor  commodity are similar.
         Thus, the  effluent  limitations  guidelines  should  be
         similar    in    processing   and   waste   volume   and
         characteristics.

Limitations for Mu1ti-Commodity Plants

The guidelines and standards for  BPCTCA  set  forth  earlier  in
Section  IX  apply to single-product plants.  Limitations for any
multi-product plant can be derived from these tabulations on  the
basis  of a weighted average, i.e., the sum of the production for
each  single  product  or  commodity  processed  in   the   plant
multiplied  by the guideline value for each corresponding product
or commodity.

In the example below  (See Table 191), the guidelines are  applied
to  a  multi-product  fruit  and vegetable plant.  The production
information obtained from the plant includes  the  average  daily
raw  material production of each commodity for each month and the
total seasonal or  annual  production  of  each  commodity.   The
initial  step is to calculate the thirty day limitations for each
month  so  that  the  maximum  thirty  day  limitations  can   be
determined.   In  this  example,  the  maximum  thirty  day  BOD!5
limitation for BPCTCA is 2,150 Ib per day, which is  the  sum  of
the production for each commodity processed during the peak month
multiplied   by   the  guideline  value  for  each  corresponding
commodity  (566 tons per day of canned peaches multiplied by  2.36
pounds  per  ton  for  BPCTCA,  plus  213  tons  per day of pears
mutliplied by 2.24 pounds per ton for BPCTCA plus  54U  tons  per
day  of  tomato  products  multiplied  by 0.62 pounds per ton for
BPCTCA).  The TSS limitation is calculated similarly.  The second
step is to  calculate  the  maximum  day  limitations  using  the
production  for  the  same  time  period as used to calculate the
maximum thirty day limitations.  In this example, the maximum day
BOD5_ limitation for BPCTCA is 3,300 pounds per  day.   The  third
step  in  the  development  of limitations for this multi-product
plant is to calculate the annual average  limitations.   In  this
example,  65,862  pounds  per  year  is  the  annual average BOD5_
limitation and it is the sum of  the  total  production  for  the
processing  season for each commodity processed multiplied by the
appropriate  BOD5_  guideline  value.   The  annual  average   TSS
limitation is calculated similarly.

As  noted  above,  those  plants  which discharge continuously or
intermittently during the processing season, must comply with the
maximum day, maximum thirty  day,  and  annual  average  effluent
limitations.    Those   plants   which  employ  long  term  waste
stabilization, where all or a portion of the  process  wastewater
discharge is stored for the entire processing season and released
at  a  controlled rate with state approval, must comply with only
                                477

-------
                    TABLE 191 DEVELOPMENT OF LIMITATIONS FOR A MULTI-PRODUCT MODEL PLANT
COMMODITY

MARCH
Spinach Canned 163
Apricots
Peaches, Canned
Pears
Tomatoes, Products
AVERAGE

APRIL MAY
199
273
316


DAILY

JUNE


307
171
490
PRODUCTION

JULY


566
213
544
(TON/DAY)

AUGUST SEPT



206

TOTAL
SEASONAL
PRODUCTION
2,844
3,822
19,884
9,800
9,252
00
    LIMITATIONS
    THIRTY DAY  (Ib)
    LIMITATIONS (DAY)
         BOD5
         TSS

    MAXIMUM DAY
    LIMITATIONS

         BOD5.
         TSS
jb!
DAY)
      636       776     1,805  1,411
      994     1,214     3,188  2,546
    ANNUAL AVERAGE (Ib)
    LIMITATIONS   (YEAR)

         BODjJ
         TSS
461
911

-------
the annual average effluent limitations.  More specifically,  the
total  pounds  of  BOD5  and  TSS  discharged  during  the  state
authorized period(s)  of controlled release  are  determined  from
the  total  production  for  the  related,  preceding  processing
season.
                                 479

-------
480

-------
                             SECTION X

            EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
          APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
                     ECONOMICALLY AVAILABLE
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  this 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 of 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  (BATEA)
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  level of control are intended to be the top-of-
the-line of current technology, subject to limitations imposed by
                                481

-------
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  wastewater  effluent  limitations  guidelines  for  the  58-
subcategories  of  the canned and preserved fruits and vegetables
industry are based on the information contained in  Sections  III
through  VIII  of  this  report.   Based  on  this information, a
determination  has  been  made  that  the  quality  of   effluent
attainable  for each identified pollutant through the application
of the BATEA is as listed in the tables below.

Suggested BATEA  includes  the  BPCTCA  and  advanced  technology
(filtration  for  large  plants)  which  has  been satisfactorily
demonstrated in the fruits and vegetables industry.  In addition,
significant reductions in the volume of wastewater generated have
been included as an integral part of BATEA.   These  water  usage
reductions have been demonstrated in all subcategories throughout
the  fruits  and  vegetables  industry.  The water use reductions
will result in more effective treatment on the  part  of  end-of-
pipe  biological  treatment  facilities  already  established  to
implement BPCTCA.

As pointed  out  in  Section  IX,  land  treatment  is  a  highly
effective technology for treating wastewaters from the fruits and
vegetables  industry.   The considerations of land treatment 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 may be more
economical than the other systems.

The BATEA effluent limitations  guidelines  tabulated  below  are
proposed  for  both  medium  size  plants and large plant.  Small
plants are excluded and therefore  not  required  to  meet  these
limitations  as a result of potential economic impacts identified
by a separate study which is discussed  in  Section  IV  of  this
document.   Definitions  of  small, medium, and large size plants
also appear in Section IV.
                                  482

-------
                    BODS Effluent Limitations
Commodity
(Fruits)
Maximum
for any
one day
  Metric units
  English units

Apricots
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Caneberries
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Cherries
 Sweet
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
 Sour
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
 Brined
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Cranberries
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Dried Fruit
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Grape Juice
 Canning
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
 Pressing
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Olives
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Peaches
 Canned
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
 Frozen
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed    	
   (kg/kkg of raw material)
   (lb/1000 Ib of raw material)
 0.977
 0.977

 0.217
 0.217
 0.370
 0.370

 0.857
 0.857

 0.571
 0.571

 0.517
 0.517

 0.539
 0.539
 0.469
 0.469

 0.089
 0.089

 1.826
 1.826
 0.806
 0.806

 0.277
 0.277
 0.619
 0.619

 0.137
 0.137
 0.237
 0.237

 0.542
 0.542

 0.376
 0.376

 0.330
 0.330

 0.346
 0.346
 0.301
 0.301

 0.056
 0.056

 1.154
 1.154
 0.510
 0.510

 0.257
 0.257
 0.300
 0.300

 0.063
 0.063
 0.121
 0,121

 0.261
 0.261

 0.229
 0.229

 0.165
 0.165

 0.203
 0.203
 0.140
 0.140

 0.027
 0.027

 0.549
 0.549
 0.244
 0.244

 0.141
 0.141
                              483

-------
Pears
 MEDIUM        0.581       0.373          0.195
 LARGE         0.581       0.373          0.195
Pickles
 Fresh Pack
 MEDIUM        0.580       0.362          0.159
 LARGE         0.580       0.362          0.159
 Process Pack
 MEDIUM        0.508       0.323          0.163
 LARGE         0.508       0.323          0.163
 Salt Station
 MEDIUM                  No Discharge
 LARGE                   No Discharge
Pineapples
 MEDIUM        0.880       0.554          0.257
 LARGE         0.880       0.551          0.257
Plums
 MEDIUM        0.233       0.146          0.066
 LARGE         0.233       0.146          0.066
Raisins
 MEDIUM        0.165       0.109          0.066
 LARGE         0.165       0.109          0.066
Strawberries
 MEDIUM        0.526       0.330          0.150
 LARGE         0.526       0.330          0.150
Tomatoes
 Peeled
 MEDIUM        0.375       0.236          0.108
 LARGE         0.375       0.236          0.108
 Products
 MEDIUM        0.281       0.175          0.075
 LARGE         0.281       0.175          0.075
                                  484

-------
TSS Effluent Limitations
Commodity
(Fruits)
Maximum
for any
one day
Metric units (kg/kkg
English units (lb/1000
Apricots
MEDIUM
LARGE
Caneberries
MEDIUM
LARGE
Cherries
Sweet
MEDIUM
LARGE
Sour
MEDIUM
LARGE
Brined
MEDIUM
LARGE
Cranberries
MEDIUM
LARGE
Dried Fruit
MEDIUM
LARGE
Grape Juice
Canning
MEDIUM
LARGE
Pressing
MEDIUM
LARGE
Olives
MEDIUM
LARGE
Peaches
Canned
MEDIUM
LARGE
Frozen
MEDIUM
LARGE
1.928
0.977

0.415
0.217


0.758
0.370

1.686
0.857

1.328
0.571

1.044
0.517

1.122
0.539
0.918
0.469
0.175
0.089

3.564
1.826


1.577
0.806

0.563
0.277
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed
of raw material)
Ib of raw material)
1.094
0.619

0.221
0.137


0.460
0.237

0.952
0.542

6.974
0.376

0.618
0.330

0.701
0.346
0.496
0.301
0.099
0.056

1.980
1.154


0.880
0.510

0.313
0.257
0.622
0.300

0.134
0.063


0.244
0.121

0.544
0.261

0.423
0.229

0.336
0.165

0.360
0.203
0.297
0.140
0.056
0.027

1.149
0.549


0.509
0.244

0.274
0.141
            485

-------
Pears
MEDIUM
LARGE
Pickles
Fresh Pack
MEDIUM
LARGE
Process Pack
MEDIUM
LARGE
Salt Station
MEDIUM
LARGE
Pineapples
MEDIUM
LARGE
Plums
MEDIUM
LARGE
Raisins
MEDIUM
LARGE
Strawberries
MEDIUM
LARGE
Tomatoes
Peeled
MEDIUM
LARGE
Products
MEDIUM
LARGE

1.209
0.581


1.072
0.580

1.028
0.508




1.690
0.880

0.437
0.233

0.383
0.165

0.996
0.526


0.712
0.375

0.514
0.281
  0.755          0.388
  0.373          0.195
  0.530          0.348
  0.362          0.159

  0.613          0.331
  0.323          0.163

No Discharge
No Discharge

  0.907          0.546
  0.554          0.257

  0.224          0.142
  0.146          0.066

  0.281          0.122
  0.109          0.066

  0.519          0.322
  0.330          0.150
  0.373          0.230
  0.236          0.108

  0.247          0.167
  0.175          0.075
      486

-------
                    BODS Effluent Limitations
Commodity
(Vegetables)
  Metric units
  English units

Asparagus
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Beets
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Broccoli
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Brussels
 Sprouts
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Carrots
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Cauliflower
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Corn
 Canned
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
 Frozen
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Dehydrated
 Onion/Garlie
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Dehydrated
 Vegetables
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Dry Beans
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Lima Beans
 MEDIUM
 LARGE
Maximum
for any
one day

(kg/kkg
s (lb/100
0.280
0.280
0.375
0.375
1.639
1.639
1.657
1.657
0.810
0.810
2.356
2.356
0.179
0.179
0.893
0.893
0.947
0.947
1.465
1.465
1.193
1.193
1.457
1.457
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed
of raw material)
Ib of raw material)
0.163
0.163
0.250
0.250
1.020
1.020 ,
1.027
1.027
0.518
0.518
1.460
1.460
0.118
0.118
0.563
0.563
0.592
0.592
0.915
0.915
0.747
0.747
0.909
0.909
0.070
0.070
0.103
0.103
0.431
0.431
0.420
0.420
0.266
0.266
0.597
0.597
0.072
0.072
0.262
0.262
0.261
0.261
0.400
0.400
0.332
0.332
0.395
0.395
                                 487

-------
Mushrooms
MEDIUM
LARGE
Onions (Canned)
MEDIUM
LARGE
Peas
Canned
MEDIUM
LARGE
Froz en
MEDIUM
LARGE
Pimentos
MEDIUM
LARGE
Sauerkraut
Canning
MEDIUM
LARGE
Cutting
MEDIUM
LARGE
Snap Beans
Canned
MEDIUM
LARGE
Frozen
MEDIUM
LARGE
Spinach
Canned
MEDIUM
LARGE
Frozen
MEDIUM
LARGE
Squash
MEDIUM
LARGE
Sweet Potato
MEDIUM
LARGE
White Potato
(Canned)
MEDIUM
LARGE

1.000
1.000

1.397
1.397


1.022
1.022

0.857
0.857

2.004
2.004


0.225
0.225

0.027
0.027


0.791
0.791

1.066
1.066


0.852
0.852

1.037
1.037

0.251
0.251

0.384
0.384


0.385
0.385

0.627
0.627

0.891
0.891


0.654
0.654

0.542
0.542

1.251
1.251


0.143
0.143

0.017
0.017


0.492
0.492

0.667
0.667


0.532
0.532

0.645
0.645

0.160
0.160

0.261
0.261


0.260
0.260
           0.280
           0.280

           0.449
           0.449
           0.339
           0.339

           0.257
           0.257

           0.586
           0.586
           0.071
           0.071

           0.009
           0.009
           0.206
           0.206

           0.294
           0.294
           0.231
           0.231

           0.272
           0.272

           0.079
           0.079

           0.186
           0.186
           0.177
           0.177
488

-------
TSS Effluent Limitations
Commodity
(Vegetables)
Maximum
for any
one day
Metric units (kg/kkg
English units (lb/1000
Asparagus
MEDIUM
LARGE
Beets
MEDIUM
LARGE
Broccoli
MEDIUM
LARGE
Brussels
Sprouts
MEDIUM
LARGE
Carrots
MEDIUM
LARGE
Cauliflower
MEDIUM
LARGE
Corn
Canned
MEDIUM
LARGE
Frozen
MEDIUM
LARGE
Dehydrated
Oni on/Gar lie
MEDIUM
LARGE
Dehydrated
Vegetables
MEDIUM
LARGE
Dry Beans
MEDIUM
LARGE
Lima Beans
MEDIUM
LARGE
0.502
0.280

0.919
0.375

2.965
1.639

2.943
1.657

1.665
0.810

4.174
2.356


0.415
0.179

1.719
0.893

1.756
0.947
2.705
1.465
2.228
1.193

2.681
1.457
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed
of raw material)
Ib of raw material)
0.210
0.163

0.719
0.250

1.387
1.020

1.309
1.027

1.018
0.518

1.852
1.460


0.205
0.118

0.928
0.563

0.874
0.592
1.331
0.915
1.126
0.747

1.308
0.909
0.163
0.070

0.291
0.103

0.963
0.431

0.958
0.420

0.535
0.266

1.357
0.597


0.132
0.072

0.555
0.262

0.570
0.261
0.877
0.400
0.722
0.332

0.869
0.395
          489

-------
Mushrooms
MEDIUM
LARGE
Onions (Canned)
MEDIUM
LARGE
Peas
Canned
MEDIUM
LARGE
Frozen
MEDIUM
LARGE
Pimentos
MEDIUM
LARGE
Sauerkraut
Canning
MEDIUM
LARGE
Cutting
MEDIUM
LARGE
Snap Beans
Canned
MEDIUM
LARGE
Frozen
MEDIUM
LARGE
Spinach
Canned
MEDIUM
LARGE
Frozen
MEDIUM
LARGE
Squash
MEDIUM
LARGE
Sweet Potato
MEDIUM
LARGE
White Potato
(Canned)
MEDIUM
LARGE

1.872
1.000

2.833
1.397


2.111
1.022

1.670
0.857

3.836
2.004


0.450
0.225

0.057
0.027


1.425
0.791

1.980
1.066


1.567
0.852

1.876
1.037

0.505
0.251

1.013
0.384


0.981
0.385

0.950
0.627

1 .692
0.891


1.303
0.654

0.925
0.542

2.094
1.251


0.263
0.143

0.037
0.017


0.660
0.492

0.989
0.667


0.760
0.532

0.877
0.645

0.297
0.160

0.856
0.261


0.799
0.260
             0.606
             0.280

             0.911
             0.449
           0.678
             0.339

             0.539
             0.257

             1.239
             0.586
             0.145
             0.071

             0.018
             0.009
            0.463
            0.206

            0.642
            0.294
            0.508
            0.231

            0.609
            0.272

            0.162
            0.079

            0.320
            0.186
            0.310
            0.177
490

-------
                    BODS Effluent. Limitations
Commodity
(Specialties)
Maximum
for any
one day
  Metric units
  English units

Added
 Ingredients
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Baby Food
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Chips
 Potato
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
 Corn
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
 Tortilla
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Ethnic Foods
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Jams/Jellies
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Mayonnaise and
 Dressings
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Soups
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Toma to - St ar ch -
 Cheese Canned
 Specialities
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
Annual Average
of daily
values for
entire dis-
charge period
shall not
exceed
   (kg/kkg of final product)
   (lb/1000 Ib of final product)
 0.652
 0.652

 0.424
 0.424
 1.404
 1.404

 1.031
 1.031

 1.598
 1.598

 0.697
 0.697

 0.186
 0.186
 0.201
 0.201

 2.292
 2.292
 0.728
 0.728
 0.400
 0.400

 0.267
 0.267
 0.892
 0.892

 0.662
 0.662

 1 .010
 1.010

 0.438
 0.438

 0.120
 0.120
 0.130
 0.130

 1.436
 1 .436
 0.454
 0.454
 0.164
 0.164

 0.125
 0.125
 0.436
 0.436

 0.350
 0.350

 0.481
 0.481

 0.200
 0.200

 0.067
 0.067
 0.071
 0.071

 0.640
 0.640
 0.197
 0.197
                            491

-------
                    TSS Effluent Limitations
Commodity
Maximum
(Specialties)  for any
              one day
Average
of daily
values for
thirty con-
secutive
days shall
not exceed
                                         Average
                                         of daily
                                         values for
                                         entire dis-
                                         charge period
                                         shall not
                                         exceed
  Metric units
  English units

Added
 Ingredients
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Baby Food
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Chips
 Potato
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
 Corn
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
 Tortilla
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Ethnic Foods
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Jams/Jellies
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Mayonnaise and
 Dressings
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Soups
  MEDIUM
  LARGE
Toma to-Starch-
 Cheese Canned
 Specialties
   MEDIUM
   LARGE
                 (kg/kkg of final product)
                 (lb/1000 Ib of final product)
               0.000
               0.000

               0.818
               0.424
               2.784
               1.404

               2.519
               0.031

               3.119
               1.598

               1.326
               0.697

               0.404
               0.186
               0.432
               0.201

               4.288
               2.292
               1.339
               0.728
             0.000
             0.000

             0.444
             0.267
             1.596
             0.892

             1.362
             0.662

             1.733
             1.010

             0.698
             0.438

             0.270
             0.120
             0.284
             0.130

             2.175
             1.436
             0.654
             0.454
                0.000
                0.000

                0.264
                0.125
                0.896
                0.436

                0.693
                0.350

                1.007
                0.481

                0.428
                0.200

                0.129
                0.067
                0.138
                0.071

                1.389
                0.640
                0.434
                0.197
                              492

-------
For medium and large plants in all fruit, vegetable and specialty
subcategories, pH shall at all times remain within the  range  of
6.0  to  9.5,  and  fecal coliform MPN shall remain less than 400
counts per 100 ml.  For medium and large plants in the  specialty
product  subcategories,  oil  and grease concentrations shall not
exceed 20 mg/1.  Within the vegetables segment,  limitations  for
the  cauliflower  subcategory  are  in terms of kilograms (kg) of
pollutants per 1000 kilograms (kkg) of final product.  Within the
specialties segment, the limitations for  the  soups  subcategory
are  in  terms of kilograms (kg) of pollutants per 1000 kilograms
(kkg) of raw ingredients.

Any medium  or  large  fruit,   vegetable,  or  specialty  product
processing  plant which continuously or intermittently discharges
process wastewater during the processing season  shall  meet  the
annual  average,  maximum  thirty  day  average,  and maximum day
effluent  limitations  for  BODJj  and  TSS.   Processing   plants
employing  long  term waste stabilization, where all or a portion
of the process wastewater discharge  is  stored  for  the  entire
processing  season  and  released at a controlled rate with state
approval, shall meet only the annual average effluent limitations
for BODS and TSS.
                               493

-------
IDENTIFICATION OF  THE  BEST  AVAILABLE  TECHNOLOGY  ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE

Suggested  BATEA  for the 58 subcategories of the canned and pre-
served  fruits  and  vegetables  industry   includes   biological
treatment, either aerated or aerobic lagoons or activated sludge,
listed  under  the  best practicable control technology currently
available.   It  also  may  include  the  primary  settling,  air
flotation,   roughing   filter,  or  nutrient  addition  for  the
appropriate  industry  subcategories  under  BPCTCA.    See   the
individual  treatment  cost tables in Appendix C to determine the
auxiliary   components   of   each   treatment   chain.     BATEA
technologies,  in  addition  to those included as part of BPCTCA,
combine in-plant waste load reductions with improved  end-of-pipe
treatment.  The only additional external treatment facility which
may  be  needed  is  a  multi-media  filter  to  reduce  effluent
suspended solids for large plants.  Disinfection is also included
in BATEA.

The BATEA internal controls  do  not  require  major  changes  in
existing  processes  for  any subcategory.  However, the controls
require very strict management control programs over housekeeping
and water use practices.  Management must establish and encourage
the adoption of water  conservation  practices,  installation  of
waste  monitoring  equipment,  improvement  of plant maintenance,
improvement of production scheduling practices,  quality  control
improvement,   finding  alternate  uses  for  products  currently
wasted, and improvement  in  housekeeping  and  product  handling
practices.

The  following  paragraphs describe several in-plant controls and
modifications that may also be utilized to  provide  alternatives
and   trade-offs  between  controls  and  additional  end-of-pipe
effluent treatment.

         Recycle of raw material wash water.  Solids removal  and
         chlorination  may  be  required.  This step is presently
         being practiced at many plants.

         Utilization of low water usage peel  removal  equipment.
         Some of this equipment is being used, such as the rubber
         abrading system used for the removal of peels of several
         subcategories  (dry caustic method).

         Utilization of low water use blanching methods.  Several
         such methods  are  in  the  research  and  demonstration
         stage.   (Ref. U8,U9)

         Removal of solids from  transport  and  slicing  waters.
         Hydroclones   or  liquid  cyclones  can  recover  starch
         particles from potato chip wash water and particles from
         fruit slicing waters.
                                     494

-------
         Improved mechanical cleaning of belts
         wash water.
to  replace  belt
         Recirculation  of  all  cooling  water  through  cooling
         towers   or   spray   ponds.    Cooling  waters  include
         barometric condenser water, can cooling  water,  freezer
         water, etc.


         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.

         Reuse  of  pickle  fermentation  and  storage  brine  to
         eliminate  the  discharge  of  wastewater  from  salting
         stations.  Presently under study in the industry.

Water  usage  and  pollutant  reductions  resulting  from   BATEA
internal  controls  were  discussed  in  Section  V.   It must be
emphasized that the BATEA water usage and  pollutant  levels  are
being achieved by many plants throughout the subcategories and by
at  least  one  plant  in  every  subcategory.   In fact, over 25
percent of the plants investigated in Section V have water  usage
data below the BATEA water usage.

It  should  be emphasized that the BATEA limitations are based on
BPCTCA  with  internal  management  improvements   and   improved
external  treatment  facilities.   As  mentioned previously, land
treatment can also be utilized  to  achieve  the  limitations  in
instances  where  suitable  land is economically available to the
processor.

BATEA alternatives  have  been  listed  although  none  of  these
technologies  nor  other specific external facilities or internal
controls are of themselves required.  Due to economic, space,  or
other  factors,  many  plants  may  choose  to  use  any  set  of
alternative internal and/or external  technologies.   Conversely,
some  plants  may choose technologies and/or controls in addition
to BATEA.  A specific  processing  plant  may  select  biological
treatment,  land  treatment, or any other end-of-pipe or in-plant
technology  as  the  most  effective  method   of   meeting   the
limitations.
                                 495

-------
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONTROL TECHNIQUE APPLICATIONS

The specified levels of effluent reduction are achievable because
many  plants  throughout the industry subcategories are achieving
the reduced water usage and because  at  least  eleven  treatment
plants are currently operating at or below the specified effluent
levels.  The treatment systems include aerated or aerobic lagoons
and activated sludge.  Limitations including filtration as a part
of  BATEA  are  currently achieved by six industry plants.  BATEA
effluent levels are a  result  of  three  technologies:  internal
controls  for  reduced  raw  waste  loads;  improved operation of
BPCTCA biological treatment; and multi-media filtration.

The rationale used for reducing water  usage  to  help  meet  the
BATEA  guidelines  is  focused  around  the significant number of
fruit and vegetable  processing  plants  that  currently  achieve
water  usages  less than the expected 1983 water use displayed in
Section V.  Over 25 percent of  the  plants  investigated  report
water  usages  below  the  usages anticipated by BATEA.  The 1983
water use figures and the minimum (1983) water usage  figures  on
the subcategory raw waste summaries represent the mean log normal
water  usage minus one standard deviation.  The ratios of minimum
water use to average water use varied from  subcategory  to  sub-
category  over  a  range of 0.22 to 0.88 with an average of about
0.55.  Thus, it was concluded that a significant reduction in raw
waste volume has already been achieved by many plants and can  be
achieved by other plants prior to 1983.

Based upon developments in in-plant controls and demonstrated raw
wasteloads  at  some  existing plants, it was concluded that flow
reduction would be accompanied by a reduction in  effluent  BOD5_.
There  is less contact between product and water within the plant
and there is increase effectiveness on the part  of  end-of  pipe
treatment  facilities  since they would handle lower volumes with
the same size facilities.

From the discussion in Section V of subcategory  raw  waste  load
characterization,  the  actual flow, BOD5_ and TSS ratios selected
for use in BATEA effluent limitation calculation were based  upon
analysis of the log mean raw waste loads of individual processing
plants, rather than equally weighing each of the data samples for
each  plant  in  each  subcategory.   This  approach was taken to
insure that in every subcategory at  least  one  processor  would
have  a  raw  waste  load presently equal to or less than the raw
waste load determined to be achieved by other processors in  that
subcategory  by  1983.   These  reduced  raw  waste  load figures
represent an average water usage reduction  and  an  accompanying
reduction  in  effluent  limitations  of  about thirty percent of
BPCTCA.

The rationale used for  improving  the  performance  of  existing
BPCTCA  biological  treatment  systems  to  help  meet  the BATEA
guidelines is based upon the Act  and  its  legislative  history.
These  documents  call  for  the  average performance of the best
                                  496

-------
plants to serve as the basis for 1977  effluent  limitations  and
the performance of the best plants to serve as the basis for 1983
effluent  limitations.   In Section IX, the 1977 limitations were
developed utilizing a conservative approach so that twenty-two of
twenty-seven industry plants would meet all of the 1977  effluent
levels.   The  1983  effluent  levels were established based upon
regression analyses performed for each treatment  system  on  the
influent raw waste BOD5 concentration versus the treated effluent
annual  average,  maximum  month  and  maximum  day  BOD5 and TSS
concentrations.  See Figures 18 to 23.  The  following  equations
represent the results of these analysis.

The  annual  average  effluent  BODJ5  and TSS concentrations were
expressed by the following relationship with  the  influent  BOD5
cone entrati on:

                 Effluent BOD5 = 18 + .006 (Influent BOD5)
                 Effluent TSS  = «M * .009 (Influent BOD5J

The  maximum thirty day effluent BOD5_ and TSS concentrations were
expressed as follows:

                 Effluent BOD5 = UU + .006 (Influent
                 Effluent TSS  = 56 + .031 (Influent

The  maximum  day  effluent  BODJ5  and  TSS  concentrations  were
expressed as follows:

                 Effluent BODj> = 71 + .008 (Influent BOD5)
                 Effluent TSS  =126 + .029 (Influent BOD!5)

The regression analysis resulted in effluent concentrations which
were  the  average  of  the  twenty-seven treatment plants in the
industry.  All of the effluent levels for BOD5_ and TSS are met by
eleven of the twenty-seven plants and thus represent a reasonable
and  attainable  improvement  in  BPCTCA   biological   treatment
performances.

The  annual  average,  maximum  thirty  day,  and maximum day BODJ5
effluent  levels  are  met  by  seventeen  biological   treatment
systems, including seven aerated lagoons  (PE78, CO78, MU50, BN28,
TO51, T052 and PK60)  and ten activated sludge plants (*C54, BN43,
GN90,  P060r  CT91,  BN26,  PR51,  PN25, CS99 and TO99).  The TSS
effluent levels are met by twelve biological  treatment  systems,
including five aerated lagoons (STUO, MU50, T051, TO52  and CH59)
and seven activated sludge plants  (*C5U, BNU3, PO60, CT91, BN26,
PR51 and CS99).  The eleven biological treatment systems, meeting
all  the  BODJ5  and TSS limitations include three aerated lagoons
(MU50, TO51 and TO52) and eight activated sludge  systems  (*C51,
BN43, PO60, CT91, BN26, PR51, CS99 and TO99).

As detailed above, the BATEA effluent levels result from internal
controls  and  improved  biological  treatment  performance  plus
multi-media   filtration.    Tertiary   filtration    has    been
                              497

-------
successfully  demonstrated  at  GR32 and has been installed in at
least two other fruit and vegetable plants.  The  performance  of
plant   GR32   is  detailed  in  Table  92.   The  BOD5.  and  TSS
concentrations prior to filtration are variable and  are  similar
to  the  effluent  levels observed from either aerated or aerobic
lagoons or activated sludge.  Thus, the filtered effluent  levels
should  be  achieved  with  either  aerated or aerobic lagoons or
activated  sludge  biological  treatment.   However,   the   1983
effluent  levels after multi-media filtration have been developed
based on the regression analysis discussed above.   It  has  been
determined  that  the filter will add additional control over the
biological  system  with  the  reduction  of  the  TSS   effluent
concentrations to the same level as the BODS^ concentrations.  The
following    equations    represent    the   results   of   these
determinations.

The annual average  effluent  BOD5  and  TSS  cocentrations  were
expressed  by  the following relationships with the influent BOD5
cone en trati on:

                 Effluent BOD5 = 18 + .006 (Influent EOD5)
                 Effluent TSS  = 18 + .006 (Influent BOD5)

The maximum thirty day effluent BOD.5 and TSS concentrations  were
expressed as follows:

                 Effluent BODJ5 = 44 + .006 (Influent BOD5)
                 Effluent TSS  = 44 + .006 (Influent BOD5)

The  maximum  day  effluent  BOD5  and  TSS  concentrations  were
expressed as follows:

                 Effluent BODjj = 71 + .008 (Influent BOD!>)
                 Effluent TSS  = 71 + .008 (Influent BOD!5)

The results of this analysis resulted in effluent  concentrations
which are met by six treatment systems: MU50 is an aerated lagoon
system  without  filtration;  PR51  and CT91 are activated sludge
plants without any polishing lagoons; *C54 and PO60 are activated
sludge with polishing lagoons; and GR32 is activated sludge  plus
multi-media filtration.

The  discussion in Section IV of this document dealt in part with
potential economic impacts for various plant sizes.  As a  result
of  potential  impacts on medium size plants, filtration has been
eliminated.  Therefore, only large plants  will  be  required  to
comply  with  the  limitations  derived  from  the application of
filtration to the effluent from biological treatment systems.

Processes Employed

All plants within each subcategory studied utilize the same basic
production processes.  Although there are deviations in equipment
and production procedures, these  deviations  do  not  alter  the
                                  498

-------
characteristics of the waste water generated.  Application of the
BATEA  includes  internal  controls  but  does  not require major
changes in existing industrial processes  for  the  subcategories
studied.   Several  in-plant controls and modifications have been
discussed.   Strict  water  conservation  and  product   handling
practices,  and  good  housekeeping  and maintenance programs are
currently available.  The technology  to  achieve  the  1983  raw
waste  loads  is currently practiced by at least one plant within
each subcategory studied.  The concepts  are  reasonably  proven,
available   and   applicable  to  the  wastes  from  the  fruits,
vegetables and specialties industry.

Total Cost of Application

Based on information contained in Section VIII  of  this  report,
the  total investment cost to achieve the best available effluent
limitations is estimated to be about $40 million.  The associated
annual cost would be approximately $10 million.  These  estimates
assume  no  treatment  currently  in-place and include filtration
only for plants greater than 9,080 kkg  (10,000 tons)  per year.

The total capital industry cost to meet both the BPCTCA and BATEA
limitations with aerated lagoons is estimated to be  about  $64.5
million.   The  associated  annual  cost is estimated to be $17.6
million.

Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact

Total energy requirements for this industrial category to  comply
with  the  proposed  BATEA  regulations  are  approximately  0.45
million KWH/day.  This is a  very  small  portion  of  the  total
energy consumed by this industry for production.

Solid  waste  disposal  is  usually  accomplished  by landfill or
spreading on agricultural land.  An  increasing  portion  of  the
solid  waste  by-products  of production are being used primarily
for animal feed, while reasearch into other methods of  reuse  is
increasing.   The  disposal  of  solids  generated  by  treatment
systems should increase slighly but not  create  significant  new
disposal problems in terms of fill or land availability.

There  are no known radioactive substances used in this industry.
Noise  levels  associated  with   treatment   systems   are   not
significant.   No  significant  air  pollution problems have been
identified for either  processing  or  waste  treatment  or  land
disposal.    Well   designed   and  operated  land  disposal  and
biological treatment systems do  not  produce  strong,  offensive
odors.   No  hazardous  chemical  are  required  as  part of this
treatment technology.

Factors To Be Considered In Applying BATEA Limitations

    1.   Land treatment by spray irrigation or equivalent methods
         providing minimal discharge should be encouraged.
                               499

-------
    2.   The nature of biological treatment plant is such that on
         the order of four days may  be  required  to  reach  the
         daily  maximum  limitation after initial start-up at the
         beginning of the processing season.

    3.   Thought was given to imposing a limitation upon TDS  and
         chlorides,  since  these constituents are found in heavy
         concentrations in wastes from  the  subcategories  which
         brine  or  pickle  their  product.   These subcategories
         include sauerkraut, pickles, and olives.   It  is  known
         that   treatment   technology  exists  to  remove  these
         constituents from the raw waste, but it is very  costly.
         (Ref.  45,46,£»7)    The potential harm to the environment
         from these constituents is entirely a function of  their
         disposal location; e.g., chlorides and TDS cause no harm
         to  ocean  waters  which  already contain over 3 percent
         dissolved solids.  It was decided, therefore,  that  the
         mandatory  imposition of an expensive tertiary treatment
         system would not be reasonable.  The  individual  permit
         writer,  however, is alerted to the presence of high TDS
         and chlorides in wastes from these  subcategories  which
         must  be evaluated with regard to their potential effect
         on the environment.

    4.   The  major  commodities  comprising   the   canned   and
         preserved  fruits  and  vegetables  industry  have  been
         described   individually,   and   effluent   limitations
         guidelines  and  standards have been recommended.  Minor
         commodities such as artichokes, okra, and  rhubarb,  are
         typically  processed in multi-product plants where their
         contribution to the annual  raw  tonnage  or  wastewater
         character  is insignificant.  It i's estimated that minor
         commodities represent  less  than  two  percent  of  the
         canned and preserved fruits and vegetables.  In order to
         develop  effluent  limitations  guidelines and standards
         for the processing  of  minor  commodities,  review  the
         process  unit  operations and wastewater characteristics
         for commodities described in this report.  Select  those
         major  commodities which resemble the minor commodity in
         processing unit operation.  Next select from  this  list
         of  major  commodities, the commodity which most closely
         resembles the minor commodity in wastewater  volume  and
         characteristics.   This commodity and the minor commodity
         are  similar.  Thus, the effluent limitations guidelines
         should be similar in processing  and  waste  volume  and
         characteristics.
Limitations for Multi-Commodity Plants

The  methodology  outlined  in  Section  IX is also applicable to
calculation of BATEA limitations, and is therefore  not  repeated
here.
                                    500

-------
                           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,
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  in 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.

EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE FOR NEW SOURCES

The  effluent  limitations  for new sources are the same as those
achievable  by  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
the Engineering Aspects of Control Technique Application, Process
Changes, Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact,  Factors  to  be
Considered  in  Applying  BATEA  Guidelines,  and Limitations for
Multi-Commodity Plants also apply to these New Source Performance
Standards.

PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

With proper pretreatment, where  necessary,  all  effluents  from
plants  within  this industry are compatible with a well designed
and operated  publically  owned  activated  sludge  or  trickling
filter waste treatment plant.  A judgement must be made, based on
                                    501

-------
each  individual  plants circumstances, as to the type and degree
of pretreatment necessary, if any,  to protect  the  operation  of
the  public treatment plant and the quality of its effluent.  The
industry and the municipalities are encouraged to  seek  together
the  most  cost-effective solutions to problems on a case-by-case
basis, and not rely on arbitrary "them and us" judgements.

The following waste constituents  from  this  industry  have  the
potential to adversely affect public treatment systems:

         Flow Volume - The industry is generally characterized by
         high volumes of waste discharged seasonally,  and  often
         with  wide  hourly  fluctuations  in  flow  volume.  The
         effect  of  such  volumes  and  fluctuations  upon   the
         municipal   system   depends   upon   the  size  of  the
         municipality, type of  municipal  treatment  plant,  the
         presence  of  other  high  volume dischargers, and other
         factors.   In  troublesome  cases,  flow   equalization,
         either  at  the industrial plant or the municipal plant,
         may be an answer.  Installation  of  cooling  towers  to
         reduce  high  volume  cooling  water discharges is often
         done.  This document and many  literature  sources  also
         discuss   various   methods   of  in-plant  flow  volume
         reduction.

         Organic Strength -  The  industry  generally  discharges
         wastes  with relatively high BODJ5 concentrations.  These
         soluable organics are amenable to  biological  treatment
         and   should   be  entirely  compatible  with  municipal
         treatment, provided the  municipal  system  is  designed
         with  sufficient  organic  removal  capacity to properly
         handle the imposed BODI5  load.   In  troublesome  cases,
         pretreatment to remove BOD5 at the industry plant may be
         necessary,  but  this  is  generally  not cost-effective
         because the same  waste  is  being  treated  twice.   An
         industry  financed  expansion of the municipal treatment
         plant may be a better answer.  In  any  case,  arbitrary
         sewer  discharge BOD5 limits should generally be avoided
         unless absolutely necessary.  Such limits may create  an
         impossible  economic  and  technical  situation  for the
         processing plant which discharges a high strength waste.

         pH  -  Most  municipalities  impose   pH   limits   upon
         industrial   dischargers  as  required  to  protect  the
         collection system, and maintain pH  into  the  municipal
         treatment  facilities within ranges compatible with good
         biological treatment.  Plants in this industry which lye
         peel may discharge wastes  with  high  pH.   Conversely,
         some  fruits  are acidic and their processing produces a
         low pH waste.

         Oil and grease - A few subcategories  of  this  industry
         discharge  relatively  high  concentrations  of  oil and
         grease.  This may be regulated as necessary  to  protect
                                   502

-------
the collection system against stoppages and occasionally
even  to  protect the treatment system unit processes if
grease build-up has become a problem.

TDS  and  Chlorides  -  Several  subcategories  of  this
industry  use  a brining process which generates a waste
with  high  concentrations  of   chlorides   and   other
dissolved  inorganic  chemicals.   These  pass through a
biological municipal treatment system  and  may  degrade
receiving  waters,  depending  upon  the  nature  of the
receiving waters, the dilution in the municipal  system,
and other factors.  Whether a municipality should accept
high  concentrations of TDS should be decided on a case-
by-case basis.
                          503

-------
504

-------
                           SECTION XII

                        AC KNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Environmental Protection Agency  wishes  to  acknowledge  the
contributions  to  this  project  by Stearns, Conrad, and Schmidt
Consulting Engineers, Inc., Long Beach, California.  The work  at
SCS  was  performed under the direction of Mr. Curtis J. Schmidt,
Jr., Project Manager, and assisted primarily by Ken  LaConde  and
Chip  Clements.   Subcontractors  were  Environmental Associates,
Inc., Corvallis, Oregon, Environmental Science  and  Engineering,
Gainesville,   Florida,  and  Aqua  -  Tech  Laboratories,  Inc.,
Portland, Oregon.  Technical guidance was provided by  Dr.  Wayne
Bough, Dr. William Boyle and Mr. Paul Miller.

Various  industry  organizations also contributed greatly to this
study.  Of special help were the  National  Canners  Association;
American  Frozen  Foods  Institute; Pickle Packers International,
Incorporated; The National Kraut Packers  Assciation,  Inc.;  The
Potato  Chip  Institute;  The  Dried  Fruit  Association; and the
American Dehydrators of Onion and  Garlic  Association.   Special
appreciation  goes to the more than 300 processing plants nation-
wide that provided information essential to the study.

Appreciation  is  expressed  to  those   in   the   Environmental
Protection  Agency who assisted in the preparation and completion
of  of this project: John Riley, George Keeler, Harold  Thompson,
Acquanetta  Delaney, Doris Clark, Barbara Wortman, and Kay Starr.
The contributions and assistance of Dr. Raymond D. Loehr, Program
Advisor, are gratefully acknowledge.  Special thanks are due  Ken
Dostal for his guidance and Fred Zaiss for his assistance.
                                 505

-------
en
O

-------
                          SECTION XIII

                           REFERENCES

1.   Bough,  W.  A. and A. F. Badenhop, "A Comparison of Roasting vs
    Lye Peeling of Pimentos for Generation of Wastes and  Quality
    of  Canned  Products,"  Journal  of  Food Science (in Press) ,
    197H.

2.   Wastewater Treatment and Reuse  by  Land   Application,  EPA,
    Washington, D.C., 1973.

3.   Fisk, W. W., "Food  Processing  Waste  Disposal,"  Water  and
    Sewage Works, III, No. 9, pp. 417-U20 (196U).

H.   Bouwer, H., "Renovating  Secondary  Effluent  by  Groundwater
    Recharge   with   Infiltration   Basins,"  Presented  at  the
    Symposium  on  Recycling  Treated  Municipal  Wastewater  and
    Sludge   Through  Forest  and  Cropland,  Pennsylvania  State
    University, University Park, Pa. (August, 1972).

5.   Dunlop, S. G., "Survival of  Pathogens  and  Related  Disease
    Hazards,"  Proceedings  of  the Symposium on Municipal Sewage
    Effluent for  Irrigation,  Louisiana  Polytechnic  Institute,
    July 30, 1968.

6.   Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application, loc. cit.

7.   Dunlop, loc. cit.

8.   Ibid.

9.   Reid, S., et. al, Wastewater Management by  Disposal  on  the
    Land, National Technical Information Service, 1972.

10. O'Leary, P. R., and R. Berner, Study of Fill and Draw Cannery
    Lagoon  Operations  in  Wisconsin  (An  Unpublished   Interim
    Report), Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, Wise., 1973.

11. Porges, Ralph, "Industrial Waste Stabilization Ponds  in  the
    United   States,"   Journa1   of   Water   Pollution  Control
    Federation, 35, 1963.

12. Missouri Basin Engineering Health Council,  "Waste  Treatment
    Lagoons—State  of  the  Art,"  EPA  Project  No.   17090EHX,
    Cheyenne, Wyo., July, 1971.

13. Parker, C.D.,Food Cannery  Waste  Treatment  by  Lagoons  and
    Ditches  at  Shepparton, Victoria* Australia, 21st Industrial
    Waste Conference,Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., 1966.
                                  507

-------
14. Eckenfelder, W. W. Jr., and D.  J.  O'Connor,  "Treatment  of
    Organic  Wastes  Aerated Lagoons," Journal of Water Pollution
    Control Federation, 32 (4) , p. 365, 1960.

15. Dunlop, loc. cit.

16. Filbert, J. W., "Other Treatment Methods for Potato  Wastes,"
    Proceedings  of  a Symposium on Potato Waste Treatment, FWPCA
    and University of Idaho, 1968.

17. Graves, L. M., and R.  W.  Keuneman,  "Primary  Treatment  of
    Potato Processing Wastes with By-Product Feed Recovery," 41st
    Annual   Conference,   Water  Pollution  Control  Federation,
    Chicago, 111., Sept., 1968.

18. Wolski, Ipc. cit.

19. Streebin,  Leale  E.,  George  W.  Reid,  and  C.   H.   Hue,
    Demonstration  of  a  Full-Scale Waste Treatment System for a
    Cannery, EPA, Water Pollution Control Research Series,  12060
    DSB, 1971.

20. National  Canners  Association,  "Waste  Reduction  in   Food
    Canning  Operations,"  FWPCA, Water Pollution Control Project
    Series, 1970.

21. Parker,  et. al,  "Unit  Process  Performance  Modeling   and
    Economics for Canning Waste Treatment," 23rd Industrial Waste
    Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., 1969.

22. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Summary Report;  Advanced  Waste
    Treatment, 1967.

23. Water Pollution Control Federation, "Sludge Dewatering," WPCF
    Manual of Practice, No. 20, Washington, D.C., 1969.

24. Richter, Glenn A.,  Aerobic  Secondary  Treatment  of  Potato
    Processing wastes. Proceedings of First National Symposium on
    Food Processing Wastes, EPA, Portland, Ore., 1970.

25. Los  Angeles  County,  Dept.  of  County  Engineer,  "Summary
    Report:   Wastewater  Reclamation Project for Antelope Valley
    Area," Downey, Calif., Oct., 1971.

26. Capital and Operating Costs of  Pollution  Control  Equipment
    Modules,  Vol.  I and II, Office of Research and Development,
    EPA, Washington, D.C., July, 1973.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.
                                   508

-------
29. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines   and
    Standards  of  Performance  for the Canned and Preserved Fish
    and Seafood Processing Industry, EPA, Washington, D.C., July,
    1973.

30. Ibid.

31. Harnish and Lookup Associates, "Wastewater Facilities  Report
    for Welch Foods, Inc., Brocton, N.Y.," April, 1973.

32. Smith, Robert, "Cost of Conventional and  Advanced  Treatment
    of   Wastewater,11   Journal   of   Water   Pollution   Control
    Federation, 40, p. 1546.

33. Eckenfelder, W. W., and C. E. Adams, "Design and Economics of
    Joint  Wastewater  Treatment,"  ASCE,  Journal  of   Sanitary
    Engineering Division, Feb., 1972.

34. "Electrical  Power  Consumption  for   Municipal   Wastewater
    Treatment,"  NERC  Office  of  Research and Development, EPA,
    Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1973.

35. Smith, loc. cit.

36. NERC, loc. cit.

37. Ibid.

38. Hittman Associates, Inc.,  "Electrodialysis  Plant  Monograph
    Booklet," U.S. Dept. of the Interior, OSW, August, 1970.

'39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. Eckenfelder, W. W.  and  D.  J.  O'Connor,  Biological Waste
    Treatment, Pergamon Press, New York, 1961.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. "Reconditioning of Food Processing Brines," National   Canners
    Association Research Foundation, Western Regional Laboratory,
    Water Quality Office, EPA, March, 1971.

46. Henne, R. E., and F. R. Geisman,  "Recycling  Spent  Cucumber
    Pickling  Brines,"  Proceedings  of Fourth National Symposium
    Food Processing Wastes, Syracuse, N.Y., March, 1973.
                                  509

-------
47. Lowe, E., and E.  L.  Durkee,  "Salt  Reclamation  from  Food
    Processing  Brines," Proceedings of Second National Symposium
    on Food Processing Wastes, Denver,  Colo., March, 1971.

48. Lund, Daryl  B.,  "Impact  of  the   Individual  Quick  Blanch
    Process  on  Cannery Waste Generation," Proceedings of Fourth
    National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, Syracuse, N.Y.,
    March, 1973.


49. Rails, Jack W., et.  al.,  "In-Plant  Hot  Gas  Blanching  of
    Vegetables," Proceedings of Fourth  National Symposium on Food
    Processing Wastes, Syracuse, N.Y.,  March,1973.


50. Middlebrooks,   E.J.,   et.   al.,    "Upgrading    Wastewater
    Stabilization   Ponds   to  Meet New  Discharge  Standards,"
    Sumposium Proceedings, Utah State  University,  Logan,  Utah,
    August 21-23, 1974.

51. Middlebrooks, E.J. et.   al., "Evaluation of  Techniques  for
    Algae  Removal  from  Wastewater  Stabilization  Ponds," Utah
    State Univerity, Logan, Utah, January, 1974.

52. "Direct Filtration of Secondary  Effluents,"  EPA  Technology
    Transfer Design Seminar, Orlando, Florida, May 7-9, 1974

53. Dryden, Frank, and Gerald  Stern,  "Phosphate  Reduction  for
    Limiting  Algae  Growth  in  Lakes   of Renovated Wastewater",
    Paper Presented at American  Chemical  Society  Meeting,  New
    York City, September 15, 1966.

54. Extended Aeration Sewage Treatment  in Cold  Climates,  Report
    No.   EPA-660/2-74-070,   Environmental   Protection  Agency,
    Washington, D.C., December, 1974.

55. International Symposium on Water Pollution  Control  in  Cold
    Climates,   Report   No.   16100   EXH  11/71,  Environmental
    Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., November, 1971.

56. Biological Waste Treatment in the Far  North,  Federal  Water
    Quality  Administration, Report No. 1610	06/70, Washington,
    D.C., June, 1970.

57. Process  Design  Manual   for   Suspended   Solids   Removal,
    Technology Transfer Program, Environmental Protection Agency,
    Washington, D.C., October, 1971.

58.  Johnson,  R. D., et. al., "Selected chemical characteristics
    of Soils, Forages, and Drainage Water From  the  Sewage  Farm
    Serving  Melbourne, Australia," U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps
    of Engineers, Washington, D.C. January 1974.
                                    510

-------
                  WON-INDEXED REFERENCES

Westminster, Md., Edward E. Judge and Sons, Inc., 1973.

Canned Fruits and Vegetables, Census of Manufactures, U.S.  Dept.
of Commerce, 1972.

Canned  Specialties,  Census  of  Manufactures,  U.S.  Dept.   of
Commerce, 1972.

Cherries, Statistical Reporting Service, Washington, D.C., 1973.

Frozen  Food  Pack  Statistics,  American  Frozen Food Institute,
Washington, D.C. 1974.

Liquid Wastes from Canning and Freezing  Fruits  and  Vegetables,
National Canners Association, 1971.

Methods  of  the  Chemical  Analysis  of  Water and Wastes, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1971.

Non-Citrus  Fruits  and  Nuts,  Statistical  Reporting   Service,
Washington, D.C., 1974.

Pickles, Sauces, and Salad Dressing, U.S. Census of Manufactures,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972.

Standard  Industrial  Classification  Manual, Executive Office of
the President, Office of Management and Budget, 1972.

Standard Methods for the Examination  of  Water  and  Wastewater,
13th edition, 1971.

Water  Quality  Criteria - 1972, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1973
                                   511

-------
(\J
1—I
in

-------
                           SECTION XIV

                            GLOSSARY


Activated Sludge Process  -  A  biological  wastewater  treatment
process in which a mixture of wastewater and biological organisms
called  activated  sludge is agitated and aerated.  The activated
sludge is subsequently separated from the treated  wastewater  by
sedimentation and wasted or returned to the process as needed.

Adiabatically - Physically changing without gain or loss of heat.

Aerobic - Living or active in the presence of free oxygen.

Aerobic-Facultative   Lagoon   -   A  wastewater  treatment  pond
employing mechanical  surface  aerators  which  produces  aerobic
zones  around  the  aerators  and  allows solids to settle out in
quiescent areas.

Algorithms - A system  of  mathematical  steps  which  is  to  be
followed  in  prescribed  order  for  solving  a specific type of
problem.

Alkalinity - Measure of the ability of the wastewater to  produce
hydroxyl ions to react with acidic materials and neutralize them.
Generally expressed in mg/1 as calcium carbonate.

Anaerobic - Living or active in the absence of free oxygen.

Anionic  Polymer  -  Organic  compounds  characterized by a large
moleculr weight and a net negative charge, formed by the union of
two  or  more  polymeric  compounds.   Certain  polymers  act  as
coagulants  or coagulant aids.  Added to wastewater, they enhance
settlement of small suspended  particles.   The  large  molecules
attract the suspended matter to form a large floe.

Anode - The positive pole of an electrode or conducting terminal.

Aguifer  -  A  bed  of  permeable  rock,  sand,  or  other porous
substances which contain water in recoverable quantities.

Bacterial Metabolism -  The  chemical  change,  constructive  and
destructive, occurring in bacteria.


Best  Available  Technology  Economically  Achievable  (BATEA)
Treatment and control required by July 1,  1983,  for  industrial
discharges  to  surface waters as defined by Section 301(b)(2)(A)
of the Act.

Best Practicable control Technology Currently Available   (BPCTCA)
   Treatment and control required by July 1, 1977, for industrial
                                 513

-------
discharges to surface waters as defined by  Section  301 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act.

BOD  -  Biological  Oxygen  Demand  is a bioassay test which is a
semi-quantitative measure of biological decomposition of  organic
matter  in  a  water  sample.   It is determined by measuring the
oxygen required by microorganisms to oxidize the contaminants  of
water samples under standard laboratory conditions.

BQD5  -  A measure of the oxygen consumption of aerobic organisms
incubated for five days at 20°C.

Slowdown - A discharge of water from a  recirculating  system  to
prevent a buildup of dissolved solids and/or other contaminants.

Brackish  Water  - A mixture of salt water and fresh water;  e.g.,
with TDS levels from 300 to 30,000 mg/1.

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  and  powder.   The  carbon  is "activated" or made more
adsorbent by treatment and processing.

Cathode -  The  negative  pole  of  an  electrode  or  conducting
terminal.

Cationic  Polymer  -  Same  properties  and  uses  as  an anionic
polymer, except that it carries a net positive charge.

Cell Synthesis - The formation of new cells by bacteria.

Chemical  Precipitation  -  A  waste  treatment  process  whereby
substances  dissolved  in  wastewater  are rendered insoluble and
form  a  solid  phase  which  can  be  removed  by  flotation  or
sedimentation techniques.

Chloramines  -  Compounds  obtained by chlorine disinfection from
the  action  of  hypochlorite  solutions  (weak   acidic   easily
decomposed) on compounds containing NH and NH(2)  groups.

Clarification  - Process of removing undissolved materials from a
liquid.  Specifically, removal of solids either  by  settling  or
filtration.

Clarifier  -  A  settling  basin for separating settleable solids
from wastewater.

Coagulation - The mutual attraction and coalescence of oppositely
charged colloids to produce a (usually  gelatinous)  precipitated
phase.  In water treatment, the addition and subsequent hydration
of oxides of aluminum or iron produce positively charged colloids
which can be used to remove negatively charged organic colloids.
                                    514

-------
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 specific conditions.

Coliform  - Gram negative, non-spore forming bacilli that ferment
lactose with the  production  of  acid  and  gas  and  are  found
primarily in the intestines of man and animals.

Colloidal  Particles  -  Suspended  particles in a liquid mixture
which have an extremely slow,rate of sedimentation.

Cooling Tower - A device for cooling water by spraying in the air
and trickling over slats.

Cull - Product which is picked or sorted from the rest because it
is poor in quality or defective.

Deaeration - Removal of oxygen from commodities (juices or  fruit
slices)  to  prevent  adverse  effects on properties of the final
products by aerobic decomposition.

Desiccate - To dry; to dehydrate as a food.

Denitrification - The  process  involving  the  facultative  con-
version  of  anaerobic  bacteria  of  nitrates  into nitrogen and
nitrogen oxides.

Detention Time - The dwell time  of  wastewater  in  a  treatment
unit.  Alternately called retention time.

Digestion  -  The  biological  decomposition of organic matter in
sludge, resulting  in  partial  gasification,  liquefaction,  and
mineralization.

Dissolved  Air Flotation - 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.

P.O. - Dissolved Oxygen is a measure of the amount of free oxygen
in a water sample.

Effluent  -  Wastewater  or other liquid, partially or completely
treated  or  untreated,  flowing  out  of  a  process  operation,
processing plant, reservoir, basin, or treatment plant.

Electrodialys is  -  A  physical  separation  process  which  uses
membranes and applied voltages to  separate  ionic  species  from
water.
                                  515

-------
Eutrophication  -  Applies  to aging of a lake or pond due to the
addition of dissolved nutrients.

Evapotranspiration - Water withdrawn from the soil by evaporation
and plant transpiration.

Extended Aeration - A form of the activated sludge process  which
provides  for  long retention time of wastewaters in the presence
of activated sludge and air, usually for greater than 2H hours.

Fecal Coliforms - Coliform bacteria that  are  derived  from  the
intestinal tract of man and warm blooded animals.

Fescue - Grasses cultivated Tor meadows or lawns.

Filtration  - Removal of solid particles from liquid or particles
from air or gas stream  by  passing  the  liquid  or  gas  stream
through a media with small openings.

Floe  -  A  mass  formed  by  the aggregation of a number of fine
suspended particles.

Flocculation - Small coagulated particles become accreted to form
larger, more precipitable structures.  This process  is  promoted
through  the  use  of  chemical  coagulants,  adjustment  of  the
physical or chemical condition of  the  system,  or  biologically
through microorganism growth and activity.

Flume - Conduit or chute for conveying water or matter in water.

Ion Exchange - 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.

Influent  -  A  liquid  which  flows  into  a containing space or
process unit, usually untreated or partially treated wastewater.

IQF - A process for very rapid freezing  of  fruit  or  vegetable
products.

KWH - Kilowatt-hours, a measure of electrical energy consumption.

Lagoon  -  A large pond used to hold wastewater 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.

Make-up Water - Fresh water added to  process  water  to  replace
system losses; e.g., blowdown, evaporation, etc.
                                    516

-------
Mixed Liquor - A mixture of sludge and wastewater in a biological
reaction  tank  undergoing biological degradation in an activated
sludge system.

Nitrate, Nitrite - Chemical compounds that include  the  NO(3)
(nitrate) and NO (2) - (nitrite) ions.

Nitrification - The process of oxidizing ammonia by bacteria into
nitrites and nitrates.

Osmosis  -  Diffusion  of  a  solvent  through  a  semi-permeable
membrane into a more concentrated solution, tending  to  equalize
the concentrations on both sides of the membrane.

Orthololidine  Residual  - A measure of chlorine residual left in
treated water after application of chlorine.

Parameter - A derived constant for expressing performance or  for
use in calculations.

Pathogen  -  A parasite producing damage in its host; any disease
producing microorganism.

Percolation - The movement of water through the soil profile.

p_H - A measure of the relative acidity and 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 indicates a
predominance of alkalis.

Pneumatic Transport  -  A  system  by  which  loose  material  is
conveyed  through  tubes  by  air  in motion.  May be by positive
(forced air) or negative  (vacuum) pressure.

Polyelectrolyte - A synthetic or natural  polymeric  material  in
which the monomeric unit features an ionized group.  Depending on
the  nature  of  the  latter,  a polyelectrolyte may be cationic,
anionic, or amphoteric  (e.g., proteins).   when  dispersed,  such
materials   can   undergo  coagulation  with  oppositely  charged
colloids.

Ponding - A waste treatment technique involving  the  storage  of
wastewaters  in a confined space with evaporation and percolation
the primary mechanisms operating to dispose of the water.

Precipitation - The phenomenon that occurs when a substance  held
in solution in a liquid passes out of solution into solids form.

Primary  Waste Treatment - Processes which remove the material in
wastewater that floats or will settle.   It  is  accomplished  by
using  screens,  tanks  for the heavy matter to settle in, and/or
dissolved air flotation tanks.
                                  517

-------
Raw Waste - The wastewater effluent from the fruit  or  vegetable
processing plant prior to treatment.

Receiving  Waters - Rivers, lakes, oceans, or other water courses
that receive treated or untreated wastewaters.

Retort - Sterilization of food product by cooking,  usually  with
steam under pressure.

Reverse  Osmosis  -  The 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 a more concentrated waste.

Secondary  Treatment  -  The  second step in most waste treatment
systems during  which  bacteria  consume  the  dissolved  organic
portion  of  the  wastes.   It  is  accomplished  by bringing the
wastewater and  bacteria  together  under  controlled  conditions
conducive to good bacterial metabolism.

Sedimentation  -  In  wastewater treatment, gravity separation of
suspended solids.

Sludge  -  The  solid  matter  that  settles  to  the  bottom  of
sedimentation tanks.

Slurry  - A solids-water mixture with sufficient water content to
impart fluid handling characteristics to the mixture.

Spray  Irrigation  -  A  method  of  land  application  by  which
wastewater is sprayed from nozzles onto land.

Sump - A chamber into which water can drain and from which it can
be pumped periodically.

Suspended  Solids - Solids that either float on the surface of or
are in suspension in water and which  are  largely  removable  by
laboratory  filtering  as  in  the analytical determination of SS
content of wastewater.

Symbiosis - Two organisms  living  together  in  a  complementary
manner to aid the living processes of each.

Tertiary  Waste Treatment - Waste treatment systems used to treat
secondary  treatment  effluent  and  typically  using   physical-
chemical  technologies  to  effect  additional  waste  reduction.
Synonymous with advanced waste treatment.

Total Dissolved Solids-TDS - The  solids  content  of  wastewater
that is soluble and is measured as total solids content minus the
suspended solids.

Total  K-jeldahl  Nitrogen  -  A  measure  of  the total amount of
nitrogen  in  the  ammonia  and  organic  forms  in   wastewater.
                                  518

-------
Trickling  Filter - A bed of rocks or artificial media over which
the wastewater is trickled so the bacteria  can  break  down  the
organic wastes.  The bacteria grow on the media.
Wet  Well  -  A
water it pumps.
collection chamber from which a pump obtains the
Zero Discharge - The discharge of no pollutants into a  receiving
body   of  water.   Attainable  by  treatment  to  levels  beyond
analytical detection, or by land treatment  (elimination  of  all
direct hydraulic discharge)-.

Zoogleal Film - A jelly-like mass or aggregate of bacteria formed
in trickling filters or other treatment devices.
                                 519

-------
                                   METRIC UNITS
                                 CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)

    ENGLISH UNIT      ABBREVIATION
acre                    ac
acre - feet             ac ft
British Thermal
  Unit                  BTU
British Thermal
  Unit/pound            BTU/lb
cubic feet/minute       cfm
cubic feet/second       cfs
cubic feet              cu ft
cubic feet              cu ft
cubic inches            cu in
degree Fahrenheit       F°
feet                    ft
gallon                  gal
galIon/minute           gpm
horsepower              hp
inches                  in
inches of mercury       in Hg
pounds                  lb
million gallons/day     mgd
mile                    mi
pound/square
  inch (gauge)          psig
square feet             sq ft
square inches           sq in
tons  (short)            ton
yard                    yd
         by                 TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)

     CONVERSION   ABBREVIATION  METRIC  UNIT
       0.405
    1233.5

       0.252

       0.555
       0.028
       1.7
       0.028
      28.32
      16.39
     0.555(°F-32)*
       0.3048
       3.785
       0.0631
       0.7457
       2.54
       0.03342
       0.454
         3,785
       1.609

(0.06805 psig +1)*
       0.0929
       6.452
       0.907
       0.9144
ha           hectares
cu m         cubic meters

kg cal       kilogram - calories

kg cal/kg    kilogram calories/kilogram
cu m/min     cubic meters/minute
cu m/min     cubic meters/minute
cu m         cubic meters
1            liters
cu cm        cubic centimeters
°C           degree Centigrade
m            meters
1            liters
I/sec        liters/second
kw           killowatts
cm           centimeters
atm          atmospheres
kg           kilograms
cu m/day     cubic meters/day
km           kilometer

atm          atmospheres (absolute)
sq m         square meters
sq cm        square centimeters
kkg          metric tons (1000 kilograms)
m            meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
                                                  520

-------

-------

-------

-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (A-107)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
           POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        EPA-335

-------