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
. 8416. 87?^-. 7313.
?. J7.]rf 3o.37 30.51
H. 8.1ft o.85 5.15
«!. 4.0^ J.43 2.57
d. 39. a ?i.6 -6.96
e. 1^.9 lJ.8 -3.98
LOG
M-SD
5433.
22.65
7.65
3.83
4.61
2.31
LOG
M-SD
7867.
32.80
5.60
2.80
4.27
2.14
ARITHMETIC LOG
COEFF. OF COEFF. OF
SYMMETRY SYMMETRY
0.3863
1.5798
2.7817
1.9Q06
1.5964
0.6613
-0.2700
0.6006
0.4585
ARITHMETIC LOG
COEFF. OF COEFF. OF
SYMMETRY SYMMETRY
1.6516
-0.0505
-0.4903
Process Codes: BQ01W, BQ02H
-------
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
------- |