DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
MISCELLANEOUS FOODS AND BEVERAGES
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PART III
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MARCH 1975
-------
NOTICE
The attached document is a DRAFT CONTRACTOR'S REPORT. It includes tech-
nical information and recommendations submitted by the Contractor to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") regarding the sub-
ject industry. It is being distributed for review and comment only. The
report is not an official EPA publication and it has not been reviewed by
the Agency.
The report, including the recommendations, will be undergoing extensive
review by EPA, Federal and State agencies, public interest organizations
and other interested groups and persons during the coming weeks. The
report and in particular the contractor's recommended effluent guidelines
and standards of performance is subject to change in any and all respects.
The regulations to be published by EPA under Sections 304(b) and 306 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, will be based to a
large extent on the report and the comments received on it. However,
pursuant to Sections 304(b) and 30G of the Act, EPA will also consider
additional pertinent technical and economic information which is developed
in the course of review of this report by the public and within EPA. EPA
is currently performing an economic impact analysis regarding the subject
industry, which will be taken into account as part of the review of the
report. Upon completion of the review process, and prior to final pro-
mulgation of regulations, an EPA report wi'il be issued setting forth EPA's
conclusions regarding the subject industry, effluent limitations guide-
lines and standards of performance applicable to such industry. Judgements
necessary to promulgation of regulations under Sections 304(b) and 306 of
the Act, of course, remain the responsibility of EPA. Subject to these
limitations, EPA is making this draft contractor's report available in
order to encourage the widest possible participation of interested per-
sons in the decision making process at the earliest possible time.
The report shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or court proceeding
only to the extent that it represents the views of the Contractor who
studied the subject industry and prepared the information and recommenda-
tions. It cannot be cited, referenced, or represented in any respect in
any such proceedings as a statement of EPA's views regarding the subject
industry.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Hater and Hazardous Materials
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, D. C. 20460
Please note: Because of the volume of this report, it has been printed
in the following manner: "Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages."
Part I Pgs. 1-292 Section I-IV
Part II Pgs. 293-500 Section V-VI
Part III Pgs. 501-840 Section VII .
Part IV Pgs. 841-1196 Section VIII (partial)
Part V Pgs. 1197-1548 Section VIII (cont.) - XIV
-------
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
This section identifies, documents, and verifies as completely as possible
the full range of control and treatment technology which exists or has
the potential to exist within each industrial subcategory identified
in Section IV. In addition it develops the control and treatment al-
ternatives applicable to the model plants developed in Section V.
The development of model treatment alternatives for each subcategory
is based on the treatment modules listed in Table 95.
The modular approach to treatment is used in order to allow the eval-
uation of alternative treatment chains, both in terms of probable
treatment efficiency and cost effectiveness.
In those cases where plants within a subcategory are expected to be
distributed throughout the United States, the prime choice of treat-
ment for that subcategory has been developed as the least land de-
pendent alternative. Nevertheless, since it would normally be expected
that at least some members of the subcategory would have available
land (where "available land" is defined as land that is owned by the
processing plant or can be leased or purchased for a reasonable price,
and that can be suitably used for waste disposal), more land dependent
alternatives have also been developed.
Other factors which could affect the choice of a particular treatment
train for a particular plant include the following:
1. Seasonality of plant operation,
2. Expected skill of operating personnel,
3. Non-water quality aspects (as described in Section VIII) such
as noise, odor, solids residue disposal, etc.,
4. Degree of pollution reduction within the process.
Since the purpose of this document is to develop recommended effluent
limitation guidelines for point source discharges into navigable waters,
municipal treatment is not directly considered as a treatment alternative,
but it would obviously be economically attractive in many cases if
available. For overall completeness, costs associated with municipal
treatment will be discussed in Section VIII even though not directly
applicable to the study.
In addition to the treatment modules discussed herein, a considerable
number of other modules could be considered. For example, anaerobic
digestion could be used in most instances instead of aerobic digestion
(and the possible recovery of methane gas as an energy source should
not be discounted); however, for the purposes of this document, it
501
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 95
WASTEWATER TREATMENT UNITS USED IN TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
A. No Treatment
B. Pumping station
C. Equalization
D. Chemical Flocculant Addition
E. Clarifier (includes sludge pumping)
F. Acid Neutralization
G. Caustic Neutralization
H. Nitrogen Addition
I. Phosphorus Addition
J. Air Flotation (includes pumping station)
K. Activated Sludge (includes sludge pumping and clarifier)
L. Aerated Lagoon (includes settling pond)
M. Stabilization Pond (aerobic, anaerobic, flocculation)
N. Dual Media Pressure Filtration (includes pumping station)
0. Centrifugation
Q. Sludge Thickening
R. Aerobic Digestion
S. Vacuum Filtration
T. Sand Drying Beds
U. Spray Irrigation
V. Truck Hauling
W. Pipe Line
X. Roughing Filter
Y. Storage Tank
Z. Activated Carbon
502
-------
DRAFT
was determined that aerobic digestion would be quite effective
and would adequately represent the associated costs. In addition,
anaerobic digestion systems may be more land dependent as compared
to aerobic processes.
Biological filters or discs could be used in some cases in lieu of
activated sludge systems, and, in fact, activated sludge systems are
currently employed by several plants. Also, various modifications
of activated sludge other than the complete mix system could be
successfully used by many plants. However, complete mix activated sludge
was selected in this document because of its demonstrated ability to
effectively treat high concentration waste loads on a reliable and
sustained basis. Other treatment unit processes were not considered
with similar justifications applicable for biological filters.
It must be noted that the treatment systems considered herein are for
subcategories containing, in most cases, numerous plants located through-
out the United States. If a treatment plant is to be designed for a
particular industrial operation, the design should be preceded by a
characterization of the process wastewater of the specific plant and
by pilot plant studies in order to provide an optimum treatment system
for the given process. To the extent possible, the performances of
the treatment systems discussed herein has been reflected by the demon-
strated performance of treatment facilities presently designed for the
waste, or as reflected by pilot plant studies for the same or similar
wastes.
The operational theory and design procedures for the treatment processes
discussed herein may be found in any of a number of sources, including
Metcalf and Eddy (94); Fair, Geyer, and Qkun (95); Clark, Viessman, and
Hammer (96); Nemerow (97); and Eckenfelder (98).
Unless indicated by performance of existing or pilot plant results for
the specific wastes, determination of pollutant reductions through
conventional secondary treatment measures has been strongly guided by
experience in treating general food processing wastes. Ample evidence
exists as to the ready biodegradability and treatability of food proces-
sing wastes, and studies have continued to support the ability of
properly designed, operated, and maintained activated sludge systems
to achieve high efficiencies of removal of BOD (95 percent or greater).
The following discussion of each module includes assumptions that,
unless otherwise stated for a subcategory, are applicable to all sub-
categories. Unit A is defined as no additional treatment above that
already employed by the model plant; it does not necessarily mean that
no treatment whatsoever is being used. For example, all plants represented
by the model plant may employ primary sedimentation. In such instances,
raw wastewater from the model plant would be the effluent from the primary
sedimentation process.
503
-------
DRAFT
Unit B, the pumping station,illustrated in Figure 138, is assumed
to consist of two pumps, each capable of pumping 100 percent capacity
at 85 percent efficiency. The pumping station operates at a head of
70 m (230 ft).
Unit C, the equalization basin, provides twenty-four hour detention
time. Mixing is provided by 0.05 cu m (0.5 cu ft) of diffused air per
liter (gallon) capacity. The basin is a circular, 0.794 cm (5/16 in)
steel tank on a concrete base.
Unit D provides for the addition of chemicals for flocculation.
The system consists of chemical storage and dry chemical feed through
a vibratory hopper.
Unit E consists of a circular steel clarifier as shown in Figures
139 and 140. The system includes sludge and skum collectors, sludge
pumping with two pumps at 100 percent capacity, and all necessary
electrical and mechanical facilities. The clarifier is designed for
a surface over-flow rate of 20,400 1/day/sq m (500 gpd/sq ft).
Unit F, acid neutralization, is provided by a 50 percent solution of
sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The system includes two chemical pumps, a fiber-
glass lined tank, with 30-day storage capacity, and a pH control system.
Unit G, caustic neutralization, is provided by a 93 percent solution
of sulfuric acid (H^SO^ using the same system as used for sodium
hydroxide addition. The feed system is illustrated in Figure 141.
Unit H, provides for addition of nitrogen if the wastewater to be
biologically treated is considered to be deficient in nitrogen. A
deficiency is assumed if the BOD:N ratio is less than 20. As illus-
trated in Figure 142, the system for nitrogen addition consists of
a steel pressure tank which provides 30 days storage for anhydrous
ammonia, and an ammoniator for feed control.
Phosphorus addition, if necessary for biological treatment, is provided
by Unit I. Phosphorus addition is considered necessary if the BOD:P
ratio is less than 100. This system, illustrated in Figure 143,
consists of a 30-day capacity fiberglass lined storage tank for phos-
phoric acid and a chemical pump.
Unit J is a dissolved air flotation module for the removal of oil
and grease from wastewater. It is designed for an overflow rate of
24,000 1/day/sq m (600 gpd/sq ft).
Unit K is a complete mix activated sludge unit, as shown in
Figure 144, which includes a clarifier such as that described for
Unit E. The MLSS is assumed to be 3500 mg/1 and the BOD loading rate
to be 0.56 kg/cu m (35 Ib BOD/1000 cu ft). Return sludge capacity is
150 percent of influent. Aeration is provided by fixed surface aerators
504
-------
DRAFT
LADDER
1.5D MIN.
7*.'..ft•&'•<>•••• v-i y-* y -^
PUMPS
~T
I 0.6 M
2(j) CM
• V
3D
1.5D
D=SUCTION BELL DIA.
0.6 M MIN.
'A
rn^vt
30 CM
3.67 M MAX.
15 CM
FIGURE IT.
PUMPING STATION
505
-------
o
TO
TOP OF TANK.
0.305 M
SLUDGE
PIPE
SQUEEGEE
SECTION X-X
FIGURE 140
CLARIFIER MODULE
ELEVATION VIEW
-------
DRAFT
NAOH
OR
H2SO4
—1>4
FIGURE
NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEM
508
-------
T T-
i^vi "
NH3 STORAGE
STEEL TANK
18 ATM
)
bd tr-d hrd 1
r^kd 1
WATER
AMMDNIATOR
TO LI^E
OR POND
FIGURE 142
NITROGEN ADDITION SYSTEM
-------
H3P04
STORAGE
-CXJ-
TO LINE
OR POND
en
o
FIGURE
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION SYSTEM
-------
o
•73
RETURN
SLUDGE
EFFLUENT
CLARIFIER
IX—•>
WASTE SLUDGE
INFLUENT
FIGURE 1-44
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
-------
DRAFT
as illustrated in Figure 145). It is assumed that 1.5 kg of oxygen
1.5 Ib oxygen) are required per kg (pound) of influent BOD.
Unit L is an aerated lagoon system as illustrated in Figure 146. It
is assumed that the lagoon achieves the same level of pollutant reduc-
tion as Unit K; the lagoon has a length to width ratio of 2:1, and
is lined with 10 mil PVC. It has a depth of 3.7 m (12 ft) and is
completely mixed. It is designed based on the relation
B/A = l/ll+K(V/Q)]
where B = effluent BOD, mg/1
A = influent BOD, mg/1
K = BOD removal rate constant, I/days
V = volume, cu m
Q = flow rate, cu m/day
The value of K is assumed to be 1.0 for soluble wastes.
Aeration is provided by surface aerators and the same basic assumptions
are used as were used for Unit K, except that a mixing requirement of
26.3 kw/cu m (0.5 hp/1000 cu ft) may be an overriding factor.
A separate settling lagoon (Unit M) is provided for sedimentation of
solids. The lagoon is 2.4 m (8 ft) in depth and a minimum of two
settling lagoons are used. The lagoon is lined with 10 mil. PVC lining,
It is assumed that the sludge accumulates for five years, is 60 percent
oxidized, and consolidates to a solids content of 15 percent. Once
each five years one pond is decanted and the sludge is removed by
dragline and hauled away.
Unit N is dual media pressure filtration using anthracite and sand.
Pumping is provided to produce an influent head at 30 m (100 ft).
Backwash is five percent of flow. The feed is applied at a loading
rate of 2.7 1/sec/sq m (4 gpm/sq ft).
Unit 0, centrifugation, is a unit process applicable to only a few
subcategories within the miscellaneous food and beverages industry.
The assumptions used for each application will be discussed for each
subcategory using centrifugation.
The sludge thickener, Unit Q, is a concrete basin using mechanical
agitation. It is conservatively assumed that the sludge is thickened
to a solids content of 2.0 percent.
512
-------
OJ
3 ANCHOR CABLES
LIQUID
LEVEL
PROFILE
FIGURE 145
FIXED SURFACE AERATOR
-------
o
73
en
POND AREA
3.66M
1.22M'
FIGURE 146
AERATED LAGOON CROSS SECTION
-------
DRAFT
Unit R, aerobic sludge digestion, shown in Figure 147, consists of a
circular tank constructed of 0.64 cm (0.25 in.) steel. It has a depth
of 3.7 m (12 ft) and a detention time of 20 days. Aeration is provided
by floating surface aerators at the rate of 75 mg/l/hr. It is assumed
that a sludge thickener preceeds this unit and the solids content of
the influent sludge is 2.0 percent. It is further assumed that 30 percent
of the influent solids are volatilized during digestion.
Figjre 148 illustrates Unit S, vacuum filtration. The loading rate of
sludge onto the filter is assumed to be 20 kg/sq m/hr (4.0 Ib/sq ft/hr).
Each filter operates for 12 hr/day. It is assumed that the effluent
solids concentration is 15 percent. Chemical addition, in the form of
ferric chloride, is at the rate of 7.0 percent by weight of dry solids,
and this weight is included in the design loading rate.
The sand drying beds, Unit T, include a tile underdrain system with
one collection sump common to all beds. Each bed is 6.1 m
(20 ft) by 30 m (100 ft) and has 15 cm (6.0 in) of sand over 30 cm
(12 in) of gravel. The beds are constructed with a slope of 0.5
percent. It is assumed that five dryings of a 20 cm (8 in) layer of
sludge is possible per year. It is further assumed that the volume
of the dried sludge is 50 percent of the applied volume and that the
dried sludge is trucked to land disposal.
The spray irrigation system, Unit U, consists of 10.16 cm (4 in.)
PVC laterals placed at intervals of 30 m (100 ft) on a 25.4 cm (10 in.)
PVC main. "Rainbird" type sprinklers are placed at intervals of 24 m
(80 ft) on each lateral. A shut-off valve is located at each connection
of a lateral with a main. The wastewater application rate is assumed
to be 46,800 1/ha/day (5000 gal/acre/day) and, if sludge is to be applied
for irrigation, the application rate is assumed to be 56 kkg/ha/yr
(25 ton/ac/yr).
Unit V consists of disposal of process wastewater and/or sludge by
truck hauling to an approved sewage treatment plant or land disposal
site. It is assumed for cost purposes that an outside contractor is
employed to perform this service.
Unit W includes a cast iron pipeline requiring 1.2 m (4 ft) excavation.
The line has a gate valve at every 300 m (1000 ft) interval and an air
relief valve every 600 m (2000 ft).
Unit X is a trickling filter for biological waste treatment not followed
by a solids settling unit. Such filters are commonly termed a "roughing"
biological filter.
Unit Y is a storage tank which may be used for storing either wastewater
or sludge.
515
-------
DRAFT
"A" DIA.
0.308 M
"C" DIA.
0.154 M
FIGURE 147
AEROBIC DIGESTION BASIN
516
-------
PNEUMATIC
AND HYDRAULIC
SYSTEM
SCRAPER
SLUDGE CAKE
SLUDGE RESERVOIR
FIGURE
VACUUM SLUDGE FILTRATION
-------
DRAFT
Unit Z is an activated carbon module. The activated carbon unit is '
employed commonly for removal of color and organics from wastewater.
All treatment trains to be developed include flow measurement devices
(Figure 149) a flow proportional sampling station, and if the size
and complexity of the treatment plant justifies, an office-laboratory
building.
SUBCATEGORY A 1 - OILSEED CRUSHING, EXCEPT OLIVE OIL. FOR DIRECT SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AND PREPRESS SOLVENT EXTRACTION OPERATIONS
The process wastewaters generated from the solvent extraction of oilseed
and by-product cake or meal represent a relatively minor waste load in
comparison to the raw waste load generated by edible oil refineries (i.e.,
Subcategories A 5 through A 12) as average BOD and oil and grease concen-
trations for the former facilities average 311 and 252 mg/1, respectively.
The average flow rate is 140 cu m/day (0.037 MGD).
Wastewater discharged from the solvent extraction process results from the
following processes: 1) soybean oil degumming, 2) wastewater generated
by wet scrubber systems, 3) steam condensates contaminated by oil, fatty
acids or hexane solvent, and 4) in-plant cleanup of oil or miscella spillage.
Existing In-Plant Technology
Wastewaters generated from the drying of wet lecithin in the degumming
of soybean oil represents a major contribution to the total waste load of
a soybean solvent extraction operation. At the present time the industry
has not developed an economical in-plant method of reducing degumming
waste loads.
Only one plant (75S-13) was observed to utilize a wet scrubber system
for the in-plant reduction of air particulates in milling, handling, and
unloading areas. Rockwell (21) reports that the use of dry cyclone
systems is still the most common dust collection system used in the grain
industry. At present, the industry has not developed a method for re-
ducing the relatively high volume, low concentration wastes generated
from wet scrubber systems. Existing treatment and control technology
applicable to general cleanup and housekeeping practices consists of
observance of in-plant water conservation methods through dry cleanup
of floors and equipment. In practice, solid materials are removed by
sweeping, vacuum or air cleaning. The use of water in oilseed milling
areas is prohibited due to the nature of the product being processed, and
for reasons of mold and rodent control.
End-of-Line Technology
Process wastewaters prior to discharge to a municipal sewer or treatment
facility are commonly directed to a grease trap, sump decanter, or gravity
separation and skimming unit. Becker (54) illustrates a sump decanter
system in Figure 150.
518
-------
o
70
—
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE
INSTRUMENT
OR
TRANSMITTER
HORIZONTAL FLOW
rp
r
FLOW
LO
3T 7"
t „ T
Jr-^—J
HI
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE
INSTRUMENT
OR
TRANSMITTER
VERTICAL FLOW
FIGURE 149
FLOW MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
-------
o
5
Ul
ro
o
WATER TO
SEWER
n
!L
m
\
\
\
\\
|
-J-.-_- L
_J
\ \ \ \ '
1
si
•— "^^
s
\
•
\
-T '
k \ \ \ \ \
\
\
S,
\
i.
\
*.*"~
s. \
*
6
f. ...
": *
• • ' • •'
\ \ \ \ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
s
OIL TU Kt(-
FROM PROCESS
WATER STRIPPER
FIGURE 150
SUMP DECANTER SYSTEM
-------
DRAFT
Floatable oils and sludges removed from grease traps and gravity separa-
tion basins are commonly trucked to landfill operations by either
plant personnel or a contractor. A number of plants recover the floatable
oils and pump them to a reprocessing system.
The raw process wastes generated from solvent extraction and prepress
solvent extraction operations after the pretreatment step of gravity
separation consist primarily of emulsified hydrocarbons and other
associated compounds that are not readily separated by pretreatment
practices. Results of plant visitations and verification sampling
conducted during this study demonstrated that these process wastes,
after pretreatment for the removal of floatable oils, are readily bio-
degradable in normal biological waste treatment systems. Plant visita-
tions and historical data received from one South Central and three
Midwest secondary treatment systems clearly indicate reasonable removal
rates for BOD, suspended solids, and oil and grease. Table 96 presents
a summary of these treatment systems and indicates treatment chains, the
percent of BOD removal across the system, and final discharge data for
each system. A more detailed discussion concerning the treatability
of edible oil wastes is presented in this section for Subcategory A 5.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory A 1.
It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treatment units
before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Separate discharge of process waters and non-contact water,
2. Gravity separation and skimming of the final process water
effluent,
3. Floatable oils and sludges removed by the pretreatment step
of gravity separation and skimming either hauled to land-
fill facilities by in-plant personnel or pumped to an oil
reprocessing system.
The raw wastewater charcteristies after gravity separation and skimming
were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 340 mg/1
SS 210 mg/1
O&G 380 mg/1
Flow 148 cu m/day (0.039 MGD)
Table 97 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 1
plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the eight
treatment trains selected for this Subcategory.
521
-------
en
ro
ro
Plant
75S01b
75S01b
75S02C
75S02<;
75513°
75513°
755138
75513°
75S116
TABLE 96
FINAL DISCHARGE DATA FOR TREATMENT SYSTEMS HANDLING
SOLVENT EXTRACTION PROCESS WASTES
Percent BOD Final Discharge
Production Flow Treatment3 Efficiency BOD SS Oil &
Across Grease
kkg/day cu m/day Chain System (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
635
635
454
454
1189
1500
1646
1443
816
1087
420
871
939
1226
1154
1097
1200
897
C,L,E,M,C12
C,L,E,M,C12
GT,(2)L
GT,(2)L
GT,(2)L
GT,(2)L
GT,(2)L
GT,(2)L
F,G,S,G,J,
L,N,Cl2
.7
.5
.4
.2
&
82,
96.
76.
86.
ND
ND
ND
ND
96-99
17
9
33
11
10
13
13.
23
40
31
24
52
23
38
94
87
70
50
9
35
50
26
ND
37
13.5
ND
1.0
Reference
1972-73 Survey
1973-74 Survey
1972-73 Survey
1973-74 Survey
1972-73 Survey
1973-74 Survey
October 1974 Survey
November 1974 Survey
November 1974 Survey
a) C = Equalization basin; L = Aerated lagoon; G = Caustic addition; J = Air flotation; N = Dual Media filtration
E = Clarifier; M = Stabilization pond; C12 = Chlorination; GT = Grease trap; GS = Gravity, separation &
skimming; ND = No data.
b) Treatment system handles boiler blowdown, storm water runoff, soybean oil degumming, and solvent
extraction plant wastes.
c) Treatment system handles soybean oil degumming, solvent extraction process wastes, and cooling tower
blowdown.
d) Treatment system handles cooling tower blowdown, caustic refining, feed mill elevator, storm water runoff,
boiler blowdown, and solvent extraction plant wastes.
e) Treatment system handles raw edible oil refinery wastes and solvent extraction process wastes.
-------
TABLE 97
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY A 1
Treatment Train
Alternative
A 1-1
A l-II
A l-III
A 1-IV
A 1-V
§ A 1-VI
A 1-VII
A 1-VIII
A
B^CKQY
B^CKQYBN
BCL
BCLBN
B BCJ
B^CJKQY
BCJL
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
0.061
0.0072
0.0036
0.0072
0.0036
0.018
0.0036
0.0036
Ef fl uent
SS
kg/kkg
0.038
0.0090
0.0045
0.0090
0.0045
0.011
0.0045
0.0045
Effluent
O&G
kg/kkg
0.069
0.0054
0.0027
0.0054
0.0027
0.021
0.0027
0.0027
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
88.2
94.1
88.2
94.1
69.8
94.1
94.1
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
76.3
88.2
76.3
88.2
70.2
88.2
88.2
Percent
O&G
Reduction
0
92.2
96.0
92.2
96.0
70.3
96.0
96.0
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 1-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation and skimming.
Alternative A l-II - Alternative A 1-1 with the addition of a flow
equalization basin, an activated sludge unit, secondary clarification,
a sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thickening tank, and a sludge
holding tank. Sludge is hauled to a landfill facility every twelve
days. The activated sludge unit also includes a control house and one
full time operator.
Alternative A 1-HI - Alternative A l-II with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with a pump station to generate sufficient head
for the filter operation. A schematic diagram of Alternative A l-III is
presented in Figure 151.
Alternative A 1-IV - Alternative A 1-1 with the additives of a flow
equalization basin, an aerated lagoon with a settling pond, and one full
time operator.
Alternative A 1-V - Alternative A 1-IV with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 1-V is presented
in Figure 152.
Alternative A 1-VI - Alternative A 1-1 with the addition of a flow
equalization basin and pressurized air flotation utilizing chemical
flocculating agents to enhance floe formation and floatability of wastes.
Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings are pumped to an in-plant oil re-
processing system.
Alternative A 1-V11 - Alternative A 1-VI with the addition of a complete
mix activated sludge unit, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating
pump, sludge thickening tank, and sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill every 30 days. The unit also includes a control house and
one full time operator. Figure 153 presents a schematic diagram of treat-
ment Alternative A 1-VII.
Alternative A 1-VIII - Alternative A 1-VI with the addition of an aerated
lagoon with a settling pond and one full time operator. Figure 154 pre-
sents a schematic diagram of treatment Alternative A 1-VIII.
SUBCATEGORY A 2 - OILSEED CRUSHING. EXCEPT OLIVE OIL. BY MECHANICAL
SCREW PRESS OPERATIONS
Existing and Potential In-Plant Technology
The extraction of vegetable oils from oilseeds by the mechanical screw
press method results in a relatively small volume of wastewater generated,
i.e., less than 4,000 liters (1000 gallons) per day. Because of the small
volume of wastewater produced, the industry has not made an effort to
524
-------
DRAFT
IN-PLANT
RECOVERY OF
FLOATABLE OILS
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
GRAVITY
SEPARATION
PRETREATMENT
INFLUENT
BOD = 340 MG/L
SS = 210 MG/L
06G = 380 MG/L
FLOW = 0.148 OJ M/DAY
*
(0.039 MGD)
1326 GAL/DAY
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
SLUDGE
THICKENING
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
370 GAL/DAY
HOLDING
TANK
SETTLING
PONDS
HAUL EVERY
12 DAYS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
A l-II
EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
06G = 30 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
A l-III
EFFLUENT
BOD =20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G =15 MG/L
FIGURE 151
SUBCATEGORY Al
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II - III
525
-------
DRAFT
IN-PLANT RECOVERY
PROCESS .
WASTEWATER
•ABLE OILS
f
I
GRAVITY
SEPARATION
PRETREATMENT
INFLUENT
BOD = 340 MG/L
SS = 210 MG/L
O&G = 380 MG/L
FLOW 9 0.148 CU M/DAY (0.039 MGO)
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
A 1-IV
'EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
O&G = 30 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
Al-V
EFFLUENT
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 15 MG/L
FIGURE 152
SUBCATEGORY Al
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES IV
- V
526
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT RECOVERY
OF FLOATABLE OILS
PRETREATMENT
GRAVITY
SEPARATION
INFLUENT
BOD = 340 MG/L
SS = 210 MG/L
O&G =380 MG/L
FLOW = 0.148 CD M/DAY
(0.039 MGD)
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
SLUDGE
THICKENING
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
ALTERNATIVE
-•*• A 1-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD =102 MG/L
SS » 63 MG/i
0£G » 114 MG/L
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE
A 1-VII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 15 MG/L
FIGURE 153
SUBCATEGORY Al
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI - VII
527
-------
DRAFT
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
GRAVITY
SEPARATION
PRETREATMENT
I
INFLUENT
BOD = 340 MG/L
SS = 210 MG/L
O&G = 380 MG/L
FLOW = 0.148 CU M/DAY
(0.039 MGD)
TO IN-PLANT RECOVERY
OF FLOATABLE OILS
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
AERATED
LAGOON
ALTERNATIVE
A 1-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 102 MG/L
SS = 63 MG/L
O&G =114 MG/L
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE
A 1-VIII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G =15 MG/L
FIGURE 154
SUBCATEGDRY Al
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE VI - VIII
528
-------
DRAFT
reduce the resulting waste load. The majority of process wastewaters
generated from mechanical screw press operations results from two sources:
contamination of steam condensates from steam cooking operations, and
general floor washing and equipment cleanup of oil and miscella spillage.
Existing treatment and control technology applicable to mechanical screw
press facilities consists of observance of in-plant water use conservation
through dry cleanup of floors and equipment. In practice, solid materials
are removed by dry cleanup procedures such as floor sweeping and/or
vacuuming. Containment devices are commonly utilized in oil storage areas
for the entrapment of spillages. Dry cleanup of oil spills is presently
practiced within the industry but does not presently receive widespread
application. The majority of plants visited during the study utilized
both wet and dry cleanup procedures. Plants which practiced wet cleanup
generally employed high pressure, low volume hoses in their cleanup pro-
cedures to reduce water usage. Hoses are generally equipped with automatic
shut-off valves.
End-of-Line Technology
The majority of plants visited discharged their small waste volume to
municipal sewers or landfill facilities. A number of plants trucked
their wastes to a nearby edible oil refinery where the oils were re-
covered in the acidulafrion process. These plants were observed to
recycle their process wastewater into boiler feed makeup water.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V it was determined that it was unnecessary to develop a
model plant for mechanical screw press operations due to the small
volume of wastewater discharged per day. The most practical disposal
of these wastes would be to municipal waste treatment systems, or by
hauling to suitable land disposal sites for land application and disposal.
Alternative A 2-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment.
Alternative A 2-11 - This alternative consists of a storage tank and
truck hauling of the wastewater to a municipal sewage treatment facility
or suitable land disposal site.
SUBCATE60RY A 3 - OLIVE OIL EXTRACTION BY HYDRAULIC PRESSING AND
SOLVENT EXTRACTION'
As discussed in Section III, there are only two olive oil processing
plants in the United States and both are located in California.
Furthermore, plant 79102 is the only plant which utilizes either the
hydraulic press or solvent extraction processes for the recovery of
olive oil. The control and treatment practices at the plant are pre-
sented below.
529
-------
DRAFT
Existing In-Pi ant Technology
Plant effluent consists of centrifuge fruit water and a small amount of
water which drains from cannery pits and culls during storage. Any
equipment cleanup is done by dry processes resulting in no additional
discharge of wastewater.
Potential In-Plant Technology
Examination of in-plant processes suggests.no additional method or pro-
cedure to further reduce pollutant loads and wastewater volume for this
industry.
End-of-Line Technology
Plant 79102 is presently achieving zero discharge of wastewater by col-
lecting and truck hauling its effluent to a municipal treatment fa*-
cility without adverse effects on the system. Biological treatment of
similar olive oil wastewater at plant 79101 has been attempted and,
although a 97 percent treatment efficiency was achieved, the initial
high strength of the waste resulted in an average effluent BOD of 1300
mg/1. Since the ability of advanced waste treatment for the same or
similar wastes has not been proven, biological treatment is not recom-
mended as an alternative for olive oil process wastewater. However,
due to the disposal practices of plant 79102 and the proven biodegrad-
ability of the waste at plant 79101, there is no reason to suspect that
olive oil processing wastewater is inherently incompatible if discharged
to a properly designed well-operated municipal treatment facility.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V the raw waste load of the model plant was presented as
follows:
Flow 10.9 cu m/day (0.0029 MGD)
BOD 63,000 mg/1
SS 14,000 mg/1
FOG 3,220 mg/1
pH 5.1
Taking account of the basic olive oil production process and the
fact that all olives are grown in California, it may be logically
assumed that new olive oil plants using hydraulic press or solvent
extraction will be located in areas with the same or similar con-
ditions to those of California, i.e., locations near olive orchards
and in rural areas where land is available and suitable for waste-
water application. These conclusions lead to the following possi-
ble disposal alternatives.
530
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 3-1 - This alternative consists of spray irrigating the
process effluent. An area of 0.23 ha (0.6 acres) of land would be re-
quired. It is assumed that the effluent would not need to be pumped
more than one-half mile. The overall benefit resulting from this
alternative is a 100 percent reduction of process wastewater pollu-
tants to navigable waters.
Alternative A 3-II - This alternative consists of four 0.10 ha (0.25
acre) ponds with a depth of two feet to retain the yearly effluent
expected from the plant. The yearly net evaporation in the climates
where olives are grown has been conservatively estimated at 0.86 meters
(3.4 inches). The operation of the ponds would consist of completely
filling the ponds, one at a time, so that wastewater in the first
pond would be allowed to evaporate as the second was filled, the
second pond allowed to evaporate as the third pond was filled and so
on. In this way, the first pond would be dry at the time the fourth
became full, and the filling cycle could continue. When dry, the
ponds would be dredged periodically to remove accumulated sludge. The
ponds would be lined to prevent percolation of wastewater into the
fresh water aquifer.
Alternative A 3-1II - This alternative consists of land application of
the waste effluent and would require 0.4 ha (1.0 acres) of land. The
land would be terraced with each terrace graded to level. Waste ef-
fluent would be piped onto the terraces (one terrace at a time) and
the depth of coverage regulated to about 7.6 cm (3.0 in.). As a ter-
race dried, it would be plowed in preparation for the next applica-
tion of waste material. This system is used extensively and effec-
tively by wineries in the same area of California as a means of ulti-
mate waste disposal.
SUBCATEGORY A 4 - OLIVE OIL EXTRACTION BY MECHANICAL SCREW PRESSING
As discussed in Section III, there are only two olive oil processing
plants in the United States and both are located in California.
Furthermore, plant 79101 is the only plant which utilizes the screw
press process for the recovery of olive oil. The control and treatment
practices of the plant are presented below.
Existing In-Plant Technology
Wastewater generation is minimized to some extent by the retention of
fruit wash water until it becomes objectionable in quality.
Potential In-Plant Technology
There appears to be no technology which could be applied to decrease
the quantity of wastewater generated from fruit washing or the centri-
fuge discharge since the water in wash tanks is commonly retained as
long as possible already and since centrifuge discharge is a function
531
-------
DRAFT
of the amount of water contained in the fruit initially. The pollutant
loadings in these two discharges are also a function of the raw material
and cannot be significantly reduced through in-process controls.
Centrifuge sludge is the one area where improvement can be made. Since
the sludge has such a high fats and oils concentration, a considerable
portion of potential product is being wasted. Therefore, techniques
such as solvent extraction might conceivably be utilized to remove a
portion of the oil from the sludge.
General plant cleanup generated little water and need not be seriously
considered as a means to substantially reduce the waste load.
End-of-Line Technology
At present plant 79101 is achieving zero discharge of all process waste-
water by means of land application. Plant 79102, which generates a
similar strength waste stream as plant 79101, is also achieving zero
discharge of wastewater by collecting and truck hauling of its effluent
to a municipal treatment facility. Biological treatment of olive oil
wastewater at plant 79101 has been attempted and, although a 97 percent
treatment efficiency was achieved, the initial high strength of the
waste resulted in an average effluent BOD of 1300 mg/1. Since the
ability of advanced waste treatment for the same or similar wastes has
not been proven, biological treatment is not recommended as an alterna-
tive for olive oil process wastewater. However, due to the disposal
practices of plant 79102 and the proven biodegradability of the waste
at plant 79101, there is no reason to suspect that olive oil processing
wastewater is inherently incompatible if discharged to a properly de-
signed well-operated municipal treatment facility.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
The model plant for Subcategory A 4 was presented in Section V with the
raw wastewater characteristics assumed to be as follows:
Flow 114 cu m/day (0.030 MGD)
BOD 30,000 mg/1
SS 57,000 mg/1
O&G 20,000 mg/1
pH 5.5
Since olives are grown solely in California, both olive oil manufac-
turing plants are located in close proximity to olive orchards in
that state. It is therefore concluded that any new source olive oil
manufacturer would locate in California in rural areas where land is
readily available. These conclusions result in selection of the
following recommended treatment alternatives as presented below.
532
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 4-1 - This alternative consists of spray irrigation of the
process effluent which would require 2.4 ha (6.0 acres) of land. It is
assumed that the waste effluent would not have to be piped more than one
half mile. The overall effect of this alternative is a 100 percent reduc-
tion of all pollutants from navigable waters.
Alternative A 4-II - This alternative consists of four, one acre, lined
evaporation ponds with a depth of two feet. The evaporation to be ex-
pected from the ponds, based on conservative estimates from meteorologi-
cal data for olive growing areas of California, is 0.86 m (34 in.) per
year. This evaporation rate led to the selection of the two foot depth
requirement. The system would operate by completely filling the ponds,
one at a time, so that the first pond filled would be allowed to evap-
orate as the second was filled, the second allowed to evaporate as the
third was filled, and so on. In this way the first pond would be dry
at the time the fourth became full and the cycle continues. When dry,
the ponds would be dredged to remove accumulated sludge. No discharge
of process wastewaters to navigable waters would result.
Alternative A 4-1II - This alternative consists of land application of
the, waste effluent and would require 1.6 ha (4.0 acres) of land. The
land would be terraced with each terrace graded to level. Waste ef-
fluent would be piped onto the terraces (one terrace at a time) and
the depth of coverage regulated to about 7.6 cm (3.0 in.). As a terrace
dried it would be plowed in preparation for the next application of waste-
water. This system is used extensively and effectively by wineries in
the same area of California as a means of ultimate waste disposal.
SUBCATEGORY A 5. PROCESSING OF EDIBLE OIL BY CAUSTIC REFINING METHODS
ONLY
The following discussion of existing and potential in-plant treatment
and control technology may be generally applied to subcategories A 5
through A 12. Table 98 presents a summary of the present in-plant
treatment and control technology for the edible oil refining industry.
The principle source of process wastewater generation for Subcateciory
A 5, edible oil refineries, is the caustic refining operation itself,
tank car cleaning, material storage and handling, and general depart-
ment cleanup. Non-contact cooling water is not included within the
definition of process wastewater.
In-Plant. Technology
fatty acids,
-econo.ica,
533
-------
TABLE 98
SUMMARY OF PRESENT INPLANT CONTROL AND TREATMENT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR THE
EDIBLE OIL REFINING INDUSTRY
2.
Waste Water Source
Receiving and storage
(Including tank cleaning
and storage tanks)
General Departmental sources
Including floor wash, 1n-plant
leaks, accidental spills, and
pump failure, and seal leakage.
en
CO
In-Plant Control
la. SPCC regulations as required under EPA title
40.
Ib. Reclrculatlon of tank car cleaning solution.
Ic. Development of a systematic tank car wash
procedures with emphasis on reduction of
water volume. '
2a. General: Improved maintenance and house-
keeping pratlces; Improved operator awareness
and training.
2b. Wet cleanup: Departmentalized containment
basins; Inplant spill plans; reduction of
water usage to absolute minimum by use of low
volume high pressure nozzle hoses and standard-
ized cleanup procedures. Establishment of oil
recovery systems for resale as Inedible oil pro-
ducts. ,
2c. Dry cleanup: Maximum Implementation of dry
cleanup procedures; vacuum cleaning, sweeping,
dry chemical adsorption of spill material.
Remarks
la. Covering spill preventatlon, containment and
recovery.
Ic. Steam cleaning may be used as a viable
alternative.
2a. Reduction of BOD suspended solids, and
oil and grease levels; plants should under-
take a program to identify sources of in-
plant generation of wastewater and encourage
employee participation in reduction effort.
2b. Departmental localization of spills is highly
desirable to reduce the impact of emulsification
as wastes are combined prior to treatment,
therefore reducing the cost of final treatment.
2c. Presently practiced but not commonly applied
throughout the Industry. Implementation of
dry cleanup substantially reduces end-of-Hne
treatment costs.
3. Caustic Refining
3. No controls presently recommended.
-------
TABLE 98 (CONT'D)
GO
(J-l
Waste Water Source
4. Soapstock Addulatlon
5. Bleaching
6. Hydrogenatlon
7. Winterization
8. Deodorizatlon
9. Plasticizing & Packaging
Operations
10. Non-Contact Cooling Water
11. Process Waste Final Effluent
In-Plant Control
4. No controls presently recommended.
5a. Dry cleanup of spent bleaching adsorbent.
5b. Reclrculatlon of contact cooling water
from barometric condenser.
5c. Recovery of oil from filter cake to be
sold as an Inedible oil product.
6. Dry cleanup of filter press.
7. No controls presently recommended.
8 Installation of distillate recovery systems
1n the barometric condenser systems.
9. Clean-1n-Place equipment with containment
and recirculation.
10. Recycle and reuse. Separation of non-
contact cooling water from process wastes.
lla. pH monitoring and adjustment where necessary
lib. Flow equalization where necessary
lie. Gravity separation and skimming for the
removal of floatable oils.
Remarks
5a. Elimination of this discharge point will
significantly reduce concentrations of
BOD, suspended solids, greases and oils
in the final waste loads.
5c. Technology to date has not established
economic feasibility for all plants.
6. Reduce or eliminate discharges of catalyst,
I.e., nickel.
Reduction in entrainment of fatty materials
on cooling tower grillate and tower basin
resulting in fewer manual cleaning operations
of cooling tower.
10. Essential in the reduction of total plant
water usage.
lla. Where desirable or necessary.
lib. Important where variability may induce upset of
treatment train or municipal treatment facility.
lie. Essential pretreatment before discharge Into
biological systems.
-------
DRAFT
Wash waters discharged from the cleaning of tank cars is a major
source of wastewater generation for all edible oil refineries. Tank
cars are cleaned to remove and recover crude oils and fats that adhere
to the walls of the tank car. Tank car washing is commonly accomplished
by the use of a mechanical rotating-head spray assembly that applies
a detergent solution followed by rinse water to the tank car interior.
Wastewater from this operation may represent once through water use
or the wash water may be recycled with makeup water. BOD and oil and
grease concentrations for tank car cleaning operations at five edible
oil refineries averaged 2950 mg/1 and 930 mg/1, respectively. Currently,
the industry commonly practices recirculation of caustic tank car clean-
ing solutions to reduce waste loading. In addition, several plants have
established systematic tank car washing procedures with the emphasis on
reducing the volume of water used to wash each car. An alternative method
utilizing steam cleaning has been found effective for a limited number of
facilities. Wastewater from tank car cleaning is commonly collected in
sloped drains that empty into baffled gravity separation basins. Floatable
oils generally are recovered for resale as an inedible oil product, and
the resulting wastewater is discharged to final gravity separation
facilities, skimming devices, and pH control facilities.
Another major source of wastewater generation occurs in conjunction
with receiving, storage, and transfer areas within the plant. Waste
waters from these areas result from general cleanup procedures, acci-
dental spills, valve or tank leakages, and/or pump failures. BOD and
oil and grease concentrations from transfer and storage areas
average 8,000 mg/1 and 4,200 mg/1, respectively. Existing treat-
ment and control technology applicable to receiving, storage, and
transfer areas consists of observance of in-plant water use conser-
vation through dry cleanup of floors and equipment. In practice,
solid materials are removed by dry cleanup procedures such as floor
sweeping and/or vacuuming. Containment devices are commonly utilized
in oil storage areas for the entrapment of spillages. Plants which
utilize strictly wet cleanup procedures find that the final waste
treatment of oil spills is most difficult when these wastes are
combined with emulsified contaminants from other areas of the plant.
Dry cleanup of oil spills is presently practiced within the industry
but does not presently receive widespread application. The majority
of plants visited during the study utilized both wet and dry cleanup
procedures. Plants which practiced wet cleanup generally employed
high pressure, low volume hoses in their cleanup procedures to reduce
water usage. Hoses are generally equipped with automatic shut-off
valves.
Potential In-Pi ant Technology
Potential in-plant control and treatment technology would include
improvements in general plant maintenance and housekeeping practices
with maximization of dry cleanup procedures (i.e., vacuum cleaning,
and the utilization of dry chemical absorption) where feasible.
536
-------
DRAFT
The effect of these measures would substantially reduce and minimize
potential pollutant loading resulting from the process. The industry may
also very advantageously adopt an industry-wide approach toward im-
provement of operator awareness regarding general dry cleanup pro-
cedures, and pollution control methods. In addition, individual
plants may well develop a program to identify sources of in-plant
wastewater generation and encourage employee participation in reducing
water usage and related wastewater generation. Each plant should
establish methods and procedures for the localization and convenient
cleanup of oil spills and seal or valve leakages. The establishment
of revetments or spillage containment structures in tank storage areas
in all cases would provide for positive control of accidentally
spilled materials. Dry cleanup is much preferred in comparison to
wet cleanup procedures. These measures would significantly reduce
both the amounts of floatable oils in the total wastewater and the
additional emulsification of oil and water discharged to final treat-
ment which occurs where wet cleanup is employed. The localization of
oil spills by the installation of spill containment structures and de-
partmental catch basins will improve the effectiveness and reduce the
cost of subsequent final treatment.
End-of-Line Treatment Technology
The combined raw wastes from edible oil refineries after the pretreat-
ment steps of gravity separation, skimming, and pH control consist
primarily of emulsified hydrocarbons, triglycerides, sterol esters,
fatty acids, compound lipids, and other associated substances that
are not readily separated by pretreatment practices. All edible
oil refining plants presently provide the aforementioned pretreat-
ment measures. Grinkevich (99) has reported some typical ranges of
pollutant concentrations for edible oil refining wastewaters as
follows:
BOD 500-6,700 mg/1
SS 540-5,850 mg/1
Oil and Grease 300-4,200 mg/1
Results of plant visitations and verification sampling conducted
during this study demonstrated that these process wastes, after
pretreatment of floatable oils, are readily biodegradable in normal
biological wastetreatment systems. Plant visitations and historical
data received from two identical secondary treatment systems (plants
75F-10, 75F-11) in the south central United States indicate that
both facilities are achieving high sustained removals of BOD,
suspended solids, and oil and grease by aerated lagoons preceded by
gravity separation, skimming, pH control, and dissolved air flotation.
Each of these systems also has dual media filtration and chlorination
after secondary treatment with a final discharge of 40 mg/1 BOD;
50 mg/1 suspended solids; 1.0 mg/1 oil and grease; and a pH range
of 7 to 8. Percent removals of BOD were 96 to 99 percent; suspended
solids, 99 percent; and oil and grease, 99.9 percent. Table 99 presents
the existing unit treatment chain and design features for plant
537
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 99
EXISTING TREATMENT CHAIN AND MAJOR DESIGN FACTORS OF PLANT 75F-10
FOR THE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF EDIBLE OIL REFINERY WASTES
Number
2
3
8
Treatment Unit
First pH mix tank
Flow equalization tank
Skimming tank
Second pH mix tank
Dissolved air flota-
tion (2 units) with
chemical addition.
Aerated lagoon (2
units)
Stabilization lagoon
Dual media filter
with chlorination
before and after
Final Effluent
Significant Design Features
8.2 I/sec (130 gpm) capacity, adjust the raw
waste pH of 1.5 to 3 to insure adequate separa,-
tion of oil and water for gravity separa-
tion.
851.6 cu m (225,000 gallon) capacity.
1135.5 cu m (300,000 gallon) capacity operating
at a fixed level for continuous mechanical
skimming. Recovered oil will be pumped to a
oil holding tank, 37.8 cu m (10,000 gallon)
capacity. Here steam and gravity will be used
to separate oil and water with the water being
sent back to the flow equalization tank.
Anhydrous ammonia addition with automatic
pH control and alarm equipment to raise the
pH to 7.
Retention time, along with the ratios of
lime, alum, and polyelectrolytes are
varied to produce the maximum amount of
pollutant reduction. 68.1 cu m (18,000 gallon)
capacity each.
4542 cu m (1.2 million gallon) capacity, with
five 14.9 kw (20 hp) floating surface aerators
and a five to six day retention time per lagoon.
Same design as above but without surface
aerators (overall retention time in the
three basins is 15 to 18 days)
Suspended solids and bacteria removal.
No data on retention time dosages or
design.
BOD, 40 mg/1; SS, 50 mg/1; Oil and Grease
1.0 mg/1; Total Phosphorus, 9 mg/1; Nickel,
0.02 mg/1; pH, 7 - 8.
538
-------
DRAFT
75F-10. The treatment efficiency data for oil and grease compiled
from plant 75F-10 are considerably higher than those reported by Loehr
( 100 ) for several Midwest municipalities. The following total grease
removal efficiencies were reported by Loehr for municipal activated
sludge units: 84 percent, Topeka, Kansas; 85.7 percent, Cleveland,
Ohio; and 94 percent, Madison, Wisconsin. Progressive grease removals
indicated by the Topeka, Kansas, study were45 percent by primary treat-
ment; 75 percent by secondary treatment; and 84 percent by complete
treatment. Average removals of BOD and suspended solids were 85 and 82
percent respectively. Results of this study also indicated a reasonably
reliable correlation between oil and grease and suspended solids con-
centrations in the biologically treated final effluent.
Presently over 95 percent of the edible oil refineries within the
United States discharge their process wastewaters into municipal sewage
systems. As concluded by this study, pretreatment technology for the
edible oils industry involves gravity separation of floatable fats,
oils, and greases, and pH control of the remaining wastewaters. Treat-
ment of the resulting wastewaters in municipal systems after such
pretreatment is reported to be accomplished without difficulty. In
fact, it is the industry's contention that joint treatment of edible
oil refinery wastes with domestic sewage is the most efficient and
economical method of wastewater treatment.
The treatability studies by McCarty (101 ) give further support to the
biodegradability of edible oil refining wastes. Edible oil processing
and soap manufacturing wastes were combined on a one to one ratio
on a COD basis with domestic waste in a laboratory scale activated
sludge unit. Results of the study indicated that mixed wastes
occurred at normal operating efficiencies of 60 to 80 percent for
oil and grease removal, with normal sludge digestion and with no
significant adverse effect on oxygen transfer. Adams and Eckenfelder
(102) report that biological treatment of oil and greases of vegetable
and animal origin is the best means for reducing the oil content of
these wastes to acceptable levels before final discharge to receiving
waters. They also note that pretreatment precautions be observed to
remove floating and non-emulsified oils and greases before subsequent
discharge to a treatment facility. Occasionally, pH neutralization
is necessary before discharge to the biological system. Adams and
Eckenfelder also report the reduction of a pretreated influent of
hexane extractible content ranging from 500 to 1500 mg/1 to an effluent
level of less than 15 mg/1 using either aerated lagoons or activated
sludge facilities (97 to 99 percent efficiencies). In addition, no
abnormal behavior was observed in sludge handling processes such as
gravity and flotation thickening, stabilization by aerobic digestion,
or by dewatering using vacuum or pressure filtration. Watson et al
(103) reports on the performance of a pretreatment facility in
Champaign, Illinois, treating the combined wastes from an edible oils
refinery and a margarine, salad dressing, and cheese processing
539
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 100
EXISTING TREATMENT CHAIN AND MAJOR DESIGN FACTORS FOR THE EDIBLE
OILS-MARGARINE, SALAD DRESSING AND CHEESE PRETREAMENT
FACILITIES AT CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS
Number Treatment Unit
1 (2) lift stations
Surge tank
Flotation clarifier
4 Grease storage tank
5 Aeration basin
Final clarifier
Aerobic digester
(2) sludge lagoons
Significant Design Features
Cheese Plant, two 7.5 kw, 850 1/min
(10 hp, 225 gpm) pumps. Oil Plant,
two 5.6 kw, 945 1/min (7.5 hp, 250 gm)
pumps
Capacity 302 cu m (80,000 gallons)
minimum detention time at average
flow--1.5 hours maximum detention time
at average flow~4.5 hr
Capacity 288 cu m (76,000 gallons)
air pressurization on recycle, surface
settling rate, 58 square M (625 square
feet), 50 percent recycle, average flow.
Heated, capacity 68 cu m (18,000 gallon)
Capacity 8,600 cu m (2.27 million
gallons); detention, 4.5 days at
average flow; aeration, 3.5 kw, 224
cu m/min (4.75 hp, 8,000 scfm) and six
floating aerators totaling 157 kw (210
hp)
Capacity, 379 cu m (100,000 gallons);
surface settling rate, 11 cu m/day/
sq m (270 gpd/sq ft)
Capacity 1,400 cu m (368,000 gallons);
three 20 cu m/min (50 hp, 700 scfm) blowers
Located at Champaign-Urbana sanitary
district site. Each lagoon is 0.405 ha
(1 acre) x 2.4 M (8 ft) deep
540
-------
DRAFT
operation. The Champaign pretreatment facility was reported to
typically operate within the following ranges of removal efficiencies:
BOD, 96.4 to 99.4 percent; suspended solids 90 to 93 percent; and oil
and grease 93 to 99.5 percent with about 72 percent being removed in
primary treatment and about 25 percent removed by the secondary unit.
In order that the plant could meet the municipal ordinances
of 200 mg/1 BOD, 200 mg/1 SS, and 100 mg/1 of fats, oil and greases,
the design features listed in Table 100 were adopted for the Champaign
plant based upon a 1980 waste loading capacity.
Selections of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 5. The model plant was developed to include the following treatment
units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization,
2. Gravity separation and skimming,
3. In-plant oil recovery system,
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were taken as follows:
BOD 6,600 mg/1
SS 3,600 mg/1
Oil and Grease 3,500 mg/1
Flow 314 cu m/day (0.083 MGD)
Table 101 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory
A,5 plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the
eight treatment trains selected for this Subcategory.
Alternative A 5-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
Alternative A 5-11 - Alternative A 5-1 with the addition of pressurized
air flotation utilizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste
skimmings are pumped to an in-plant oil reclaimation system for dewatering,
and recovery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 5-1II - Alternative A 5-II with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, sludge
thickening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge
is hauled to a landfill facility every seven days. The activated
sludge unit also includes a control house and two full time operators.
Alternative A 5-IV - Alternative A 5-III with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation.
541
-------
TABLE 101 .
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
o
73
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
A 5-1 A
A 5- 1 1 BJ
A 5- I II BJKQSY
A 5- IV BJKQSYBN
S A 5-V BJKQSYBNZ
A 5-VI BJL
A 5-VI I BJLBN
A 5-VI 1 1 BJLBNZ
4.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
59
37
069
035
021
069
035
021
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
49
75
069
035
017
069
035
017
Effluent
O&G
kg/kkg
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
39
73
069
014
007
069
014
007
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
70.
98.
99.
99.
98.
99.
99.
1
5
2
5
5
2
5
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
70
97
99
99
97
99
99
.0
.2
.2
.6
.2
.2
.6
Percent
O&G
Reduction
0
69.5
97.1
99.4
99.7
97.1
99.4
99.7
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 5-V - Alternative A 5-IV with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative
A 5-V is presented in Figure 155.
Alternative A 5-VI - Alternative A 5-II with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond.
Alternative A 5-VII - Alternative A 5-VI with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient
head for filter operation.
Alternative A 5-VIII - Alternative A 5-VII with the addition of
activated carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of
Alternative A 5-VIII is presented in Figure 156.
SUBCATEGORY A 6 -PROCESSING OF EDIBLE OILS BY CAUSTIC REFINING AND
ACIDULATION METHODS
The existing and potential in-plant treatment and control technology
and existing end-of-line technology for Subcategory A 6, Edible Oil
Refineries, are essentially as those discussed in Subcategory A 5 and
outlined in Table 98.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 6. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 7,600 mg/1
SS 3,400 mg/1
O&G 3,000 mg/1
Flow 534 cu m/day (0.141 MGD)
Table 102 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 6
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the eight
treatment trains selected for this Subcategory.
Alternative A 6 -I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
543
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BCD = 6,600 MG/L
SS = 3,600 MG/L
O&G = 3,500 MG/L
FLOW = 0.314 CU M/DAY (0.083 MGD)
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
L
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
*• ALTERNATIVE
A5-II
EFFLUENT
BOD = 1980 MG/L
SS = 1080 MG/L
O&G = 1050 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
CARBON
ADSORPTION
FIGURE 155
SUBCATEGORY AS
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THROUGH V
--•-ALTERNATIVE
A 5-III
EFFLUENT
BOD =100 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
O&G =100 MG/L
•ALTERNATIVE
A 5-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD =50 MG/L.
SS = 40 MG/L
O&G =20 MG/L
-ALTERNATIVE
A 5-V
EFFLUENT
BOD = 30 MG/L.
SS = 20 MG/L .
O&G = 10 MG/L
544
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 6,600 MG/L
SS = 3,600 MG/L
O&G = 3,500 MG/L
FLOW = 0.314 CD M/DAY (0.083 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
AERATED
LAGOON
ALTERNATIVE A II
BOD = 1980 MG/L
SS = 1080 MG/L
O&G = 1050 MG/L
EFFLUENT
SETTLING
PONDS
EFFLUENT
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
ACTIVATED CARBON
ALTERNATIVE A VI
BOD = 100 MG/L
SS =100 MG/L
O&G = 100 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A -VII
EFFLUENT BOD =50 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
O&G =20 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A -VIII
EFFLUENT BOD = 30 MG/L
SS = ?0 MG/i.
O&G - 10 MG/L
FIGURE 156
SUBCATEGORY AS
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI THROUGH VIII
-------
TABLE 102
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY A6
o
TO
01
Treatment Train
Alternatives
A6-I A
A6-II B,J
A6-III BJKQSY
A6-IV BJKQSYBN
A6-V BJKQSYBNZ
A6-VI BJL
A6-VII BJLBN
A6-VIII BJLBNZ
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
8.95
2.68
0.134
0.067
0.035
0.134
0.067
0.035
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
4.03
1.21
0.121
0.061
0.030
0.121
0.061
0.030
Effluent
F, O&G
kg/kkg
3.51
1.05
0.105
0.023
0.012
0.053
0.023
0.012
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
70
98.5
99.2
99.6
98.5
99.2
99.6
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
70
97.0
98.5
99.3
97.0
98.5
99.3
Percent
F, O&G
Reduction
0
70
97.0
99.3
99.6
97.0
99.3
99.6
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 6 - II - Alternative A 6 -I with the addition of pressurized
air flotation utilizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 6 - III - Alternative A 6-II with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every four days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 6 - IV - Alternative A 6-III with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation.
Alternative A 6-V - Alternative A 6-IV with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 6-V
is presented in Figure 157.
Alternative A 6-VI - Alternative A 6-II with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond.
Alternative A 6-VII - Alternative A 6-VI with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation.
Alternative A 6-VIII - Alternative A 6-VII with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 6-
VIII is presented in Figure 158.
SUBCATEGORY A 7 PROCESSING OF EDIBLE OILS BY CAUSTIC REFINING. ACIDU-
LATION, OIL PROCESSING, AND DEODORIZATION METHODS
The existing and potential in-plant treatment and control and end-of-line
treatment technologies for Subcategory A 7 are essentially as those dis-
cussed in Subcategory A 5 and outlined in Table 98 with the addition of
the following discussion of in-plant technology for the unit processes of
oil processing and deodorization.
In-Plant Technology
Oil processing includes the wastewaters generated from the unit processes
of bleaching, hydrogenation, and winterization.
In general, the majority of bleaching operations visited practiced dry
cleanup of the spent bleaching absorbent. However, most plants discharge
a significant portion of the absorbent to the sewer during floor washing
operations. In the hydrogenation process, the industry commonly utilizes
dry cleanup of the spent nickel catalyst from the filter press area. How-
ever, a few plants discharge small amounts of catalyst to the sewer during
547
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BCD = 7,600 MG/L
SS = 3,400 MG/L
O&G = 3,000 MG/L
FLOW = 0.534 CU M/DAY (0.141 MGD)
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION'
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
-f ALTERNATIVE A6-II
EFP UENT
BOD = 2280 MG/L
SS = 1020 MG/L
O&G = 900 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE A6-III
EFFLUENT
BOD = 115 MG/L
SS = 102 MG/L
O&G =90 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A6-IV
EFFl I.JF.NT
BOD =57 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
O&G - 20 MG/L
FIGURE 157
"ALTERNATIVE A6-V
EFFLUFNT
30D = 30 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
SUBCATEGORY Ae
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU V
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 7,600 MG/L
SS = 3,400 MG/L
O&G = 3,000 MG/L
FLOW = 0.534 CU M/DAY (0.141 MGD)
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
+. ALTERNATIVE A6-11
BOD = 2280 MG/L.
SS = 1020 MG/L
06G = 900 MG/L
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
I
FIGURE 158
--»• ALTERNATIVE A6-VI
EFFI. UENT
BOD =115 MG/L
SS = 102 MG/L
O&G = 90 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A6-VII
EFFLUENT
BOD •= 57 MG/l.
SS - 50 MG/L
O&G =20 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE AS-VITI
EFFL IIENT
BOD = 30 MG/L.
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
SUBCATEGORY Ae
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI THRU VIII
549
-------
DRAFT
floor washing operations. A small number of plants have developed the
technology for recovering nickel from the spent catalyst, but this pro-
cedure is not widely applied throughout the industry. In the unit process
of deodorization, fatty materials are concentrated within the deodorizer
stripping steam and are removed by barometric condenser water where they
are eventually deposited in the cooling tower basin and subsequent blow-
down. Distillate recovery systems are commonly employed by the industry
to reduce the concentrations of these materials in the wastewater dis-
charge from the contact cooling tower. The distillate recovery system
utilizes a liquid oil spray which condenses the fatty materials before
they reach the barometric condenser, thus removing approximately 90 to
95 percent of the waste distillates. The recovered distillate is sold
as a by-product.
Potential In-Plant Technology
Potential in-plant technology would include improvement in general house-
keeping practices, in the bleaching and hydrogenation processing areas,
maximizing dry cleanup procedures were possible. The industry may ad-
vantageously develop a program toward improvement of operator awareness
regarding general dry cleanup procedures and pollution control methods
in the aforementioned processing areas.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 7. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 6,400 mg/1
SS 3,100 mg/1
O&G 1,500 mg/1
Flow 1,14701 m/day (0.303 MGD)
Table 103 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 7
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the eight
treatment trains selected for this Subcategory.
Alternative A 7-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
550
-------
TABLE 103
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY A7
o
73
3>
tn
ui
Treatment Train
Alternative
A7-I A
A7-II B,J
A7-III BJKQSY
A7-IV BJKQSYBN
A7-V BJKQSYBNZ
A7-VI BJL
A7-VII BJLBN
A7-VIII BJLBNZ
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
16.09
4.85
0.252
0.126
0.076
0.252
0.126
0.076
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
7.84
2.35
0.252
0.126
0.063
0.252
0.126
0.063
Effluent
F, O&G
kg/kkg
3.93
1.13
0.252
0.051
0.025
0.252
0.051
0.025
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
69.8
98.4
99.2
99.5
98.4
99.2
99.5
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
70,0
96.8
98.4
99,2
96,8
98.4
99,2
Percent
F, O&G
Reduction
0
71,3
93.6
98,7
99.4
93,6
98.7
99.4
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 7-II - Alternative A 7-1 with the addition of pressurized
air flotation utilizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 7-III - Alternative A 7-II with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every ten days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 7-IV - Alternative A 7-III with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation.
Alternative A 7-V - Alternative A 7-IV with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 7-V
is presented in Figure 159.
Alternative A 7-VI - Alternative A 7-1I with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond. The aerated lagoon unit also includes
a control house with two full-time operators.
Alternative A 7-VII - Alternative A 7-VI with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation.
Alternative A 7-VIII - Alternative A 7-VII with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 7-
VIII is presented in Figure 160.
SUBCATEGORY 8 -PROCESSING OF EDIBLE OILS UTILIZING CAUSTIC REFINING,
OIL PROCESSING, AND DEODORIZATION
The existing and potential in-plant treatment and control technology
and end-of-line treatment technology for Subcategory A 8 are essentially
as those previously outlined in Table 98 and discussed in edible oil
refinery Subcategories A 5 and A 7.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 8. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
552
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 6,400 MG/L
SS = 3,100 MG/L
O&G = 1,500 MG/L
FLOW = 1,147 CU M/DAY (.303 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
ALTERNATIVE A7-11
EFFLUENT
BOD - 1920 MG/L
SS = 930 MG/L
O&G =450 MG/L
VACUUM
FILTRATION
_J
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
CARBON
ADSORPTION
FIGURE 159
SUBCATEGORY A?
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU V
ALTERNATIVE A7-III
EFFLUENT
E3OD =100 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
O&G = 90 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A7-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD -50 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
O&G = 20 MG/L
AL iERNATIVE A7-V
EFFLUENT
5GD - 30 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
553
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 6,400 MG/L
SS = 3,100 MG/L
O&G = 1,500 MG/L
FLOW = 1,147 CU M/DAY (0.303 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
..». ALTERNATIVE A7-II
hf- FLUENT
BOD - i92Q MG/L
SS = 930 MG/L
O&G = 450 MG/L
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
f~
FIGURE 160
--»- ALTERNATIVE A^-VI
EFFt. !.!R|MT
BOD - 100 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
O&G = 90 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A7-VII
EFFLUENT
BOD =50 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
O&G =20 MG/L
• ALTERNATIVE A7-VII I
EFFLUTNT
BOD = 30 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
SUBCATEGORY A7
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI THRU VII
554
-------
DRAFT
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 5,700 mg/1
SS 3,100 mg/1
O&G 1,400 mg/1
Flow 927 cu m/day (0.245 MGD)
Table 104 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 8
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the eight
treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative A 8-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
Alternative A 8-II - Alternative A 8-1 with the addition of pressurized
air flotationutilizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 8-1II - Alternative A 8-II with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every seven days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 8-IV - Alternative A 8-111 with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation.
Alternative A 8-V - Alternative A 8-IV with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 8-V
is presented in Figure 161.
Alternative A 8-VI - Alternative A 8-II with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond. The aerated lagoon unit also includes
a control house with two full-time operators.
Alternative A 8-VII - Alternative A 8-VI with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation.
Alternative A 8-VIII - Alternative A 8-VII with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 8-
VIII is presented in Figure 162.
555
-------
TABLE 104
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY A8
73
3
en
Treatment Train
Alternatives
A8-I A
A8-II B,J
A8-III BJKQSY
A8-IV BJKQSYBN
A8-V BJKQSYBNZ
A8-VI BJL
A8-VII BJLBN
A8-VIII BJLBNZ
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
11.73
3.53
0.204
0.102
0.051
0.204
0.102
0.051
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
6.30
1.90
0.204
0.102
0.051
0.204
0.102
0.051
Effluent
O&G
kg/kkg
2.81
0.859
0.102
0.041
0.020
0.102
0.041
0.020
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
69.9
98.3
99.1
99.6
98.3
99.1
99.6
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
69.8
96.8
98.4
99.2
96.8
98.4
99.2
Percent
O&G
Reduction
0
69.4
96.4
98.2
99.3
96.4
98.5
99.3
-------
DRAF'l
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
SLUDGE
THICKENING
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,700 MG/L
SS = 3,100 MG/L
O&G = 1,400 MG/L
FLOW = 0.927 CU M/DAY (0.245 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
- *• ALTERNATIVE A8-11
EFFL1 'ENT
BOD. = 1 725 MG/L
SS .= 030 MG/L
Cif.K = 420 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
••*" ALTERNATIVE A8-III
FFR I IFMT
Rnn - 100 MG/L
•35 = IOC MG/L
O&G - 50 MG/L
»- ALTERNATIVE A8-IV
EFR.URIJT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
OtrG = 20 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
r ~
FIGURE 161
SUBCATEGORY As
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU V
ALTERNATIVE A8-V
EFFLUENT
BOD = ?5 MG/L
SS = 215 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
557
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,700 MG/L
SS = 3,100 MG/L
O&G = 1,400 MG/L
FLOW = 0.927 CU M/DAY (0.245 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ALTERNATIVE AS-11
EFFLUENT BOD = 1725 MG/L
*• SS = 930 MG/L
O&G =420 MG/L
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
f
ALTERNATIVE A8-VI
EFFLUENT BOD = 100 MG/L
*- SS = 100 MG/L
O&G = 50 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A8-VII
EFFLUENT BOD =50 MG/L
"- SS = 50 MG/L
O&G = 20 MG/L
AL TERNATIVE A8-V111
EFFLUENT BOD =25 MG/L.
». SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
FIGURE 162
SUBCATEGORY I\Q
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI THRU VIII
558
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORY A 9 PROCESSING OF EDIBLE OILS UTILIZING CAUSTIC REFINING.
ACIDULATION, OIL PROCESSING, DEODORIZATION METHODS. AND THE PRODUCTION
OF'SHORTENING AM TABLE OILS
The existing and potential in-plant treatment and control and end-of-line
treatment technologies for Subcategory A 9 are essentially those pre-
viously outlined in Table 98 and discussed in edible oil refinery
Subcategories A 5 and A 7. A detailed discussion of the existing and
potential in-plant treatment and control technology for the processing of
shortening and table oils is presented in Subcategory A 14.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 9. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 5,900mg/l
SS 3,000 mg/1
O&G 1,500 mg/1
Flow 1,321 cu m/day (0.349 MGD)
Table 105 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 9
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the eight
treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative A 9-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
Alternative A 9-II. - Alternative A 9-1 with the addition of pressurized
afr flotationuTTlizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 9-1II - Alternative A 9-1I with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every nine days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 9-IV - Alternative A 9-III with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation.
559
-------
TABLE 105
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SNBCATEGORY A9
o
•yo
Treatment Train
Alternative
A9-I A
A9-II B,J
A9-III BJKQSY
A9-IV BJKQSYBN
en
° A9-V BJKQSYBNZ
A9-VI BJL
A9-VII BJLBN
A9-VIII BJLBNZ
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
17.12
5.15
0.262
0.131
0.073
0.262
0.131
0.073
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
8.68
2.62
0.262
0.131
0.073
0.262
0.131
0.073
Effluent
F, O&G
kg/kkg
4.35
1.31
0.131
0.058
0.029
0.131
0.058
0.029
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
70.0
98 ..5
99.2
99.6
98.5
99.2
99.6
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
70.0 .
97.0
98.5
99.2
97.0
98.5
99.2
Percent
F, O&G
Reduction
0
70.0
97.0
98.6
99.3
97.0
98.6
99.3
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 9-V - Alternative A 9-IV with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 9-V
is presented in Figure 163.
Alternative A 9-VI - Alternative A 9-1I with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond. The aerated lagoon also includes a
control house and two full-timer operators.
Alternative A 9-VII - Alternative A 9-VI with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation.
Alternative A 9-VIII - Alternative A 9-VII with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 9-
VIII is presented in Figure 164.
SUBCATEGORY A 10 PROCESSING OF EDIBLE OILS BY CAUSTIC REFINING. OIL
PROCESSING. DEODORIZATION METHODS, AND THE PLASTICIZING AND PACKAGING
UF SHORTENING AND TABLE OILS
The existing and potential in-plant treatment and control technology and
existing end-of-line. technology for Subcategory A 10 refineries are es-
sentially as those previously outlined in Table 98 and discussed in detail
in edible oil refinery Subcategories A 5, A 7, and A 14.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 10. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 5,250 mg/1
SS 3,000 mg/1
O&G 1,300 mg/1
Flow 1,101 cu m/day (0.291 MGD)
Table 106 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 10
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the eight
treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative A 10-I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
561
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,900 MG/L
SS = 3,000 MG/L
O&G = 1,500 MG/L
FLOW = 1,321 CU M/DAY (0.349 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
--•-»• ALTERNATIVE A9-II
FFFLUENT
BOD = 1770 MG/L
SS = 900 MG/L
O&G = 450 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
CARBON
ADSORPTION
FIGURE 163
•-»• ALTERNATIVE A9- I I I
EFFI IJENT
BOD = 90 MG/L
SS = 90 MG/L
O&G =45 MG/L
- ---»- ALTERNATIVE A9-1V
EFFLl IP NT
BOD - 45 MG/L
SS - ',^ MG/L
O&G - ->0 MG/l.
»-ALTERNATIVE A9-V
FFFl UFNT
BOD =25 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
SUBCATEGORY A9
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU V
562
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,900 MG/L
SS = 3,000 MG/L
O&G = 1,500 MG/L
FLOW = 1,321 CU M/DAY (0.349 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ALTERNATIVE A9-II
EFFLUENT BOD = 1770 MG/L
^ SS = 900 MG/L
O&G = 450 MG/L
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A9-VI
EFFLUENT BOD = 90 MG/L
"• SS = 90 MG/L
O&G =45 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A9-VII
EFFLUENT BOD =45 MG/L
^ SS = 45 MG/L
O&G = 20 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
J_ I.'
ALTERNATIVE A9-VIII
EFFLUENT BOD =25 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
FIGURE 164
SUBCATEGORY Ag
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI THRU VIII
563
-------
TABLE 106
o
73
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY A10
en
C7>
Treatment Train
Alternative
A10-I A
A10-II B,J
A10-III BJKQSY
A10-IV BJKQSYBN
A10-V BJKQSYBNZ
A10-VI BJL
A10-VII BJLBN
A10-VIII BJLBNZ
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
12.76
3.82
0.194
0.097
0.048
0.194
0.097
0.048
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
7.14
2.18
0.219
0.109
0.056
.0.219
0.109
0.056
Effluent
F, O&G
kg/kkg
3.23
0.947
0.097
0.048
0.024
0.097
0.048
0.024
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
70.0
98.5
99.2
99.6
98.5
99.2
99.6
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
69.5 -
96.9
98.5
99.2
96.9
98.5
99.2
Percent
F, O&G
Reduction
0
70.0
97.0
98.5
99.2
97.0
98.5
99.2
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 10-11 - Alternative A 10-1 with the addition of pressurized
air flotation utilizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 10-111 - Alternative A 10-11 with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every six days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 10-IV- Alternative A 10-111 with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation.
Alternative A 10-V - Alternative A 10-IV with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 10-V
is presented in Figure 165.
Alternative A 10-VI - Alternative A 10-11 with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond. The aerated lagoon also includes a control
hduse with two full-time operators.
Alternative A 10-VII - Alternative A 10-VI with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation.
Alternative A 10-VIII - Alternative A 10-VII with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 10-
VIII is presented in Figure 166.
SUBCATEGQRY A 11 - PROCESSING OF EDIBLE OILS BY CAUSTIC REFINING, ACIDU-
LATION, OIL PROCESSING, DEODORIZATION METHODS, AND THE PLASTICIZING AND
PACKAGING OF SHORTENING. TABLE OILS. AND MARGARINE
The existing and potential in-plant treatment and control and existing
end-of-line technologies for Subcategory A 11 refineries are essentially
as those previously outlined in Table 98 and discussed in detail in edible
oil refinery Subcategories A 5, A 7, A 13 and A 14.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 11. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
565
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD
- ,
50 MG/L
SS = 3,000 MG/L
O&G = 1,300 MG/L
FLOW = 1,101 CD M/D.AY (0.291 MGD )
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
L
1
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
•*• ALTERNATIVE A10-II
FFR.UFNJv
BOD = 1575 MG/L
SS = 900 MG/L
O&G = 390 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE TC
TRUCK HAUL
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE A10-III
EFRJ JENT
BOD = 80 MG/L
SS = 90 MG/L
O&G = 40 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A10-IV
EFFLUENT
BCD = 40 MG/L
SS =45 MG/L
O&G ~ 20 MG/L
AL TERNATIVE A10-V
EFFLUENT
BOD = 20 MG/L.
SS = 23 MG/L
Of.G = 10 MG/L
FIGURE 165
SUBCATEGORY Aio
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU V
566
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,250 MG/l
SS = 3,000 MG/L
O&G = 1,300 MG/L
FLOW = 1,101 CU M/DAV (0.291 MGD)
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
__ALTERNATIVE AIO-II
n~R I FM r
BOD = 1575 MG/L
SS = 900 MG/L
O&G = 390 MG/L
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
TONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
I
_ALTERNATIVE A10-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD ~ 80 MG/L
SS = 90 MG/L
Df.G = 40 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A10-VII
EFFLUENT
BOD =40 MG/L
SS = 45 MG/L
O&G - 20 MG/L
.ALTERNATIVE AlO-VFII
EFFI UENT'
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 23 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/l.
FIGURE 166
SUBCATEGCRY Aio
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI THRU VIII
bbV
-------
DRAFT
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 5,900 mg/1
SS 3,200 mg/1
O&G 2,800 mg/1
Flow 1,574 cu m/day (0.416 MGD)
Table 107 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A "II
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the eight
treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative A 11-I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
Alternative A 11-11 - Alternative A 11-I with the addition of pressurized
air flptation utilizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A ll-III - Alternative A 11-11 with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every eight days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 11-IV - Alternative A ll-III with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation.
Alternative A 11-V - Alternative A 11-IV with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 11-V
is presented in Figure 167.
Alternative A 11-VI - Alternative A 11-11 with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond. The aerated lagoon also includes a control
house and two operators.
Alternative A 11-VII - Alternative A 11-VI with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation.
Alternative A 11-VIII - Alternative A 11-VII with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 11-
VIII is presented in Figure 168.
568
-------
TABLE 107
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY All
Treatment Train
Alternative
All-I A
All-II B,J
All- 1 II BJKQSY
All-IV BJKQSYBN
All-V BJKQSYBNZ
All-VI BJL
All-VII BJLBN
All -VI 1 1 BJLBNZ
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
20.57
6.14
0.312
0.156
0.076
0.312
0.156
0.076
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
10.98
3.33
0.347
0.174
0.087
0.347
0.174
0.087
Effluent
O&G
kg/kkg
9.95
2.92
0.295
0.069
0.035
0.295
0.069
0.035
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
70.1
98.5
99.2
99.6
98.5
99.2
99.6
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
69.7
97.2
98.4
99.2
97.2
98.4
99.2
Percent
O&G
Reduction
0
70.6
97.0
99.3
99.6
97.0
99.3
99.6
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,900 MG/L
SS = 3,200 MG/L
O&G = 2,800 MG/L
FLOW = 1,574 CU M/DAY
(0.416 MGD)
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
DISSOLVED. AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
ALTERNATIVE All-II
EFFLUENT
BOD = 1770 MG/L
SS = 960 MG/L
O&G = 840 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
CARBON
ADSORPTION
f '
ALTERNATIVE All-Ill
EFFLUENT
BOD =90 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
O&G = 85 MG/L
-ALTERNATIVE All-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD =45 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
O&G = 20 MG/L.
.ALTERNATIVE All-V
EFFLUENT
BOD =22 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
FIGURE 167
SUBCATEGORY All
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU V
570
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,900 MG/L
SS = 3,200 MG/L
O&G = 2,800 MG/L
FLOW = 1,574 CU M/DAY (0.416 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
AERATED
LAGOON
ALTERNATIVE All--II
EFFLUENT
BOD = 1770 MG/L
SS = 960 MG/L
O&G = 840 MG/L
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
FIGURE 168
'ALTERNATIVE All-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD =90 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
O&G = 85 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE All-VII
FFR LENT
BOD = 45 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
O&G = 20 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE All-VIII
EFFLUENT
BOD =22 MG/L
SS - 25 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
SUBCATEGORY All
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI THRU VIII
571
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORY A 12 - PROCESSING OF EDIBLE OILS BY CAUSTIC REFINERY. OIL
PROCESSING METHOD. AND THE PLASTICIZATION AND PACKAGING OF SHORTENING.
TABLE OILS, AND MARGARINE
The existing and potential in-plant treatment and control and existing
end-of-line technologies for Subcategory A 12 refineries are essentially
as those previously outlined in Table 98 and discussed in detail in edible
oil refining Subcategories A 5, A 7, A 13, and A 14.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 12. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 5,400 mg/1
SS 3,200 mg/1
O&G 3,000 mg/1
Flow 1,355 cu m/day (0.358 MGD)
Table 108 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 12
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the eight
treatment trains selected for this Subcategory.
Alternative A 12-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
Alternative A 12-11 - Alternative A 12-1 with the addition of pressurized
air flotation utilizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 12-111 - Alternative A 12-11 with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every five days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 12-IV- Alternative A 12-111 with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation.
572
-------
TABLE 108
o
73
•
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY A12
u>
Treatment Train
Alternative
A12-I A
A12-II B,J
A12-III BJKQSY
A12-IV BJKQSYBN
A12-V BJKQSYBNZ
A12-VI BJL
A12-VIII BJLBN
A12-VIII BJLBNZ
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
16.20
4.84
0.239
0.119
0.060
0.239
0.119
0.060
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
9.44
2.87
0.287
0.143
0.072
0.287
0.143
0.072
Effluent
O&G
kg/kkg
8.83
2.69
0,269
0.060
0.030
0.269
0.060
0.030
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
70.1
98.5
99.3
99,6
98.5
99,3
99,6
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
69,6
97,0
98.5
99,2
97,0
98,5
99,2
Perceni
O&G
Reduct
0
69,5
97,0
99,3
99,6
97,0
99,3
99,6
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 12-V - Alternative A 12-IV with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 12-V
is presented in Figure 169.
Alternative A 12-VI - Alternative A 12-11 with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond. The aerated lagoon unit also includes a
control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 12-VII - Alternative A 12-VI with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation.
Alternative A 12-VIII - Alternative A 12-VII with the addition of activated
carbon before final discharge. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 12-
VIII is presented in Figure 170.
SUBCATEGORY A 13 -PLASTICIZING AND PACKAGING OF MARGARINE
Existing In-Plant Technology
The wastewaters generated from equipment cleanup, sanitation, and floor
washing, represents the major wasteload contribution to margarine pro-
cessing operations as reported average pollutant concentrations for BOD
were 1437 mg/1; oil and grease, 1760 mg/1; and flow volume of 170 cu m/
day (0.045 MGD). Information received from the National Association of
Margarine Manufacturers indicates that all plants utilize clean-in-place
(CIP) systems for equipment cleanup. Most plants commonly practice the
recycling of caustic or acid rinse waters, and sanitation solutions, there-
by limiting the CIP system wastewater discharge. During floor cleanup, the
industry commonly utilizes high pressure, low volume hoses with automatic
shut-off valves for the reduction of water usage.
Potential In-Plant Technology
The quantity of wastewater produced by clean-in-place systems could be
reduced by the further recycling of the final chlorine rinse to be used
as the initial rinse water. Improved equipment connections in packaging
practices could result in decreased pollutant loading of wastewaters by
decreasing the amount of spills in the packaging area. The establishment
of dry cleanup procedures such as the wiping down of equipment before
cleaning would reduce pollutant waste loads.
Existing In-Plant Technology
There presently exists no complete treatment system handling margarine
processing wastes alone. Watson, et.aj_. (103) reports upon the performance
of a pretreatment facility in Champaign, Illinois treating the combined
wastes from an edible oils refinery and a margarine, salad dressing, and
cheese processing operation. The Champaign pretreatment facility was re-
574
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,400 MG/L
SS = 3,200 MG/L
O&G = 3,000 MG/L
FLOW = 1,355 CU M/DAY (0.358 MGD)
Y SYSTEM
1
1
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ALTERNATIVE A12-II
EFFLUENT
BOD = 1620 MG/L
SS = 960 MG/L
O&G = 900 MG/L
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
CARBON
ADSORPTION
7—.
FIGURE 169
SUBCATEGORY Ai2
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU V
_ALTERNATIVE A12-111
EFFLUENT
BOD =80 MG/L
SS = 96 MG/L
O&G = 90 MG/L
..ALTERNATIVE A12-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD =40 MG/L
SS = 48 MG/L
O&G = 20 MG/L
-ALTERNATIVE
EFFLUENT
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 24 MG/L
O&G = 10 MG/L
575
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 5,400 MG/L
SS = 3,200 MG/L
O&G = 3,000 MG/L
FLOW = 1,355 CU M/DAY (0.358 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ALTERNATIVE A12-II
EFFLUENT BOD = 1620 MG/L
^. SS = 960 MG/L
O&G = 900 MG/L
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A12-VI
EFFLUENT BOD = 80 MG/L
-"- SS = 96 MG/L
O&G = 90 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A12-VII
EFFLUENT BOD =40 MG/L
». SS = 48 MG/L
O&G =20 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
EFFL
f
ALTERNATIVE A12-VIII
EFFLUENT BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 24 MG/L
O&G =10 MG/L
FIGURE 170
SUBCATEGORY Ai2
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI THRU VIII
576
-------
DRAFT
ported to typically operate within the following ranges of removal efficiencies
BOD 96.4 to 99.4 percent; suspended solids 90 to 93 percent; and oil and
grease 93 to 99.5 percent with about 72 percent being removed in primary
treatment and about 25 percent removed by the secondary unit. In order
that the plant could meet the municipal ordinaces of 200 mg/1 BOD, 200
mg/1 SS, and 100 mg/1 of fats, oil and greases, the design features listed
in Table 100 were adopted for the Champaign plant based upon a 1980 waste
loading capacity.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 13. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 2,600 mg/1
SS 1,800 mg/1
O&G 3,900 mg/1
Flow 340 cu m/day (0.09 MGD)
Table 109 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 13
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the six.
treatment trains selected for this Subcategory.
Alternative A 13-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
Alternative A 13-11 - Alternative A 13-1 with the addition of pressurized
air flotationutilizing chemical flocculating agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 13-111 - Alternative A 13-11 with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every twenty days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 13-IV- Alternative A 13-111 with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 13-IV
is presented in Figure 171.
577
-------
TABLE 109
o
73
3>
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY A13
Treatment Train
Alternative
A13-I A
A13-II B,J
A13-III BJKQSY
§ A13-IV BJKQSYBN
A13-V BJL
A13-VI BJLBN
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
3.92
1.17
0.060
0.030
0.060
0.030
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
2.72
0.811
0.075
0.037
0.075
0.037
Effluent
O&G
kg/kkg
5.81
1.75
0.075
0.037
0.075
0.037
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
70,1
98.5
99,2
99.2
99.2
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
70,1
97.2
98.6
97.2
98.6
Percent
O&G
Reduction
0
70.0
98,7
99,4
98,7
99,4
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 2,600 MG/L
SS = 1,800 MG/L
O&G = 3,900 MG/L
FLOW = 340 CU M/DAY (.09 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
JL
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
ALTERNATIVE A13-11
EFH.UENT
BCD = 780 MG/L
SS = 540 MG/L
O&G =1170 MG/L
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
ALTERNATIVE A13-III
EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/L.
SS =- 50 MG/L
D&G = 50 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A13-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G =25 MG/L
FIGURE 171
SUBCATEGORY Al3
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU IV
579
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 13-V - Alternative A 13-11 with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond. The aerated lagoon also includes one
full-time operator.
Alternative A 13-VI - Alternative A 13-V with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 13-VI is presented
in Figure 172.
SUBCATEGORY A 14 -PLASTICIZING AND PACKAGING OF SHORTENING AND TABLE
OILS
Existing In-Plant Technology
The wastewater generated from equipment cleanup and periodic floor washing
procedures represents a relatively insignificant waste load contribution to
the total waste load of an edible oil refinery. In general, filling equip-
ment is wiped clean before being subjected to cleaning solutions. Accidental
spills result in infrequent floor washing operations. The industry commonly
separates their non-contact water discharge from its process waters with the
non-contact water being recycled.
Potential In-Plant Technology
Because of the small volumes of water used and the relatively insignficant
waste load resulting from shortening and table oil packaging, no recom-
mendations are made for the further reduction of waste strengths or volumes.
End-of-Line Technology
No known end-of-line treatment system presently exists for the packaging
of shortening and table oils alone. All present plasticizing and packaging
wastes are handled by municipal treatment.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a hypothetical model plant was developed for Subcategory
A 14. It was assumed that the model plant provided the following treat-
ment units before final discharge to a treatment facility:
1. Surge control and/or flow equalization.
2. Gravity separation and skimming.
3. In-plant oil recovery system.
4. pH control.
The raw wastewater characteristics after gravity separation, skimming,
and pH control were assumed to be as follows:
580
-------
DRAFT
TO IN-PLANT OIL
RECOVERY SYSTEM
INFLUENT
BOD = 2,600 MG/L
SS = 1,800 MG/L
O&G = 3,900 MG/L
FLOW = 340 CU M/DAY ( . 09 MGD)
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
AERATED
LAGOON
ALTERNATIVE A13-11
EFFLUENT
POD - 780 MG/L
SS - 540 MG/L
O&G =1170 MG/L
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A13-V
EFFLl.JF.MT
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS - 50 !4G/L
O&G = 50 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A13-VI
EFFUJFNT
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
O&G = 25 MG/L
FIGURE 172
SUBCATEGORY Ai3
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES V THRU VI
581
-------
DRAFT
BOD 1,500 mg/1
SS 1,100 mg/1
O&G 550 mg/1
Flow 87 cu m/day (0.023 MGD)
Table 110 lists the pollutant effluent loading from the Subcategory A 14
model plant and the estimated operating efficiencies of each of the six
treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative A 14-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
other than gravity separation, skimming, and pH control.
Alternative A 14-11 - Alternative A 14-1 with the addition of pressurized
air flotation utilizing chemical flocculating_agents to enhance floe
formation and floatability of wastes. Oil, water, and solid waste skimmings
are pumped to an in-plant oil reclamation system for dewatering, and re-
covery of inedible oils.
Alternative A 14-1II - Alternative A 14-11 with the addition of activated
sludge, secondary clarification, sludge recirculating pump, a sludge thick-
ening tank, vacuum filtration, and a sludge holding tank. Sludge is hauled
to a landfill facility every five days. The activated sludge unit also
includes a control house and two full-time operators.
Alternative A 14-IV- Alternative A 14-111 with the addition of dual
media pressure filtration with pump stations to generate sufficient
head for the filter operation. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 14-IV
is presented in Figure 173.
Alternative A 14-V - Alternative A 14-IV with the addition of an aerated
lagoon including a settling pond. The aerated lagoon also includes one
half-time operator.
Alternative A 14-VI - Alternative A 14-V with the addition of dual media
pressure filtration and a pump station to generate sufficient head for
filter operation. A schematic diagram of Alternative A 14-VI is presented
in Figure 174.
SUBCATEGQRY A 15 - OLIVE OIL REFINING
As discussed in Section V, there is only one olive oil plant in the
United States which refines olive oil by the caustic refining process.
The control and treatment practices at the plant are presented below.
Existing In-Plant Technology
As discussed in Section V the quantity of wastewater discharged from the
caustic refining of olive oil is approximately 1100 I/day (300 gal/day).
All equipment is wiped clean, thereby generating no additional wastewater.
582
-------
TABLE 110
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
o
XJ
en
oo
Treatment
Train
Alternative
A 14-IA
A 14-IIBKQSV
A 14-IIIBKQSVN
A 14-IVBKQSVNZ
A 14-VBL
A 14-VIBLN
A 14-VIIBLNZ
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
0.56
0.029
0.015
0.008
0.029
0.015
0.008
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
0.42
0.038
0.015
0.008
0.038
0.015
0.008
Effluent
O&G
kg/kkg
0.21
0.021
0.008
0.004
0.021
0.008
0.004
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
94.8
97.3
98.6
94.8
97.3
98.6
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
90.9
96.4
98.1
90.9
96.4
98.1
Percent
O&G
Reduction
0
90.0
96.2
98.1
90.0
96.2
98.1
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1,500 MG/L
SS = 1,000 MG/L
O&G =550 MG/L
FLOW = 87 CD M/DAY
(0.023 MGD)
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
ALTERNATIVE A14-II
EFFLUENT BOD = 75 MG/L
_-». SS = 100 MG/L
O&G = 55 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE A14-111
EFFLUENT BOD = 40 MG/L
*- SS = 40 MG/L
O&G = 20 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A14-IV
EFFLUENT BOD =20 MG/L
^ SS = 20 MG/L
"*" O&G = 10 MG/L
FIGURE 173
SUBCATEGORY Ai4
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU IV
584
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1,500 MG/L
SS = 1,000 MG/L
O&G =550 MG/L
FLOW = 87 CU M/DAY
(0.023 MGD)
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
FIGURE 174
--»• ALTERNATIVE A14-V
EFFL UFNT
BOD =75 MG/L
55 = 100 MG/L
O&G = 55 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A14-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/j.
bb - 40 MG/L
O&G = 20 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A14-VII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
=10 MG/L
SUBCATEGORY Ai4
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES V THRU VII
585
-------
DRAFT
Potential In-Plant Technology
Examination of in-plant process suggests no additional method or proc-
edure to further reduce pollutant loads and wastewater volume for this
subcategory.
End-of-Line Technology
At present, the wastewater is hauled weekly to a municipal treatment
facility with no apparent adverse effects on the treatment system.
However, the wastewater flow is considered too small to warrant recom-
mendation of biological treatment as a viable treatment alternative for
this subcategory.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
The model plant for this subcategory was presented in Section V and had
the following wastewater characteristics:
Flow 1100 I/day (300 gal/day)
BOD 5700 mg/1
SS 296 mg/1
FOG 195 mg/1
Three treatment alternatives were selected for this subcategory and are
discussed below.
Alternative A 15-1 - This alternative consists of spray irrigation of the
wastewater which would require 240 sq m (2600 sq ft) of land. The overall
benefit of this alternative is a 100 percent reduction of pollutants to
navigable waters.
Alternative A 15-11 - This alternative consists of land spreading of the
effluent. The daily wastewater would be allowed to flow onto a 0.05 ha
(0.12 acre) plot of land at a depth of 7.6 cm (3 in). The land would
be disced monthly. The overall benefit of this alternative is a pollutant
reduction to navigable waters of 100 percent.
Alternative A 15-111 - This alternative consists of hauling the wastewater
to a municipal treatment system or to an approved land disposal site.
SUBCATEGORY A 16 - NEW LARGE MALT BEVERAGE BREWERIES
The discussion in this section applies also to breweries in subcategories
A 17 and A 18, unless otherwise noted.
In-Plant Technology
In-p-lant technology for waste reduction relates directly to those waste
streams discussed in Section V.
586
-------
DRAFT
Existing In-Pi ant Technology - Spent grain liquor consists of liquid from
dewatering screens and wet grain presses. In order to eliminate this waste
some plants feed wet spent grain into gas fired rotary dryers; however,
because of the high moisture content of the wet spent grain (80 to 90 percent)
fuel costs associated with this method of recovery can be quite high.
Plant 82A16 centrifuges spent grain liquor and returns it to the brewing
process. Although this alternative eliminates spent grain liquor as a
source of waste, the decision *o return it to the process stream affects
the taste of the final product. This method, therefore, can not be recom-
mended for all brewers. If spent grain liquor is to be discharged, several
methods, all of which are primarily directed toward reducing concentrations
of suspended solids, exist for reducing the levels of waste. Any solids
produced would then be returned to grains drying. Many plants use vibrating
screens. Centrifuges have been shown to decrease suspended solids from 8
to 0.4 percent while producing a 25 percent cake. Plant 82A58 has taken
spent grain liquor and passed it through a hydra-sieve. Reverse osmosis
and vacuum filtration were tested by Plant 82F04 but were found unfeasible.
As explained in Section V, lost beer is generated from filler-closers, can
and bottle crushers, and keg dumps. This beer may be wholly or partially
collected and sent to multiple effect evaporators as it is at plant 82A16.
Waste beer at plant 82A61 is collected and fed to a submerged combustion
concentrator. The more volatile alcohol is evaporated and the residue
added to spent grains. This procedure leads to a 50 to 60 percent reduc-
tion in BOD loading from waste beer. In general, waste reduction through
beer recovery involves first the collection then the disposal of lost beer.
In terms of economy, rejected cans and bottles are most easily recovered,
followed by lost beer from keg dumping which might be collected prior to
reaching floor drains, and finally beer on the floor around fillers and
seamers which is most effectively recovered by originally designing separate
drainage and collection systems.
Alkaline wastes are generated in the brew house and in packaging, the
latter resulting from caustic solutions used in bottle washers. In some
bottle washers caustic may be used until exhausted, and sewered as often as
once per week, but in many plants caustic is reclaimed. In this pro-
cedure caustic and label pulp are pumped to holding tanks, screened, re-
adjusted in make-up tanks, and returned to the soaker. At periods
ranging from four to six months the contents of the soaker is sewered.
Some plants may add a final holding tank from which caustic is metered
to the sewer system.
Brewhouse caustic is not contaminated with label pulp. This caustic
may be dumped every two to four weeks or readjusted and reused for
longer periods. Here again, holding tanks may be utilized to prevent
shock loadings to treatment systems. Sulfuric acid may be added to
lower the pH, or carbon dioxide gas may be mixed with the caustic in
recarbonation pits to produce the same effect.
587
-------
DRAFT
As described in Section V, spent hops, trub, and yeast may be hauled
away by truck or added to spent grains as an alternative to discharge to
sewers.
Suspended solids resulting from the discharge of diatomaceous earth may
amount to as much as 4400 kg (9800 Ib) per day in a large brewery such
as plant 82F04. Alternatives to discharge are decant tanks or vacuum
and pressure filters, with the resulting cake being hauled by truck.
Potential In-Plant Technology - Foree (104) reports that the stabiliza-
tion of brewery press liquor by the submerged anaerobic filter process
results in COD removals of 90 percent at loading rates up to 6400 kg/
cu m (400 Ibs/cu ft) per day, however, no cost data was presented. Stein
(58) tested the use of the submerged combustion evaporator for concen-
trating brewery spent grain liquor. Due to the high fuel cost associated
with the evaporator it was considered not to be an economically viable
alternative to conventional multiple effect evaporation.
Other waste reduction possibilities are total effluent pH control,
hydraulic equalization, and screening prior discharge. These are common
methods of operation for those breweries maintaining treatment systems.
End-of-Line Technology
Knowledge of present waste treatment practices is limited to those two
breweries treating their own wastes, and to those municipal systems that
receive a substantial part of their flow from breweries. Schwartz and
Jones (105) reported the effects of brewery waste on nine municipal
treatment systems receiving more than ten percent of their total wastes
from breweries and the method of treatment of each of the breweries is
itemized in Table 111. The performance of plants utilizing trickling
filters for complete secondary treatment has been below standard; low
BOD removal efficiencies and odor problems caused two of the facilities
to convert to variations of the activated sludge process. The use of
trickling filters after primary clarification can achieve 45 to 60
percent BOD removal although odor may still be a problem. Eight of
the nine plants use some form of the activated sludge process.
Sludge bulking has been a major problem with plug-flow and conventional
activated sludge systems, although the kraus process has controlled this
problem to some degree. The complete mix activated sludge system, operated
at about 0.25 to 0.30 kg BOD/kg/MLSS, should help maintain adequate dis-
solved oxygen levels throughout the aeration basins. In a pilot plant
study, Schwartz and Jones (105) found that the sludge could be treated
aerobically without odor problems.
During the course of this study each of the two breweries that treat their
own wastes were visited and sampled. A flow diagram for the waste treatment
system at plant 82A43 is shown in Figure 175. Mean operating values for
significant parameters over a six month period are as follows:
588
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
PUMP
I PAP SCREEN
I GRIT CHAMBER
FLOW METER[
NITROGEN
EEE&
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
, |—i SLUDGE
~H I THICKENERS
TRICKLING FILTERS
FINAL
CLARIFIERS
LAGOON
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 175
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 82A43
589
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 111
WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS HANDLING BREWERY WASTES
Treatment Waste
Plant Treatment
(Brewery) Sequence
A Clarifier
roughing fil-
ter, activa-
ted sludge
(contact stab-
ilization),
clarifier,
chlorination
B Grit chamber,
clarifier,
activated
sludge (Kraus
process),
clarifier,
chlorination
C Settling basin
activated
sludge (Kraus
process),
settling basin
D Grit chamber,
settling
basin, acti-
vated sludge
(Kraus process)
settling basin,
chlorination
E Pretreatment
(brewery
wastes)
equalization
basin, clari-
fier, roughing
filter, clarif-
ier, trickling
filters, clarif-
ier, lagoons
Sludge
Disposal
Sequence
Aarobic digestion
sludge lagoon
Storage,
flotation, vacuum
filtration, land
disposal
Anaerobic digestion,
drying beds,
land Disposal
Flotation,
anaerobic digestion
sludge lagoon
Thickener
anaerobic digestion
drying beds,
land disposal
Total
Flow,
mgd
4.6
Brewery
Flow,
mgd
2.65 2.65
3.4
6.65 1.2
0.70 0.35
Approximate Treatment
Efficiencies, percent
Suspended
BOD Sol ids
80-85
90
94
90
30-70
85-90
92
8.5
0.85
60-70 35-60
590
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 111 (CONT'D)
Equalization
basins, clar-
1f1er,
roughing
filter, acti-
vated sludge,
(conventional),
clarifiers,
chlorination
Clarifiers,
trickling
filters,
activated
sludge, settl-
ing basins
Flotation,
thickeners,
vacuum filters,
land disposal
Anaerobic digestion
drying beds,
kiln drying,
sale as fertilizer
Grit chamber,
clarifiers,
roughing
filters, acti-
vated sludge
(contact stabil-
ization), clarif-
iers, lagoon
Aerobic digestion
sludge lagoons,
spray irrigation
3.2
3.2
20
1.5
1.0
1.0
95
95
Clarifiers,
activated
sludge (com-
plete mix),
clarifiers,
chlorination
Thickeners, .
spray irrigation
*9.6 *5.6
90+
Design Values
591
-------
DRAFT
Influent Effluent
Loading Percent Concentration
(kg/day) Removal (mg/1)
BOD 11,100 97.3 56
(24,600 Ib)
Suspended Solids 3,940 89.3 78
(8,690 Ib)
Due to excellent in-plant control no equalization was required. Both
caustic and decant are metered into the treatment system. Wastes from
spent grain liquor were eliminated by direct drying in gas fired rotary
dryers, thus contributing to lower than mean waste loading compared to
other new large breweries. Primary clarification removed settleable
solids before roughing filters. No phosphorus adjustment was required
The trickling filters were operating at about 45 percent BOD removal at
hydraulic loading of 44 1/sq m (1 gpm/sq ft) with no objectionable odor.
At the time of. the visit, the reaeration basin was operated as a contact
basin. BOD removal through final clarification was approximately 90
percent. Approximately 5.4 kkg (6 ton) of sludge per day was being
spray irrigated over a 32 ha (80 acre) acre. Design loadings presented
by McWhorter (106) are given in Table 112. A flow diagram for the waste
treatment system at plant 82A16 is shown in Figure 176. Mean operating
values for significant parameters over a one year period are as follows:
Influent • Effluent
Loading Percent Concentration
(kg/day) Removal (mg/1)
BOD 10,800 94.6 48
(23,800 Ib)
Suspended Solids 3,170 87.7 32
(7,000 Ib)
Due to excellent in-plant control, the raw waste BOD ratio delivered
to the treatment system is approximately 17 percent of the mean for
other new large breweries. The treatment system is a high rate acti-
vated sludge plant using a modification of the Hatfield process. Equali-
zation is provided by a surge basin with four hours detention time.
During plant visitation, the effluent from the surge tank by-passed the
primary clarifier and entered the stabilization section of the aeration
basin. Loading rate for aeration is 21.3 kg/cu m/day (1.23 Ib/cu ft/day).
Thirty percent of the sludge from secondary clarifiers is returned to
the aeration basins. Waste activated sludge is concentrated to 5.5 percent
solids in dissolved air flotation cells and dewatered on vacuum filters
used alternatively at 38 kg/sq m/hr (7.5 Ib/sq ft/hr). Ferric chloride
and lime are added to produce a filtered sludge containing 18 percent
solids. During the visitation, filtrate was being returned to the primary
clarifier after decanting. Approximately 12 kkg (13 ton) of sludge per
day is hauled by truck and spread on company property.
592
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 112
TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN UNIT LOADINGS
Primary Clarifier
Trickling Filters
Activated Sludge
Final Clarifier
Polishing Lagoon
Aerobic Digestion
Sludge Spray Disposal
Surface Loading
Weir Loading
Detention
BOD Loading
Hydraulic Loading Including
Minimum
Maximum
BOD Loading
Aeration Capacity
Return Sludge Rate
BOD/MLSS Ratio
MLSS Concentration
Contact Basin
Reaeration Basin
Detention
Contact Basin
Reaeration Basin
Surface Loading
Weir Loading
Detention
BOD Loading
Detention
Solids Retention
MLSS Concentration
Liquid Loading
Solids Loading
Application Interval
665 gpd/sq ft
5820 gpd/ft
1.9 hr
300 lb/1009 cu ft
Recirculation
1 gpm/sq ft
2 gpm/sq ft
100 lb/1000 cu ft
1.5 Ib 02/lb BOD
50 percent
0.38
2000 mg/1
6000 mg/1
4.9 hr
14.5 hr
509 gpd/sq ft
5950 gpd/sq ft
3.7 hr
50 Ib/day/acre
15 days
10 days
15,000 mg/1
1 inch depth/application
0.1 Ib/sq ft/application
1 to 7 weeks
593
-------
DMFT
INFLUENT
i
RAP SCREEN
GRIT CHAMBER
EQUALIZATION
TANK
SLUDGE HOLDING
TANK
AERATION
STABILIZATION
x SECTION
t CONTACT
SECTION
'
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
.,-,J
IIU-ILUKII
_J CONTA(
SLUDGE
s|£.
il
^| | VACUUM
~^J 1 FILTERS
^ CAKF HAULED
^^ BY TRUCK
^ A ACTIVATED SLUDGE
V 7 HOLDING TANK
AIR FLOTATION
£ELL
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 176
CONTROL AMD TREATMENT
PLANT 82A16
594
-------
DRAFT
Windell (107) reports that dried sludge is a suitable ingredient when
substituted into animal feeds. In 1975 plant 82A16 will install a sludge
drying evaporator using vegetable oil as a carrier liquid. The oil will
then be removed by centrifuging so that the sludge can be used as animal
feed.
Potential technology for brewery waste is centered around the control
of sludge bulking caused by filamentous organisms. Eckenfelder (108
109) has reported the advantages of oxygen aeration in the activated
sludge system in order to maintain F:M ratios conducive to brewery waste.
Lewis (110) has reported on tests at plant 82A16 to apply pure oxygen
treatment through ceramic diffusers. At present, a biogrowth problem has
halted their consideration for use until further research is completed.
SELECTION OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
In Section V a model plant was developed for new breweries. The raw
waste was assumed to be as follows:
Flow (MGD) 2.2
BOD (iiig/1) 1900
SS (mg/1) 700
Total KN 40
pH 2 to 12
Table 113 lists the effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the thirteen treatment trains for this subcategory
as illustrated in Figures 177 and 178.
Alternative A 16-1 - This alternative involves no added control or treatment.
The efficiency of BOD and suspended solids removal is zero.
Alternative A 16-11 - This alternative consists of a screen and grit chamber
pumping station, diffused air flow equalization with twenty-four hour
detention time, pH adjustment, nutrient addition, aerated lagoons, settling
ponds, land at $1660 (1972) per acre, and sludge removal once every five
years. The predicted effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 70 mg/1
suspended solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 16-11 is a BOD
reduction of 97.4 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 90.0 percent.
Alternative A 16-1II - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment modules in Alternative A 16-11. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 16-1II is a BOD reduction of 98.7 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 95.0 percent.
Alternative A 16-IV - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment modules in Alternative A 16-111. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
595
-------
TABLE 113
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Subcategory A 16
VO
cr>
Treatment Train
Alternative
A 16-1 A
A 16-11 E1BCFHL
A 16-III E1BCFHLBN
A 16-IV E1BCFHLBNZ
A 16-V B1E1BCFHKQRSY
A 16-VI B1E1BCFHKQRSYBN
A 16-VII B1E1BCFHKQRSYBNZ
A 16-VIII B1E1BCFHKQRYU
A 16-IX B1E1BCFHKQRYUBN
A 16-X B1E1BCFHKQRYURBNZ
A 16-XI B1E1BCFHKQRT
A 16-XII B1E1BCFHKQRTBN
A 16-XIII B1E1BCFHKQRTBNZ
Effluent BOD
(kg/cu m)
10.55
0.28
0.14
0.07
0.28
0.14
0.07
0.28
0.14
'0.07
0.28
0.14
0.07
Effluent SS
(kg/cu m)
3.89
0.39
0.19
0.09
0.39
0.19
0.09
0.39
0.19
0.09
0.39
0.19
0.09
Percent BOD
Reduction
0
97.4
98.7
99.4
97.4
98.7
99.4
97.4
98.7
99.4
97.4
98.7
99.4
Percent SS
Reduction
0
90-0
95.0
97.6
90-0
95.0
97.6
90.0
95.0
97.6
90.0
95.0
97.6
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1900 MG/L
SS = 700 MG/L
FLOW = 8300 CU M/DAY (2.2 MGD)
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
-». ALTERNATIVE A16
BOD =50 MG/L
SS = 70 MG/L
II EFFLUENT
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
••ALTERNATIVE A16 III EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 35 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE A16 IV EFFLUENT
BOD = 12 MG/L
SS = 17 MCVL
FIGURE W7
SUBCATEGORY AIS
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THROUGH IV
597
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1900 MG/L
SS = 700 MG/L
FLOW = 8300 CU M/DAY (2.2 MGD)
1
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
I
PH
ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
i
SLWDGE HANDLING
ALTERNATIVES
~
SLUDGE.
THICKENING
,
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
*•
\
'
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
i
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
DUAL -MED I A
FILTRATION
1
CARBON
. . ADSORPTION
. i
ALTERNATIVE
-»• A 16-VII, X, XIII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 70 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
-A 16-VI, IX, XII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 35 MG/L
SLUDGE TC
TRUCK HAUL
ALTERNATIVE A 16-VII, X, XIII, EFFLUENT
BOD = 12 MG/L
SS = 17 MG/L
FIGURE 178
SUBCATEGORY A16
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES A16-V THROUGH A16-XIII
598
-------
DRAFT
effect of Alternative A 16-IV is a BOD reduction of 99.4 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 97.6 percent.
Alternative A 16-V - This alternative consists of a screen and grit
chamber, pumping station, diffused air flow equalization with twenty-four
hour detention time, pH adjustment, nutrient addition, complete mix
activated sludge system with fixed surface aerators, secondary clarifiers,
control house, sludge thickening producing two percent solids, aerobic
digestion producing a 3.5 percent solids, vacuum filtration producing 15
percent solids, sludge storage, and truck hauling. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 70 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 16-V is a BOD reduction of 97-.4 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 90.0 percent.
Alternative A 16-VI - This alternative adds dual media filtration to the
treatment modules in Alternative A 16-V. The predicted effluent concen-
trations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect
of Alternative A 16-VI is a BOD reduction of 98.7 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 95.0 percent.
Alternative A 16-VII - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment modules in Alternative A 16-VI. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 16-VII is a BOD reduction of 99.4 percent and
a suspended solids reduction of 97.6 percent.
Alternative A 16-VIII - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration in
Alternative A 16-V with sludge storage and spray irrigation at the rate
of 5000 gal/metric acre/day with land at $1660/acre. The predicted
effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 70 mg/1 suspended solids.
The overall effect of Alternative A 16-VIII is a BOD reduction of 97.4
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 90.0 percent.
Alternative A 16-IX - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment modules in Alternative A 16-VIII. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 16-IX is a BOD reduction of 98.7 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 95.0 percent.
Alternative A 16-X - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment modules in Alternative A 16-IX. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 16-X is a BOD reduction of 99.4 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 97.6 percent.
Alternative A 16-XI - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration in
Alternative A 16-V with sand drying beds at a land cost of $8300/acre.
Dried sludge is trucked. The predicted effluent concentrations are
599
-------
DRAFT
50 mg/1 BOD and 70 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alter-
native A 16-XI is a BOD reduction of 97.4 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 97.4 percent.
Alternative A 16-XII - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment modules in alternative A 16-XI. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative I is a BOD reduction of 98.7 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 95.0 percent.
Alternative A 16-XIII - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment modules in Alternative A 16-XII. The predicted effluent concen-
trations are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect
of Alternative A 16-XIII is a BOD reduction of 99.4 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 97.6 percent.
SUBCATEGORY A 17 - OLD LARGE MALT BEVERAGE BREWERIES
In-plant technology for this subcategory is the same as that for Sub-
category A 16. No breweries in this subcategory operate end-of-line
treatment systems.
-Selection of Control and Treatment
In Section V a model plant was developed for old large breweries.
The raw waste was assumed to be as follows:
Flow (MGD) 7.5
POD (mg/1) 1700
SS (mg/1) 670
Total KN 34
pH 2 to 12
Table 114 lists the effluent loading and the estimated operating efficiency
of each of the ten treatment trains for this subcategory as illustrated
in Figures 179 and 180.
Alternative A 17-1 - This alternative involves no added control or treatment
The efficiency of BOD and suspended solids removal is zero.
Alternative A 17-11 - This alternative consists of a screen and grit
chamber, pumping station, diffused air flow equalization with twenty-four
hour detention time, pH adjustment, nutrient addition, aerated lagoons,
settling ponds, and sludge removal once every five years. The predicted
effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 70 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 17-11 is a BOD reduction of 97.0 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 89.5 percent.
600
-------
TABLE 114
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Subcategory A 17
Treatment Train
Alternative
A 17-1 A
A 17-11 E1BCFHL
A 17-111 E1BCFHLBN
A 17-IV E1BCFHLBNZ
A 17-V B1E1BCFHKQRSY
A 17-VI B1E1BCFHKQRSYBN
A 17-VII B1E1BCFHKQRSYBNZ
A 17-VIII B1E1BCFHKQRYU
A 17-IX B1E1BCFHKQRYUBN
A 17-X B1E1BCFHKQRYURBNZ
Effluent BOD
(kg/cu m)
18.56
0.55
0.27
0.13
0.55
0.27
0.13
0.55
0.27
0.13
Effluent SS
(kg/cu m)
7.32
0.76
0.38
0.19
0.76
0.38
0.19
0.76
0.38
0.19
Percent BOD
Reduction
0
97.0
98.5
99.3
97.0
98.5
99.3
97.0
98.5
99.3
Percent SS
Reduction
0
89.5
94.7
97.5
89.5
94.7
97.5
89.5
94.7
97.5
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1700 MG/L
SS =670 T1G/L
FLOW = 28,000 CU M/DAY (7.5 MGD)
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
FLOW EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
••A 17-11
EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 70 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
-A 17-111
EFFLUENT •
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 35 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
T
ALTERNATIVE A 17-IV EFFLUENT
BOD = 12 MG/L
SS = 17 MG/L
FIGURE 1.79
SUBCATEGORY A17
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THROUGH IV
602
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1700 MG/L
SS = 670 MG/L
FLOW = 28,000 CD M/DAY (7.5 MGD)
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
V)
£
h*
SLUDGE
THICKENING
<
SAND DRYING
BEDS
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
ADDITION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON1
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE
^.A 17-V, VIII, XI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
, SS = 70 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
•*-A 17-VI, IX, XII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 35 MG/L
TRUCK HAUL
ALTERNATIVE A 17-VIII, X, XIII
EFFLUENT
BOD =12 MG/L
SS = 17 MG/L
FIGURE iso
SUBCATEGORY A 17
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES V THROUGH XIII
603
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 17-111 - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment modules in Alternative A 17-11. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 17-111 is a BOD reduction of 98.5 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 94.7 percent.
Alternative A 17-IV - This alternative adds activated carbon to the treat-
ment modules in Alternative A 17-111. The predicted effluent concentrations
are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alter-
native A 17-IV is a BOD reduction of 99.3 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 97.5 percent.
Alternative A 17-V - This alternative consists of a screen and grit
chamber, pumping station, diffused air flow equalization with twenty-
four hour detention time, pH adjustment, nutrient addition, complete
mix activated sludge system with fixed surface aerators, secondary
clarifiers, control house., sludge thickening producing two percent solids,
aerobic digestion producing 3.5 percent solids, vacuum filtration pro-
ducing 15 percent solids, sludge storage, truck hauling, and land at
$20,000 per acre. The predicted effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD
and 70 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 17-V
is a BOD reduction of 97.0 percent and a suspended solids reduction of
89.5 percent.
Alternative A 17-VI - This alternative adds dual media filtration to the
treatment modules in Alternative A 17-V. The predicted effluent concen-
trations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect
of Alternative A 17-VI is a BOD reduction of ,98.5 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 94.7 percent.
Alternative A 17-VII - This alternative adds activated carbon to the treat-
ment modules in Alternative A 17-VI. The predicted effluent concentrations
are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alter-
native A 17-VII is a BOD reduction of 99.3 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 97.5 percent.
Alternative A 17-VIII - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration in
Alternative A 17-V with sludge storage and spray irrigation at the rate
of 5000 gal/acre/day. The predicted effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1
BOD and 70 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alternative A
17-VIII is a BOD reduction of 97.0 percent and a suspended solids reduc-
tion of 89.5 percent.
Alternative A 17-IX - This alternative adds dual media filtration to the
treatment modules in Alternative A 17-VIII. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 17 is a BOD reduction of 98.5 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 94.7 percent.
604
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 17-X - This alternative adds activated carbon to the treat-
ment modules in Alternative A 17-IX. The predicted effluent concentrations
are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mfj/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of
Alternative A 17-X is a '30D reduction of 99.3 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 97.5 percent.
Sandbed drying was not deemed to be an economically feasible alternative
due to the large volume of sludge produced.
SUBCATEGORY A 18 - ALL OTHER MALT BEVERAGE BREWERIES
In-plant technology for this subcategory is the same as that for
Subcategory A 16. No breweries in this subcategory operate end-
of-line treatment systems.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for all other breweries not
included in Subcategories A 16 or A 17. The raw waste was assumed
to be as follows:
Flow (M6D) 1.2
BOD (mg/1) 1400
SS (mg/1) 640
Total KN 28
pH 2 to 12
Table 115 lists the effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the thirteen treatment trains for this sub-
category as illustrated in Figures 181 and T82.
Alternative A 18-1 - This alternative involves no added control or
treatment. The efficiency of BOD and suspended .solids removal is zero.
Alternative A 18-11 - This alternative consists of a screen and grit
chamber, pumping station, diffused air flow equalization with twenty- .
four hour detention time, pH adjustment, nutrient addition, aerated
lagoons, settling ponds, land at $1660 per acre, and sludge removal
once every five years. The predicted effluent concentrations are
50 mg/1 BOD and 70 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of
Alternative A 18-11 is a BOD reduction of 96.4 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 89.1 percent.
Alternative A 18-III - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment modules in Alternative A 18-11. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 18-111 is a BOD reduction of 98.2
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 94.5 percent.
605
-------
cr>
o
TABLE 115
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Subcategory A 18
o
30
Treatment Train
A1ternati ve
A 18-1 A
A 18-11 E1BCFHL
A 18-1II E1BCFHLBN
A 18-IV E1BCFHLBNZ
A 18-V B1E1BCFHKQRSY
A 18-VI B1E1BCFHKQRSYBN
A 18-VII B1E1BCFHKQRSYBNZ
A 18-VIII B1E1BCFHKQRYU
A 18-IX B1E1BCFHKQRYUBN
A 18-X B1E1BCFHKQRYURBNZ
A 18-XI B1E1BCFHKQRT
A 18-XII B1E1BCFHKQRTBN
A 18-XIII B1E1BCFHKQRTBNZ
Effluent BOD
(kg/cu til)
13.53
0.48
0.24
0.12
0.48
0.24
0.12
0.48
0.24
0.12
0.48
0.24
0.12
Effluent SS
(kg/cu m)
6.19
0.68
0.34
0.17
0.68
0.34
0.17
0.68
0.34
0.17
0.68
0.34
0.17
Percent BOD
Reduction
0
96.4
98.2
99.0
96.4
98.2
99.0
96.4
98.2
99.0
96.4
98.2
99.0
Percent SS
Reduction
0
89.1
94.5
97.3
89.1
94.5
97.3
89.1
94.5
97.3
89.1
94.5
97.3
-------
DRAFT
BOD = 1400 MG/L
SS =640 MG/L
FLOW = 4500 CU M/DAY (1.2 MGD)
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
*• A 18-11
EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 70 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
--*-A 18-111
EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 35 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE A
BOD = 12 MG/L
SS = 17 MG/L
18-IV EFFLUENT
FIGURE 181
SUBCATEGORY A18
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THROUGH IV
607
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1400 MG/L
SS = 640 MG/L
FLOW = 4500 CU M/DAY (1.2 MGD)
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
i
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
. NUTRIENT
ADDITION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
TRUCK HAUL
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
*"A 18-V, VIII, XI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 70 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
"A 18-VI, IX,
EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 35 MG/L
XII
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE A 18-VII, X, XIII EFFLUENT
BOD = 12 MG/L
SS = 17 MG/L
FIGURE 1£2
SUBCATEGORY A18
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES V THROUGH XIII
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 18-IV - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment modules 1n Alternative A 18-111. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 18-IV is a BOD reduction of 99.0
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 18-V - This alternative consists of a screen and grit
chamber, pumping station, diffused air flow equalization with twenty-
four hour detention time, pH adjustment, nutrient addition, complete
mix activated sludge system with fixed surface aerators, secondary
clarifiers, control house, sludge thickening producing two percent
solids, aerobic digestion producing 3.5 percent solids, vacuum fil-
tration producing 15 percent solids, sludge storage, truck hauling,
and land at $16,600 per acre. The predicted effluent concentrations
are 50 mg/1 BOD and 70 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect
of Alternative A 18-V is a BOD reduction of 96.4 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 89.1 percent.
Alternative A 18-VI - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment modules in Alternative A 18-V. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 18-VI is a BOD reduction of 98.2
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 94.5 percent.
Alternative. A 18-VII - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment modules to Alternative A 18-VI. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 18-VII is a BOD reduction of 99.0
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 18-VIII - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration
in Alternative A 18-V with sludge storage and spray irrigation. The
predicted effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 70 mg/1 suspended
solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 18-VIII is a BOD reduction
of 96.4 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 89.1 percent.
Alternative A 18-IX - This alternative adds dual media filtration
to the treatment modules in Alternative A 18-VIII. The predicted
effluent concentrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids.
The overall effect of Alternative A 18-IX is a BOD reduction of 98.2
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 94.5 percent.
Alternative A 18-X - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment modules in Alternative A 18-IX. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 18-X is a BOD reduction of 99.0
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
609
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 18-XI - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration in
Alternative A 18-V with sand drying beds. Dried sludge is hauled by
truck. The predicted effluent concentrations are 50 rng/1 BOD and 70
mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 18-XI is a
BOD reduction of 96.4 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 96.4
percent.
Alternative A 18-XII - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment modules in Alternative A 18-XI. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 35 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 18-XII is a BOD reduction of 98.2
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 94.5 percent.
Alternative A 18-XIII - This alternative adds activated carbon to
the treatment modules in Alternative A 18-XII. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 12 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 18-XIII 1s a BOD reduction of 99.0
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
SUBCATEGORY A 19 - MALT
Existing In-Plant Technology
As discussed in Section V, steeping and germinating create soluble
organic wastes which may contain high levels of suspended solids if
not properly screened. Plant 83A13 has installed a 30 mesh vibrating
chain link screen prior to final discharge. This effectively removes
all the sprouts in the waste stream in addition to creating a marketable
by-product. The elimination of these solids enhances biological treatment.
Potential In-Plant Technology
Potential waste reduction centers around good in-plant supervision.
For example, the number of steep changes and the amount of water required
is, of course, a quality decision. During steeping, however, close
operator supervision can minimize the amount of overflow in the steep
tanks without affecting quality standards. Water reduction can also be
exercised in germination by maintaining a closed spray-and-refrigeration
cycle so that only makeup is required. While both of these measures
are undoubtedly practiced by some maltsters it is felt that these are
areas of possible pollution abatement for other members of the industry.
End-of-Line Technology
There is currently one one separate malt house treating its own waste.
Figure 183 illustrates this treatment system as it now operates. Current
removal rates are 97.7 percent BOD and 91.6 percent suspended solids.
Originally the final clarifier effluent was being discharged to navigable
waters with only a 77 percent reduction of BOD. In 1971 the aerated lagoons
were added on to the original system. Approximate unit effluents as of
August 1974 are as follows:
610
-------
DRAFT
DIGF.STFP
INFLUENT
DIGESTED
*• SLUDGE
SPRAYED
SCREEN
TRICKLING
FILTER
LAGOON
TPICKLING
FILTER
AERATF.D
LAGOON
CLARIFIER
AERATED
LAGOON
15 SUBMERGED
HELICAL
AERATORS
DEPTH= 4.6 M
DETENTION
10 DAYS
32 SUBMERGED
HELICAL
AERATORS
.DEPTH = 4.6 M
DENTION
5 = DAYS
73 SUBMERGED
HELICAL
AERATORS
DEPTH 4-. 6 M
DENTION =
5 DAYS
AIR = 96 CU M/MIN
POLISHING
LAGOON
DETENTION
= 1 DAY
-*- EFFLUENT
DETENTION I
= 1 DAY |
POLISHING
LAGOON
FIGURE 183
CONTROL AND TREATMENT PLANT 83A13
611
-------
DRAFT
BOD SS
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Influent 800 84.2
Primary Filter 450 67.4
Secondary Filter 210 251.4
Clarifier 200 51.0
Lagoons 18 7
No sludge disposal has been required during the last two years although
spray irrigation facilities are available.
According to Isaac (62) the two principal biological processes used
for the treatment of malting wastes outside the United States are
bacteria beds (trickling filters) and activated sludge. The bacteria
bed system is actually quite similar to that originally employed by
Plant 83A13. The Pasveer ditch, a modification of the activated sludge
process, is used in Europe and England. It consists of elliptical ditch
of trapezoidal cross section with a liquid depth of 1 M. The mixture
is oxygenated and kept moving by means of an aeration rotor. Final
settling may be carried out either in the ditch or in a separate tank.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model malt plant based on typical effluent characteristics
was developed for purposes of developing control and treatment alternatives.
The wastewater characteristics of the model plant are:
Flow 2590 cu m/day (0.685 MGD)
BOD 615 mg/1
SS 104 mg/1
Total KN 17 mg/1
Total P 7 mg/1
pH 6.0 to 9.0
It was assumed that process and non-contact water are segregated, and
that screening removes grain and sprouts prior to discharge.
Table 116 presents treated effluent loadings and removal efficiencies
for each of the treatment alternatives chosen for Subcategory A 19.
Figures 184 and 185 show simplified flow diagrams for each of the
six treatment trains.
Alternative A 19 - I - This treatment alternative adds no treatment and
control to the model plant.
Alternative A 19 -II - This alternative consists of a control house,
pumping station, flow equalization, nutrient addition in the form of
43.24 kg/day (95.32 Ib/day) anhydrous ammonia, aerated lagoons, and
612
-------
en
«j
CO
TABLE 116
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES - SUBCATEGORY A 19
MALT
ALTERNATIVE
A19 -
A19 -
A19 -
A19 -
A19 -
A19 -
A19 -
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Vll
EFFLUENT
BOD
KG/KKG
*4.55
0.22
0.11
0.22
0.11
0.22
0.11
EFFLUENT
SS
KG/KKG
0.77
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.06
PERCENT
BOD
REMOVAL
0
95,
97,
95.
97.6
95.2
96.6
PERCENT
SS
REMOVAL
0
83.1
92.2
83.1
92.2
83.1
92.2
-------
DRAFT
FLOW = 2,590 CU M/DAY (0.685 MGD)
BOD = 6il5 MG/L
SS = 104 MG/L
N = 17 MG/L
P = 7 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE
A 19-11
•-»• EFFLUENT
BOD = 30 MG/L
SS = 17 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A 19-1II
EFFLUENT
BOD = 15 MG/L
SS = 8 MG/L
FIGURE 184
SUBCATEGORY A19
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU III
614
-------
DRAFT
FLOW = 2,590 CU M/DAY
BOO =615 MG/L
SS = 104 MG/L
N = 17 MG/L
P = 7 MG/L I
(0.685 MGD)
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
SLUDGE
STORAGE
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVES
A 19-IV £ VI
•*• EFFLUENT
BOD = 30 MG/L
SS = 17 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES A
EFFLUENT
BOD = 15 MG/L
SS = 8 MG/L
19-V & VII
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FIGURE 105
SUBCATEGORY A19
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES IV THRU VII
615
-------
DRAFT
settling ponds with dredging every five years. The predicted treated
effluent concentrations are 30 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1 suspended solids.
The overall effect of Alternative A 19-11 is a BOD reduction of 95.2
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 83.1 percent.
Alternative A 19 - III - This alternative consists of adding dual media
filtration to the treatment chain in Alternative A 19-11. The predicted
treated effluent concentrations are 15 mg/1 BOD and 8 mg/1 suspended solids^
The overall effect of Alternative A 19-111 is a reduction of 97.6 percent
Alternative A 19 - IV - This alternative consists of a control house,
pumping station, flow equalization, nutrient addition in the form of
43.24 kg/day (95.32 Ib/day) anhydrous ammonia, a complete mix activated
sludge system, sludge thickening, aerobic digestion, and spray irrigation.
The predicted treated effluent concentrations are 30 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1
suspended solids.; The overall effect of Alternative A 19-IV is a reduc-
tion of 95.2 percent of the BOD and 83.1 percent of the suspended solids.
Alternative A 19 - V - This alternative consists of adding dual media
filtration to the treatment chain in.Alternative A 19-IV. The predicted
treated effluent concentrations are 15 mg/1 BOD and 8 mg/1 suspended
solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 19-V is 96.6 percent BOD
reduction and 92.2 suspended solids reduction.
Alternative A 19 - VI - This alternative replaces spray irrigation of
sludge in Alternative A 19-IV with sandbed drying and truck Wauling.
The predicted treated .effluent concentrations are 30 mg/1 BOD and 17 mg/1
suspended solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 19-VI is a reduction
..of 95,2 percent of the BOD and 83.1 percent of the suspended solids.
Alternative A 19 - VII - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment chain in Alternative A 19-VI. The predicted treated effluent
concentrations are 5 mg/1 BOD and 8 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 19-VM is a reduction of 95.2 percent for BOD
and a reduction of 92.2 percent for suspended solids.
SUBCATEGORY A 20 - WINERIES WITHOUT STILLS
In-Plant Technology
As described in Section V, stems, pressed pomace, and filter aid are
assumed to be separated from wastewater to be sent to treatment
facilities. If these are properly disposed, the lees from racking
represent the greatest potential source of high strength waste. If
tanks are fully drained and lees passed through filter presses or
centrifuges, little waste results. If lees are sewered, the strength
of the waste will change appreciably. Separate water meters should be
installed in all major departments of the winery such as crushing,
fermentation, pressing and bottling. By accurately identifying water
usage, both reduction procedures and future planning will be benefited.
616
-------
DRAFT
Water pressure regulators and pressure nozzles may also be used to
reduce the quantity of water used for cleanup. Sweeping rather than,
or prior to, hosing down floors may be applicable in some areas of
the winery. Reused water from tank cleaning may be used as makeup
wash water for other nearby tanks. Slowdown from water-cooled re-
frigeration units may also be reused. Wastewater which is not suitable
for in-plant reuse may be suitable for such areas as lawn and land-
s caping, vineyard frost protection, vineyard irrigation, and vineyard
heat protection.
End-of-Line Technology
As described in Section V the effluent from wineries in this sub-
category is a medium to high strength organic waste deficient in
nitrogen and phosphorus. It is amenable to treatment by a number of
alternatives including aerated lagoons, biological discs, activated
sludge, and land irrigation. During the course of this study six
wineries with treatment systems were visited. Figures 186 through 191
show a block diagram of each of these systems.
Plant 84*10 utilizes four ponds, each of 5700 cu m (1.5 MG) volume
with a total aeration capacity of 27 kw (36 hp). According to Ryder
(111) average effluent concentrations were 22 mg/1 BOD and 29 mg/1
suspended solids in March 1973. The treated effluent is utilized to
irrigate approximately 6 ha (15 ac) of landscaped areas adjacent to
the winery. A similar system operated by the same company has achieved
BOD removal rates of 97.2 percent. Plant 84*09 has recently completed
construction of a two lagoon system as shown in Figure (187). The
effluent from this system will also be used for winery irrigation.
Tofflemire, ejt al_ (112) reports that the dual lagoon system as it was
originally constructed at Plant 84*03 achieved a BOD removal of 96
percent. According to Rice (113) BOD removal remained between 94.7
and 95.6 percent from 1971 through 1974. Suspended solids levels in
the aerated lagoon remained high due to bacterial and algal growths.
In general, lagoon systems perform well with winery waste when suf-
ficient land is available. Little supervision is required and large
volumes of water act as a buffer for fluctuations in pH and waste concen-
trations.
Two activated sludge systems are being used to treat winery waste ex-
clusively. Figures (188) and (189) show block diagrams of each system.
Annual operating efficiencies are as follows:
Plant Plant
84A01 84A03
BOD Removal 97.3 97.6
Suspended Solids
Removal 89.5 66.5
617
-------
INFLUENT.
PH
ADJUSTMENT
SURFACE AERATORS
VOLUME = 5700 CU M
DEPTH = 3M
LAGOON »1
SURFACE AERATORS
VOLUME = 5700 CU M
DEPTH = 3M
LAGOON 02
EFFLUENT-
00
SURFACE AERATORS
VOLUME = 5700 CU M
DEPTH = 3M
SURFACE AERATORS
VOLUME = 5700 CU M
DEPTH = 3M
LAGOON «3
LAGOON «4
FIGURE 186
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 84*10
-------
o
INFLUENT
TWO AERATORS
VOLUME = 13,000 CU f
DEPTH = 3 M
TWO AERATORS
\/nt i tJtc — i *a f\f\f\ ft i M
DEPTH = 3 M
PRIMARY SECONDARY
LAQOON LASQQtt
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 187
CONTROL AND TREATMENT PLANT 84*09
-------
DRAFT
INFLU
AERATED
LAGOON
SCREEN
AERATION = 8? K«l
VOAWE = 5300 CU M
DEPTH * 3 M
AERATED
LATHON
AERATION = 82 KM
VOLUME = 5300 CU M
DEPTH « 3 M
CLAR1F1ER
DIAMETER
11 M
RETURN SLU3G6
AERATION
BASIN
AERATION
DEPTH s> i
« 3 Klnr
£76 CD M
M
EFFUURNT
AEROBIC
PIGgSTgR
FIGURE 188
CONTROL AND TREATMENT- PLANT 84*03
620
-------
INFLUENT
o
TWO AERATORS
VOLUME = 13,000 CU
DEPTH = 3 M
PRIMARY
L&SQQN.
TWO AERATORS
VOLUME = 13,000 CU M
DEPTH = 3 M
SECONDARY
LAGOON
EFFLUEhTT
FIGURE 187
CONTROL AND TREATMENT PLANT 84*09
-------
DRAFT
INFLI
.UENT
AERATED
LAGOON
SCPPEM
AERATION = 8? KW
VOLU«E = 5300 CU «
DEPTH * 3 M
AFBATED
LATPON
AERATION = 82 KW
VOLIXE ° 5300 CU M
DEPTH . 3 M
CLAR1F1EP
AERATION
BASIN
AERATION « 3
VOLUME • 276
DEPTH • J M
K*
CU M
RETURN SLLDGE
EPFLUENT
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
FIGURE 188
CONTROL AND TREATMENT PLANT 84*03
620
-------
CT>
INFLUENT
TWO AERATORS
VOLUME = 13,000 CU
DEPTH = 3 M
PRIMARY
LAGOON
TWO AERATORS
VOLUME = 13,000 CU M
DEPTH = 3 M
EFFLUENT
SECONDARY
LAGOON
FIGURE 187
CONTROL AND TREATMENT PLANT 84*09
-------
DRAFT
INR.UEN
•AERATED
LAGOON
5CBEEM
AERATION « 8? KW
VOLUME = S300 CU M
06PTH * 3 H
AERATED
LATOON
AERATION = 82 KW
VOLUME ° 5300 CU M
DEPTH « 3 M
q-ARlFlER
AERATION
BASIN
AERATION
VOLUME a
C60TM * 1
-. 3 K»
:T* cu M
M
RETURN SLUDGE
EFFLUENT
AFJMB1C
PICESTER
FIGURE 188
CONTROL AND TREATMENT PLANT 84*03
620
-------
NUTRIENT AND
PH ADJUSTMENT
ro
INFLUENT-
ENTRANCE
STRUCTURE
»• SOLIDS HAULED
TO VINEYARD
AERATION
BASIN
RETURN SLUDGE
AERATION
BASIN
AERATION
BASIN
-D-
AERATION.
BASIN
1
-» EFFLUENT
FIGURE 169
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 84C01
-------
CTi
ro
ro
SLUDGE
DISPOSED
TO
LANDFILL
EQUALIZATION
TANK
ROTATING
BIOLOGICAL
INFLUENT
CLARIFIERS
SAND
FILTERS
FIGURE 190
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 84*02
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
"H.TRIENT
AND PH
ADJUSTMENT
REACTOR
EQUALIZATION
TANK
AERATION =
12 CU M/MIN
VOLUME =
472 CU M
AERATION =
30 CU M/MIN
VOLUME =
400 CU M
SUPERNATANT
CLARIFIER
— »
— *
REACTOR
AERATION =
30 CU M/MIN
VOLUME =
400 CU M
RETURN SLUDGE
AERATION =
40 CU M/MIN
VOLUME =
400 CU M
SLUDGF
DISPOSAL
TO LANDFILL
FIGURE 191
CONTROL AND TREATMENT PLANT 84*04
623
-------
DRAFT
On a short term basis, considerably higher suspended solids removals
have been achieved by Plant 84A03. Tertiary treatment by sand filtra-
tion at Plant 84A01 has not achieved the predicted 50 percent reduc-
tion, hence suspended solids removal is also somewhat lower than ex-
pected. Both plants provide aerobic digestion for sludge, although
infrequent wasting of activated sludge has been required. Close
operational control of pH is required, especially at Plant 84A01 where
the aeration volume of 2360 cu rn (624,000 gal) is relatively small.
A rotating biological disc has been used at Plant 84*02. A flow diagram
of the complete system is shown in Figure 190. The original pilot plant
study (114) indicated a BOD removal of 95 percent at a loading rate of
2.8 1 (0.75 gal) per day. Data collected during this study indicated
BOD and suspended solids removals at 93.0 and 56.1 percent, respectively.
Once again, the low level of suspended solids removal is due to the poor
operation of the sand filter; in many cases solids were increased by
filtration.
Several wineries in this subcategory discharge treated waste to irri-
gation systems. Due to climate and soil permeability^ this method of
disposal is almost exlcusively practiced in California. A further dis-
cussion is included in Subcategory 21 for those wineries disposing stil-
lage by'intermittent irrigation. {
» .
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for the manufacturing of wine
in wineries not utilizing stills. It was assumed that the model plant
provided screening of its wastewater prior to discharge. The raw
wastewater characteristics after screening were assumed to be as follows:
Crushing Season Processing Season
Flow 0.073 MGD 0.060 MGD
BOD 2300 mg/1 1200 mg/1
SS 760 mg/1 420 mg/1
P 13 mg/1 7 mg/1
Total N 7 mg/1 4 mg/1
Due to the fact that larger flow and pollutant loadings are generated
during the crashing season, the treatment system designs are based on
the crushing season values presented above. Tables 117 (Crushing Season)
and 118 (Processing Season) list the pollutant effluent loading and
the estimated operating efficiency of each of the ten treatment alter-
natives selected for this subcategory. It should be noted that the
pollutant concentrations in the treated effluent remain the same during
the crushing and processing season. The treatment alternatives presented
below are illustrated in Figures 192 and 193.
624
-------
TABLE 117
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES - SUBCATEGORY A 20
WINERIES (CRUSHING SEASON)
ro
Alternative
A 20-1
A 20-11
A 20-111
A 20- IV
A 20-V
A 20-VI
A 20-V I I
A 20-VIII
A 20- IX
A 20-X
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
3.57
0.77
0.38
0.23
0.77
0.38
0.23
0.77
0.38
0.23
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
1.16
0.115
0.054
0.031
0.115
0.054
0.031
0.115
0.054
0.031
Percent
BOD
removed
0
97.8
98.9
99.4
97.8
98.9
99.4
97.8
98.9
99.4
Percent
SS
removed
0
90.1
95.3
97.3
90.1
95.3
97.3
90.1
95.3
97.3
-------
TABLE 118
•V
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES - SUBCATEGORY A 20
WINERIES (NON-CRUSHING SEASON)
o
2
•n
Alternative
A 20-1
A 20-H
A 20-111
A 20- IV
A 20-V
o? A 20-V I
A 20-VII
A 20-VIII
A 20- IX
A 20-X
Effluent
BOD
kg/ cu m
6.63
0.277
0.138
0.083
0.277
0.138
0.083
0.277
0.138
0.083
Effluent
SS
kg/icu m
2.33
0.415
0.194
0.111
0.415
0.194
0.111
0.415
0.194
0.111
Percent
BOD
removed
0
95.8
97.9
98.7
95.8
97.9
98.7
95.8
97.9
98.7
Percent
SS
removed
0
82.2
91.7
95.2
82.2
91.7
95.2
82.2
91,7
95.2
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 276 CU M/DAY (0.073 MGD)
BOD = 2,300 MG/L
SS = 760 MG/L
N = 7 MG/L
P = 13 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
SAND DRYING
BEDS
ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVES
A 20-11, V
.EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 75 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES
A 20-11I, VI
"EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS =* 35 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES
A 20-IV,. VII
"EFFLUENT
BOD = 15 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 192
SUBCATEGORY A20
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU VII
627
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 276 CU M/DAY (0.073 MGO)
BOD = 2,300 MG/L
SS = 760 MG/L
N = 7 MG/L
P = 13 MG/
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
•»A 20-VIII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 75 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
^ALTERNATIVE
A 20-IX
EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 35 MG/L
i
ALTERNATIVE A 20-X EFFLUENT
BOD = 15 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 193
SUBCATEGQRY A20
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VIII THRU X
628
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 20-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
Alternative A 20-11 - This alternative consists of a control house, a
pumping station, flow equalization, nutrient addition, acid and caustic
neutralization, a complete-mix activated sludge system, sludge thickening,
aerobic digestion, dual media filtration, a sludge holding tank and spray
irrigation of digestor sludge. Flow equalization is provided to dampen
the effect of shock loadings to the activated sludge system. Nitrogen
and phosphorus addition is provided to increase the deficient raw
wastewater BOD:N:P ratio of 100:0.3:0.57 to the required 100:5:1. Both
acid and caustic neutralization are provided to accommodate the model
plants pH range of 4.0 to 10.0. The combined efficiency of the activated
sludge system and dual media filtration module is estimated at 97.8
percent during the crushing season and 95.8 percent during the processing
season. Sludge thickening and aerobic digestion are provided to decrease
the volume of sludge which is subsequently spray irrigated.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.8 per-
cent and a suspended soV/ds reduction of 90.1 percent during the crush-
ing season and 95.8 and 82.2 percent respectively during the processing
season.
Alternative A 20-111 - This alternative is identical to Alternative
A 20-11 except an additional dual media filtration module is provided
to further reduce the effluent BOD and suspended solids loadings.
The overall effect of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 98.9 per-
cent a suspended solids reduction of 95.3 percent during the crushing
season and 97.9 and 91.7 percent, respectively, during the processing
season.
Alternative A 20-IV - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 20-111
with the addition of activated carbon adsorption to further reduce the
effluent BOD and suspended solids loadings.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 99.4
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent during crush-
ing season and 98.7 and 95.2 percent, respectively, during the proces-
sing season.
Alternative A 20-V - This alternative replaces the spray irrigation of
digestor sludge in Alternative A 20-11 with sand drying beds. The
overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.8 per-
cent and a suspended solids reduction of 90.1 percent during the
crushing season and 95.8 and 82.2 percent, respectively, during the
processing season.
629
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 20-VI - This alternative is identical to Alternative
A20-V with the addition of dual media filtration. The overall benefit
of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 98.9 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 95.3 percent during crushing season and 97.9 and
91.7 percent, respectively, during processing season.
Alternative A 20-VII - This alternative is identical to Alternative
A 20-VI with the addition of activated carbon adsorption.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 99.4 per-
cent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent during crushing
season and 98.7 and 95.2 percent, respectively, during processing season.
Alternative A 20-VIII - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, nutrient addition, acid and caustic neutralization,
aerated lagoons, stabilization ponds, and dual media filtration. Flow
equalization, nutrient addition and neutralization provide the same
benefits as previously discussed in Alternative A 20-11. The aerated
lagoon and dual media filter would be expected to provide the same
treatment efficiency as the activated sludge system and dual media
filtration module of Alternatives A 20-11 and A 20-V.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.8
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 90.1 percent during crush-
ing season and 95.8 and 82.2 percent, respectively, during processing
season.
Alternative A 20-IX - This alternative is identical to Alternative
A 20-VIII with the addition of a second dual media filtration module.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 98.9
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 95.3 percent during crushing
season and 97.9 and 91.7 percent, respectively, during processing season.
Alternative A 20-X - This alternative is identical to Alternative
A 20-IX with the addition of activated carbon adsorption.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 99.4
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent during crushing
season and 98.7 and 95.2 percent, respectively, during processing season.
SUBCATEGORY A 21 - WINERIES WITH STILLS
In-Plant Technology
During the processing season the same methods of in-plant reduction
are applicable for this subcategory as for wineries without stills.
630
-------
DRAFT
During crushing, however, stillage disposal requires additional methods
of conservation.
Physical Methods - The volume of the stillage may be reduced 15 percent
by using indirect heat rather than live steam in the still. In addition,
the amount of water used in the preparation of distilling material will
have a direct effect on the total volume of stillage. The Coast Labora-
tories (115) recommended maintaining distilling material at eight percent
alcohol by volume in order to reduce distilling and handling costs. In
a separate report (116) the following methods of separating solids from
stillage were investigated:
1. Settling by gravity
2. Filtration
3. Screening
4. Centrifuging
5. Flocculation by chemicals
Centrifuging and screening were proven to be the most effective and all
wineries were advised to use one of these two types of mechanical separators,
Chemical Methods - Solids removal by chemical means has been investigated
by Vaughn and Marsh (117) and Schroeder (118). Liming causes the suspended
solids and colloidal material to settle as a sludge. This treatment pre-
cipitates the tartrates and reduces the BOD by 50 percent, although de-
watering the sludge may be difficult. Tofflemire (119) indicates, however
that this problem can be overcome. Detartration, coagulation, and floc-
culation with polyelectrolyte addition were all considered to be less
effective than centrifugation.
End-of-Line Technology
In consideration of the seasonal nature of stillage wastes, the location,
climate, and soil of wineries discharging stillage, and the lack of any
demonstrated cost effective alternative, it is considered that waste dis-
posal by intermittent irrigation is a satisfactory method of treatment
provided no ground water contamination occurs.
Intermittent Irrigation - The recommended methods for the disposal of
winery stillage by intermittent irrigation is described in detail by
the Coast Laboratories (114, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123). Basically the
system is as follows: conventional stillage is pumped to a series of
"checks" at loading rates of 935,000 1/day/ha (100,000 gpd/ac). The
liquid, which should accumulate to no more than 10 cm (4 in.) in depth,
is allowed topercolate and evaporate until a cake forms and breaks into
small pieces. """The plot is then disced and leveled for reuse approximately
7 to 10 days after the initial loading.
631
-------
DRAFT
Studies by York (1249 125., 126) indicate that intermittent irrigation
has no deleterious effect on the soil as measured by salt content, nitrate
concentrations and soil clogging, imperviousness, and impacting. A study
by the City of Fresno, California (127) indicates that some degradation
of well water exists, but that this may be controlled by proper measures,
i.e., control of nitrate leaching by elimination of ammonia, removing
leathers, and nitrogen-harvesting of winter crops.
Anaerobic treatment of wine stillage appears to be feasible, although
further treatment would be required. Stander (128) experimented with
a clarigester with 7.2 days detention time. The system resulted in a
COD removal of 96 percent. Tofflemire (119) noted, however, that ammonia
in the digester would cause an additional oxygen demand in the receiving
water. Chadwick and Schroeder (129) studied both aerobic and anaerobic
treatment of settled stillage on a pilot plant scale. Effluent of 1,100
to 2,500 mg/1 of COD, which appeared to be nonbiodegradable, existed after
treatment. Schroeder (118) suggested that centrifugation followed by two
aerated lagoons and a stabilization pond in series will produce effluents
of 75 mg/1 BOD, but noted that biological treatment will not substantially
alter the salt content of the wastewater. Since the resultant wastewater
will probably be used for irrigation, direct land disposal by intermittent
irrigation is a more cost-effective method of disposal.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for wineries with stills. The
raw waste volume due to crushing and distilling was assumed to be; 1680 cu m
(0.443 F1GD). The operating efficiency of tha treatment chain selected for
this subcateqory is 100 percent BOD and suspended solids removal.
Alternative A 21-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the raw waste.
Alternative A 21-11 - This alternative consists of a holding tank pumping
station, 2.3 km of pipeline, and land at 4,100/ha ($1,660/acre). The total
flow is applied at a rate of 935 cu m/week/ha (100S000 gal/week/acre).
Leveling and discing are assumed to cost $412/year/ha ($166/year/acre).
SUBCATEGORY A 22 - GRAIN DISTILLERS OPERATING STILLAGE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
The discussion in this section applies to both Subcategory A 22 and Sub-
category A 23 (except for evaporation).
In-Plant Technology \
As described in Section V, many plants operate barometric condenser systems
for mash cookers, mash coolers, and evaporators and, as reported by plants
85A01 and 85A29, this can amount to as much as 28 percent of the total BOD
load. By replacing the barometric condensers with surface condensers this
load can be eliminated from the system. This water may then be recycled
for other in-plant uses.
632
-------
DRAFT
Since the evaporator condensate contributes a majority of the total plant
waste, any possible reductions in this area should not be overlooked. Added
instrumentation for automatic operation of evaporators will tend to reduce
the load. Replacing worn out evaporator sections wtih newer designs will
also reduce the waste. The load to the evaporator can be reduced by using
spent still age as a sterilizing medium and by using indirect heating rather
than live steam in the still.
Water usage can be considerably reduced by recycling non-contact waters.
Many plants have, of course, already made such changes. Mash cooling water,
still condenser water, and refrigeration condenser water are all suitable
quality for other in-plant uses.
End-of-Line Technology
Grain distillery wastewater treatment encompasses a wide range of bio-
logical processes. These include aeration lagoon, trickling filter, and
activated sludge systems. During the course of the study eleven of these
systems were visited. Table 119 summarizes, the type and efficiency of each
of these systems. Figures 194 through 201 present flow diagrams for each
of these systems.
Many plants operate variations of the aerated lagoon. Plants 82A02 and
82A22 both have one aerated lagoon and one stabilization pond. Although
both systems had comprehensive effluent data, the influent was not regularly
monitored. Both maintained approximately 30 days detention followed by
chlorination (since sanitary sewage was present). Plants 85A04 and 85A05
employ as many as five lagoons in series to achieve as much as nine months
detention. Plant 85A27 has installed submerged helical aerators. This
treatment system was only receiving one-third the expected load during the
period of 98.7 percent BOD removal. In general, BOD removals of 96 percent
can be expected from these types of systems. Suspended solids removals
are somewhat lower than expected due to the growth of algae in the stabili-
zation ponds. Sand filtration has been demonstrated to improve suspended
solids removals considerably in such cases.
Several activated sludge systems exist throughout the production spectrum
in the industry. Plants 85A17 and 85A18 installed rock filters in 1949.
These systems operated well into the mid-1960's when the filter media
began to break down. At that time it was decided to upgrade the systems
by adding contact stabilization. Plant 85A07, Figure 197, operates a dual
activated sludge system with sludge thickening. Considerable foaming
was evident during visitation in the aeration basins and final clarifiers.
This was attributed to the fact that the plant did not practice caustic
equalization after weekend cleanups. Figure 194 demonstrates the combined
activated sludge--bio-disc system operated by plant 85A01. Tohmaas and
Koehrsen (78) have compared the efficiencies of the two types of systems
during different stages of operation. In general, the activated sludge
process demonstrated advantages over the bio-disc based on economics,
treatment performance, and ability to handle shock loads. Expected re-
movals for activated sludge systems are 96 percent for BOD and 92 percent
633
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 119
TREATMENT SYSTEM SUMMARY
SUBCATE60RY A22
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERCENT REMOVAL
PLANT DESCRIPTION BOD SS
85A01 Activated Sludge, 97.5* 90.7*
Bio Disc.
85A02 Aerated Lagoon 87.0 75.7
Stabilization Pond
85A04 Aerated Lagoon, 93.3 84.4
Stabilization Ponds
85A05 Aerated Lagoon, 93.3 73.8
Stabilization Ponds
85A07 Activated Sludge 91.9 82.8
85A15 Bio Disc.
85A17 Activated Sludge 35.6** 93.2
Contact Stabilization
85A18 Activated Sludge, 96.6 94.3
Contact Stabilization
85A22 Aerated Lagoon, 96.2 72.2
Stabilization Pond
85A27 Aerated Lagoons 98.7 34.3
85A29 Aerated Lagoons, 97.3
Trickling Filters,
Stabilization Ponds
* Activated Sludge Portion
** Before Contact Stabilization Added
634
-------
WASTE
SLLCGg
SLUDGE
LAGOON
RETURN SLUDGE
LANDFILL
GO
cn
NITROGEN AND
PHOSPHOROUS
ADDITION
/ X-— x
INFLUENT
PUMPING
STATION
GRIT
CHAMBER
J EQUALIZATION! n
\ BASIN. /
r*
-*
l
1
AERATION
BASIN
•
» CLARIFIER
RETURN SLUDGE
1
AERATION
BASIN
•
• CLARIFIER
RETURN SLUDGE
1
AERATION
BASIN
.,. k CLARIFIER
1
^
CLAR
\
IFIER]
SLUDGE
' — • LAGOON 1
CI-LORINE EFFLUENT
^ *" CONTACT *
FIGURE 194
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85A01
-------
CO
INFLUENT
<_MLUK 1 INA 1 1UN
(2) 11 KW AERATORS
VOLUME = 8,500 CU M
DEPTH = 3 M
DETENTION TIME = 15 DAYS
r>n AERATION
VOLUME = 8 , 500 CU M '
DEPTH = 3 M
•
,1
'l
DETENTION TIME = 15 DAYS
EFFLUENT
PRIMARY
LAGOON
SECONDARY
LAGOON
STEP
AERATION
FIGURE 195
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85A02
-------
p
INFLUENT
(4) 4 KW AERATORS
VOLUME = 60,000 CU M
MO AERATION
VOLUME = 60,000 CU M
NO AERATION
VOLUME = 50,000 CU M
LAGOON 01
LAGOON #2
LAGOON #3
01
EFFLUENT
NO AERATION
VOLUME = 10,000 CU M
NO AERATION
VOLUME = 30,000 CU M
LAGOON #5 LAGOON #4
FIGURE
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85A05
-------
INFLUENT
cr>
CJ
C3
AERATION
BASIN
(2)26KW AERATORS
VOLUME=1200CUM
DETENTION TIME=
6 DAYS
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
CLARIFIER
RETURN SLUDGE
PUMPING
STATION.
(2)26KW AERATORS
VOLUME=1200CUM
DETENTION TIME=
6 DAYS
CLARIFIER
AERATION
BASIN
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 197
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85A07
-------
SLUDGE PUMP PIT
INFLUENT
CO
vo
SCREEN
NUTRIENT AND PH
ADJUSTMENT
(1) 2.2 KW
AERATOR
VOLUME = 143 CU M
1 DAY DETENTION
EFFLUENT
EQUALIZATJ^K)
TANK
FIC7URE 198
CONTROL AW TREATMENT
PLANT 85A15
-------
o
73
t*
INFLUENT
(4) 18KW AERATORS
VOLUME = 17,000 CU M
PlFPTUI — ^M
DETENTION TIME =
2 1 DAYS
NO AERATION
VOLUME = 3,200 CU M
DEPTH = ISM
DETERNTION TIME =
7 DAY^
1,1,
'II
EFFLUENT
•o
o
PRIMARY
LAGOON
SECONDARY
LAGOON
CHLORINATION
FIGURE 199
COMTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85A22
-------
DRAFT
COMPRESSORS
AIR 5.0 CU M/MIN
INFLUENT
74 SUBMERGED
HELICAL AERATORS
•VOLUME = IS.ecnCU t
DEPTH = 3 M
PRIMARY LAGOON
15 SUBMERGED
HELICAL AERATORS
VOLUME = 26,000 CU M
D-^PTH = 3 M
EFFLUENT
POLISHING LAGOON
FIGURE 2oo
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85A27
641
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
PRIMARY
LAGOON
(3) * KW AERATOR
DEPTH = 1-2.1 M
AREA = 1?00 SO M
PUMPING STATION
TRICKLING FILTER
DEPTH = 6.7 M
WIDTH = 3.6 M
BREADTH = 3.6 M
PUMPING STATION
TRICKLING FILTER
DEPTH = 6.7 M
WIDTH = 3.6 M
BREADTH = 3.6
PUMPING STATION
POLISHING LAGOON
(1 ) A KW AERATOR
DEPTH = i.5 M
AREA = 1900 SO M
POLISHING LAGOON
NO AERATION
DEPTH = 1.2 M
AREA = 1900 SO M
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 201
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85A29
642
-------
DRAFT
for suspended solids. Nutrient addition will be required. With twenty-
four hour flow equalization, pH variations are expected to be adequately
buffered.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
Two model plants were developed in Section V for grain distillers operating
Stillage recovery systems. It is assumed that neither model plant provides
treatment of its wastewater prior to discharge, but both provide screening
of the effluent. The nine applicable alternatives discussed below are
identical for model plants A22-A and A22-B which have the following
wastewater characteristics:
Model Plant A22-A Model Plant A22-B
Production 380 kkg/day (15,000 bu/day) Production 90 kkg/day (3,500 bu/day)
Flow 2500 cu m/day (0.650 MGD) Flow 570 cu m/day (0.150 MGD)
BOD 930 mg/1 BOD 950 mg/1
SS 650 mg/1 SS 670 mg/1
Total KN 33 mg/1 Total KN 33 mg/1
Total P 3 mg/1 Total P 3 mg/1
Figures 202 and 203 present simplified flow diagrams for model plant A22-A
treatment alternatives, and Figures 204 and 205 illustrate the identical
treatment chains applicable to model plant A22-B. Tables 120 and 121
present calculated removal efficiencies for A22-A and A22-B treatment al-
ternatives, respectively.
Alternative A 22-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to either model plant. The removal efficiency is zero.
Alternative A 22-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
diffused air flow equalization, nutrient addition, and aerated lagoons
with settling ponds. The predicted effluent concentrations are 40 mg/1
BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended solids. The removal efficiency of alternative
A 22-AII is 95.7 percent of the BOD, and 92.3 percent of the suspended
solids. Alternative A 22-BII removes 95.8 percent of the BOD and 92.5
percent of suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-111 - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
the treatment chain in Alternative A 22-11. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 20 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
affect of Alternative A 22-AIII is a reduction of 97.8 percent of the BOD
and 96.9 percent of the suspended solids. Alternative A 22-BIII removes
97.9 percent of the BOD and 96.3 percent of suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-IV - This alternative consists of a control house,
pumping station, diffused air flow equalization, nutrient addition, a
complete mix activated sludge system, sludge thickening, aerobic digestion,
and sand drying beds. The predicted effluent concentrations are 40 mg/1
643
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD =930 MG/L
SS =650 MG/L
FLOW = 2500 CU M/DAY
(0.650 MGD)
1
IFLOW
EQUALIZATION
NUTRIENT
ADC
)ITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
A
ALTERNATIVE A22A-I I
EFFLUENT
BOD = 4O MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A22A-III EFFLUENT
BOD =20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
FIGURE 202
SUBCATEC70RY A22A
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THROUGH III
644
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD =.930 MG/L
SS = 650 MG/L
FLOW = 2500 CU M/DAY (0.65 MGD)
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
*• At TFRNATIVE
A22A IV, VI, VIII
EFFLUENT
BOD =40 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A22A V, VII, IX EFFLUENT
BOD =20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FIGURE 203
SUBCATEGORY A22A
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES IV THROUGH IX
645
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 950 MG/L
SS = 670 MG/L
FLOW = 570 CU M/DAY (0.150)
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
NUTRIEMT
ADC
5ITION
i
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE A22B-II
EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/L
S6 = 50 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A22B-111 EFFLUENT
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
FIGURE 204
SUBCATEGORY A22B
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THROUGH III
646
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 950 MG/L
SS =670 MG/L
FLOW = 570 CU M/DAY (0.150 MGD)
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
SLUDGE
THICKENING
I FLOW
j EQUALIZATION
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
--*• ALTERNATIVE
A22-B IV, VI, VIII
'EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
ALTERNATIVE A22
BOD = 20 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
V, VII, IX EFFLUENT
FIGURE 205
SUBCATEGORY A22B
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES IV THROUGH IX
647
-------
00
TABLE 120
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY A22A
Treatment Train
Alternative
A 22A-I
A 22A-II
A 22A-III
A 22A-IV
A 22A-V
A 22 A- VI
A 22A-VII
A 22A-VIII
A 22A-IX
Effluent BOD
(kg/kkg)
6.02
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.13
Effluent SS
(kg/kkg)
4.21
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.16
Percent BOD
Reduction
0
95.7
97.8
95.7
97.8
95.7
97.8
95.7
97.8
Percent SS
Reduction
0
92.4
96.2
92.4
96.2
92.4
96.2
92.4
96.2
-------
o
73
vo
TABLE 121
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY A22B
Treatment Train
Alternative
A 22B-I
A 22B-II
A 22B-III
A 22B-IV
A 22B-V
A 22B-VI
A 22B-VII
A 22B-VIII
A 22B-IX
Effluent BOD
(kg/kkg)
5.99
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.13
Effluent SS
(kg/kkg)
4.23
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.16
Percent BOD
Reduction
0
95.7
97.9
95.7
97.9
95.7
97.9
95.7
97.9
Percent SS
Removal
0
92.4
96.2
92.4
96.2
92.4
96.2
92.4
96.2
-------
DRAFT
BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended solids. Alternative A 22-AIV is expected to
remove 95.7 percent of BOD and 92.3 percent of suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 22-BIV is a reduction of 95.8 percent of
the BOD and 92.5 percent of the suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-V - This alternative provides in addition to Alternative
A 22-IV a pumping station and dual media filtration. The predicted ef-
fluent concentrations are 20 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-AV removes 97.8,percent of the BOD and 96.9 percent of
the suspended solids. Alternative A 22-BV removes 97.9 percent of the
BOD and 96.3 percent of the suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-VI - This alternative replaces sand drying beds in
Alternative A 22-IV with vacuum filtration and truck hauling or sludge.
The predicted effluent concentrations are 40 mg/1 BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended
solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 22-AVI is a reduction of 95.7
percent of BOD and 92.3 percent of suspended solids. The overall effect
of Alternative A 22-BVI is a reduction of 95.8 percent of the BOD and 92.5
percent of the suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-VII - This alternative adds a pumping station and dual
media filtration to Alternative A 22-VI. The predicted effluent concen-
trations are 20 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect
of Alternative A 22-AVII is a reduction of 97.8 percent of BOD and 96.9
percent of suspended solids. Alternative A 22-BVII removes 97.9 percent
of the BOD and 96.3 percent of the suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-VIII - This alternative replaces sand drying beds in
Alternative^ 22-IV with spray irrigation of the sludge. The predicted
effluent concentrations are 40 mg/1 BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended solids.
The overall effect of Alternative A 22-AVIII is a reduction of 95.7
percent of the BOD and 92.3 percent of the suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 22-BVIII is a reduction of 95.8 percent of the
BOD and 92.5 percent of the suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-IX - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative A 22-VIII. The predicted effluent concentrations are 20 mg/1
BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids. Alternative A 22-AIX results in 97.8
percent reduction of BOD and 96.9 percent reduction of suspended solids.
Alternative A 22-BIX removes 97.9 percent of the BOD and 96.3 percent of
the suspended solids.
SUBCATEGORY A 23 - GRAIN DISTILLERS
In-Plant Technology
No plants in this subcategory operate evaporator systems. Atmospheric
cooling is more common than pressure cooking, therefore, cooker barometric
condensers are not a source of pollutants. Since few plants in this
subcategory operate multi-column distillation units, doubler discharge
may generate the only waste from distillation. Waste reduction measures
650
-------
DRAFT
include recycling of water from mash coolers, still condensers, and refrig-
eration systems. Caustic cleanup may be collected, adjusted, reused,
or metered to treatment systems. Slops holding and transfer must be
supervised to avoid spillage.
End-of-Line Technology
Historically, due to the low level of raw waste for this subcategory,
the primary method of treatment has been small aerated lagoons followed
by stabilization ponds. Efficiencies of these systems are expected to
be somewhat lower than those in Subcategory A 22 due to the fact that
effluent concentrations are approaching the lower limit achievable from
stabilization ponds, unless further treatment such as sand filtration
is added. It is also felt that spray irrigation of the final effluent
may be a viable alternative due to the rural locale of these distilleries.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a model plant was developed for grain distillers not
operating still age recovery systems. The wastewater characteristics
of the model plant were determined to be as follows:
Flow 91 cu m/day (0.024 MGD)
BOD 210 mg/1
SS 160 mg/1
TKN 7 mg/1
P 1 mg/1
Table 122 lists the effluent pollutant loadings and the estimated treat-
ment efficiency of each of the four treatment alternatives selected for
this subcategory. All treatment alternatives are illustrated in Figure
206.
Alternative A 23-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
of the raw waste effluent.
Alternative A 23-11 - This alternative consists of screening, a pumping
station, nutrient addition, and an aerated lagoon system. Screening
is assumed to have removed the large particles of debris which are
subsequently disposed as solid waste. Nutrient addition is provided
to increase the BOD:N:P deficit of the wastewater from 100:3.33:0.48
to the required 100:5:1. The aerated lagoon and settling pond would
provide an estimated BOD and suspended solids removal of 85.7 and 75.0
percent, respectively.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 85.7
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 75.0 percent.
Alternative A 23-1II - This alternative is identical to Alternative A
23-11 with the addition of dual-media filtration which would provide
an additional BOD and suspended solids removal of 7.2 and 12.5 percent,
651
-------
TABLE 122
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY A23
en
Treatment Train
Alternative
A 23-1
A 23-11
A 22-111
A 23- IV
Effluent BOD
(kg/kkg)
0.38
0.054
0.027
0
Effluent SS
(kg/kkg)
0.29
0.072
• 0.036
0
Percent BOD
Reduction
0
85.7
92.9
100
Percent SS
Reduction
0
75.0
87.5
100
o
£
TJ
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 210 MG/L
SS =160 MG/L
FLOW 91 CU M/DAY (0.02*
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE A23 II EFFLUENT
BOD = 30 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
DUAL -MED I A
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A23 IV EFFLUENT
BOD = 0 MG/L
SS = 0 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A23 III EFFLUENT
BOD = 15 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 206
SUBCATEGORY A23
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THROUGH IV
-------
DRAFT
respectively, over that of Alternative A 23-11. The overall benefit
of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 92.9 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 87.5 percent.
Alternative A 23-IV - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 23-11 with the addition of spray irrigation of
the treated effluent at a land cost of $4,100/hectare ($1,160/acre).
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD and suspended solids
reduction of 100 percent to navigable waters.
SUBCATEGQRY A 24 - MOLASSES DISTILLERS
Existing In-Plant Technology
As described in Section V, spent still age is the primary waste in molasses dis-
tilling. Three methods of stillage waste reduction exist: 1) the character
of the stillage may be changed by centrifuqing after fermentation to remove
yeast residues. According to Jackson (130) a reduction of up to nine percent
total solids can result from centrifugation. The spent yeast may either be
deposited on land, sold separately if a market exists, or be added to concen-
trated spent molasses for use as an animal feed supplemtn; 2) the volume of
the still age may be reduced by the use of indirect heat rather than live steam
in the still. As evidenced by the wine and grain distilling industry,
this change will reduce the flow from the bottom of the still by 15 to 30
percent, 3) the stillage may be evaporated such that the condensate is the
only wastewater discharge. In this case the majority of the organics are
concentrated into spent molasses by-product which must be marketed. At
this point both the technical and economic aspects of evaporation must
be explored.
Two U.S. molasses distilleries, Plants 85C43 and 85C44, currently have evap-
orators installed. Both of these plants alternate between citrus and
cane molasses. The evaporator condensate is cited (80, 81) as containing be-
tween 250 and 300 mg/1 BOD by both plants, although only sporadic sampling
had been conducted to substantiate this range. Plant 85C44 has been success-
fully evaporating cane molasses stillage with a stainless steel, six effect
evaporator system rated at 18,000 kg (40,000 Ib) per hour. A concentrate
of 50 percent solids is formed from 8 to 10 percent solids in the still age.
Scaling and fouling have been problems. Evaporators are presently operated
for six to seven hours, then shut down for two hours while 11,400 1 (3,000
gal) of 50 percent caustic is circulated through the system. Since most
of the scale develops in the first effect, this problem may be alleviated
by the installation of an additional effect to provide maintenance time.
If no additional effect is installed then storage tanks must be provided
for the stillage. It should be pointed out that evaporation has been
practiced elsewhere in the United States, as well as in Holland and
South Africa. Also, transfer technology from the yeast industry is feasible
since the raw product and resultant wastes are similar. Plant 99Y20, a
yeast manufacturer, has installed a three stage, multi-effect evaporation
system producing a condensate with approximately 600 mg/1 BOD. This
system is operated 20 hours per day with four hours cleanup. .
654
-------
DRAFT
Incineration, which has been used in some cases for disposal of the con-
centrated syrup, offers the possibility of potash recovery for fertilizer.
Two United States manufacturers, however, have found a market for the
concentrate as an animal feed supplement. One plant ships its concentrate
from Florida to Mississippi. Another plant finds it economical to barge
the by-product from New York to Louisiana.
Other methods for overall plant effluent reduction are the reuse of boiler/
cooling waters for fermenter rinse, barrel wash, general cleanup, or for
make-up in the raw molasses mixture. In addition, any caustic cleanup
may be reclaimed and adjusted for reuse instead of being sewered. These
methods are, of course, being currently practiced by some distillers.
Potential In-Plant Technology
Ahlgren (131) has tested ultra-filtration of rum distillery slops in con-
junction with evaporation in order to separate the insoluble materials into
a separate stream which would not require evaporation. This would be accom-
plished by a membrane separation technique which would remove the yeasts
and other particulates so that they could be recombined with the evaporator
concentrate for sale as animal food material.
Plant 85C34 has experimented with the use of stillage as make-up for the
raw molasses mixture. Since this practice may affect the taste of the
final product, it cannot be recommended for all molasses distillers; how-
ever, this practice as it is used in the grain distilling industry can
reduct eh amount of stillage up to 25 percent.
End-of-Li'ne Technology
A wide range of methods have been explored for the treatment of molasses
distillery effluents. Extensive studies (132) have shown that sedimentation
and coagulation are not satisfactory treatment alternatives since most of
the pollutants are in solution. Sen, ejb al, (133) reported that trickling
filters treating undiluted molasses distiTTery waste were not practical
due to the high organic concentration and low filtering rates required. The
activated sludge process has been shown to operate efficiently only when
treating a one percent solution of rum slops combined with domestic sewage
(134). When ten percent rum slops were mixed with domestic sewage, Burnett
(135) found that the neutralized, diluted waste treated by activated sludge
(25 percent average COD removal) could enhance further treatment.
Of all the treatment processes available for raw stillage, only anaerobic
digestion appears to be feasible. Bhaskaran (136) found that it was possible
to carry out anaerobic digestion of the raw waste at 37°C and a BOD loading
of 3.0 kg/day/cu m (0.183 Ib/day/cu ft) with a detention time of 10 days.
BOD removals greater than 90 percent were obtained while a ratio of 25:1
methane gas to waste volume was maintained. This treatment was followed
by activated sludge to produce an effluent with 63 mgl BOD. Seven plants
655
-------
DRAFT
in India and ten plants in Japan (137) are presently utilizing methane fer-
mentation combined with activated sludge to achieve 40 to 120 mgl BOD in
the final effluent. Bhaskaran also operated a pilot plant showing that a
quadruple effect forced circulation evaporator with forward feed achieving
a 60 percent concentrate is quite suitable for the subsequent incineration
and recovery of potassium salts for fertilizers.
Shea, e_t al_ (138) investigated the anaerobic contact process at the pilot
scale, and developed design criteria for full scale application. Capital,
operation, and maintenance costs were also estimated.
As previously described, the raw stillage may be evaporated rather than
treated. Plant 85C44 has recently built an extended aeration treatment
system designed only to handle the evaporator condensate. Other plant
wastes will be sent to landfill. Design parameters were 320 cu m/day
(0.085 MGD) at 200 mg/1 BOD. Figure 207 illustrates a flow diagram for
the system. Plant 85C43 has also just finished construction of an activated
sludge unit designed to handle both evaporator condensate and other plant
wastes. Existing plant loads are expected to average 104 cu m/day (27,600
GPD) at 1600 mg/1 BOD. Evaporator load is expected to be 276 cu m/day
(73,000 GPD) at 600 mg/1 BOD. No effluent data is presently available.
Figure 208 presents a flow diagram for the treatment system.
The two methods of treatment which were considered for the purpose of this
study were: 1) evaporation of raw stillage followed by activated sludge
treatment of condensate, or 2) use of anaerobic contact process for partial
treatment of raw stillage, followed by activated sludge. The former was
determined to be more cost effective when the additional treatment required
for the anaerobic process was considered. For this reason evaporation with
alternative treatment systems will be presented.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
The model plant developed in Section V for the rum distilling industry has
the following wastewater characteristics:
BOD 35,600 mg/1
SS 6,720 mg/1
Flow 818 cu m/day (0.216 MGD)
Process wastewater is assumed to be segregated from all non-contact water.
High strength wastes (molasses slops) are assumed to be 89 percent of the
total non-contact flow and to contain 99 percent of the BOD and 97 percent
of the suspended solids. When treated separately, high strength wastes and
all other wastes have the following wastewater characteristics:
High Strength Wastes All Other Wastes
BOD 39,100 mg/1 BOD 2,849 mg/1
SS 7,230 mg/1 SS 1,964 mg/1
Flow 738 cu m/day (0.195 MGD) Flow 79.5 cu m/day (0.021 MGD)
656
-------
AEROBIC
DIGESTOR
PH ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT ADDITION
(1) 2 KW
AERATOR
en
en
INFLUENT
VOLUME=
190 CU f'"
(1) 3 KW
AERATOR
RETURN SLUDGE
VOLUME =
405 CU M
(2) 7 KW
AERATORS
EQUALIZATION
AERATION
TANK
SLUDGE
-»-TO LAND
DISPOSAL
COOLING WATER
VOLUME
= 95 CU M
CHLORINE
CONTACT
VOLUME =
8300 CU M
AERATION
= 156 KW
EFFLUENT
CLARIFIER
AERATED
LAGOON
FIGURE 207
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85C43
-------
AEROBIC
DIGESTOR
RETURN SLUDGE
INFLUENT
VOLUME
=480 CU M
(2) 7 KW
AERATORS
AERATION
.QELk
SOR =
253 GPD
/SO FT
•*• LAND SPREADING
CLARIFIER
(1) 7 KW
AERATOR
DETENTION
=2.73 DAYS
AERATION
CELL
DETENTION
=2.73 DAYS
EFFLUENT
SETTLING
POND
FIGURE 208
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 85C44
-------
DRAFT
Table 123 shows the removal efficiencies of each of the treatment alternatives,
Figures 209 and 210 present simplified flow diagrams illustrating each of
the chosen treatment chains.
Alternative A 24-1 - This alternative adds no treatment to the model
plant"The efficiency of BOD and suspended solids removal is zero.
Alternative A 24-11 - This alternative consists of concentrating high
strength molasses slops (stillage) by multi-effect evaporation, and then
treating evaporator condensate and all other wastes with a treatment chain
consisting of a control house, a pumping station, flow equalization, nutrient
addition, a complete mix activated sludge system, sludge thickening, aerobic
digestion, vacuum filtration, sludge storage, and truck hauling. Evaporation
is predicted to remove 97 percent of the BOD and 99 percent of the suspended
solids from high strength wastes. Two day storage of distillery slops and
seven day storage of molasses by-product is provided, and all necessary
pumping equipment is included.
The predicted effluent concentration is 50 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 suspended
solids. The overall affect of Alternative A 24-11 is a 99.9 percent re-
duction of BOD and a 99.6 percent reduction of suspended solids.
Alternative A 24-111 - This alternative consists of adding dual media
filtration to the treatment chain in Alternative A 24-11. The predicted
effluent concentrations are 25 mg/1 of BOD and 15 mg/1 of suspended solids.
The overall effect of Alternative A 24-111 is a 99.9 percent reduction
of BOD, and a 99.8 percent reduction of suspended solids.
Alternative A 24-IV - This alternative consists of replacing vacuum
filtration in Alternative A 24-11 with spray irrigation. The predicted
effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 suspended solids. The
overall effect of Alternative A 24-IV is a 99.9 percent reduction of sus-
pended solids.
Alternative A 24-V - This alternative adds dual media filtration to the
treatment chain in Alternative A 24-IV. The predicted effluent concentra-
tions are 25 mg/1 BOD and 15 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of
Alternative V is a 99.9 percent reduction of BOD, and a 99.8 percent re-
duction of suspended solids.
Alternative A 24-VI - This alternative consists of replacing vacuum
filtration in Alternative A 24-11 with sand bed drying of sludge. The
predicted effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 suspended
solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 24-VI is a 99.9 percent re-
duction of BOD, and a 99.6 percent reduction of suspended solids.
Alternative A 24-VII - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative A 24-VI. The predicted effluent concentrations are 25 mg/1
659
-------
en
a
o
TABLE 123
SUBCATEGORY A 24
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Effluent BOD Effluent SS
Treatment Train
Alternative
A 24-1
A 24-11
A 24-111
A 24- IV
A 24-V
A 24-VI
A 24-VI I
A 24-VIII
A 24- IX
(kg/ 1000 proof
gallons)
969
1.16
0.58
1.16
0.58
1.16
0.58
1.16
0.58
(kg/ 1000 proof
gallons)
183
0.69
0.35
0.69
0.35
0.69
0.35
0.69
0.35
Percent BOD
Reduction
0
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
Percent SS
Reduction
0
99.6
99.8
99.6
99.8
99.6
99.8
99.6
99.8
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
RAW STILLAGE
BOD = 39,100 MG/L
SS = 7,230 MG/L
FLOW = 738 CU M/DAY (0.195 MGD)
TOTAL KN = 1,110 MG/L
TOTAL P = 55 MG/L
1
SLOPS
STORAGE
EVAPORATION
INFLUENT
OTHER PLANT WASTES
BOD = 2,849 MG/L
SS = 1,964 MG/L
FLOW = 80 CU M/DAY
(0.021 MGD)
BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
SLUDGE
THICKENING
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
— ALTERNATIVE
A24-II, IV VI
'EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 30 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A24-III,V, VII
EFFLUENT BOD .= 25 MG/L
SS = 15 MG/L
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FIGURE 209
SUBCATEGORY A24
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU IV
661
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
RAW STILLATE
BOD = 39,100 MG/L
SS = 7,320 MGA.
FLOW = 738 CU M/DAY (C.I95 MGD)
.TOTAL KN = 1,110 MG/L
TOTAL P = 55 MG/L
SLOPS
STORAGE
INFLUENT
OTHER PLANT WASTES
BOD = 2,849 MG/L
SS = 1,964 MG/L
FLOW = 80 CU M/DAY (0.021 MGD)
EVAPORATION
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE A24-VIII
EFFLUENT BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 30 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A24-IX
EFFLUENT BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 15 MG/L
FIGURE 210
SUBCATEGORY A24
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VIII THRU IX
662
-------
DRAFT
BOD and 15 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 24-
VII is a 99.9 percent reduction of BOD, and a 99.8 percent reduction of
suspended solids.
Alternative A 24-VIII - This alternative consists of replacing the
complete mix activated sludge system and sludge handling modules in
Alternative A 24-11 with aerated lagoons and settling ponds. The settling
ponds are dredged every five years. The predicted effluent concentrations
are 50 mg/1 BOD and 30 nuj/l suspended solids. The overall effect of
Alternative A 24-VIII is'a 99.9 percent reduction of BOD, and a 99.6 percent
reduction of suspended solids.
Alternative A 24-IX - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative A 24-VIII. The predicted effluent concentrations are 25 mg/1
BOD and 15 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 24-IX
is a 99.9 percent reduction of BOD, and a 99.8 percent reduction of sus-
pended solids.
SUBCATEGORY A 25 - BOTTLING AND BLENDING OF BEVERAGE ALCOHOL
In-Plant Technology
Non-contact cooling water may be separated and discharged to storm
sewers as in Plant 85011 or to navigable waters as in Plant 85013
if allowable. While this does not reduce pollutant loadings, it does
improve treatment economics. Residue from redistillation may be col-
lected in a holding tank for subsequent disposal. Bad product may be
collected and held rather than crushed and sewered. Demineralizer
water regeneration discharges may be collected and neutralized for
subsequent disposal. All other process wastes are assumed to be
minor in strength.
End-of-Line Technology
There are no known plants in this subcategory which discharge pollutants
to navigable waters.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V two model plants were developed for this subcategory.
It was assumed that the following wastes are collected in holding tanks:
redistillation residue, bad product, and demineralizer regeneration.
All other process wastes were separated from non-contact water. Raw
waste characteristics for the two model plants were:
A i
Flow 4 cu m/day (0.001 MGD) 40 cu m/day (0.010 MGD)
663
-------
DRAFT
The alternatives listed below all achieve 100 percent removal of raw
waste loading. Therefore, no discharge of pollutants to navigable
waters is recommended.
Alternative A 25-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the raw wastewater.
Alternative A 25-11 - This alternative provides daily truck hauling of
all plant process wastes to municipal treatment facilities or approved
land disposal sites. A holding tank is provided.
Alternative A 25-1II - This alternative provides truck hauling on a monthly
basis for rectifier bottlers. At this time redistillation residue, bad
production, and demineralizer regeneration are hauled. No truck hauling
is provided for small bottlers, however, since it was assumed in Section V
that their effluent contained no redistillation residue or bad product.
All other process wastes for both model plants are spray irrigated.
A holding tank, pump, and pipeline are provided.
SUBCATEGORY A 26 - SOFT DRINK CANNERS
In-Pi ant Technology
As identified in Section V, the major sources of waste for this sub-
category are filler spillage, mixing tank washing, and fill tank and
line washing. At present the reduction of waste from filler spillage
has not been fully addressed by soft drink manufacturers. Procedures
for collecting lost product have been established, however, by the malt
beverage industry. Applying this technology to the soft drink industry
would entail the collection and holding of lost product for separate
disposal. Mixing tank wastes could also be collected in order to reduce
the load on waste treatment systems. A portion of the water used to
flush full lines and fill tanks (the first two or three minutes or until
the flow is clear) could be similarly collected. These combined col-
lected wastes may then be disposed by landfilling, land spreading, or spray
irrigating. In long term planning some form of sugar recovery from
these collected wastes may be profitable.
End-of-Line Technology
As identified in Section V, the waste from soft drink canners contains
organic materials which are amenable to treatment by biological processes.
During the course of this study,data was collected from three plants
with wastewater treatment systems. Since these plants were all bottlers
the case histories will be presented in Subcategory 27. There is no
reason to suspect that similar systems, tailored to the effluent charac-
terisites of soft drink canners, would not function properly.
664
-------
DRAFT
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for soft drink canners. The
raw wastewater characteristics were assumed to be as follows:
Flow 229 cu m/day (0.0605 MGD)
BOD 1380 mg/1
SS 167 mg/1
N 23 mg/1
P 12.5 mg/1
Table 124 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the seven treatment alternatives selected for this
subcategory. The schematics of the treatment alternatives are illustrated
in Figures 211 and 212.
Alternative A 26-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the raw waste effl uent.
Alternative A 26-11 - This alternative consists of a control house,
flow equalization, nutrient addition, a complete-mix activated sludge
system, sludge thickening and spray irrigation of the thickened sludge.
Flow equalization is provided for two reasons: (1) the pH of the inter-
mittent flow from the plant can vary from 3.0 to 7.0 and, therefore,
equalization will provide neutralization without chemical addition, and
(2) to dampen shock loadings to the activated sludge system. Anhydrous
ammonia addition is provided to increase the wastewater BOD:N ratio
from 100:1.67 to the required 100:5. The activated sludge system would
provide an estimated 94.9 percent treatment efficiency. The sludge from
sludge thickening is spray irrigated at a land cost of $l,660/acre.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 76.0 percent.
Alternative A 26-111 - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 26-11 with the addition of dual-media filtration
which would provide an additional estimated BOD and suspended solids re-
duction of 2.6 and 12.1 percent, respectively. The overall benefit of
this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.5 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 88.1 percent.
Alternative A 26-IV - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 26-11 except spray irrigation of thickened
sludge is replaced by sludge hauling. The overall benefit of this
alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.9 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 76.0 percent.
Alternative A 26-V - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 26-IV
with the addition of dual-media filtration. The overall benefit of this
665
-------
TABLE 124
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY A 26
SOFT DRINK CANNERS
cr>
Treatment
Train
Alternative
A 26-1
A 26-11
A 26-111
A 26-IV
A 26-V
A 26-VI
A 26-V 1 1
Effluent
BOD
kg/cu m
1.02
0.052
0.026
0.052
0.026
0.052
0.026
Ef f 1 uent
SS
kg/cu m
0.123
0.030
0.015
0.030
0.015
0.030
0.015
Percent
BOD
Removed
0
94.9
97.5
94.9
97.5
94.9
97.5
Percent
SS
Removed
0
76
88.1
76
88.1
76
88.1
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 229 CU M/DAY
BOD = 1,380 MG/L
SS = 167 MG/L
N = 23 MG/L
P = 12.5 MG/L
(0.0605 MGD)
1
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
ALTERNATIVES
--». A 26-11, & IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 70 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
ALTERNATIVES
A 26-111 & V
EFFLUENT
BOD = 35 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 211
SUBCATEGORY A26
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 11 THRU V
667
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 229 CU M/DAY
BOD = 1,380 MG/L
SS = 167 MG/L
N = 23 MG/L
P = 12.5 MG/L
(0.0605 MGD)
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
NUTRIENT
ADC
)ITION
1
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
A 26-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 70 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
A 26-VII
EFFLUENT
BOD =35 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 212
SUBCATEGORY A26
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI AND VII
668
-------
DRAFT
alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.5 percent and a suspended solids re-
duction of 88.1 percent.
Alternative A 26-VI - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, nutrient addition, and an aerated lagoon. Flow
equalization and anhydrous ammonia addition are provided for the same
reasons given in Alternative A 26-11. It is assumed that the aerated
lagoon provides the same treatment efficiency as the activated sludge
system of the previous alternatives.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 76.0 percent.
Alternative A 26-VII - This alternative is identical to Alternative A
26-VI with the addition of dual media filtration. The overall effect
of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.5 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 88.1 percent.
SUBCATEGQRY A 27 - SOFT DRINK BOTTLING OR COMBINED BOTTLING/CANNING
PLANTS
In-Plant Technology
Plants in this subcategory can incorporate waste reduction measures dis-
cussed for soft drink canners, i.e., the collection and holding of filler
spillage (canners only), mixing tank washing, and fill tank and line washing.
In addition, wastes from.the bottle washer must be addressed. The character
of final rinse water was documented in Section V. This may be recirculated
to the prerinse section. Water pressure at the spray heads of bottle washers
may exceed manufacturers specifications. Pressure reducing stations may be
required to maintain specifications. Pressure reducing stations may be
required to maintain recommended levels. Solenoid valves may be installed
on city water inlets to cut off the rinse water completely when the washer
is not operating. Caustic can be metered into treatment system instead of
being dumped from soakers. Unused product left in returnable bottles may
be collected and disposed of separately along with other product wastes.
A similar method of disposal may be required for unused product left in
returnable cannisters.
End-of-Line Technology
Aerated lagoons or variations of activated sludge are both employed in the
treatment of soft drink wastes. Figures 213, 214, and 215 illustrate three
such systems. Plant 86A16 is a small bottler producing only 18 cu m
(4,900 gal) per day. The aerated lagoon and polishing lagoon system utilized
by this plant is achieving 92 percent BOD and 73 percent suspended solids
removal. Increased efficiencies could be expected, however, because at times
the aerator is not.operated.
The treatment system at plant 86A32 was undersigned and consequently is.now sev-
erely overloaded hydraulically. A considerable amount of study of in-plant waste-
water reduction has taken place. Nevertheless, it appears that the present system
669
-------
INFLUENT
AREA = 930QM
DEPTH = 3.4M
(1 ) 4KW AERATOR
AREA = 1760SQM
DEPTH = 2.4M
NO AERATION
EFFLUENT
AERATED
LAGOON
POLISHING
LAGOON
FIGURE 213
CONTROL AND TREATMEfJT
PLANT 86A16
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
EQUALIZATION
TANK
AERATION
CLARIFIER
AERATION
CHAMBER
(1) 4 KW AERATOR
VOLUME = 420 CU M
RETURN SLUDGE
AIR = (2) 11 KW
COMPRESSORS
VOLUME = 390 CU M
AIR = (1) 11 KW
COMPRESSORS
VOLUME = 22 CU M
SAND AND
GRAVEL
FILTER
CH_QRINE
CONTACT
CHAMBER
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 214
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 86A32
671
-------
PH AND
NUTRIENT
ADJUSTMENT
INFLUENT
EQUALIZATION
TANKS
en
SAND
FILTER
EFFLUENT
>•
FIGURE: 215
CONTROL AND TREATMENT
PLANT 86A29
-------
DRAFT
will have to be expanded. Current BOD removal is approximately 69 percent.
Effluent suspended solids levels were higher than those in the raw waste
due to overloaded sand filters which passed solids to the clear well.
Plant 86A29 is not yet operational, hence no effluent data is available.
Predicted values are 15 mg/1 for both BOD and suspended solids. Sludge
will be trucked to a larger treatment facility.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for soft drink canners. The raw
wastewater characteristics were assumed to be as follows:
Flow 477 cu m/day (0.126 MGD)
BOD 660 mg/1
SS 108 mg/1
N 11 mg/1
P 6 mg/1
Table 125 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the seven treatment alternatives selected for this
subcategory. The schematics of the treatment alternatives are illustrated
in Figures 216 and 217.
Alternative A 27-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the raw waste effluent.
Alternative A 27-11 - This alternative consists of a control house, flow
equalization, nutrient addition, a complete-mix activated sludge system,
sludge thickening and spray irrigation of the thickened sludge. Flow
equalization is provided for two reasons: (1) the pH of the intermittent
flow from the plant can vary from 3.0 to 7.0 and, therefore, equalization
will provide neutralization without chemical addition, and (2) to dampen
shock loadings to the activated sludge system. Anhydrous ammonia addition
is provided to increase the wastewater's BOD:N ratio from 100:1.67 to the
required 100:5. Acid neutralization is provided to accomodate the fre-
quently high alkalinity of the wastewater. The activated sludge system
would provide an estimated 89.4 percent treatment efficiency. The sludge
from sludge thickening is spray irrigated at a land cot of $l,660/acre.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 89.4 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 63.0 percent.
Alternative A 27-111 - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 26-11 with the addition of dual-media filtration
which would provide an additional estimated BOD and suspended solids re-
duction of 2.6 and 12.1 percent, respectively. The overall benefit of
this alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.7 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 81.5 percent.
Alternative A 27-IV - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules of Alternative A 26-11 except spray irrigation of thickened sludge
673
-------
TABLE 125
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES - SUBCATEGORY A27
ALL OTHER SOFT DRINK PLANTS
ALTERNATIVE
.A27
A27
A27
A27
A27
A27
A27
- I
- II
- Ill
- IV
- V
- VI
- VII
EFFLUENT
BOD
KG/CU M
2.30
0.24
0.123
0.24
0.123
0.24
0.123
EFFLUENT
SS
KG/CU M
0.38
0.14
0.07
0.14
0.07
0.14
0.07
PERCENT
BOD
REMOVAL
0
89.
94.
89.
94.
89.
PERCENT
SS
REMOVAL
0
63.
81.
94.7
63.0
81.5
63.0
81.5
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 477 CU M/DAY (0.126 MGD)
BOD =660 MG/L
SS = 108 MG/L
N = 11 MG/L
P = 6 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVES
A 27-111 & V
EFFLUENT
BOD = 35 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES
A 27-11 £. IV
-EFFLUENT
BOD = 70 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
^ FIGURE 216
SUBCATEGORY A27
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THRU V
675
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 477 CU M/DAY (0.126 MGD)
BCD = 660 MG/L
SS = 108 MG/L
N = 11 MG/L
P = 6 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
DJUSTMENT
NUTRIENT
ADD
ITION
AERATED'
LAGOON
i
SETTLING
PONDS
\
DUAL- MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
^ A 27-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 70 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
A 27-VII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 35 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 217
SUBCATEGORY A27
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI AND VII
676
-------
DRAFT
is replaced by sludge hauling. The overall benefit of this alternative is
a BOD reduction of 89.4 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 63.0
percent.
Alternative A 27-V - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 26-IV
with the addition of dual-media filtration. The overall benefit of this
alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.7 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 81.5 percent.
Alternative A 27-VI - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, nutrient addition, and an aerated lagoon. Flow
equalization and anhydrous ammonia addition are provided for the same
reasons given in Alternative A 26-11. It is assumed that the aerated
lagoon provides the same treatment efficiency as the activated sludge
system of the previous alternative.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 89.4
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 63.0 percent.
Alternative A 27-VII - This alternative is identical to Alternative A
26-VI with the addition of dual-media filtration. The overall effect
of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.7 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 81.5 percent.
SUBCATEGORY A 28 - BEVERAGE BASE SYRUPS AND/OR CONCENTRATES
Existing In-PI ant Technology
Wastewater generated from the manufacturing of beverage bases consists
solely of cleanup water as described in Section V. Most plants regulate
the amount of water used in all cleanup operations. Some plants discharge
non-contact water into the wastestream and others to storm sewers.
Potential In-Plant Technology
Assuming that 50 percent of the cleanup water is wash water and 50
percent is rinse water, recycling all or a major portion of rinse water
could conceivably reduce the quantity of wasteflow and water use by 50
percent. Additionally, recycling of caustic wash water and separation
of all non-contact water from the wastestream would substantially reduce
the volume of the process wastewater stream.
Reduction of pollutant loadings in the waste stream could be accomplished
by recycling of caustic wash water and by avoiding any spills during re-
ceiving ingredients and filling tank cars, drums, and containers.
End-of-Line Technology
Presently all known beverage manufacturers discharge wastewater to
municipal systems with no apparent adverse effects on the treatment
systems. The waste stream could be slightly deficient in nitrogen
based on the BOD:N:P ratio of 100:3.1:1.1 at Plant 87S09. However,
677
-------
DRAFT
the data is not sufficient to warrant a valid conclusion that nutrient
addition prior to biological treatment is necessary or desirable".
Based on these facts, along with consideration of the origins of the
wastewater and its characteristics, the wastewater is judged to be
amenable to biological treatment with or without nutrient addition.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for Subcategory A 28 with the following wastewater charac-
teristics was presented in Section V.
Flow 379 cu m/day (0.10 MGD)
BOD 2400 mg/1
SS 50 mg/1
pH 8.0
Table 126 lists the treatment alternatives and their expected efficiencies.
The treatment alternatives are illustrated in Figures 218 and 219.
Alternative A 28-1 - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalization basin and an aerated lagoon. The flow equalization
tank is recommended to provide a steady flow to the lagoon, preventing
shock loadings and thereby increasing the efficiency of the aerated
lagoon. Due the biodegradability of the wastewater, the aerated lagoon
would provide a BOD reduction of 95.8 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 40 percent.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 95.8
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 40 percent.
Alternative A 28-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization tank, a complete mix activated sludge basin, a
sludge thickener, an aerobic digester, a sludge holding tank and land
application of sludge following digestion. The flow equalization tank
is provided to dampen shock loadings to the activated sludge basin
which would be expected due to the variations in cleanup activity during
the day in a beverage base manufacturing plant. The activated sludge
basin.would reduce the BOD and suspended solids loadings of the waste-
water'to 100 mg/1 and 30 mg/1, respectively. A two day sludge holding tank
is provided to reduce the cost of haulinq sludae of land aDplica-
tion. The amount of land required to accommodate the yearly sludge
production is 85 ha (210 acres).
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 95.8
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 40 percent.
Alternative A 28-1II - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 28-11 except land spreading of sludge is re-
placed by vacuum filtration provides a significant sludge reduction as
678
-------
o
TABLE 126
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
BEVERAGE BASE SYRUPS AND/OR CONCENTRATES
Subcategory A28
Treatment
Alternative
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
A 28 -
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
Effluent
BOD
kg/cu m
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0
Effluent
SS
kg/cu m
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0
Percent
Reduction
BOD
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
97.9
97.9
97.9
97.9
98.9
98.9
98.9
98.9
100
Percent
Reduction
SS
40
40
40
40
80
80
80
80
90
90
90
90
100
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 3'79 CU M/DAY (0.10 MGD)
BOD = 2,400 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
--.-A 28-1
EFFLUENT
BOD = 100 MG/L
SS = 30 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
•-•-A 28-V
EFFLUENT
BCD = 50 MG/L
SS = 10 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE A28-IX
EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 5 MG/L
FIGURE 218
SUBCATEGORY A28
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES I, V, AND IX
680
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 379 CJ M/DAY (0.10 MGD)
BOD = 2,400 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
ALTERNATIVES
--» A 28-11 - IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 100 MG/L
SS = 30 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES
•-•-A 28-VI - VIII
EFFLUENT
BGD = 50 MG/L
SS = 10 MG/L
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVES A 28-X - XII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 25 MG/L
SS = 5 MG/L
FIGURE £19
SUBCATEGORY A28
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II-IV. VI-VIII, AND X-XII
681
-------
DRAFT
compared to Alternative A 28-11, thereby reducing hauling costs. A
seven-day sludge holding tank is provided to limit the frequency of
truck hauls, further reducing cost.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 95.8
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 40 percent.
Alternative A 28-1V - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 28-
II except the vacuum filter is replaced by sand drying beds. This results
in twice the sludge production of Alternative A 28-1II.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 95.8
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 40 percent.
Alternative A 28-V - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 28-1 with the addition of dual-media filtration
which provides an additional 40 percent overall BOD reduction of 2.1
percent and a suspended solids reduction of over any of the previous
alternatives.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.9
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 80 percent.
Alternative A 28-VI - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 28-11
with the addition of dual-media filtration.
The overall effect of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 80 percent.
Alternative A 28-VII - This alternative consists of the same modules
as Alternative A 28-111 with the addition of dual media filtration. The
overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 80 percent.
Alternative A 28-VI11 - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 28-IV with the addition of dual media filtration.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 80 percent.
Alternative A 28-IX - This alternative is identical to that of Alternative
A 28-V with the addition of activated carbon which would further reduce
the overall BOD and suspended solids loading of the wastewater by 1.0 percent
and 10 percent, respectively. The overall benefit of this alternative
is a BOD reduction of 98.9 percent and a suspended solids reduction of
90 percent.
Alternative A 28-X - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 28-VI
with the addition of activated carbon. The overall benefit of this al-
ternative is a BOD reduction of 98.9 percent and a suspended solids reduc-
tion of 90 percent.
682
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 28-XI - This alternative consists of the same modules as
Alternative A 28-VII with the addition of activated carbon. The overall
effect of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 98.9 percent and a sus-
pended solids reduction of 90 percent.
Alternative A 28-XII - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 28-VIII with the addition of activated carbon.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 98.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 90 percent.
Alternative A 28-XI11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a holding tank and spray irrigation which would required 8.1 ha (20 acres)
of land. The overall benefit of this alternative is a 100 percent reduc-
tion of pollutants.
SUBCATEGORY A 30 - INSTANT TEA
Existing In-Plant Technology - Existing methods of reducing wastewater
quantity and pollutant loadings include separation of non-contact cooling
water from process water, recirculation of non-contact water, and elimina-
tion of clarifier tea sludge from the process wastestream. Plant 99T04,
which separates non-contact cooling water from process water and does not
discharge clarifier tea sludge into its wastestream, exhibited a waste-
water quantity approximately 67 percent less than the rest of the
industry and BOD and suspended solids loadings approximately 78 and
83 percent less, respectively, than the rest of the industry. Plant
99T01 decreased waste flow by construction of a cooling tower and sub-
sequent recycling of cooling water as cooling tower makeup.
Potential In-Plant Technology - Separation of all non-contact cooling
water and boiler blowdown could be implemented to reduce wastewater
quantity. Recycling of non-contact water could also reduce overall
water use in the plants. Pollutant reductions in the process wastestream
could be realized by disposal of clarifier tea sludge separately from
the wastestream. This could be accomplished by centrifugation of the
sludge with the solids portion subsequently utilized as cattlefeed or
disposed as solid waste.
Additionally, the reuse of fresh rinse water as makeup for the caustic
and acid rinses could conceivably reduce wastewater from equipment cleanup
by as much as 60 percent. This is based on the assumption that each
of the five cleanup cycles comprises 20 percent of the total equipment
cleanup flow. Therefore if three cycles were reused,60 percent less
wastewater would be generated. Caustic and acid rinses could conceivably
be recycled» to further reduce waste volume. The use of low output, hign
pressure nozzles for external equipment cleanup and floor washing
could also reduce wastewater volume.
End-of-Line Technology - Instant tea process wastewater has been shown
to be biodegradable and well suited for biological treatment. Presently,
683
-------
DRAFT
two instant tea manufacturing plants operate secondary treatment systems
to reduce pollutant loadings prior to municipal discharge. The treatment
system flow diagram for plant 99T01 is illustrated in Figure 220.
The treatment system consists of the following major components.
1. A 53 cu m (0.014 MG) primary clarifier for refnoval of settleable
solids.
2. A 680 cu m (0.180 MG) activated sludge tank which is aerated by
the addition of diffused air.
3. A 409 cu m (0.108 MG) aerobic digestor aerated by use of diffused
air.
4. A 20-foot diameter secondary clarifier with a volume of
121 cu m (0.032 MG).
5. Adjustment of wastestream pH by the addition of limewater
prior to aeration.
The detention time of the activated sludge system is 24 hours minimum,
48 hours maximum. Sludge generation from the aerobic digestor totals
approximately 400 Kg/day (900 Ib/day) of dry sd-lids at 2 to 4 percent
solids concentration. The overall efficiency of the treatment system
is a BOD reduction of 87 percent and a suspended solids reduction of
52 percent.
The wastewater treatment system at plant 99T04 has the following major
components:
1- Screening of wastewater with solids going to landfill.
2. A 40 cu m (0.01 MG) equalization tank.
3. A 285 cu m (0.075 MG) activated sludge basin with a detention
time ranging from 36 to 48 hours and with aeration provided by
two mechanical aerators.
4. Two rectangular clarifiers in parallel.
5. An aerobic digestor, mechanically aerated, with sludge disposal
to a cesspool.
6. Gaseous ammonia addition for neutralization of raw wastewater
prior to activated sludge basin.
The system has been in operation for less than 12 months and some difficulty
in optimizing efficiency is being experienced. The overall efficiency
of the treatment system at this plant is a BOD reduction of 88 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 52 percent. Higher efficiencies
would be expected after operation optimization.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant was developed for instant tea processing in Section V. The
raw wastewater characteristics were assumed to be as follows:
Flow: 454 cu m/day (0.12 MGD)
BOD : 1000 mg/1
SS : 750 mg/1
pH : 5.0 to 6.8
684
-------
DRAFT
TEA PROCESS INFLUENT
PH ADJUSTMENT
14,000 GAL
CAPACITY
160,000 GAL.
CAPACITY
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATION BASIN
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
loa.ooo GAL
CAPACITY
CONDAR
CLARIFER
22,000 GAL
CAPACITY
FIGURE 220
SECONDARY TREATMENT OF INSTANT TEA PROCESS WASTEWATER
PLANT 99T01
685
-------
DRAFT
Table 127 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Figures 221 and 222 illustrate the treatment alternatives.
Alternative A 30-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment to
the raw waste effluent.
Alternative A 30-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, primary clarification, a complete mix activated sludge
system, a sludge thickener, an aerobic digester, and a vacuum filter. Flow
equalization is provided to dampen the effects of shock loading to the
system which would be expected due to variations in cleanup activities
during the day. The primary clarifier is assumed to remove 20 percent
of the BOD and 33 percent of the suspended solids. The activated sludge
system is designed for a BOD loading of 800 Ibs per day, a detention time
of 34 hours, and a BOD reduction of 96 percent. The reduction of BOD
is assumed based on the high biodegradability of the waste and the data
from existing systems. The quantity of sludge from the vacuum filter is
estimated at 1500 I/day (400 gal/day) for a yearly total of 219 x 105 cu m
(773 cu yd) of sludge to be hauled.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 96 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 85.3 percent.
Alternative A 30-11I - This alternative consists of the same modules
as Alternative A 30-11 except vacuum filtration is replaced by sand
drying beds-resulting in twice the amount of sludge to be hauled per
year than that of Alternative A 30-11.
Alternative A 30-IV - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, and an aerated lagoon. The lagoon volume is 10,900 cu m
(2.88 MG). The overall efficiency of this alternative is a BOD reduction
of 96 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 85.3 percent.
Alternative A 30-V - This alternative consists of the same modules as
Alternative A 30-11 with the addition of dual-media filtration. The
overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 98 percent and
a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 30-VI - This alternative is identical to that of Alternative
A 30-111 with the addition of dual-media filtration. The overall benefit
of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 98 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 30-VII - This alternative consists of the same modules as
Alternative A 30-IV except for the addition of dual media filtration. The
bverall benefit of this system is a BOU reduction of 98 percent and a suspend*
solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 30-VI11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station
and flow equalization followed by spray irrigation. The land require-
ment for this alternative is 9.7 ha (24 acres) and it is assumed that
686
-------
TABLE 127
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Subcategory A 30
(INSTANT TEA)
Treatment Train
Alternative
A30-I
A30-II
A30-III
§ A30-IV
A30-V
A30-VI
A30-VII
A30-VIII
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
50
2.00
2.00
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
37.5
5.50
5.50
5.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
Percent
Removal
BOD
0
96
96
96
98
98
98
100
Percent
Removal
SS
0
85.3
85.3
85.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
100
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 454 CU M/DAY (0.12 MGD)
BOD = 1,000 MG/L
SS = 750 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
L.
ALTERNATIVES
" A 30-11, III
EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS = 110 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES
- A 30-V, VI
EFFLUENT
BOD =20 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FIGURE 221
SUBCATEGORY A30
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II, III, V, AND VI
688
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 454 CU M/DAY (0.12 MGD)
BOD = l.OOO MG/L
SS = 750 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE
--— A 30-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS = 110 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A 30-VII
EFFLUENT
BOS = 20 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 2?2
SUBCATEGORY A30
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES IV AND VII
689
-------
DRAFT
the spray field will be a maximum of one-half mile from the plant.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD and SS reduction of
100 percent in terms of discharge to navigable waters.
SUBCATEGORY C 8 - COFFEE ROASTING UTILIZING ROASTER WET SCRUBBERS
In-Plant Technology
At the present time, no measures are employed to reduce the strength
of the wastewater from coffee roaster wet scrubbers. The volume of flow
from the wet scrubbers is determined by the degree of odor control des/ired
and the type of scrubber used. The flow can be minimized by selecting a
type of wet scrubber which effects the desired degree of odor removal
with the least amount of water consumption.
One plant contacted during this study and a pilot plant study indicate
that a recirculating type of roaster wet scrubber can be utilized. The
use of a recirculating type of scrubber could reduce the volume of waste-
water generated per kkg (ton) of product by more than 90 percent. The
solids which accumulate in the recirculation tank could be disposed of in
a landfill. In this way, wastewater discharge from roaster wet scrubbers
could be nominal.
End-of-Line Technology
Coffee roasting plants which utilize roaster wet scrubbers normally dis-
charge their wastewater to municipal systems. Since roaster wet scrubber
wastewater is not particularly strong (BOD of 100 to 500 mg/1 and
suspended solids of about 200 mg/1), municipal treatment systems have been
able to treat the wastes with no difficulty. As a result, no information
has been developed on possible methods for treating the wastewater from
roaster wet scrubbers.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V of this document, a model plant was developed for coffee
roasting utilizing once-through roaster wet scrubbers. The raw waste-
water characteristics without screening were as follows:
BOD 350 mg/1
SS 200 mg/1
Flow 0.063 mid (0.017 mgd)
Since the strength of coffee roaster wet scrubber wastewater is approximately
that of normal domestic sewage, no pretreatment before discharge to
municipal systems should be necessary. It is assumed that conventional
biological treatment methods are applicable to these wastes because of
their similarity to municipal sewage.
Table 128 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the five treatment trains selected for this sub-
category.
690
-------
TABLE 128
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
cr>
10
Treatment Train
Alternative
C 8
C 8
C R
r. R
C 8
- I
- II
- TTI
- IV
- V
A
BEGKQSV
BEGKOSVN
BL
BLN
Effluent
BOD
kq/kkg
0.76
0.043
0.021
0.076
0.038
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
0.43
0.043
0.013
0.086
0.025
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
95
97
90
95
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
90
97
80
94
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 8 - I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
Alternative C 8 - II - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
caustic neutralization, a primary clarifier, an activated sludge aeration
basin, secondary clarifier, sludge thickening vacuum filtration, and
sludge pumping and storage.
Alternative C 8 - III - This alternative consists of all of the treatment
modules of Alternative C 8 - II with the addition of dual media pressure
filtration and the associated pumping station. A schematic diagram of
Alternative C 8 - III is shown in Figure 223.
Alternative C 8 - IV - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
aerated lagoons, and associated settling ponds.
Alternative C 8 - V - This alternative consists of the treatment modules
of Alternative C 8 - IV with the addition of a dual media pressure
filtration and the associated pumping station. A schematic diagram of
Alternative C 8 - V is shown in Figure 224.
SUBCATEGORY C 9 - DECAFFEINATION OF COFFEE
In-Plant Technology
Currently efforts to reduce the waste load from plants producing decaf-
feinated coffee center on instruction of the personnel in water con-
servation. Since the equipment and floors are wet cleaned, the
volume of wastewater generated can be minimized by use of efficient
cleanup procedures. Some plants, especially those which are subject
to municipal surcharge programs, also stress the handling of screened
solids for disposal as solid waste.
Reductions in wastewater volume could be achieved through elimination of
the dewatering screen or redesigning it to reduce the quantity of water
required to prevent clogging of the screen. In addition, water meters
could be installed at the cleanup stations to make cleanup personnel
accountable for their water usage.
Reductions in wastewater strength could be accomplished by segregation
of the wastewater sources within the decaffeination process; e.g., the
high strength/low volume waste stream from centrifuge blowdown could
be handled as a sludge and hauled away for land disposal (burial).
In addition, by installing a storage tank, the equipment cleaning
solutions could be used several times before becoming so dirty that
they must be disposed to the waste stream; currently these cleaning
solutions are used only once.
692
-------
DRAFT
SLUDGE
THICKENING
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
INFLUENT
BDD = 350 MG/L
SS = 200 MG/L
FLOW = 0.065 MLD (0.017 MGD)
PUMPING STATION
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATION BASIN
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
DUAL MEDIA FILTER
CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
NUTRIENT ADDITION
„ ALTERNATIVE C 8 - II
EFFLUENT
BOD - 20 MG/L
SS = .20 MG/L
FLOW = 0.065 'MLD
(0.017 MGD )
TRUCK HAUL
ALTERNATIVE C 8 -III EFFLUENT
BOD = 10 MG/L
SS = . 6 MG/L
FLOW = 0.065 MLD (0.017 MGD)
FIGURE 223
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 8 - II AND ITI
693
-------
DRAFT
i
CO
u
<
CD
INFLUENT
BOD
SS
FLOW
= 350 MG/L
= 200 MG/L
= 0.065 MLD (0.017 MGD)
PUMPING STATION
CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
AERATED LAGOON
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SETTLING
POND
SETTLING
POND
DUAL MEDIA FILTER
ALTERNATE C 8 - IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 35 MG/L
SS =40 MG/L
FLOW = 0.065 MLD
(0.017 MGD)
ALTERNATIVE C 8 - V EFFLUENT
BOD = 18 MG/L
SS = 10 MG/L
FLOW = 0.065 MLD (0.017 MGD)
FIGURE 224
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 8 IV AND V
• 694
-------
DRAFT
End-of-Line Technology
All of the decaffeinated coffee producers in this country discharge
their wastes to municipal treatment systems;.therefore, no complete
treatment systems are currently used to treat this type of wastewater.
Three plants are known to utilize primary clarification followed by a
multi-stage evaporative concentrator to pre-treat their soluble and/or
decaffeination coffee process wastewaters prior to discharge to municipal
sewers.
Some producers of decaffeinated coffee, in this country and abroad,
have conducted studies on the characteristics and treatability of
coffee processing wastes. The National Coffee Association has reported (139)
that the wastewater is biologically treatable. Municipalities currently
receiving coffee decaffeination wastewater report no particular problems
in treating the waste. Unlike soluble coffee process wastewater, the
color characteristics of this wastewater are such that they apparently
do not create a problem during treatment.
Selection of Control and Treatment Alternatives
In Section V, a model plant ,was developed for decaffeinated coffee
production. It was assumed that the model plant provided screening
of its wastewater prior to discharge. The raw wastewater characteristics
were assumed as follows:
1. Flow rate - average - 0.24 mid (70,000 gpd)
2. BOD - 864 mg/1
3. SS - 1590 mg/1
4. pH - 4.3 to 7.2
5. 3.8 kg BOD per kkg of green coffee processed
6. 7.0 kg SS kkg of green coffee processed
7. N - 0 mg/1 (deficient)
8. P - 0 mg/1 (deficient)
Tablel291ists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the three treatment trains selected for this
subcategory. A schematic diagram of all of the following alternatives
is shown in Figure 225.
Alternative C 9 - I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
695
-------
TABLE 129
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Treatment Train
Alternative
C 9 -
C 9 -
C 9 -
I
II
III
- A
- BCEGVY
- BCEGHIKQVNY
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
3.8
2.5
0.09
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
7.0
1.8
0.09
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
35
97
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
75
99
>£>
en
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
SLUDGE
THICKENING
VACUUM
F ILTRATION
BOD = 864 MG/L
SS = 1590 MG/L
FLOW = 0.24 MLD (0.070 MGD)
PUMPING STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
-»-ALTERNATIVE C 9 - II
EFFLUENT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATION BASIN
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
BOD = 560 MG/L
SS = 400 MG/L
FLOW = 0.24 MLD
(0.07 MGD)
NUTRIENT ADDITION
DUAL MEDIA FILTER
SLUDGE
STORAGE
TRUCK HAUL
ALTERNATIVE C 9 - III EFFLUENT
BOD =20 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FLOW = 0.24 MLD (0.070 MGD)
FIGURE 225
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE C 9-1 I, III AND IV
697
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 9 - II - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization basin, primary clarifier, caustic neutralization,
vacuum filter, and sludge storage tank.
Alternative C 9 - III - This alternative consists of the treatment
modules of Alternative C 9 - II plus nitrogen,addition, phosphorus
addition, activated sludge aeration basin, secondary clarifier,
sludge thickening, a dual media filter, and associated pumping
station.
SUBCATEGORY C 10 - SOLUBLE COFFEE
In-Plant Technology
Currently the efforts of soluble coffee manufacturers to reduce the
waste load from their plants center around reduction of water consumption.
Cleanup personnel in some plants are educated in water conservation
practices. Contact and non-contact waste streams have been separated
in many plants to permit the reuse or direct discharge to navigable waters
of non-contact wastewaters.
Sev'eral other procedures could be utilized to control wastewater from
soluble coffee plants. Use of rotary drying in lieu of grounds pressing
as a means of reducing the moisture content of spent grounds sub-
stantially reduces the plant waste load. However, rotary drying uses
more energy than grounds pressing. One plant contacted indicated that
it was planning on installing water meters at each cleaning station.
The cleanup foreman would then be responsible for insuring that water
consumption was within the prescribed limits. One plant contacted
indicated that they planned to install a storage tank to permit recovery
and reuse of caustic cleaning solutions.
End-of-line Technology
All soluble coffee plants discharge to municipal sewers. In most cases
the municipal treatment systems are ones serving large cities, with the
result that the wastewater from the coffee plant is only a small per-
centage of the average daily flow through the treatment facility. Where
this situation exists, the municipal treatment systems reportedly are
capable of adequately treating the soluble coffee plant wastewater.
However, soluble coffee plants which are located in small municipalities
have found that the municipal treatment systems are incapable of treating
their entire wasteload. Chalmers (140) has studied this problem, and in
at least three instances soluble coffee plants (two are in the United
States) have installed pre-treatment systems which utilize clarifiers
and multi-stage evaporative concentrators to remove a majority of
the waste load (especially suspended solids and color) from the waste
stream. The resulting condensate is then discharged to the municipal
treatment system for further treatment, and the concentrated sludge is
disposed by burial on land or ocean dumping. The capital cost and the
operation and maintenance cost for evaporative condensers as a treatment
method are high. A significant percentage of the operating cost is for
energy, both electrical consumption and fuel oil.
698
-------
DRAFT
One plant of these three plants plans to replace its evaporative
condenser pre-treatment system with a physical-chemical pre-treatment
system utilizing air flotation or centrifugation, chemical addition, and
carbon absorption for suspended solids and color removal. Pilot tests
of this system are just beginning and final selection of the treatment
modules to be utilized has not been made. As a result this method of
treatment could not be included within the scope of this report at the
present time.
In addition, it has been reported that at least one complete
treatment facility for soluble coffee wastewater is operating outside
this country. Information concerning this treatment system is not
published and unavailable at the present time.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for soluble coffee processing.
It was assumed that the model plant provided screening of its wastewater
prior to discharge. The raw wastewater characteristics after screening
were assumed as follows:
1. Flow - 0.62 mid (0.18 mgd)
2. BOD - 2400 mg/1
3. SS - 1560 mg/1
4. pH - 4 to 5
5. N - 0 mg/1 (deficient)
6. P - 0 mg/1 (deficient)
7. Color - 2775 Cobalt - platinum units
Tablel301ists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the four treatment trains selected for this sub-
category.
Alternative C 10 - I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
Alternative C 10-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization basin, primary clarifier, multi-stage evaporative
concentrator, caustic neutralization and sludge storage tank. The
removal efficiencies shown in Table ISOfor Alternative C 10-11 are based
on data collected during this study from a plant employing this treatment
train. A schematic diagram of Alternative C 10-II is shown in Figure 226.
The primary purpose of this treatment train is the removal of color.
699
-------
TABLE 130
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Treatment Train
Alternative
C 10 -
C 10 -
C 10 -
C 10 -
I -
II -
III -
IV -
A
BCED1GVY
BCEGHIKQSVNY
BCED1GHIKQSVY
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
18.8
1.9
0.47
0.19
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
12.3
0.25
0.35
0.04
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
90
96
99
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
99
94
99+
o
TO
-n
o
o
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 2400 MG/L
SS = 1560 MG/L
FLOW = 0.62 MLD (O.I 8 MGD )
PUMPING STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
TRUCK HAUI SLUDG
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
SLUDGE
THICKENING
QUADRUPLE-EFFECT
EVAPORATIVE CONCENTRATOR
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
' AERATION BASIN
CAUSTIC NEUTRALISATION
NUTRIENT ADDITION
— ALTERNATIVE C 10-11
EFFLUENT
- BOD = 240 MG/L
SS = 10 MG/L
FLOW = 0.62 MLD
(0.18MGD)
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
1
ALTERNATIVE C 10 - IV EFFLUENT
BOD
SS
FLOW
25 MG/L
5 MG/L
0.18 MGD
TRUCK
HAUL
FIGURE 226
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 10 TI AND IV
701
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 10-111 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization basin, primary clarifter, caustic neutralization,
nitrogen addition, phosphorus addition, activated sludge aeration basin,
secondary clarifier, sludge pumping, sludge thickening, vacuum filter,
sludge storage, and dual media filter. A schematic diagram of Alternative
C 10-111 is shown in Figure 2Z7.This alternative is presented for use at
plants which do not have a significant color problem associated with
their wastewater.
Alternative C 10-IV - This alternative consists of the treatment modules
of Alternative C 10-11 plus nitrogen addition, phosphorus addition,
activated sludge aeration basin, secondary clarifier, sludge pumping,
sludge thickener, vacuum filter, and sludge storage. A schematic
diagram of Alternative C 10-IV is shown in Figure 226.
SUBCATEGORY F 1 - TEA BLENDING
As described in Sections III and V of this document, the blending of tea
is a dry process generating no wastewater. Therefore, no wastewater
control and treatment technology is necessary.
SUBCATEGORY C 1 - BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS
In-Pi ant Technology
In-plant technology and procedures aimed at reducing waste load are
primarily divided into two subcategories: production procedures, and
cleanup operations. Since essentially all wastewater originates from
cleaning equipment, both existing and potential methods of reducing
either the strength or volume of the waste stream are aimed at less
frequent wet cleaning of equipment.
Existing In-Pi ant Technology - With pan washing as the greatest single
source of high strength waste, considerable efforts have been made to
reduce or eliminate this operation. Cake bakeries attempt to wash
their pans as infrequently as possible; however, the majority still
wash the pans after each use. Some types of cakes, particularly the
snack cakes, are amenable to production methods which eliminate pan
washing entirely; however, full size cakes are almost universally baked
in pans that do require wet cleaning. Three approaches to decreasing
the pan washing waste load have been noted:
1. Dry cleaning the cake pans to the greatest extent possible
2. Baking cakes in one-way containers; e.g., aluminum foil pans
or paper cupcake liners which also serve as partial containers
for the finished product
3. The complete elimination of cake pans
702
-------
DRAFT
SLUDGE
THICKENING
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
TRUCK
HAUL
INFLUENT
BOD = 2400 MG/L
SS = 1560 MG/L
FLOW = 0.62 MLD (0.18 MGD)
PUMPING STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATION BASIN
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
DUAL MFDIA FILTER
CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
EFFLUENT
BOD = 60 MG/L
SS = 45 MG/L
FLOW = 0.62 MLD (0.18 MGD)
FIGURE 227
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE C 10 - III
703
-------
DRAFT
Modifications and approaches to cleaning equipment in the plant itself
have and will continue to decrease waste loads. In general, management
of bakeries stresses the dry cleaning of as much equipment as possible
before it is cleaned with water, particularly bakeries which have their
own wastewater treatment facilities. In such plants, mixers, vats, hand
utensils, and conveyors are cleaned as thoroughly as possible by hand
using rubber scrapers, rags, and air hoses. Then they are either moved
to the wash room or for larger equipment, they are washed using their
clean-in-place system. The success of this approach in reducing the
waste load appears to hinge on the motivation of the individual workers
within the bakery. The extra effort required in thoroughly scraping a
vat or mixer may appear to be busy work to many employees, and they must
be continually reminded of the importance of thorough dry cleaning before
the use of water in cleaning any equipment.
Potential In-Plant Technology - Potential methods of reducing a cake
bakery's waste load hinge on decreasing the amount of wet cleaning
required. The reduction or elimination of pan washing using one of the
approaches listed above will have the greatest impact on reducing the
strength of a bakery's waste stream. Increased stress on dry cleaning,
particularly of equipment taken to the wash room for final wet cleaning,
will minimize the amounts of pollutants entering the waste stream.
Another potential approach is a decrease in the number of varieties
of cakes and pies produced in a single bakery. Some bakeries make
hundreds of varieties of cakes. After the mixing and depositing of
the batter and filling for each variety of cake, the equipment is usually
cleaned before the next variety of cake is mixed. These variety-induced
cleanings occur as frequently as every two hours. By reducing the number
of product variations, a bakery can reduce its waste load.
End-of-Line Technology
Only one bakery in this subcategory is known to have a wastewater treat-
ment system that approaches the degree of treatment required prior to
discharge to navigable waters. The facility is atypical to this sub-
category in that the bakery is located where treatment plant effluent
can be disposed of via infiltration lagoons. Another unusual feature
is the fact that the system employs physical-chemical methods rather
than biological treatment. The treatment system is shown as a block
diagram in Figure 228.
While the facility achieves up to 96 percent removal of BOD, from about
28,000 mg/1 to l,400mg/l, the operation of the system is still somewhat
in the shakedown phase. Considerable experimentation is continuing and
reliable operation is apparently operator sensitive as witnessed by the
fact that the designer of the system has been retained as its chief
operator. Additionally, with the outlawing of infiltration as a disposal
704
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
PUMPING STATION
CHEMICAL TANKS
SCREENS
SOLIDS TO TRUCK
FERRIC CHLORIDE
LIME SLURRY
ALUMINUM
SULFATE
ANIONIC
POLYELECTROLYTE
FLOW EQUALIZATION
TANK
BACKWASH
TANK
FIRST CLARIFIER
SECOND CLARIFIER
SLUDGE TANK
1
CHLORINE CONTACT
TANK
INFILTRATION
LAGOONS
CENTRIFUGE
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK
FIGURE 228
PHYSICAL - CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF
BAKERY WASTES - SUBCATEGORY C2
705
-------
DRAFT
method in the location of the bakery, additional refinement of this
system and/or additional treatment modules will have to be incorporated
to accommodate surface discharge. Thus, this physical-chemical approach
may serve as a pre-treatment to a conventional biological system, but
will not provide the degree of treatment needed for surface discharge,
at least in its present configuration.
Sludge disposal is receiving some attention by bakeries in this and
other subcategories. One bakery spray irrigates its sludge. Two plants
are experimenting with feeding the sludge to cattle.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a model plant was developed for the production of cakes,
pies, doughnuts, and sweet yeast goods utilizing pan washing. The
wastewater was screened prior to discharge, and its characteristics
after screening were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 28,000 mg/1 or 94.2 kg/kkg
SS 5,000 mg/1 or 16.8 kg/kkg
Oil & 500 mg/1 or 1.7 kg/kkg
Grease
pH 6.0 to 7.0
N 2 mg/1
P 20 mg/1
Flow 0.45 mid (120,000 gpd)
Production 135 kkg/day (150 tons/day)
Table 131 lists the effluent characteristics and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative C 1 - I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the wastewater.
Alternative C 1 - II - This alternative consists of the treatment modules
used in the physical-chemical treatment system described above. Exceptions
are the elimination of the chlorine contact tank, infiltration lagoons
and associated equipment. Solids and sludge are assumed to be truck hauled
to a sanitary landfill.
706
-------
TABLE 131
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES -
SUBCATEGORY C 1
Treatment Train
Alternative
C 1 - I A
C 1 - II BCDEEOV
C 1 - III BCDEEHIKQSVO
C 1 - IV BCDEEHIKQSVNO
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
94.2
4.7
0.47
0.24
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
16.8
0.50
0.34
0.17
Effluent
0 & G
kg/kkg
1.7
0.02
0.01
0.005
Percent
BOD
Reductions
0
95
99
99
Percent
SS
Reductions
0
97
98
99
Percent
0 & G
Reductions
0
99
99
99
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 1 -HI - This alternative consists of the treatment modules
of Alternative C 1 - II with additions as listed below:
1. An activated' sludge treatment system including secondary
clarification and additional pipe line.
2. A sludge thickener and vacuum filter to handle the additional
sludge generated. Additional truck haul for sludge has been
included.
A schematic diagram of Alternatives C 1 - III and C 1 - IV is shown
in Figure 229.
Alternative C 1 - IV - This alternative consists of the treatment modules
of Alternative C 1 - III with the addition of a dual media pressure
filter.
SUBCATEGORY C 2 - CAKES. PIES. DOUGHNUTS. AND SWEET YEAST GOODS NOT
UTILIZING PAN WASHING
In-Plant Technology
In-plant technology and procedures aimed at reducing waste load are
primarily divided into two areas: production procedures and cleanup
operations. Since essentially all wastewater originates from the
cleaning of equipment, both existing and potential methods of reducing
either the strength or volume of the waste stream are aimed at less
frequent wet cleaning.
Existing In-Plant Technology - Modifications and new approaches to
cleaning equipment in the plant itself have and will continue to
Mecrease waste loads. In general, management of bakeries stresses the
dry Cleaning of as much equipment as possible before it is cleaned
with water. The success of this approach in reducing the waste load
hinges on the motivation of the individual workers within the bakery.
The extra effort required in thoroughly scraping a vat or a mixer may
appear to be busy work to many employees, and they must be continuously
reminded of the importance of thorough dry cleaning before using water
to clean equipment.
Potential In-Plant Technology - Potential methods of reducing a cake
bakery's waste load hinge on decreasing the amount of wet cleaning
required. Continued and increased stress on dry cleaning, particularly
equipment taken to the wash room for final wet cleaning, will minimize
the amount of pollutants entering the waste stream.
The volume of a bakery's waste stream can be reduced through better
management of the clean-in-place features of larger equipment. Where
CIP operations include prerinse, wash, and final rinse phases, the reuse
of one cleaning cycle's final rinse for the next cycle's prerinse would
reduce the amount of waste.
708
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 28,000 MG/L
SS = 5,000 MG/L
O&G = 500 MG/L
CHEMICAL TANKS
FERRIC CHLORIDE
I LIME SLURRY }-
ALUMINUM
SULFATE
ANIONIC
POLYELECTROLYTE
SLUDGE
THICKENING
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SOLIDS TO
TRUCK HAUL
PUMPING STATION
SCREENS
FLOW EQUALIZATION
TANK
BACKWASH
TANK
FIRST CLARIFIER
SECOND CLA-RIFIER
SLUDGE TANK
CENTRIFUGE
AERATION BASIN
CLARIFIER
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
—-^-ALTERNATIVE Ci - III
EFFLUENT
BOD = 140 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
O&G = 2 MG/L
MULTI-MEDIA
FILTER
ALTERNATIVE Cl - IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 70 MG/L
SS = 50 MG/L
O&G = 1 MG/L
FIGURE 229
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES Cl -III AND Cl - IV
709
-------
DRAFT
Another potential approach is a decrease in the number of varieties of
Items produced in a single bakery or on a single production line. Usually
when variety changes are made, several pieces-of equipment must be wet
cleaned. The items involved include mixers, depositors, and intercon-
necting pipes and pumps. These variety-induced cleanings occur as
frequently as every two hours. By reducing the number of product
variations, a bakery can reduce its waste load.
End-of-Line Technology
Only one bakery in this subcategory is known to have a wastewater
treatment system discharging to navigable waters. This treatment plant
is shown schematically in Figure230, It has keen-developed and modified
over several years. It has provided adequate treatment for the
_ba_kery's waste. The mest_ recent performance data indicate BOD and
suspended solids reductions averagingT9 percent and 98 percent,
respectively. The plant was designed to handle 0.195 mid (50,000 gpd)
with a BOD concentration of 2,500 mg/1 (a BOD loading of 473 kg per day
or 1,040 Ib per day). Currently, the average daily flow is approx-
imately 90 percent of design and BOD concentrations average 2,210.
The BOD concentrations in the effluent currently average 8 mg/1 and
range from 7 to 9 mg/1. No design parameters were established for
suspended solids; however, current influent concentrations average
approximately 1,020 mg/1, and the effluent average*12 mg/1 with ranges
from 6 to 15 mg/1. Similarly, no design criteria was established for
oil and grease. The current influent oil and grease concentration
averages about 695 mg/1 while the effluent contains an average of 8
mg/1 and ranges from 2 to 18 mg/1.
The design of this treatment facility appears to be particularly
appropriate to bakery wastes for the following reasons:
1. The air flotation unit is effective in removal of oil and
grease and suspended solids.
2. The plastic media trickling filter 1s credited by plant
personnel with removal of significant amounts of oil and
grease, and an adjustment of the pH such that no chemical
neutralization 1s required. Measurements of filter In-
fluent and effluent (i4V)*.pdicate near neutralization of
the raw waste's pH of 5 by the unit. The filter 1s also
effective 1n handling the shock loading applied by the bakery.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a model plant was developed for the production of cakes
and other bakery products using methods that did not involve pan
washing. It was assumed that screening was provided all wastewater
before discharge. The raw wastewater characteristics after screening
were as follows:
710
-------
DRAFT
EFFLUENT FROM BAKERIES
MANUAL PH CONTROL
EQUALIZATION TANK
1
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
J
NUTRIENT ADDITION
•
ROUGHING FILTER
J
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
|
AERATION BASIN
I
CLARIFIER
I
n ARTFTFR
f
SLUDGE RETURN
k. ^ .
AEROBIC STABILIZATION
POND
AEROBIC STABILIZATION
POND
) SKIMMINGS
AND EXCESS
SLUDGE TO
TANK TRUCK
FOR SPRAY
IRRIGATION
EFFLUENT TO CREEK
FIGURE 230
EXISTING TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY - SUBCATEGORY C 2
711
-------
DRAFT
1. BOD - 2,190 mg/1
2. SS - 1,020 mg/1
3. O&G - 685 mg/1
4. pH - 5.0
5. N 30 mg/1 (deficient)
6. P - 15 mg/1 (sufficient)
7. Flow - 0.16 mid (43,000 gpd)
8. Production - 180 kkg per day (200 tons per day)
Table 132 lists the effluent characteristics and the estimated
operating efficiency of each of the treatment trains selected for
this subcategory.
Alternative C 2 -_ I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the wastewater.
Alternative C 2 - II - This alternative consists of treatment modules as
follows:
1. Pump Station
2. Flow Equalization Tank
3. Dissolved Air Flotation
4. Sludge Pumping
5. Vacuum Filter
6. Truck Haul of Sludge
A schmatic diagram of Alternatives C 2-II through C 2-V is shown in
Figure 231.
Alternative C 2 - ill - This alternative consists of the treatment
modules in Alternative C 2-II with nutrient addition and plastic media
roughing filter.
Alternative C 2-IV - This alternative consists of the treatment
modules on Alternative C 2-1II with additional modules as follows:
1. Activated sludge aeration basin
2. Secondary clarifier with sludge recirculation pumps
712
-------
TABLE 132
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES SUBCATEGORY C 2
Treatment Train
Alternative
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
A
BCJV
BCJVHX
BCJSVHXK
BCJSVHXKN
BCJSVHKM
BHL
BHLU
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
2.0
1.0
0.50
0.050
0.025
0.025
0.20
N/A
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
0.94
0.28
0.14
0.042
0.011
0.022
0.28
N/A
Effluent
O&G
kq/kkq
0.63
0.19
0.085
0.026
0.013
0.013
0.19
N/A
Peccent
BOD
Reduction
0
50
75
97
99
99
90
100
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
70
85
95
99
98
70
100
Percent
O&G
Reduction
0
70
85
95
98
98
70
100
CJ
70
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 2190 MG/L
SS = 1020 MG/L
O&G = 685 MG/L
FLOW = 0.16 MLD (43,000 GPD)
SLUDGE
PUMP
VACUUM
FILTER
SLUDGE
THICKENER
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FLOW EQUALIZATION
TANK
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
ROUGHING FILTER
•J :"**
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATION BASIN
I
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
1
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTER
ALTERNATIVE C 2-V EFFLUENT
BOD = 28 MG/L
SS =12 MG/L
O&G =16 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE C 2-II
EFFLUENT
BOD = 1100 MG/L
SS = 310 MG/L
O&G = 206 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE C 2-III
EFFLUENT
BOD = 550 MG/L
SS =155 MG/L
O&G = 103 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE C 2-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 55 MG/L
SS = 47 MG/L
O&G = 31 MG/L
FIGURE g31
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 2-1I THROUGH C 2-V
714
-------
DRAFT
3. Sludge thickener
4. Additional capacity for vacuum filtration
Alternative C 2-¥ - This alternative includes the treatment modules in
Alternative C 2-IV with the addition of a dual media pressure filtration
system.
Alternative C 2-VI - This alternative includes the treatment modules
in Alternative C 2-V with two aerobic stabilization ponds replacing
the dual media pressure filtration system.
Alternative C 2-VII - This alternative consists of the following:
1. Caustic neutralization
2. Nutrient addition (nitrogen)
3. An aerated lagoon system
Figure.'.232 illustrates this alternative schematically.
Alternative C 2-VIII - This alternative includes the treatment modules
in Alternative C 2-VII with the addition of spray irrigation (see
Figure 233).
SUBCATEGORY C 3 - BREAD AND BUNS
In-Plant Technology
At the present time, many bread and bun bakeries are aware of their
wastewater problem. Sanitary, contact,and non-contact wastewaters have
been separated in many plants. Some plants emphasize dry cleaning of
equipment and floors prior to wet cleaning.
In addition, wastewater flow and strength could be reduced if all floors
were vacuumed, scraped, or swept before wet cleaning. Where CIP systems
are used, if the final rinse water from one cleaning operation were
utilized as the pre-rinse water for the subsequent cleaning operation, the
volume of wastewater would be reduced.
End-of-Line Technology
No bakery in this subcategory is known to have a wastewater treatment
system that approaches the degree of treatment required for discharge
to navigable waters. All of the bakeries surveyed in this subcategory
discharge to municipal sewage systems, and none of them provided treat-
ment other than screening.
715
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 2190 MG/L
SS = 1020 MG/L
O&G = 685 MG/L
FLOW = 0.16 MLD (43,000 GPD)
CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
NUTRIENT ADDITION
(NITROGEN)
AERATED
LAGOON
STABILIZATION
POND
SPRAY
AERATED
LAGOON
STABILIZATION
POND
.ALTERNATIVE C 2-VII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 219 MG/L
SS = 306 MG/L
O&G = 206 MG/L
vV/ IRRIGATION^/
ALTERNATIVE C 2-VIII EFFLUENT = 0
FIGURE 232
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 2-VII AND C 2-VIII
716
-------
DRAFT
Selection of Control aid Treatment Technology
In Section V of this document, a model plant was developed for bread
and bun bakeries. The raw waste characteristics after screening were
assumed to be as follows:
1. Flow - 0.10 mid (0.026 mgd)
2. BOD - 422 mg/1
3. SS - 214 mg/1
4. pH - 6.0 to 9.0
5. P - 0 mg/1 (deficient)
6. N - 0 mg/1 (deficient)
Since all known bread and bun bakeries currently discharge to municipal
sewers, a transfer of treatment technology is required. Plants in
Subcategory C 2, manufacturing cakes and pies without utilizing pan
washing, have a waste strength greater than, and a waste source similar
to, plants producing bread and buns. In addition, the waste strength
of bread and bun bakeries is less than twice that of municipal sewage.
Since there is no indication of any particular complicating characteristics
of bread bakery wastewater, the treatment alternatives discussed below
were_s_elected based on their satisfactory performance in treating
municipal sewage and wastes from Subcategory C 2 .
Table 133 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the four treatment trains selected for this sub-
category.
Alternative C 3 - I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater,
Alternative C 3 - II - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization basin, primary clarifier, nitrogen addition,
phosphorus addition, activated sludge aeration basin, secondary clarifier,
sludge pump, sludge thickener, vacuum filter, and sludge storage, A
schematic diagram of Alternative C 3 - II is shown in Figure 233.
Alternative C 3 - III - This alternative consists'of the treatment
modules of Alternative C 3 - II with the addition of a dual media
filter and associated pumping station. A schematic diagram of Alternative
C 3 - III is shown in Figure 233.
Alternative C 3 - IV - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
nitrogen addition, phosphorus addition, aerated lagoon, two settling
ponds, pumping station, and dual media pressure filter. A schematic
diagram of Alternative C 3 - IV is shown in Figure 234.
717
-------
Treatment Train
Alternative
C 3
C 3
C 3
C 3
- I
II BCEHIKQSVY
III BCEHIKNQSVY
IV BHILN
TABLE 133-
Summary of Treatment Train Alternatives
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
0.88
0.045
0.012
0.044
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
0.46
0.045
0.011
0.044
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
95
98
95
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
85
b)8
88
00
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 422 MG/L
SS =214 MG/L
FLOW = 0.10 MLD (0.026 MGD)
PUMPING STATION
RETURN
SLUDGE
THICKENER
VACUUM
FILTER
SLUDGE
STORAGE
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FLOW EQUALIZATION
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATION BASIN
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
DUAL MEDIA FILTER
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS
ADDITION
• ALTERNATIVE C 3
II EFFLUENT
BOD = 21 MG/L
SS =21 MG/L
FLOW = 0.10 MLD
(0.026MGD)
ALTERNATIVE C 3-1 I I EFFLUENT
BOD =10 MG/L
SS = :5 MG/L
FLOW = 0.10 MLD (0.026 MGD)
FIGURE 233
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 3-1 I AND III
719
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 422 MG/L
SS =214 MG/L
FLOW = 0.10 MLD (0.026 MGD)
PUMPING STATION
AERATED LAGOON
SETTLING PONDS
DUAL MEDIA FILTER
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
EFFLUENT
BOD «= 21 MG/L
SS = 21 MG/L
FLOW = 0.20 MLD (0.026 MGD)
FIGURE 234
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE C 3 - IV
720
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORY C 7 - COOKIE AND CRACKER MANUFACTURING
In-Plant Technology
Additional measures could be taken to reduce wastewater flow and
strength. If all floors were vacuum cleaned before being wet cleaned,
the strength of the wastewater from the plant would be reduced. Utiliz-
ation of CIP systems in which the final rinse water from one cleaning
operation was utilized as the pre-rinse water for the subsequent
cleaning operation would reduce the volume of wastewater generated by
the cleaning of the icing handling equipment. Since cleaning of the
icing equipment is usually necessary before changing to the production
of a different variety of cookie, changes of product should be made
as infrequently as possible in order to reduce both volume and strength
of wastewater.
End-of-Line Technology
No bakery in this :S$il>ea1Eegory is known to have a wastewater treatment
system that approaches the degree of treatment required for discharge
to navigable waters. All of the bakeries surveyed in this subcategory
discharge to municipal sewage systems. Most plants have grease traps
as a form of pre-treatment to reduce sewer blockages resulting from
the high (average 500 mg/1) concentrations of animal and vegetable fats
in the waste stream. However, grease traps appear to be high-maintenance
items if they are to operate properly. One cookie and cracker bakery
removed their traps when air floatation was installed.
Some plants successfully utilize flow equalization and air floatation
as pre-treatment modules. They have been shown to reduce the concentra-
tion of oil and grease being discharged to the municipality to less than
100 mg/1. The sludge generated from the air floatation treatment
process is normally hauled by a disposal contractor to a rendering
service.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for cookies and cracker produc-
tion. The raw wastewater characteristics after screening were assumed
to be as follows:
BOD 1200 mg/1 or 2.0 kg/kkg
SS 900 mg/1 or 1.5 kg/kkg
O&G 500 mg/1 or 0.85 kg/kkg
pH 6.3 - 8.7
Flow 0.34 mid (0.09 mgd)
At present no cookie and cracker manufacture has a complete treatment
system, because all such plants currently discharge to municipal
sewage treatment systems. As a result, a transfer of treatment
technology from a similar industry is required. Plants in subcategory
721
-------
DRAFT
C 2, manufacturing cakes and pies without utilizing pan washing, have
both a waste strength and waste sources (raw materials involved as
well as operations generating the wastes) similar to plants manufacturing
cookies and crackers. The treatment modules of the treatment alternatives
discussed below were selected based on their satisfactory performance
in treating wastes from subcategory C 2. Alternative C 7-II is considered
to be an effective method of pre-treatment due to its current widespread
usage as a method of pretreatment in the cookie and cracker industry.
Tablel34lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of .each of the six treatment trains selected for this sub-
category.
Alternative C 7 - I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
Alternative C 7 - II- This alternative consists of flow equalization,
air floation, a pumping station, and storage for separated solids and
grease. It is assumed that the separated solids are truck hauled to
a rendering company at no cost to the bakery.
Alternative C 7 - III - This alternative consists of the treatment
modules of Alternative C 7 - II with the addition of an aerated lagoon
and the associated settling ponds. The schematic diagram of Alternative
C 7 - III is shown in Figure 235.
Alternative C 7 - IV - This alternative consists of the treatment
modules of Alternative C 7 - II with the addition of activated sludge,
secondary clarifier, sludge pumping, sludge thickening, and vacuum
filtration.
Alternative C 7 - VI - This alternative consists of the treatment modules
of Alternative C 7 - V with the addition of dual media pressure filtration
and the associated pumping station. The schematic diagram of Alternative
C 7 - VI is shown in Figure 236.
SUBCATEGORY C 12 - SANDWICHES
In-Pi ant Technology
Sandwich manufacturers generate relatively small volumes of wastewater
(a few thousand liters? per day at most), and consequently have not
made any particular effort to reduce their waste load.
Virtually all wastewater from sandwich plants is a result of cleanup:
operations. Therefore, efficient": cleanup procedures (water conservation
practices) and training of the cleanup personnel would be the primary
means of reducing sandwich producer's process wastewater.
722
-------
PO
CJ
TABLE 134
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Treatment Train
Alternative
C 7 -
C 7 -
C 7 -
C 7 -
C 7 -
C 7 -
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
A
CJ
CJL
CJLN
CJKQSV
CJKQSUN
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
2.0
0.8
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.05
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
1.5
0.45
0.15
0.06
0.10
0.03
Effluent
O&G
kg/kkg
0.85
0.3
0.09
0.05
0.09
0.05
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
60
95
98
95
98
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
70
90
96
93
96
Percent
O&G
Reduction
0
65
90
94
90
94
o
73
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1200 MG/L
SS = 900 MG/L
O&G = 500 MG/L
FLOW = 0.34 MLD (0.09 MGD)
TRUCK
HAUL
PUMPING STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
,
AIR FLOATATION
AERATED LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE C 7 - III EFFLUENT
BOD = 60 MG/L
SS = 90 MG/L
Q&G = 50 MG/L
FLOW = 0.34 MLD (0.09 MGD)
FIGURE 235
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 7 - III
724
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1200 MG/L
SS = 900 MG/L
FLOW = 0.34 MLD (0.09 MGD)
O&G = 500 MG/L
RETORN
RENDERING SLUDGE
F I RMS*
FLOW EQUALIZATION
TANK
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOATATION
ALTERNATIVE C 7-1 I
SLUDGE
THICKENER
VACUUM
FILTER
•j- • *• EFFLUENT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATION BASIN
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
BOD = 480 MG/L
SS = 270 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE C 7-v
-w EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
STORAGE
DUAL MEDIA FILTER
ALTERNATIVE C 7 - VI. EFFLUENT
BOD = eo MG/L
SS =60 MG/L
BOD =30 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FLOW = 0.34 MLD (0.09 MGD)
O&G = 20 MG/L
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FIGURE 236
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C7-II, V, AND VI
725
-------
DRAFT
End-of-Line Technology
All of the plants contacted during this study discharge their wastewater
to municipal sewers. No particular problems were reported by these
municipalities in treating the wastewater. Some plants utilize grease
traps to prevent clogging of sewer lines, but this is the only method
of pre-treatment currently in use. No studies of the treatability or
characteristics of the wastewater have been performed.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a model plant was developed for sandwich manufacturing.
The flow from the model plant is 7,600 1 (2,000 gal) per day. This
volume of wastewater is small enough and the strength great enough
that direct treatment is impractical. As a result, the wastewater should
be treated by a municipal system.
Alternative C 12 - I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
Alternative C 12 - II - This alternative consists of a storage tank
and truck hauling of the wastewater to a municipal treatment facility.
SUBCATEGQRY D 1 - CANDY AND CONFECTIONARY
Existing In-Plant Technology
Two plants have screening, filtration, centrifugation and reverse osmosis
units which result in no discharge of wastewaters from processing areas,
specifically from candy forming machines which require constant cleansing.
The plants utilizing reverse osmosis also incorporated screening, dia-
tomaceous earth filtration, centrifugation and in-process reuse of re-
covered materials. Wire mesh screening and centrifuging were primarily
used for removal of particulate materials and oil substances, respectively,
Filtration with diatomaceous earth was employed prior to reverse osmosis
for removal of suspended solids; thereby preventing clogging of reverse
osmosis membranes.
Sugars recovered from the reverse osmosis equipment are condensed in
evaporators and recycled to the processing line. Defective candy from
certain other plants are frist dissolved and then filtered through dia-
tomaceous earth to remove coloration, etc. The reclaimed syrup is then
reused in preliminary steps of processing.
Cooling and condenser water were recycled in 85 percent of the plants
visited. Compressor and steam condensate water were reused in over 50
percent of the plants.
Washdown water is the primary source of waste effluent from this industry.
Most plants employ various methods of in-plant controls to reduce its
impact. All plants use dry collection of solfds by sweeping or vacuuming
726
-------
DRAFT
prior to washdowns. Actual washdown with hoses is limited generally to
the kitchen area. Alternatively, wet mopping or wiping is done in the
remainder of the plant areas. Furthermore, many plants have blocked
sewer outlets and eliminated hoses to reduce water usage in specific
areas.
Edible solids such as starches and contaminated candies are generally
disposed of by contract haulers for animal feed supplement. Non-edible
solids and paper are generally hauled away to landfill areas or, in
certain instances when liquid wastes (sludges) are involved, are taken
to farm lands to be used as fertilizer.
Potential In-Plant Technology
Plants can usually realize substantial savings in treatment or in sewer
costs through either reducing usage or recycling certain processing
waters. Recycling of cooling or condenser waters should be considered
by all plants as an economical method of reducing wastewater. Much of
the waste currently being discarded or lost in plant effluent can be
reused when processed or reclaimed in an acceptable manner. For example,
preliminary wash waters from the "kitchen" cooking kettles and holding
tanks can be recovered and, with a minimum amount of reprocessing, most
sugar can be removed and reused. This is currently being done in a few
plants with substantial savings being realized, not only from a treatment
standpoint, but also in product recovery.
Clean-in-place (CIP) units and flow control valves which are used on
certain types of equipment are water and cost saving devices that can
be employed.by all plants.
Reducing the use of water in generaly by increasing workers' awareness
is another basic step in good water management. Water use could be mini-
mized by common sense techniques like turning off faucets and hoses when
not in use, by using high-pressure, low-volume water supply systems, and
by dry clean-up in-plant valves are a valves are a valuable contribution
to water conservation measures.
End-of-Line Technology
Of the total of 20 plants visited during this study, 15 had no form of
pre-treatment measures. Every plant visited discharged the majority of
its wastes directly to municipal sewage systems. Pre-treatment systems
that were observed consisted of three plants which utilized grease and
oil removal systems. These systems varied in degree of sophistication
from an ordinary grease trap to a small aerobic system.
Grease and oils, as mentioned in Section V, are the primary concern of
certain manufacturers in this subcategory. Test results from one plant
utilizing a name brand filter show reductions in grease and oil loadings
of 89 percent. Ordinary grease traps have been found to be effective
in removal of oils and greases to acceptable levels for subsequent,
727
-------
DRAFT
biological treatment. Suspended solids and BOD were reduced by 87
and 92 percent, respectively, at the one plant utilizing an aerobic
treatment system.
Two plants currently have treatment systems either proposed or under
construction. One plant has under design a dissolved air flotation
unit with recycle; and the other plant is constructing an aerobic
digestion system with an 825,000 gallon capacity.
Dissolved air flotation treatability results show an average concen-
tration reduction in hexane solubles of 100 mg/1 to 40 mg/1 with a
corresponding 10 percent reduction. Maximum hexane soluble loadings
wererreduced from 750 mg/1 to 100 mg/1, during these tests, corresponding
to 86 percent reduction.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for candy and confectionery
processing. The raw wastewater characteristics after screening and
grease trap were taken as follows:
BOD 1300 mg/1
SS 170 mg/1
O&G 555 mg/1
Flow 375 cu m/day (0.099 MGD)
Table 135 lists the pollutant effluent loading and estimated operating
efficiency of each of the seven treatment trains selected for this sub-
category.
Alternative D 1-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
Alternative D 1-1I - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, and an aerated lagoon system with nitrogen addition.
Alternative D l-III - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon
system of Alternative D-II with an activated sludge unit. In addition,
the treatment train incorporates sludge thickening, aerobic digestion
and truck hauling or dewatered sludge.
Alternative D 1-IV - Alternative D 1-IV is identical to Alternative D l-III
except for the addition of sand drying beds for sludge disposal.
Alternative D 1-V - This alternative provides the addition to Alternative
D 1-IV a dual media pressure filtration system as a final treatment step.
Alternative D 1-VI - This alternative adds, to Alternative D l-II, a dual
media pressure filtration system.
728
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 135
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY D 1
Treatment Train
Alternative
Dl-I
Dl-II
Dl-III
Dl-IV
Dl-V
Dl-VI
Ef fl uent
BOD
mg/1
1300
65
39
39
20
26
Effluent
SS
mg/1
170
30
20
20
10
10
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
95
97
97
98.5
98
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
82
88
88
94
94
729
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORY D 2 CHEWING GUM
Existing In-Plant Technology
Of tha total of 14 plants contacted or for which data were supplied by
the National Association of Chewing Gum Manufacturers9 50 percent rec}
all or most of their cooling and chill waters. Three of these plants
discharged wastewater from cooling directly to municipal sewage systen
along with their waste streams. Two plants discharged cooling waters
into storm sewers, and the remaining two plants either spray irrigatec
or eliminated this waste through well disposal. Cooling waters compr.i
the largest flow volumes associated with this industry (i.e. 70 percer
of the plants contacted discharged over half their water as non-contac
cooling water, either in the form of overflows or once through dischar
Non-contact cooling water does not fall within the definition of proce
wastewater used in this study.
In terms of waste loadings, the two most significant sources of wastewi
in this industry are air scrubbers and clean-up waters. Air scrubbers
were used by 75 percent of the plants contacted. One of the primary
uses of air scrubbers is to clean ambient air of foreign substances,
primarily sugar particles. Many techniques were observed to be used
by various plants to minimize the effect of this source of effluent
on waste loadings. One method employed by several plants was to re-
circulate the air scrubber water until saturated, then to purge the
holding tanks completely and refill. Other plants continually sup-
plied fresh make-up waters to the scrubbers; thereby keeping concentra
tions at certain levels by regulating make-up water volumes. One plan
contacted used a completely dry technique to capture sugar dust in the
air, eliminating the use of water altogether. This system even segre-
gated sugars by flavor and color.
Clean-up operations varied significantly from plant to plant. Because
in contact with water forms a sticky mass, most plants employ dry cleai
ing by scraping or sweeping. Minimal wet cleaning is employed at the
plants, and generally wet cleaning was done by mopping or scrubbing
with solvents (SAV-A-SAL), disinfectants, and water subsequent to dry
removal by scraping or sweeping. Cleaning rooms were utilized by almo
all plants to clean machinery and equipment. This equipment was pert*
ically dismantled and subjected to extensive steam or hot water cleanii
with the optional use of solvents or cleaners.
Damaged or defective chewing gum was usually recycled to the processin
line. At one plant the "bowl cake" (by-product left after gum bases
have been melted and screened), was retained and returned to the gum
base refinery to be reprocessed. Other waste solids, with the except!
of paper in certain instances, were disposed at sanitary landfill sits
Two plants visited separated and recycled paper products. This proced
may be employed at other plants to reduce solid wastes.
730
-------
DRAFT
Damaged or defective chewing gum was usually recycled to the processing
line. At one plant the "bowl cake" (by-product left after gum bases
have been melted and screened), was retained and returned to the gum
base refinery to be reprocessed. Other waste solids, with the exception
of paper in certain instances, were disposed at sanitary landfill sites.
Two plants visited separated and recycled paper products. This procedure
may be employed at other plants to reduce solid wastes.
Potential In-Pi ant Technology
Plants not currently recycling cooling, condenser or chill water should
consider this as a major step in water management. Recycling of steam
condensate, which was done at one plant visited by the contractor, should
also be a step towards ..water conservation. Air scrubber water can possi-
bly be eliminated and substituted by dry collection by sugar particles
$xcept in cases where humidity control is desired.
Minimizing the use of water in clean-up operations has been pursued
by most plants contacted; however, educating plant personnel
of the necessity for water conservation would be helpful toward-accom-
plishment of desirable water management policies.
End-of-Line Technology
Of the total number of plants contacted, only five employed some type
of treatment for their wastewaters. Two plants simply treat their
wastewaters by employing settling basins before discharging to municipal
systems. Settled matter is generally hauled away under contract. One
plant discharges only domestic waste to a municipal system and stores
all processing and clean-up wastes in a holding tank, which is taken
to a sanitary landfill for disposal. Two plants utilize activated
sludge with aeration lagoons and final spray irrigation to treat and
dispose of wastes. These practices have resulted in no discharge
of process wastewater pollutants to surface waters from these two
plants. Reductions from the activated sludge system averaged 96 per-
cent BOD removal, 90 percent removal of suspended solids and 88 per-
cent volatile solids removals. Influent pH averaged 8.6 and decreased
to 7.6 after treatment and prior to irrigation.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for chewing gum processing.
The raw wastewater characteristics after screening were assumed to be
as follows:
BOD 900 mg/1
SS 95 mg/1
O&G 50 mg/1
Flow 322 cu m/day (0.085 MGD)
731
-------
DRAFT
Table 136 lists the pollutant effluent loading and estimated operating
efficiency of each of the eight treatment trains selected for this sub-
category.
Alternative D 2-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
of the screened wastewater.
Alternative D 2-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalizationT>asin, and an aerated lagoon system with nitrogen
addition.
Alternative D 2-III - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon system
of Alternative D 2-11 with an activated sludge unit. In addition, the
treatment train incorporates sludge thickening, aerobic digestion, and
truck hauling.
Alternative D 2-IV - Alternative D 2-V is identical to Alternative D 2-III
except for the addition of sand drying beds for sludge disposal.
Alternative D 2-V - This alternative adds, to Alternative D 2-IV, a dual
media pressure filtratipn system as a final treatment step.
Alternative D 2-VI - This alternative adds a pumping station, pipe line
and spray irrigationtto the treatment train of Alternative D 2-1I.
Alternative D 2-VII - This alternative adds a pumping station, pipe line,
and spray irrigation to the treatment train of Alternative D 2-III.
SUBCATEGORY D 3 GUM BAsT""
Existing In-Plant Technology
As explained in Section V of this report, only three plants in this
subcategory were considered of significant benefit for establishing
in-plant technology. Process cooling water is recirculated at two
of these plants. The other plant identified from the National Associ-
ation of Chewing Gum Manufacturers survey did not indicate any re-
cycling of cooling water.
The primary waste sources in this industry are derived from washdowns
and processing. Dry cleaning methods are a preliminary step used by
all plants before the major washdown process. Dry cleaning methods
include dry-sferaping and vacuuming. Cleansing agents such as tri-sodium
phosphate are spread on the floor to remove the softened gum deposits.
These washdown flows averaged 15 percent of the plant flows and are
high in waste pollutant loading. Reductions in the use of solvents has
been initiated at one plant with a 45 percent decrease over a three-
year period.
732
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 136
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY D 2
Treatment Train
Alternative
D2-I
D2-II
D2-III
. D2-IV
D2-V
D2-VI
D2-VII
Effluent
BOD
mg/1
900
45
30
30
20
0
0
Ef f 1 uent
SS
mg/1
95
30
20
20
10
0
0
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
95
97
97
98
100
100
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
68
79
79
89
100
100
733
-------
DRAFT
Potential In-Plant Technology
Air scrubbers were found to be used at only one gum base plant. Con-
trolling the effluent discharged from this source by recycling would
help minimize the discharge.
Another source of contaminated water comes from the repeated hot
water washing of natural gum materials. By limiting the number of
washings or by recycling of this water (i.e. by reusing the final
wash water for the preliminary wash of a new batch of gumX significant
reductions could be realized in flow. As mentioned previously,
increasing workers' awareness of pollutional problems will help sig-
nificantly in water management.
End-of-Line Technology
Significant advances in treatment have been accomplished in this
industry, particularly at one plant which handles about 80 cu m/day
(20,000 gpd) of the wastewater with a BOD of 1500 to 2500 mg/1. The
system used at this plant employs screening, settling, mixing, digestion,
clarification and final chlorination to achieve 90.1 percent removal
of BOD. According to Oxford (142 ), this percentage of BOD removal
can be increased to 95 percent by proper management. This plant
discharges to a municipal sewage system. One plant that does not
currently have a treatment system discharges directly into surface
waters. This plant has a preliminary treatment system designed and
will discharge their treated waste to a municipal plant when the
municipal facility is constructed. This system is designed primarily
to collect all processing wastes and separate by settling all pre-
cipitated CaCOo and settled gum base, which is then stored and trans-
ported by trucks for land disposal. In addition, the solvent phase
in the settling tank may be drained for further amelioration of the
effluent.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for chewing gum base processing.
The raw wastewater characteristics after screening were assumed to be
as follows:
BOD 430 mg/1
SS 355 mg/1
O&G 30 mg/1
Flow 356 cu m/day (0.094 MGD)
Table 137 lists the pollutant effluent loading and estimated operating
efficiency of each of the eight treatment trains selected for this sub-
category.
Alternative D 3-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
734
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 137
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY D 3
Treatment Train
Alternative
D3-I
D3-II
D3-III
D3-IV
D3-V
D3-VI
D3-VII
Effluent
BOD
mg/1
430
30
25
25
10
0
0
Effluent
SS
mg/1
355
30
25
25
10
0
0
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
93
94
94
98
100
100
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
92
93
93
97
100
100
735
-------
DRAFT
Alternative D 3-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization basin, and an aerated lagoon system with nitrogen
addition.
Alternative D 3-1II - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon
system of Alternative D 3-111 with an activated sludge unit. In
addition, the treatment train incorporates sludge thickening, aerobic
digestion and truck hauling.
Alternative D 3-IV - Alternative D 3-V is identical to Alternative D 3-III
except for the addition of sand drying beds for sludge disposal.
Alternative D 3-V - This alternative adds, to Alternative D 3-IV, a dual
media pressure filtration sytem as a final treatment step.
Alternative D 3-VI - This alternative adds a pumping station, pipe line
and spray irrigation to the treatment train of Alternative D 3-II.
Alternative D 3-VII - This alternative adds a pumping station, pipe line
and spray irrigation to the treatment train of Alternative D 3-III.
SUBCATEGORIES D 5 AND D 6 CHOCOLATE
Existing In-Plant Technology
The open use of water as mentioned in Section III is not compatible
with the production of chocolate products; therefore, the use of water
in-plant is extensively regulated to prevent entrainment in the product.
Since washdowns are the primary source of wasteloading, stringent dry
cleaning and mopping are employed at all plants. A variable amount of
clean-up water is used during the cleaning of mixing tanks, transfer
buggies, milk condensing pans, and certain production areas. Steps
taken by plants to limit water use in these cleaning operations in-
clude: installing water saver hose nozzles, sealing off drains, and
in one case utilizing a high-pressure steam heated washdown system.
Three plants which process condensed milk use clean-in-place units in
their condensory system. One plant has a unique system, in which they
recycle cooling waters for use in domestic sanitation.
Potential In-Plant Control
Currently, few chocolate plants recycle non-contact cooling and con-
densing water, but discharge them directly to local tributaries. Re-
cycling of these waters may or may not be economically advantageous,
depending primarily upon the source of plant water supply.
Due to the problems encountered when chocolate is contaminated with
excess moisture, workers in this industry are very aware of the det-
rimental effects of excess water on the finished product. However,
less success has been gained in achieving awareness of employees
736
-------
DRAFT
as to the necessity for good housekeeping, reduced water usage, proper
maintenance, and correct disposal or salvaging of products that can
be reused in the process.
End-of-Line Technology
All plants visited discharged to municipal treatment systems; two provided
pretreatment of their waste streams. One of these plants utilized a
grease trap which was cleaned monthly by a sanitary service. The other
plant employed a dissolved air flotation system for oil and grease re-
moval. One large plant is planning to purchase a municipal treatment
plant for use as an industrial pretreatment plant.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology for Subcategory D 5
In Section V a model plant was developed for chocolate manufacture
with condensory processing. The raw wastewater characteristics after
screening were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 1840 mg/1
SS 415 mg/1
O&G 170 mg/1 .
Flow 761 cu m/day (0.201 MGD)
Table 138 lists the pollutant effluent loading and estimated operating
efficiency of each of the treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative D 5-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
Alternative D 5-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization basin, and air flotation with chemical addition.
Alternative D 5-111 - This alternative replaces the air flotation module
in Alternative D 5-11 with an aerated lagoon system with nitrogen additon.
Alternative L) 5-IV - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon system
of Alternative D 5-III with an activated sludge unit. In addition, the
treatment train incorporates sludge thickening, aerobic digestion and
truck hauling.
Alternative D 5-V - Alternative D 5-V is identical to Alternative D 5-IV
with the addition of sand drying beds for sludge disposal.
Alternative U 5-VI - Air flotation with chemical addition is utilized
between the equalization basin and the activated sludge unit of Alternative
U 5-IV.
Alternative D 5-VII - This alternative adds, to Alternative D 5-VI, a dual
media pressure filtration system as a final treatment step.
737
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 138
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY D 5
Treatment Train
Alternative
D5-I
D5-II
D5-III
D5-IV
D5-V
D5-VI
D5-VII
D5-VIII
Effluent
BOD
mg/1
1840
1288
92
60
60
40
20
64
Effluent
SS
mg/1
415
287
60
40
40
29
10
43
Effluent
OBG
mg/1
170
68
17
17
17
7
2
7
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
30
95
97
97
98
99
97
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
30
85
90
90
93
98
90
-.•Percent
OBcG
Reduction
0
60
90
90
90
96
99
96
738
-------
DRAFT
Alternative D 5-VIII - In this treatment train air flotation;.with
chemical addition precedes the aerated lagoon system of Alternative
D 5-III. Trucking of flotation solids is required with this alter-
native.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology for Subcategory D 6
In Section V a model plant was developed for chocolate without
condensory processing. The raw wastewater characteristics after
screening were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 705 mg/1
SS 230 mg/1
O&G 160 mg/1
Flow 920 cu m/day (0.243 MGD)
Table 139 lists the pollutant effluent loading and estimated operating
efficiency of each of the treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative D 6-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the screened wastewater.
Alternative D 6-II - This alternative consists of a pumping station and
a flow equalization basin.
Alternative D 6-III - This alternative consists of Alternative D 6-II
followed by air flotation with chemical addition.
Alternative D 6-IV - This alternative adds to Alternative D 6-II an
aerated lagoon system with nitrogen addition.
Alternative D 6-V - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon system of
Alternative D 6-IV with an activated sludge unit. In addition, the treat-
ment train incorporates sludge thickening, aerobic digestion and truck
hauling.
Alternative D 6-VI - Alternative D 6-VI is identical to Alternative D 6-V
with the addition of sand drying beds for sludge disposal.
Alternative D 6-VII - Air flotation with chemical addition is utilized
between the equalization basin and the activated sludge unit of Alter-
native D 6-VI.
Alternative D 6-VIII - This alternative adds, to Alternative D 6-VII, a
dual media pressure filtration system as a final treatment step.
Alternative D 6-IX - In this treatment train,air flotation with chemical
addition precedes the aerated lagoon system of Alternative D 6-IV.
739
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 139
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY D 6
Treatment train
Alternative
D6-I
D6-II
D6-III
D6-IV
D6-V
D6-VI
D6-VII
D6-VIII
Ef f 1 uent
BOD
mg/1
705
494
35
30
30
25
10
25
Effluent
SS
mg/1
230
161
35
30
30
20
10
24
Effluent
OB6
mg/1
160
64
16
16
16
5
2
5
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
30
95
96
96
96
99
96
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
30
95
87
87
91
96
90
Percent
BOcG
Reduction
0
60
90
90
90
97
99
97
740
-------
DRAFT
PET FOODS
SUBCATEGQHY B 5 LOW-MEAT CANNED PET FOOD
In-Plant Control Technology
The main sources of pollutants in the pet food industry are general
plant cleanup, including housekeeping and end-of-shift cleanup. There-
fore, in-plant procedures to reduce waste loads in this subcategory must
of necessity center around these areas. It is essential that proper
employee training and efficient management practices are observed.
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 including:
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 $40.
2. Installation of general cleanup 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. 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.
4. Good housekeeping is an important factor in normal
pollution control. Spills, spoilage, trash, etc.
resulting from sloppy operation may be heavy con-
tributors to liquid waste loads. 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.
741
-------
DRAFT
5. 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
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.
End-of-Line Technology
Only one existing secondary treatment plant 47N64 discharging to surface
waters was identified. As far as known, all other manufacturing
plants in this subcategory discharge to municipal-owned sewage works.
The one existing secondary treatment plant is located in the northeast
and utilizes extended aeration activated sludge treatment preceded by
screening and primary gravity clarification. Table 140 provides data
pertinent to design of individual treatment units. Note the approxi-
mate 2:1 dilution of the wastewater by cooling water after primary
treatment and prior to the aeration basin. An analysis of weekly and
bi-weekly reported treatment performance over the period January to
August, 1974, shows the following effluent quality characteristics:
BOD., average 30 mg/1, range 5 to 75 mg/1
SS, average 48 mg/1, range 12 to 104 mg/1
The above results reflect approximately the following average percent
removals: BOD 92 percent and suspended solids 84 percent based upon
average reported raw waste BOD of 370 mg/1 and suspended solids of
300 mg/1.
The relatively poor suspended solids removal in comparison to the BOD
removal performance is an inherent problem in the extended aeration process
where little or no sludge removal from the secondary system is practiced.
The extended detention time in the aeration basins tends to develop fine,
inert suspended solids which are difficult to settle and pass easily
over the secondary clarifier weirs.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for low-meat canned pet food was developed in Section V.
The raw wastewater characteristics were as follows:
Flow (0.3 MGD)
BOD 1,100 mg/1
SS 700 mg/1
O&G 400
pH 6 to 9
74i2
-------
GO
TABLE 140
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY B5
LOW MEAT CANNED PET FOOD
Unit influent
Cumulative
Alt.
B5-I
B5-II
B5-III
B5-IV
Fin.
Effl.
Treatment
unit
None
Flow Equal.
Dis. Air Flot.
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Characteristics, mg/1
BOD TSS O&G
1,100
1,100
1,100
330
33
17
700
700
700
140
28
14
400
400
400
200
40
20
percent removal
BOD TSS 0!
0
0
70
97
98
98
0
0
80
96
93
98
0
0
50
90
95
95
.o
73
-------
DRAFT
The following treatment alternatives have been selected for this
subcategory:
Alternative B 5-1 - This alternative assumes no additional treatment.
Alternative B 5-11 - This alternative provides flow equalization,
dissolved air flotation, and vacuum filtration of sludge. The
expected BOD removal benefit is 70 percent.
Alternative B 5-111 - This alternative provides complete mix activated
sludge and sludge thickening addition to Alternative B 5-II. The
expected BOD removal benefit is 97 percent.
Alternative B 5-IV- This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative B 5-1II. The expected BOD removal benefit is 98 percent.
A summary of the pollutant removals expected is presented in Table 140.
A schematic diagram of Alternatives B 5-1 through B 5-IV is presented
in Figure 237.
SUBCATEGORY B 6- HIGH-MEAT CANNED PET FOOD
In-Plant Technology
The existing and potential in-plant technology for Subcategory B 6
is the same as for Subcategory B 5.
End-of-Line Technology
This subcategory is characterized by extremely strong wastes in terms of
BOD, SS, and Oils and Greases. Nevertheless, two existing secondary
treatment plants (47N-78 and 47N-79) are achieving excellent removals
with activated sludge treatment preceded by well designed primary
treatment units. The key to the success of these plants appears to
be the high percentage removals of SS and Oils and Greases in their
primary treatment units and the extended detention time provided in
the activated sludge aeration basins. The two existing plants referred
to are owned by the same company and are virtually exact copies of each
other -- one is located in the northeast and the other in the middle
west. Table 141 provides data pertinent to design of individual treat-
ment units. An analysis of weekly reported treatment performance over
the period April, 1971 to December, 1972 for plant 47N-79 shows
the following effluent quality characteristics:
BOD, average 8 mg/1, range 1-50 mg/1
SS, average 80 mg/1, range 1-2000 mg/1
O&G, average 800 mg/1, range 80-8000 mg/1
COD, average 90 mg/1, range 30-2000 mg/1
pH, 6 to 8
744
-------
DRAFT
RAW WASTEWATER
FLOW =
BOD = 1,100 MG/L
SS = 700 MG/L
0 & G = 400 MG/L
(0.3 MGD)
PUMPING
STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
SLUDGE
THICKENER
TRUCK
HAULING
—L
VACUUM
FILTER
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B5-II
BOD = 330 MG/L
SS = 140 MG/L
0 6 G = 200 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B5-111
BOD = 33 MG/L
SS = 28 MG/L
0 & G = 40 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B5-IV
BOD = 17 MG/L
SS = 14 MG/L
0 & G = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 237
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
B5-I THROUGH Bs-IV
-------
TABLE 141
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY B6
HIGH MEAT CANNED PET FOOD
Unit influent Cumulative
Alt.
B6-I
B6-II
B6-III
B6-IV
B6-V
Fin.
Effl.
Treatment
unit
None
Flow Equal.
Centrifuges
Dis. Air Flot.
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Characteristics, mg/1
BOD SS O&G
13,000
13,000
6,500
1,950
195
100
5,100
5,100
1,500
310
160
40
7,600
7,600
3,000
1,060
320
160
percent removal
BOD SS 0!
0
50
85
99
99
99
0
:70
94
97
99
99
0
60
86
96
98
98
-------
DRAFT
The above results are prior to installation of chlorination and sand
filter tertiary treatment units.
Percent removals reflected by the above results are approximately as
follows: BOD, 99 percent plus; SS, 98 percent, O&G, 96 percent,
and COD, 98 percent.
Obviously, oil and grease removal is the major problem still facing
this plant, and it is expected that the use of chlorine and sand
filters as teritary treatment will reduce the oil and grease loads.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for high-meat canned pet food was developed in Section V.
The plant was assumed to produce 270 kkg/dry (300 ton/day) of product
and have a wastewater with the following characteristics:
BOD 13,000 mg/1
SS 5,100 mg/1
O&G 7,600 mg/1
pH 6.8 to 8.4
N 640 mg/1
P 210 mg/1
The following treatment alternatives have been selected for this
subcategory:
Alternative B 6-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment in addition
to screening already incorporated into the processing plant.
Alternative B 6-II - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization basin, centrifugation, and sludge storage. As
shown in Table 141, the expected BOD reduction benefit for this
alternative is 50 percent.
Alternative B 6-111 - This alternative provides the addition of
dissolved air flotation and vacuum filtration to Alternative B 6-III.
The BOD reduction benefit expected for this alternative is 85 percent.
Alternative B 6-IV - This alternative provides the addition of complete
mix activated sludge to Alternative B 6-III. The expected BOD reduction
benefit is 99 percent.
Alternative B 6-V - This alternative provides the addition of dual
media filtration to Alternative B 6-IV. The expected BOD reduction
benefit is 99 percent.
A schematic diagram of Alternatives B 6-1 through B 6-V is presented
in Figure 238.
747
-------
DRAFT
RAW WASTEWATER
FLOW =0.3 MGD
BOD = 13,000 MG/L
SS = 5,100 MG/L
0 & G -- 7,600 MG/L
PUMPING
STATION
CENTRIFUGATION
SLUDGE
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
SLUDGE
THICKENER
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B6-II
BOD = 6,500 MG/L
SS = 1,530 MG/L
0 & G = 3,040 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B6-III
BOD = 1,950 MG/L
SS = 310 MG/L
WASTE
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
IACTIVATED SLUDGE
VACUUM
FILTER
r i
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B6-IV
BOD = 195 MG/L
SS = 160 MG/L
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B6-V
BOD = 100 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
0 & G = 160 MG/L
FIGURE K"'
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Rfi-T THROUGH B6-V
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORY B 7 - DRY PET FOODS
In-^Plant Technology
In-plant technology for Subcategory B 7 is the same as for Subcategory
B 5.
End-of-Line Technology
This Subcategory is characterized by low volume flows of weak to moderate
strength as was described in Section V of this document. All existing
dry pet food manufacturing plants which were identified during this
investigation discharge to municipal systems. One plant (47M-65)
which manufactures both dry and soft-moist pet food, provides
extensive pretreatment prior to municipal discharge; however,
approximately 90 percent of its flow volume is generated by manufacture
of soft-moist pet food. It was not possible, therefore, to draw any
conclusions regarding dry pet food wastewater treatability from this
plant. The model treatment plant design is based upon utilization of
the activated sludge process for treatment of wastewater from a dry
pet food manufacturing plant.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for dry pet food. It has a
production of 270 kkg/day (300 ton/day), a wastewater flow of 114 cu m/day
(0.03 MGD), and the following wastewater characteristics:
BOD 200 mg/1
SS 100 mg/1
O&G 250 mg/1
pH 6 to 9
N & P Sufficient for biological treatment
Table 142 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency for the four alternatives selected. The alternatives are
schematically presented in Figure 239.
Alternative B 7-1 - This alternative provides no additional control and
treatment technology above current practices.
Alternative B 7-II - This alternative provides a pumping station, a
114 cu m (30,000 gal) capacity equalization basin, and a dissolved air
flotation unit. The expected BOD reduction benefit is 50 percent.
Alternative B 7-1II - This alternative provides, in addition to Alternative
B 7-II, a complete mix activated sludge system. The aeration basin has
a detention time of 30 hours and an aeration of 1.4 kw (2 hp). The
expected BOD removal benefit is 90 percent.
749
-------
TABLE 142
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY B7
DRY DOG AND CAT FOOD
Unit influent Cumulative
Alt.
B7-I
B7-II
B7-III
B7-IV
Fin.
Effl.
Treatment
unit
None
Flow equal.
Dis. Air Flot.
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Characteristics, mg/1
BOD TSS O&G
200
200
200
100
20
10
100
100
100
20
14
4
250
250
250
125
38
19
percent removal
BOD TSS 01
0
0
50
90
95
95
0
0
80
86
96
96
0
0
50
85
92
92
-------
DRAFT
RAW WASTEWATER
FLOW =
BOD = 200 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
0 & G = 250 MG/L
(0.03 MGD)
PUMPING
STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
SLUDGE
HAULING
I
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B7-II
BOD =100 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
0 & G = 125 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B7-I'II
BOD =20 MG/L
SS = 14 MG/L
0 & G = 38 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE 87-IV
BOD = 10 MG/L
SS = 4 MG/L
O & G = 19 MG/L
FIGURE 239
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
B7-I THROUGH B7-IV
751
-------
DRAFT
Alternative B 7-IV - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative B 7-III. The expected BOD reduction benefit is 95 percent.
SUBCATEGORY B 8 - SOFT-MOIST PET FOOD
In-Plant Technology
In-plant technology for Subcategory B 8 is the same as for Subcategory
B 5.
End-of-Line Technology
All existing soft-moist pet food manufacturing plants which were
identified during this investigation discharge to municipal sewage
systems. One plant (47M-65) provides extensive pretreatment prior
to municipal discharge, and data from this plant are helpful in assessing
primary treatment pollutant removal capabilities. The same plant also
provides secondary aeration and clarification of the primary effluent;
however, the secondary treatment is relatively ineffective because
the activated sludge from the secondary clarifier is not recirculated
into the aeration basin. Design information for this plant is given
in Table 143. The plant should not, however, be considered a represent-
ative overall facility as it is presently designed and operated. Though
certain individual unit processes perform adequately, major difficulties
are experienced because: (1) there is no aerated equalization basin
at the beginning of the treatment chain to control surges, lower
temperatures, and prevent anaerobic degradation; (2) there is no
return of secondary clarifier sludge into the aeration basins; and
(3) solids (sludge) removal and treatment equipment is inadequate.
The treatment plant described is required by city ordinance to meet
the following criteria: BOD - 400 mg/1, SS - 450 mg/1, and 0&6 - 100 mg/1,
This requirement must be met after the treatment facility waste is diluted
by .1.5:1 or 2:1 by cooling water and sanitary waste.
An analysis of six effluent samples, three in July, 1972 and three in
July 1974, shows the following effluent quality characteristics:
BOD, average 703 mg/1, range 216-1, 479 mg/1
SS, average 880 mg/1, range 372-1, 916 mg/1
O&G, average 300 mg/1, range 83-816 mg/1
pH, 6 to 7
Temperature, 86-90°F
The above results reflect approximately the following average percent
removals: BOD, 82 percent; SS, 59 percent; O&G, 61 percent; based
upon average reported raw waste BOD of 3,860 mg/1, SS of 2,120 mg/1,
and oil and grease of 770 mg/1.
Cost of this pretreatment facility is reported by the owner as
$750,000 in 1964. Equivalent 1974 cost would be close to $2 million,
752
-------
'..0
TABLE 143
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY B8
SEMI-MOIST PET FOOD
Unit influent Cumulative
Alt.
B8-I
B8-II
B8-III
B8-IV
Fin.
Effl.
Treatment
unit
None
Flow Equal.
Dis. Air Flot.
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Characteristics, mg/1
BOD" TSS O&G
3,900
3,900
3,900
1,560
160
80
2,100
2,100
2,100
420
210
53
. 800
800
800
160
50
25
percent removal
BOD TSS Oi
0
0
60
96
98
0
0
80
90
97
0
0
80
94
97
-------
DRAFT
if construction indexes are applied to compensate for inflation in
costs. Present annual operating costs are reported as $407,000/year
including a $150,000 cost for solids trucking and disposal, with the
remaining $275,000 tagged for labor, maintenance, and energy.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for soft-moist pet food was developed in Section V. It
was assumed to have a production of 500 kkg/day (550 ton/day) of
finished product and to generate 114 cu m/day (0.03 MGD) of wastewater
with the following characteristics:
BOD 3,900 mg/1
SS 2.100 mg/1
O&G 800 mg/1
pH 6 to 7
N & P Sufficient for biological treatment
Table 143 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the alternatives. Figure 240 illustrates the treat-
ment alternatives.
Alternative B 8-1 - This alternative provides no additional control
and treatment technology.
Alternative B 8-II - This alternative provides flow equalization,
dissolved air flotation, and vacuum filtration of sludge. The
expected BOD reduction benefit is 60 percent.
Alternative B 8-III - This alternative provides, in addition to
Alternative B 8-II, a complete mix activated sludge system. The
expected BOD reduction benefit is 96 percent.
Alternative B 8-IV - This alternative provides, in addition to
Alternative B 8-III, dual media filtration. The expected BOD reduction
benefit is 98 percent.
MISCELLANEOUS AND SPECIALITY PRODUCTS
SUBCATEGORY A 29 - THE PRODUCTION OF FINISHED FLAVORS BY THE BLENDING
OF FLAVORING EXTRACTS, ACIDS, AND COLORS
Existing In-Plant Technology
The known in-plant technology practiced at flavoring extract plants
consists of the following: solvent recovery, separation of non-contact
water from the process wastestream, and separation of cleanup water
used in solvent process areas from the process wastestream. It is
assumed that solvent recovery is practiced throughout the entire
industry. However, it is not known to what extent separation of
7b4
-------
DRAFT
RAW WASTEWATER
FLOW = 114 CU M/DAY (0.3 MGD)
BOO = 3,900 MG/L
SS = 2,100 MG/L
0 & G = 800 MG/L
i
PUMPING
STATION
I
FLOW EQUALIZATION
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
SLUDGE
THICKENER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
VACUUM
FILTER
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE 88-11
BOD = 1,560 MG/L
SS = 420 MG/L
0 & G = 160 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B8-III
BOD = 160 MG/L
SS = 210 MG/L
0 & G = 50 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B8-IV
BOD =80 MG/L
SS = 53 MG/L
0 & G = 25 MG/L
FIGURE 240
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
88-I THROUGH B8-IV
755
-------
DRAFT
non-contact water and cleanup water used in solvent process areas
is practiced in the flavoring extract industry.
Potential In-Plant Technology
Recycling of non-contact cooling water or at least separation of
this water from the process wastestream could reduce the quantity
of wastewater generated at a given plant. Additionally, the pos-
sibility of reusing rinse water as makeup for wash water should
not be overlooked. The use of high pressure, low volume nozzles for
hosing of floors and external equipment cleanup would also reduce
the quantity of waste flow.
End-of-Line Technology
Two plants 87E03 and 87E04 operate treatment systems prior to discharge
to navigable waters. From available information the remainder
of the industry discharges to municipal treatment systems. The
treatment system at Plant 87E03 is a physical system consisting
of the following sequential components:
1. A holding tank.
2. A centrifuge with centrifuged solids being discarded as
solid waste.
3. A sand-gravel filter for dewatering.
4. Two identical activated carbon systems in series each
containing 0.9 kkg (1.0 ton) of carbon.
Flow in the sand-gravel filter and the activated carbon systems is
from bottom to top. The treated effluent from the final activated
carbon unit is mixed in a 1:10 ratio with non-contact water prior.
to discharge into a river. The average BOD of the mixed effluent
is 24 mg/1. Assuming that the non-contact water has a BOD of 10 mg/1
(a very logical approach), the BOD of the treated effluent will
be approximately 160 mg/1. The average BOD of the raw waste
effluent was determined to be 1360 mg/1, and thus the treatment
efficiency of this system is estimated to be about 88 percent.
Plant 87E04, with a treatment system consisting of partial sedimen-
tation followed by an aerated lagoon, reported average treated
effluent concentrations of 35 mg/1 BOD and 52 mg/1 suspended
solids. However, no raw wasteload data were available for this
particular plant and therefore treatment efficiencies could not
be determined.
As discussed in Section V, Plants 87E03, and 87E05 segregate the
waste streams from the cleaning of vacuum distillation units, and
organic synthesis equipment, and following neutralization, this
waste is removed by an environmental sanitation service. One
plant reports that the waste is subsequently disposed of by dis-
charge, while the other reports that .the waste is treated at one
of the private service's treatment plants.
756
-------
DRAFT
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant was developed for flavoring extracts manufacturing
in Section V. The raw wastewater characteristics were assumed
as follows:
BOD 1350 mg/1
SS 130 mg/1
pH 7.1
Table 144 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated
operating efficiency of each of the eleven treatment alternatives
selected for this subcategory. The alternatives are illustrated
in Figures 241 and 242.
Alternative A 29-1 - This alternative provides no treatment.
Alternative A 29-11 - This alternative consists of spray irrigation
of the waste effluent requiring 2.7 ha (6.6 acres) of land.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a pollutant reduction of
100 percent to navigable waters.
Alternative A 29-111 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization tank, a complete mix activated sludge system,
a sludge thickener, vacuum filtration, and a sludge storage tank.
The flow equalization tank is provided to dampen shock loadings to the
system due to intermittent cleanup operations within the plant.
The activated sludge system would be expected to provide a BOD
removal of 92.6 percent and a suspended solids removal of 76.9 percent.
Vacuum filtration is provided to decrease sludge volume, thereby-de-
creasing sludge hauling costs. A seven-day sludge storage tank to
decrease frequency of hauls is provided, further decreasing hauling
costs.
The overall benefit of this system is a BOD reduction of 92.6 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 76.9 percent.
Alternative A 29-IV - This alternative consists of the same modules
as Alternative A 29-111 except vacuum filtration is replaced by an
aerobic digester followed by sand drying beds. This results in twice
the sludge volume produced per day than in Alternative A 29-111. A
three day sludge storage tank is provided.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 92.6
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 76.9 percent.
Alternative A 29-V - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization tank, and an aerated lagoon. The efficiency of the
aerated lagoon is assumed to be the same as that for the activated sludge
system included within Alternatives A 29-111 and A 29-IV. The overall
benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 92.6 percent and a
757
-------
en
CO
TABLE 144
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY A29
FLAVORING EXTRACTS
Alternative
A29-I
A29-II
A29-III
A29-IV
A29-V
A29-VI
A29-VII
A29-VIII
A29-IX
A29-X
A29-XI
Effluent
BOD
kg/cu m
0
0.041
0.041
0.041
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.0123
0.0123
0.0123
Effluent
SS
kg/cu m
0
0.0123
0.0123
0.0123
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.004
0.004
0.004
Percent
BOD
removal
0
100
92.6
92.6
92.6
96.3
96.3
96.3
97.8
97.8
97.8
Percent
SS
removal
0
100
76.9
76.9
76.9
88.5
88.5
88.5
92.3
92.3
92.3
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 125 CU M/DAY (0.033 MOD)
BOD = 1,350 MG/L
SS = 130 MG/L
SLUDGE
THICKENING
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVES
A 29-111, IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 100 MG/L
SS = 30 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES
' A 29-VI, VII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 15 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES A 29-IX, X
EFFLUENT
BOD =30 MG/L
SS = 10 MG/L
FIGURE 241
SUBCATEGORY A29
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES III, IV, VI, VII. IX, X
759
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 125 CU M/DAY (0.033 MGD)
BOO = 1,350 MG/L
SS = 130 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ALTERNATIVE
A 29-V
EFFLUENT
BOD = 100 MG/L
SS = 30 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
A 29-VIII
EFFLUENT
BOD = 50 MG/L
SS = 15 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
A 29-XI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 30 MG/L
SS = 10 MG/L
FIGURE 242
SUBCATEGORY A29
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES V, VIII, XI
760
-------
DRAFT
suspended solids reduction of 76.9 percent. This alternative is Alter-
native A 29-111 with the addition of dual-media filtration which would
provide an additional BOD and suspended solids reduction of 3.7 and 11.6
percent, respectively.
Alternative A 29-VI - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A29-IIIwith the addition of dual-media filtration.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 96.3 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 88.5 percent.
Alternative A 29-VII - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A29-IVwith the addition of dual-media filtration.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 96.3 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 88.5 percent.
Alternative A 29-VI11 - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 29-V
with the addition of activated carbon which would provide an additional
BOD and suspended solids reduction of 1.5 and 3.8 percent, respectively.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.8
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 92.3 percent.
Alternative A 29-IX - This alternative consists of the same modules
as Alternative A 29-VI with the addition of activated carbon as il-
lustrated in Figure 242.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.8
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 92.3 percent.
Alternative A 29-X - This alternative is identical to Alternative
A 29-VIIwith the addition of activated carbon.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.8
percent and a suspended solids reduction of 92.3 percent.
SUBCATEGORY A 31 - BOUILLON PRODUCTS
In-Plant Technology
Since wastewater generated by the production of bouillon products is a
result of equipment cleaning, there exists little potential in-plant
technology for wastewater control. General housekeeping should be
optimized; dry cleaning before wet cleaning or instead of wet cleaning
should be employed as much as possible.
End-of-Line Technology
All existing bouillon manufacturers discharge to municipal treatment
systems with no apparent adverse effects. The wastewater constituents
761
-------
DRAFT
are mostly highly biodegradable proteins which are well suited for
biological treatment.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant was developed for bouillon product manufacturing in Section
V. It was assumed that the model plant provided a grease trap prior to
wastewater discharge. The raw wastewater characteristics after the grease
trap were assumed to be as follows:
BOD 3000 mg/1
SS 200 mg/1
FOG 150 mg/1
Table 145 lists the effluent pollutant loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the seven treatment alternatives selected for this
subcategory. Figures 243 and 244 illustrate the treatment alternatives
Alternative A 31-1 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
holding tank, and spray irrigation. The land requirement for this
alternative is 2.4 ha (6.0 acres).
The overall benefit of this alternative is a 100 percent reduction of
pollutants to navigable waters.
Alternative A 31-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalization tank, a complete mix activated sludge basin, a sludge
thickener, and a vacuum filter. Flow equalization is provided to
dampen the effect of shock loadings due to large cleanup flow at the
end of each day. The complete mix activated sludge system would provide
a BOD reduction of 95 percent, a suspended solids reduction of 80 percent
and a fats and oils reduction of 73.3 percent. Sludge thickening and
vacuum filtration are provided to reduce the quantity of daily sludge
generated thereby reducing hauling costs. A sludge storage tank is pro-
vided to reduce the frequency of hauls and further reduce hauling costs.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 95 percent,
a suspended solids reduction of 80 percent, and a fats and oils reduction
of 73.3 percent.
Alternative A 31-111 - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 31-11 with the exception that the vacuum filter
is replaced by sand drying beds. This results in twice the amount of
sludge to be hauled per day than that of Alternative A 31-III.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 95 percent,
a suspended solids reduction of 80 percent, and a fats and oils reduction
of 73.3 percent.
Alternative A 31-IV - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalization tank, and an aerated lagoon. The efficiency of this
alternative would be expected to be the same as that of an activated
sludge system.
762
-------
TABLE 145
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY A31
BOUILLON PRODUCTS
to
Treatment Train
Alternatives
A3! -I
A31-II
A31-III
A3! -IV
A31-V
A31-VI
A31-VII
BOD
kg/kkg
0.0
2.34
2.34
2.34
1.09
1.09
1.09
SS
kg/kkg
0.0
0.626
0.626
0.626
0.313
0.313
0.313
FOG
kg/kkg
0.0
0.626
0.626
0.626
0.313
0.313
0.313
Percent
BOD
Removed
100
95
95
95
97.6
97.6
97.6
Percent
SS
Removed
100
80
80
80
90
90
90
Percent
FOG
Removed
100
73.3
73.3
73.3
86.7
86.7
86.7
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 114 CU M/DAY (0.03 MGD)
BCD = 3,000 MG/L
SS = 200 MG/L
FOG = 150 MG/L
1
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
VACUUM
FILTRATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SAND DRYING
BEDS
\
i
ALTERNATIVES
A 31-11, III
EFFLUENT
BOD = 150 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
FOG = 40 MG/L
ALTERNATIVES
1 A 31-V, VI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 70 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FOG =20 MG/L
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
FIGURE 243
SUBCATEGORY A3l
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II, III, V, AND VI
764
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 114 CU M/DAY (0.03 MGD)
BOD = 3,000 MG/L
SS = 200 MG/L
FOG = 150 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVr
„ A 31-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD =150 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
FOG = 40 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
A 31-VII
'EFFLUENT
BOD = 70 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FOG =20 MG/L
FIGURE 244
SUBCATEGORY A31
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES IV AND VII
765
-------
DRAFT
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 95 percent,
a suspended solids reduction of 80 percent, and a fats and oils reduction
of 73.3 percent.
Alternative A 31-V - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 31-11
with the addition of dual media filtration. The overall benefit of this
alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.6 percent, a suspended solids re-
duction of 50 percent, and a fats and oils reduction of 86.7 percent.
Alternative A 31-VI - This alternative consists of the same modules as
Alternative A 31-111 with the addition of dual media filtration.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.6 percent,
a suspended solids reduction of 90 percent, and a fats and oils reduction
of 86.7 percent.
Alternative A 31-VII - This alternative consists of the same modules as
Alternative A 31-IV with the addition of dual media filtration.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.6 percent,
a suspended solids reduction of 90 percent and a fats and oils reduction
of 86.7 percent.
SUBCATEGORY A 32 - NON-DAIRY CREAMER
Existing In-Plant Technology
Information was obtained from two plants during the study. Both plants
used clean-in-place (CIP) systems for equipment cleanup. Plant 99NN01
recycled caustic and acid rinse water and thereby limited the CIP system
wastewater discharge to 7.6 cu m/day (0.002 MGD). In contrast, plant
99N02, a multi-product facility generated 227 cu m/day (0.06 MGD) of
wastewater from CIP systems. Non-contact water and boiler blowdown at
one plant was separated from the process wastestream and was recycled
at the other—both of these procedures being desirable practices.
Potential In-Plant Technology
The quantity of wastewater generated by clean-in-place (CIP) systems can
be further reduced if final or chlorine rinse is recycled and used as
initial rinse. This could conceivably reduce wastewater quantity by as
much as 30 percent. Non-contact water could also be recycled, as is done
at plant 99N02, so that only makeup water would be added as needed.
Improved equipment connections and packaging practices in liquid non-dairy
creamer plants could result in a decreased pollutant loading by reducing
product spills in packaging areas. In powdered non-dairy creamer plants,
cleanup of equipment in dry product areas, as well as dry product spills
should be done with air in order to reduce quantity and pollutant loading
of wastewater.
766
-------
DRAFT
End-of-Line Technology
The only known end-of-line technology currently employed in the non-dairy
creamer industry is spray irrigation of waste effluent by plant 99NN03,
however, this plant is a multi-product facility (cereals are also pro-
duced) an no information is available to determine the quantity or pol-
lutants contributed to the waste stream by the liquid creamer production
alone.
The remainder of the plants contacted discharge without pretreatment to
municipal systems with no apparent adverse affects to the municipal treat-
ment facilities. Consequently, the application of transfer technology in
the form of biological treatment is considered to be feasible for the non-
dairy creamer waste effluent.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for liquid and powdered non-dairy creamer processing was
developed in Section V. The quantity of wastewater generated was deter-
mined based on the assumptions of recycling of caustic and acid rinse
water from clean-in-place (CIP) systems and separation of non-contact
water from the process wastestream. The raw wastewater characteristics
of the model plant were presented as follows:
Flow: 64.3 cu m (0.017 MGD)
BOD: 1100 mg/1
SS: 440 mg/1
O&G: 260 mg/1
N: 5.5 mg/1
P: 29 mg/1
pH: 7.0
Table 146 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the five treatment trains selected for this subcate-
gory. The treatment alternatives are illustrated in Figures 245 and 246.
Alternative A 32-1 - This alternative consists of spray irrigation which
would require a 129 cu m (0.034 MGD) holding tank and a 1.4 ha (3.4 acre)
spray field. The overall benefit of this system is complete reduction
of pollutants to navigable waters.
Alternative A 32-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
nutrient addition, a flow equalization basin, air flotation, a complete mix
activated sludge system, a sludge thickener, and a storage tank to retain
one week's sludge production. Nutrient addition is provided to increase
the BOD reduction in the activated sludge system as the BOD:N:P ratio of
the wastewater entering that activated sludge system was determined to be
100:0.8:0.44, requiring the addition of 2.1 kg (4.7 Ibs) of anhydrous
ammonia and 0.51 kg (1.1 Ibs) of phosphoric acid per day. Flow equalization
is provided to dampen shock loadings which would be expected due to the
intermittent cleanup practices of the non-dairy creamer plant. Removal of
fats and oils is accomplished by the air flotation module. The accumulated
scum would be skimmed and passed into the sludge thickener. Air flotation
767
-------
TABLE 146
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
(NON-DAIRY COFFEE CREAMER)
Subcategory A 32
•-J
O>
00
Treatment Train
Alternative
A32-I
A32-II
A32-III
A32-IV
A32-V
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
0
0.0248
0.0248
0.0106
0.0106
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
0
0.071
0.071
0.0142
0.0142
Effluent
F&O
kg/kkg
0
0.0425
0.0425
0.0142
0.0142
Percent
BOD
Reduction
100
96.8
96.8
98.6
98.6
Percent
SS
Reduction
100
77.2
77.2
95.5
95.5
Percent
F&O
Reduction
100
77.4
77.4
92.5
92.5
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 64.3 CU M/DAY (0.017 MGD)
BOD = 1,100 MG/L
SS = 440 MG/L
FOG = 265 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
I
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
SLUDGE
STORAGE
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
ALTERNATIVE
A 32-11
EFFLUENT
BOD =33 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
FOG = 60 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE
A 32-V
EFFLUENT
BOD = 15 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FOG =20 MG/L
FIGURE 245
SUBCATEGORY A32
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II AND V
769
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW =64.3 CU M/DAY (0.017 MGD)
BOD = 1,100 MC-/L
.SS = 440 MG/L
FOG = 265 MG/L
1
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE
A 32-111
.... EFFLUENT
BOD =35 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
FOG = 60 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
A 32-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD = '15 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FOG = 20 MG/L
FIGURE 246
SUBCATEGORY A32
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES III AND VI
770
-------
DRAFT
would provide a BOD removal of 60 percent, a suspended solids reduction
of 50 percent, and a fats and oils reduction of 42 percent, with the reduc-
tion of fats and oils decreasing foaming in the activated sludge process.
Due to the high biodegradability of the waste effluent, the complete mix
activated sludge module would be expected to provide a BOD reduction of
94.6 percent, a suspended solids removal of 45 percent and a fats and
oils reduction of 55 percent. The quantity of sludge generated by the
activated sludge system would be 7070 I/day (1870 gal/day). Sludge
thickening is provided to concentrate the sludge to two percent solids
and decrease the sludge quantity to 1780 I/day (467 gal/day) thereby
decreasing sludge hauling costs. A holding tank for seven days sludge
volume was recommended to further decrease frequency and thus cost of
sludge hauling.
The overall benefit of Alternative A 32-11 is a BOD reduction of 96.8
percent, a suspended solids reduction of 77.2 percent and a fats and
oils reduction of 77.4 percent.
Alternative A 32-111 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
nutrient addition, a flow equalization tank, an aerated lagoon, and two
settling ponds. The nutrient addition module and flow equalization tank
perform the same functions as indicated for Alternative A 32-11. Due to
longer retention and settling time, removal of fats and oils prior to
aerating is unnecessary. The quantity of sludge which would need to be
removed by draining and dredging settling ponds every five years is
estimated to be 25.8 cu m (33.7 cu yds).
The overall effect of Alternative A 32-111 would be expected to be the same
as that for Alternative A 32-11.
Alternative A 32-IV - This alternative consists of the treatment modules
of Alternative A 32-111 with the addition of sand filtration. Sand
filtration provides an additional BOD removal of 1.8 percent, suspended
solids removal of 18.3 percent and a fats and oils removal of 15.1 percent.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 98.6 percent,
a suspended solids reduction of 95.5 percent, and a fats and oils reduction
of 92.5 percent.
Alternative A 32-V - This alternative consists of the treatment modules
of Alternative A 32-11 with the addition of sand filtration.
The overall benefit of this alternative is the same as that of Alternative
A 32-IV.
SUBCATEGORY A 33 - YEAST
This discussion relates directly to the process for yeast product des-
cribed in Section III and details existing and potential in-olant
771
-------
DRAFT
modifications for reducing volume and strength of wastewater dis-
charges. Treatment methods used by the industry are reviewed, and
treatment alternatives are presented for the model plant defined in
Section V.
In-Plant Technology
In-plant process controls for the reduction of wastewater generation
primarily consist of segregation process wastewater from other sources
reuse of cooling water and boiler condensate, and recovery or dry hauling
of spent filter aids. Dry hauling of molasses clarifier sludge and
reuse of third separation spent beer in the second separation process
are other important methods of reducing wastewater generation. Third
separation beer, resulting from final cold water washing and centrifugal
separation of yeast cream from spent nutrients, can either be discharged
or used as dilution water during the second separation since it is of
relatively low pollutant strength. While no significant reduction of
pollution load results, overall water use may be lowered up to 50 percent
with recycling. One major producer (99Y20) is currently conducting a
bacteriological survey to determine the feasibility of reusing spent
beer at their plants. This is especially important for plants that
practice by-product recovery and biological treatment of resulting low
strength wastes, since lower overall water use would significantly
reduce hydraulic loading of the treatment system. The wastewater charac-
teristics of two plants (99Y02 and 99Y05) that currently reuse final
spent beer are compared with the waste load of a plant (99Y20) that dis-
charges all separation water in Table 147.
Filter aids used in rotary vacuum filters and filter presses for yeast
dewatering include such materials as potato starch and diatomaceous
earth. Spent filter precoat may be handled dry and trucked directly
to land disposal, mixed with water and the slurry discharged, or the
slurry supernatent may be discharged after settling. One plant (99Y23)
recovers potato starch vacuum filter precoat as a by-product after settling.
The sludge produced by mechanical clarification of molasses in the pre-
paration of feed wort may be discharged directly or collected for land
disposal. At the three plants (99Y20, 99Y08, and 99Y11) that practice
evaporation of spent beer, the sludge may be added directly to the
molasses by-product.
A small portion of pollutant loads can be attributed to housekeeping
practices that result in accidental spills or molasses losses to drains,
and improperly maintained equipment and machinery. These housekeeping
contributions are generally shock loads that occur during daily or
weekly maintenance and washdown periods. Costs of effective in-plant
control of these sources are negligible when compared to the costs of
treatment of polluted effluents and lost raw materials. Measures for
the control and minimization of these sources can be effected by good
772
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 147
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
AND SPENT BEER REUSE
Yeast Plant
Production (kkg/day)
Flow (cu m/day)
BOD (mg/1)
BOD (kg/day)
SS (mg/1)
SS (kg/day)
99Y02
82.2
2650
6276
16330
1735
4513
Final Spent
Beer Reused
99Y05
76.5
2854
6766
19310
353
1008
Final Spent
Beer Discharged
99Y20
87.5
5299
2813
14190
1250
6624
773
-------
DRAFT
housekeeping practices. The partial reuse of boiler condensate for hot
water washdowns is one demonstrated method of water conservation.
Acid and caustic wastes are streams resulting from the cleaning of evap-
orators, molasses storage tanks, and other equipment. Acid and caustic
waters are presently discharged or recycled as part of clean-in-place
systems. All evaporator cleanup at one plant (99Y23) is returned to
the system. The quantities of acid and caustic wastes are not sufficient
to significantly affect the pH of the combined waste flow. In general,
it can be stated that there is existing technology that will allow
zero discharge of acid and caustic waste.
Table 148 presents a summary of in-plant control and treatment technology
for the yeast industry. It is probable that no yeast factory in the United
States practices optimum in-plant control, but it is also probable that all
plants practice some degree of in-plant control. Also, it is not
always possible or cost effective to achieve the best in-plant controls,
especially in older plants. In such cases, money for in-plant mod-
ifications might be better spent for wastewater treatment. The model
treatment technology developed later in this section and the cost
analyses of Section VIII are based upon reasonable steps taken in-plant
to reduce pollution loadings.
End-of-Line Technology
Wastewater treatment at 11 of 13 operating yeast factories consists of
discharge to municipal treatment systems. Three plants (99Y08, 99Y11,
and 99Y20) treat high strength wastes, consisting of first and second
separation, by means of evaporation to obtain molasses by-products.
All of these plants directly discharge third separation beer, evaporator
condensate, and other low strength wastes to the municipal system. Plant
99Y08 provides only evaporation before discharging to a municipal system.
The remaining two plants (99Y11 and 99Y20) utilize trickling filters and
activated sludge, respectively, before discharging to navigable waterways.
Table 149 shows the existing treatment practices in the yeast industry.
Several methods of treating soluble carbohydrate yeast wastes have been
used in the United States and in Europe. Eldridge (143) reports that,
in general, yeast effluents are best stabilized by primary fermentation
treatment in anaerobic tanks followed by secondary treatment using per-
colating filters. A European example of this method is the Slagelse,
Denmark, yeast plant where the concentrated wastes, i.e., the yeast wort,
are isolated from the dilute wastes (now called the Danish process) and
treatment of each wastestream is carried out separately. The concentrated
774
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 148
SUMMARY OF IN-PLANT CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
SUBCATEGORY A 33
Wastewater Source
Inplant Control
Remarks
Storm and
Cooling Water
Third Separation Beer
Spent Filter Cake
Molasses Clarifier
Sludge
Floor Wash and
Miscellaneous Wastes
1.
Separation from
Process Water
1.
1.
2.
Reuse in second
Separation
Dry Haul
Byproduct Recovery
Acid and Caustic
Wastes
1. Dry Haul
2. Byproduct Addition
1. Improve housekeeping
and maintenance prac-
tices; use water only
when necessary and re-
use when possible
1. Collection and Reuse
1. Significant reduc-
tion of hydraulic
load to treatment
2. Difficult for older
plants
1. Significant reduc-
tion of overall
water usage
1. No discharge is
technically feasible
1. No discharge is
technically feasible
1. Significant BOD and
suspended solids re-
duction achievable
1. No discharge is
technically feasible.
775
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 149
SUBCATEGORY A 33
SUMMARY OF END OF LINE TREATMENT
AND CONTROL
4->
C
C O)
fO •!-•»-> O)
S- i— (8 i—
O -* > O
CL O -r- >,
IB T- +J i- O 0)
LU i— < o;
X
X
X
X X
UK
UK
X UK
UK
XX UK
UK
UK
UK
to
CU
4J
•r*
U.
-C
•i- CJ
O T-
, t. at
4J -0
r- 3
•r™ p^
U- CO
O> T3 tt)
C O> CD
•r- +J J- O)
r— «O «O t—
-* > -C O
O T- CJ >,
•r- +J to O
S_ O •<-
,p»
u.
O) en
T3
3
CO
"O
'O (O
•p- O
•M CO
U •f*
-------
DRAFT
wastes are digested anaerobically; the remaining dilute effluents are
treated with high rate trickling filters. Figure 247 shows a
diagram of this treatment system. A BOD reduction of 70 to 80 percent
is obtained for a retention time of four days in the digesters. The
concentration of sludge in digestion must be maintained because it is
the main carrier of methane bacteria. The fermentation gas obtained
has a value of 6000 to 6500 Kcal/cu m (26 BTU), or about 0.5 cu m
(18 cu ft) collected for each kg of BOD removed, and is used mainly
for heating to maintain the 30 to 40°C necessary in the digesters.
The amount of digested sludge discharged is about 0.5 percent of the
wort, and is used in making vitamin B^- The object of aerating the
wort is to remove hydrogen sulphide so that the gas may be burned in
boiler furnaces. About one hour of aeration, consuming 3 to 5 cu m
of air per cu m of waste is required to oxidize 98 percent of the
hydrogen sulphide to elemental sulphur. The recirculation ratio for
the trickling filters is at least 1.3. A BOD reduction of 94 percent
is attained using both digestion and high-rate trickling filters.
A plant (99Y24) operating in Illinois during the 1940's is reported
( 144 ) to have treated an average of 500 cu m/day (.132 MGD) of
wastewater with a BOD of 3800 mg/1 and volatile solids of approximately
700 mg/1, using two-stage digestion followed by a high-rate trickling
filter, final settling, and chlorination of the final effluent after
it was mixed with approximately twice its volume of clear condenser
water. This treatment system shown in Figure 248, achieved 89 to
98 percent average monthly BOD reduction for wastes from production
of about 10.4 kkg/day (11.5 ton/day). The total raw waste was passed
through a gas and oil-fired heat exchanger into the floating covered
primary tank which has a 66 hr detention time. The overflow from this
tank was fed to a fixed-cover secondary tank with a 48 hr detention
time. The upper two-thirds of either tank could be recirculated through
the heat exchanger, or waste from the secondary tank pumped back to the
primary tank. The overflow from the secondary tank was mixed with
approximately eight times its volume of clarifier effluent and then
pumped to a 19 m (62 ft) diameter, 2.5 m (8 ft) deep trickling filter
being dosed at approximately 68,000 cu m/ha/day (18 MGAD) by a
multiple-arm rotary distributor with Page-type nozzles. The filter had
complete underdrainage, a conical roof with center stack, and a 70 cu m
(3000 cu ft) capacity fan to produce down draft ventilation. A commercial
deodorant was placed in a flat pan under the fan discharge to eliminate
disagreeable odors.
The filter effluent was passed through a weir to a circular final
clarifier, 20 m (60 ft) in diameter and 2.5 m (8 ft) deep, with a
detention time of 3.75 hours. All clarifier effluent was recirculated
to the filter except a volume equal to the daily raw waste, which was
mixed with twice the volume of condense, water, chlorinated, and
discharged into the storm sewer system. Sludge removed daily from the
clarifier was hauled by truck to farm land and used as fertilizer. This
system worked well after starting, although it was necessary to reinoculate
the digesters with sludge from an outside source periodically to main-
tain optimum operation.
777
-------
RECIRCULATION
DILUTED
WASTES
SETTLING
AND
EQUALIZATION
O
73
FIRST STAGE
HIGH-RATE
TRICKLING
FILTER
INTERMEDIATE
SETTLING
TANK
SECOND STAGE
HIGH-RATE
TRICKLING
FILTER
FINAL
SETTLING
TANK
EFFLUENT
DIGESTED SLUDGE LIQUOR
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
I
I
AERATION
00
CONCENTRATED
WASTES
SETTLING
AND
EQUALIZATION
FIRST STAGE
DIGESTION
WITH HEATING
AND AGITATION
GAS HOLDING
TANK
SECOND STAGE
DIGESTION
WITH HEATING
AND AGITATION
SLUDGE
1 »•
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
FIGURE 247
SLAGELSE, DENMARK YEAST PLANT TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
HEAT
EXCHANGER
FIRST STAGE
DIGESTER
(FLOATING COVER)
32-35°C 1380 CU M
66 HR DETENTION
I
SECOND
OIGESTt
990 CU
48 HR C
STAGE
•R
COVER)
M
JGTENTION
OVERFLOW
HIGH-RATE
TRICKLING FILTER
1.9 M DIAMETER
2.5 M DEPTH
70 CU M FAN CAPACITY
FINAL Q
2.0 M D
2.5 M Dt
1 DEODORIZATION
FAN EXHAUST TRIXX
-ARIFIER
AMETER
TTH
SLUDGE
TO STORM SE*EP •
CHLORINATION
CONDENSER WATER
FIGURE 248
PLANT 99Y24
TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
DRAFT
Another plant (S9Y25 ) operating in Illinois (99Y25) in the 1940's
treated yeast wastes with a BOD of 4200 to 7600 mg/1 using a system
consisting of six fixed-cover digesters operated in three digestion
stages of two tanks each. The system produced an overall BOD reduction
of 80 to 85 percent and destruction of an average of 50 percent of the
volatile solids.
Rudolfs and Trubnick ( 86 ) describe in detail a system once used for
five years by plant 99Y05. The system (Figure 249) consisted of two
equalization tanks, one for concentrated wastes (spent wort) and one for
dilute wastes (wash water and cooling water), two steam heated digesters
in series, a circular hopper-bottomed settling tank for retention
and recycling of digester sludge, two 1.2 m (4.0 ft) deep trickling
filters, and a final settling tank for filter sludge. Careful control
of loading, acclimatization of the seed sludge, maintenance of proper
proportions of seed arid substrate, and provisions for adequate contact
between the seed and the substrate resulted in peak digester efficiency
of 95 percent BOD reduction (with a loading of 1.6 kg/cu m) in the digesters,
Maintenance of proper concentration and neutral pH in the trickling
filter achieved a BOD reduction as high as 75 percent, and the combined
system obtained 80 to 98 percent removal of over 4000 kg/day (9000 Ib/day)
of BOD. The optimum pH of the influent to the trickling filters was
7.0, and efficiency fell rapidly at lower pH values. Below a pH of 6.0
the trickling filters were clogged by a growth of wild yeasts. Sodium
hydroxide was used to maintain suitable pH values.
Buswell ( 145 ) has pointed out that while anaerobic treatment provides
flexability in loading, the BOD of the effluent rarely has a BOD of
less than several hundred mg/1, and that it is usually necessary to
finish treatment of the anaerobic treatment effluent by the aerobic filter
bed method before discharging the final effluent. Anaerobic digestion
was used in Puerto Rico by one plant (99Y14) for a short time, but the
treatment system and plant never performed adequately and are not currently
operating.
The annual wastage of salts ( 145 ) by yeast factories is considerable.
As early as 1950 mention was made of the possibility of concentrating
the high strength wastes (spent beer) and using the concentrate as
fertilizer or for cattle feed. Recovery of molasses by evaporating to
dryness is currently practiced by three plants in the United States. One
plant (99Y11) is currently starting by-product recovery operations, and
little information is available on recovery methods at one other facility
(99Y01), although the process was reported to be performing adequately.
At the third plant (99Y20) a 113,000 kg/hr (250,000 Ib/hr) evaporation
plant has been installed to handle the highly concentrated molasses
wastes (first and second separator beers) discharged from the centrifugal
separators, and an oxygen activated sludge system is used to heat the
remaining combined plant wastes. Figures250, 2519 and 252 present the flow
paths of plant wastestreams and treatment system operations. This
780
-------
o
70
DILUTE
WASTE
CXI
WASTE
EQUALIZATION SECOND STAGE PRIMARY
at^uiNu siH«ot SETTLING >
1ANK DIGESTION V TANK *
....^^_ i *i .,^_
I \
\ O
v *"*
\ * J
/ •• D
y * O
/ Qt
/ U
/ W
/ (£
/
FINAL
_ EQUALIZATION FIRST STAGE ^-rr, TK,^
TANK DIGESTION TAN|<
|
TRICKLING
FILTER
i •
WET WELL
TRICKLING
FILTER
rn SFWFR
FIGURE 249
TREATMENT AND CONTROL
PLANT 99Y25
-------
FIRST AND SECOND
SEPARATOR BEER
AND OTHER
MOLASSES WASTES
CITY
WATER
RIVER WATER
(COOLING ONLY)
i
i
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
EVAPORATION
CONDENSATE
oo
ro
BY-PRODUCT
SLUDGE TREATMENT
COOLING WATER
SANITARY SEWAGE
AERATED
EQUALIZATION
OXYGEN-ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
T
TREATED EFFLUENT
FIGURE 250
YEAST PLANT 99Y20
SIMPLIFIED WASTEWATER FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
DRAFT
FIRST AND SECOND SEPARATOR BEER
\11 TS
(t)
PREMEATER
DESASSIF1BR
MECHkNICAL NECONPMSSION
8UMB TAMC
TS
TRIPL8 EFFECT
EVAPORATORS
«0« TS
SUKi 1AM(
|30» TS
RFC eVAPORATOR
BY-PROOIXT
STORAGE TAMC
•TO*
404
Ml
CU M
STOR
«»4
1
MB
:u M
STOR
4B4
AGE
CU M
STOR
»*«
1
Aoe
CUM
COWXNSATe
R1VW MATCH
J L
SUVACI
OONDIN8A1E
TO BICLOGICAL
TWATICNT
FIGURE 251
YEAST PLANT 99Y20
BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY USING EV/PORATION
783
-------
DRAFT
LOW ', rRENfiTH
INFLUKNT
TREATED EFFLUENT
TO RIVER
FIGURE 252
YEAST PLANT 99Y20
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT AND CONTROL
784
-------
DRAFT
system has treated an average of 85.7 kkg/week (94.5 ton/week) of BOD
and 38.1 kkg/week (42.0 ton/week) of total suspended solids with a
demonstrated removal of 91.4 percent of the BOD and 77.8 percent of the
total suspended solids.
Concentration of the high strength wastes takes place in a multi-effect
evaporation plant. First and second separator beers and other molasses
wastes are pumped to any one of four surge tanks and then preheated and
degasified in packed column type atmospheric flash strippers. The
degassed wastes, containing 2 percent total solids are concentrated in
three falling film mechanical recompression evaporators in series to
20 percent total solids. The evaporator condensate is sewered to the
biological treatment system. A triple effect vacuum evaporator is then
used to further concentrate the waste to 40 percent total solids, and
the condensate is again sent to the oxygen-activated sludge system.
Sludge from biological treatment is mixed with the 40 percent TS material
and concentrated to 65 percent in a forced circulation ( RFC ) evaporator
and the condensate from this final stage sent to biological treatment.
Finally, the 65 percent total solids material is pumped to storage for
future resale as animal feed. The evaporators are reported to remove
90 percent of the BOD and 99 percent of the suspended solids from high
strength wastes. Reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, and other methods
(see rum distilling) of concentration were considered but were found
to be unfeasible for this plant.
All low strength wastes, including third separator beer, evaporator
condensate, and plant washings, are sent to the biological treatment
system. The first stage of the system consists of neutralization,
nutrient addition using phosphoric acid, and aerated equalization
in three 454 cu m (120,000 gal) wood tanks, each provided with a two
speed turbine agitator and air from two compressors. From equalization
the wastes are pumped into the oxygen-activated sludge system where
pure oxygen is used in place of air to achieve the conversion of influent
BOD to biological cells and inorganic material. From this reactor the
wastes are gravity fed into two 10.7 m (35.0 ft) diameter clarifiers in
parallel to remove suspended solids. Clarifier overflow (treated effluent)
is then discharged to a navigable waterway. Clarifier sludge is pumped
to a surge tank, then concentrated, centrifuged, and pasteurized, and
finally pumped from a second surge tank back to the last stage of evap-
oration. Some sludge is returned to the reactor. This sophisticated
system worked well after some modification to eliminate fouling in the
evaporators, although the final effluent still exhibits a brown color.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for the yeast industry. It
is assumed that the model plant provides no treatment of its wastewater
prior to discharge, and that cooling water and domestic sewage are
separated from process wastewater. The chosen flow assumes that third
separation beer is reused as dilution wash water during second separa-
tion. The raw wastewater characteristics of the model plant are:
785
-------
DRAFT
Production 82 kkg (90.4 ton/day)
Flow 2,650 cu m (0.7 MGD)
BOD 6,300 mg/1
SS 1,850 mg/1
The treatment alternatives which include equalization were not judged
to require neutralization. Biological treatment requires the addition
of both nitrogen and phosphorus. In alternatives including molasses by-
product recovery, evaporation is assumed to receive 50 percent of total
plant flow (spent bees), 75 percent of the BOD and suspended solids, and
removes 90 percent of the BOD and 99 percent of the suspended solids.
Table 150 lists the pollutant loading and calculated removal efficiencies
of each of the treatment alternatives selected for this subcategory.
Figures 253 and 254 provide simplified flow diagrams for the treatment
alternatives in this subcategory.
Alternative A 33-1 - This alternative includes no additional control or
treatment.The efficiency of BOD and suspended solids removal is zero.
Alternative A 33-11 - This alternative consists of a control house, pump-
ing station, nutrient addition, flow equalization with 24 hour detention
time, aerated lagoons, and settling ponds. Nutrient addition consists of
1012 kg/day (2231 Ib/day) of anhydrous ammonia and 474 kg/day (1044 lb/
day) of phosphoric acid. The predicted effluent concentrations are 100
mg/1 BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alterna-
tive A 33-11 is a BOD reduction of 98.4 percent and a suspended solids
reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-111 - This alternative adds dual media filtration to the
treatment chain in Alternative A 33-11. The predicted effluent concen-
trations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect
of Alternative A 33-111 is a BOD reduction of 99.2 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 98.7 percent.
Alternative A 33-IV - This alternative adds activated carbon to the treat-
ment chain in Alternative A 33-111. The predicted effluent concentrations
are 25 mg/1 BOD and 13 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of
Alternative A 33-IV is a BOD reduction of 99.6 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 99.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-V - This alternative consists of a control house, pumping
station, flow equalization with 24 hour detention time, primary clarifi-
cation, nutrient addition, complete mix activated sludge system with
fixed surface aerators, sludge thickening producing 2 percent solids,
aerobic digestion producing 3.5 percent solids, vacuum filtration pro-
ducing 15 percent solids, sludge storage, and truck hauling. Nutrient
addition consists of 759 kg/day (1674 Ib/day) of anhydrous ammonia and
355 kg/day (783 Ib/day) of phosphoric acid. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 100 mg/1 BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
786
-------
TABLE 150
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY A33
>
-n
.
00
Treatment Train Alternative
A33-I A
A33-II BCHIL
A33-III BCHILN
A33-IV BCHILNZ
. A33-V BCEHIKQRSYV
A33- VI BCEHIKQRSYVW
A33-VII BCEHIKQRSYUNZ
A33-VIII BCEHIKQRUV
A33-IX BCEHIKQRUYN
A33-X BCEHIKQRUYNZ
A33-XI BCFIHIL
A33-XII BCFIHILN
A33-XIII BCFIHILNZ
A33-X IV BCEFIHIKQRYSV
A33-XV BCEFIHIKQRYSVN
Effluent BOD
(kg/kkg)
203.57
3.23
1.62
0.81
3.23
1,62
0.81
3.23
1.62
0.81
3.23
1.62
0.81
3.23
. . 1.62
Effluent SS
(kg/kkg)-
59.78
1.62
0.81
0.40
1.62
0.81
0.40
1.62
0,81
0.40
1 .62
0.81
0.40
1,62
0.81
Percent BOD
Reduction
0
98.4
99.2
99.6
98.4
99.2
99.6
. 98.4
99.2
99.6
98.4
99.2
99.6
98.4
: .99.2
Percent SS
Reduction
o
97.3
98.7
99.3
97.3
98.7
99.3
97.3
98.7
.99.3
97.3
98.7
99.3
97.3
98.7
-------
TABLE 150(CONT'D)
Treatment Train Alternative
A33-XVI BCEFIHIKQRYSVNZ
A33-XVII BCEFIHIKQRYU
A33-XVIII BCEFIHIKQRYUN
A33-XIX BCEFIHIKQRYUNZ
A33-XX YBU
Effluent BOD
(kq/kkq)
0.81
3.23
1.62
0.81
0
Effluent SS
(kq/kkg)
0.40
1.62
0.81
0.40
0
Percent BOD
Reduction
99.6
98.4
99.2
99.6
100
Percent SS
Reduction
99.3
97.3
98.7
99.3
100
00
00
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
INFLUENT
BOO = $450 MG/L B0° = 3'50 MG/L
SS B 2775 MGA. SS = 925 MG/L
FLOW = 1325 CU M/DAY (0.35 UGD) FLOW,':: 1325 CU M/DAY
EVAPORATION
ALTERNATIVE:
A 33 -XIV
Tl-ROUGH XIX
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
NUTRIENT
ADDITION"
AEROBIC DIGESTION
SLUDGE
THICKENER
VACUUT1
FILTER
TRUCK HAULING
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
PRIMARY
CLAR1FIER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATION BASIN
SECONDARY
CLARIFIES
DUAL h^'DIA
FILTRATION
». ALTERNATIVE A 33-V, VIII, XIV, XVII
. EFFLUENT
BOD 100 I«/L
SS SO MG/L
ACTIVATED
CARBON
-—>- ALTERNATIVE A 33-VI, IX, XV, XVIII
EFFLUENT
BOO 50 MGA.
SS ' 25 MG/L
ALTERNATIVE A 33-VI I. X, XVI, XIX EFFLUENT
BOO 25 MG/L
SS 13 MG/L
FIGURE 253
SUBCATEGORY A 33
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES V THROUGH X, XIV THROUGH XIX
789
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BCD = 9*50 MG/L
SS = 2775 MG/L
FLOW = 1325 CU M/OAY (0.35 MOD)
INFLUENT
BOO = 3150 MG/L
SS « 925 MG/L
FLOW = 1325 CU M/DAY (0.35 MOD)
EVAPORATION
ALTERNATIVES^
A 33-XI,
XII. XIII
WFLOW EQUALIZATION
BY-PRODUCT
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
AERATED LAGOONS
SETTLING PONDS
ALTERNATIVE A 33-11. XI
I ^ EFFLUENT
BOD 100 MG/L
SS 50 MG/L
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A 33-111. XII
^EFFLUENT
BOD 50 MG/L
SS 25 MG/L
ACTIVATED
CARBON
ALTERNATIVE A 33-IV, XIII EFFLUENT
BOO
SS
25 MG/L
13 MG/L
FIGURE 254
SUBCATEGORY A 33
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II THROUGH IV, XI THROUGH XIII
790
-------
DRAFT
effect of Alternative A 33-V is a BOD reduction of 98.4 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-VI - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
treatment chain in Alternative A 33-V. The predicted effluent concen-
trations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 33-VI is a BOD reduction of 99.2 percent and
a suspended solids reduction of 98.7 percent.
Alternative A 33-VII - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment chain in Alternative A 33-VI. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 13 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 33-VII is a BOD reduction of 99.6 percent and
a suspended solids reduction of 99.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-VIII - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration and
truck hauling in Alternative A 33-V with spray irrigation. The pre-
dicted effluent concentrations are 100 mg/1 BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended
solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 33-VIII is a BOD reduction
of 98.4 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-IX - This alternative adds dual media filtration to the
treatment chain in Alternative A 33-VIII. The predicted effluent concen-
trations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect
of Alternative A 33-IX is a BOD reduction of 99.2 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 98.7 percent.
Alternative A 33-X - This alternative adds activated carbon to the treat-
ment chain in Alternative A 33-IX. The predicted effluent concentrations
are 25 mg/1 BOD and 13 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of
Alternative A 33-X is a BOD reduction of 99.6 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 99.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-XI - This alternative consists of pumping first and
second separation beer to an evaporation system for molasses by-product
recovery, and. then treating evaporator condensate and other low strength
wastes using the treatment train described in Alternative A 33-11 except that
nutrient addition consists of 329 kg/day (725 Ib/day) of anhydrous ammonia
and 154 kg/day (340 Ib/day) of phosphoric acid. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 100 mg/1 BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 33-XI is a BOD reduction of 98.4 percent and a
suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-XII - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative A 33-XI. The predicted effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1
BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of Alternative
A 33-XII is a BOD reduction of 99.2 percent and a suspended solids re-
duction of 98.7 percent.
791
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 33-XIII - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment chain in Alternative A 33-XII. The predicted effluent con-
centrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 13 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 33-XIII is a BOD reduction of 99.6 percent and
a suspended solids reduction of 99.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-XIV - This alternative consists of evaporation of high
strength wastes and treatment of evaporator condensate and other low
strength wastes as in Alternative A 33-V except that nutrient addition consists
of 247 kg/day (544 Ib/day) of anhydrous ammonia and 115 kg/day (254 lb/
day) of phosphoric acid. The predicted effluent concentrations are
100 mg/1 BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of
Alternative A 33-XIV is a BOD reduction of 98.4 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-XV - This alternative consists of adding dual media
filtration to the treatment chain in Alternative A 33-XIV. The pre-
dicted effluent concentrations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended
solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 33-XV is a BOD reduction
of 99.2 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 98.7 percent.
Alternative A 33-XVI - This alternative adds activated carbon to the treat-
ment chain in Alternative A 33-XV. The predicted effluent concentrations
are 25 mg/1 BOD and 13 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall effect of
Alternative A 33-XVI is a BOD reduction of 99.6 percent and a suspended
solids reduction of 99.3.percent.
Alternative A 33-XVII - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration and
truck hauling in Alternative A 33-XIV with spray irrigation. The pre-
dicted effluent concentrations are 100 mg/1 BOD and 50 mg/1 suspended
solids. The overall effect of Alternative A 33-XVII is a BOD reduction
of 98.4 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 97.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-XVIII - This alternative adds dual media filtration
to the treatment chain in Alternative A 33-XVII. The predicted concen-
trations are 50 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids. The overall
effect of Alternative A 33-XVIII is a BOD reduction of 99.2 percent and
a suspended solids reduction of 98.7 percent.
Alternative A 33-XIX - This alternative adds activated carbon to the
treatment chain in Alternative A 33-XVIII. The predicted effluent
concentrations are 25 mg/1 BOD and 13 mg/1 suspended solids The
overall effect of Alternative A 33-XIX is a BOD reduction of 99 6 per-
cent and a suspended solids reduction of 99.3 percent.
Alternative A 33-XX - This alternative consists of a holding tank, pump-
ing station, and spray irrigation of the raw effluent. The efficiency
of BOD and suspended solids removal is 100 percent.
792
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORY A 34 - PEANUT BUTTER PLANTS WITH JAR WASHING
In-Plant Technology
In-plant process controls for the reduction of wastewater generation in
peanut butter plants primarily consist of non-contact cooling water
reuse, reuse of detergent cycle wash water in jar washers, use of steam
and specially designated areas for major equipment cleanup, and dry
collection of peanut skins, hearts, and fine particles for by-product
recovery. Other techniques for the reduction wastewater strength include
vacuum collection of process area floor cleanup water and the use of
grease traps on all cleanup area floor drains.
Several methods of non-contact water conservation that significantly
reduce water usage are practiced by one large plant (99P21). Heat
exchangers at several locations on hot water lines used for process
pipe heating (to condition oils and product for pumping) are designed
as a closed loop system requiring only a small amount of make up water.
Condensate is collected and reused for boiler feed water, and a relatively
small amount is discharged. Cooling of refrigeration and compressor
units is accomplished by two cooling towers recirculating water from chilled
water storage tanks. This plant produces 59 to 77 kkg/day (65 to 85
ton/day) and discharges 65 cu m/day (0.017 MGD). In comparison, a much
smaller plant (99P20) producing 10.6 kkg/day (11.7 ton/day) and recir-
culating only a portion of its cooling water, was found to discharge
197 cu m/day (0.052 MGD).
Non-contact water is commonly combined with other plant wastes at plants
99P01, 99P14, and 99P21 which represent the three largest peanut butter
producers. While all of the manufacturers surveyed practice varying
degrees of water reuse, none were found to completely segregate non-
contact water from relatively low volume, high strength wastes (see
Section V) such as jar washer effluent or cleanup wastewater. Separation
of the above waste streams is a potential in-plant modification that would
reduce process wastewater volume by at least 90 percent, and would confine
effluents to only water in contact with contaminants. It must be noted,
however, that generation of pollutants per unit of production would not
decrease, and pollutant concentrations would necessarily increase, espe-
cially during cleanup periods (see Table 150). For example, sample
analyses of combined jar washer and non-contact water discharge at plant
99P20 show a BOD of 60 mg/1, but jar washer effluent alone has a calculated
BOD of 7320 mg/1 (see Table 149). Also it is to be expected that seg-
regation of non-contact and process wastewaters would be more difficult
at older plants.
Jar washer effluent, which is normally discharged, is the only pollutant
source during processing. It is technically feasible to eliminate this
waste stream by diverting it to a holding tank. Such action would
significantly reduce pollutant generation per unit of production.
793
-------
DRAFT
Also, improvement on the method of manually scraping peanut butter from
jars to be washed would reduce the amount of product left in jars, hence
reducing waste generation per unit of production in the jar washer
effluent.
Wastewater from floor cleanup is normally batch dumped from buckets
or drained from a holding tank inside a vacuum floor scrubber. No
steam hoses or water hoses are used in processing areas. Equipment
wipedown is performed weekly and scrub buckets dumped at a steam pit
where all major equipment cleanup takes place. The steam pit is typically
a concrete slab equipped with steam hoses, hot water hoses, and grease
traps on all drains. It may also include stainless steel tanks to
provide a detergent soak for equipment more difficult to clean. Chunk
equipment, elevator buckets, drip pans, pipeline sections, and other
equipment removed from processing areas is manually cleaned with
hot water and steam or detergent after residual product is scraped
into drums for oil stock recovery. Rerouting of drain lines after
the grease traps to a holding tank would completely eliminate cleanup
wastewater discharges and is technically feasible.
End-of-Line Technology
Peanut butter plants do not utilize sophisticated end-of-line treatment
systems. All of the plants surveyed have installed grease traps on all
floor drains. One multi-product plant (99P13) provides oil skimming
of peanut butter wastewater only because these discharges are combined
with the effluent from margarine production. All of the plants surveyed
discharge jar washer and cleanup effluents, combined with large amounts
of non-contact water, to municipal sewer systems.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
Based on the model plant developed in Section V, two treatment alternatives
that provide no discharge of process wastewater were chosen. It is
assumed that the model plant provide grease traps on all floor drains and
that non-contact water and domestic sewage are separated from the process
wastewater. The wastewater flow from the model plant is 2800 I/day
(740 gal/day).
Alternative A 34-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the model plant. The removal efficiency of BOD, suspended solids,
and oil and grease is zero.
Alternative A 34-11 - This alternative consists of a holding tank, pump-
ing station, and spray irrigation of the effluent. This alternative
provides 100 percent removal of BOD, suspended solids, and oil and grease.
794
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 34-111 - This alternative replaces spray irrigation in
Alternative A 34-11 with truck hauling of the effluent, and also
provides 100 percent removal of BOD, suspended solids, and oil and
grease.
SUBCATEGORY A 35 - PEANUT BUTTER PLANTS WITHOUT JAR MASHING
The existing and potential in-plant and end-of-line technology for
peanut butter plants without jar washing is identical to Subcategory
A 34 except that jar washing is not included.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
Based on the model plant developed in Section V, two treatment alter-
natives that provide no discharge of process wastewater were chosen
for Subcategory A 35. It is assumed that the model plant provides
grease traps on all floor drains and that non-contact water and do-
mestic sewage are separated from the process wastewater. The waste-
water flow from the model plant is 757 I/day (200 gal/day).
Alternative A 35-1 - This alternative provides no additional treat-
ment to the model plant. The removal efficiency of BOD, suspended
solids, and oil and grease is zero.
Alternative A 35-11 - This alternative consists of a holding tank,
pumping station, and spray irrigation of the effluent. This alter-
native provides 100 percent removal of BOD, suspended solids, and
oil and grease.
Alternative A 35-1II - This alternative replaces spray irrigation in
Alternative A 35-11 with truck hauling of the effluent and also pro-
vides 100 percent removal of BOD, suspended solids, and oil and grease.
SUBCATEGORY A 36 - PECTIN
As previously discussed in Section III, there are three known producers
of pectin in the United States. During the course of this study all
three plants were visited. The information which was obtained regard-
ing the control and treatment practices of the industry is presented
below.
In-Plant Technology
Plant 99K01 practices water reuse in the following ways:
1. Barometric condenser cooling water for the pectin evaporator is
recycled through a cooling tower. Makeup water is added as
needed. This practice decreases the cooling water discharge
by approximately 5700 cu m/day (1.5 MGD).
795
-------
DRAFT
2. The tubular heat exchanger on the alcohol distillation column
is cooled by 2800 1/min (750 gpm) of water from a cooling
tower. There is a small blowdown of approximately 11 cu m/day
(0.0029 MGD) from the system. This practice decreases cooling
water discharge by about 4090 cu m/day (1.08 MGD).
3. Cooling water used in a plate exchanger to cool condensed
alcohol is subsequently used in a vacuum cooler prior to
being stored for further use elsewhere in the plant.
Plant 99K02 reported several areas of water reuse including the following:
1. Peel wash water is reused in the conveyance of peels to grind-
ing and pasteurization, and also as cooling tower makeup
water.
2. Nash pump seal water is used to sluice diatomite cake from the
pressure filters.
3. A cooling tower is used to minimize cooling water discharge
from the plant.
Plant 99K03 also recycles all cooling water through a cooling tower thereby
decreasing fresh water requirements by 200 percent. Wherever possible all
three plants reclaim acid and alcohol used in the pectin process to mini-
mize the discharge of these substances into the waste stream. Vacuum
filter cake, composed mainly of spent peels, is segregated from the waste
stream, dried, and utilized as cattle feed at plants 99K01 and 99K02.
End-of-Line Technology
Plant 99K03 is currently discharging its entire process wastewater (in-
cluding still bottoms and spent peel) to a municipal treatment system
with no apparent adverse effect on the system. Plant 99K02 utilizes
three methods of ultimate wastewater disposal for specific process
waste streams. Alcohol still bottoms and water softener regenerate
are segregated and truck hauled to a municipal treatment system. Spent
peel is dewatered in a press, dried, and utilized as cattle feed. The
press liquor waste stream along with peel wash and reuse water, spent
diatomaceous filter cake and sluice water, pectin mother liquor, boiler
blowdown, and cleanup water (all of low inorganic content) are distrib-
uted into 120 ha (290 acres) of land by check and furrow irrigation.
Plant 99K01 also recovers spent peel for subsequent use as cattle feed.
Waste streams low in inorganics (peel wash water, diatomaceous filter
cake and sluice water, plant cleanup and miscellaneous waste streams)
are used to irrigate corn, barley, and Sudan grass crops. The alcohol
still bottoms, caustic evaporator wash water, water softening regen-
erate, and boiler blowdown are neutralized and subsequently discharged
to a municipal industrial outfall line.
796
-------
Ion exchange has been attempted at plant 99K02 for treatment of some
process waste streams with poor results. At present, the plant is
considering construction of an oxygen activated sludge system for treat-
ment of its process waste (excluding alcohol still bottoms and water
softening regenerate) along with other citrus process wastes generated
at the plant.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for pectin processing. The raw
wastewater characteristics of the plant were assumed to be as follows:
Flow 1530 cu m/day (0.404 MGD)
BOD 4950 mg/1
SS 2100 mg/1
N 260 mg/1
pH 4.6 to 6.0
Table 151 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated oper-
ating efficiency of each of the ten treatment alternatives selected for
this subcategory as illustrated in Figures 255 and 256. It is assumed
that truck hauling of alcohol still bottoms, diatomaceous filter cake
and sluice water, and water softening regenerate to landfill is pro-
vided for each alternative. It should be noted that biological treat-
ment will not provide reduction of inorganics in the wastewater. Citrus
wastes have been shown (146) to be biodegradable in an efficiently operated
complete-mix activated sludge system. The organic constituents of the
pectin wastewater are similar to those of citrus processors and would
therefore also be expected to be biodegradable under similar conditions.
Alternative A 36-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
for the raw waste effluent. The overall reduction of pollutants is zero.
Alternative A 36-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station and
a holding tank followed by spray irrigation of the raw waste effluent.
This alternative would require 32.4 ha (80.0 acres) of land and provide
a 100 percent reduction of pollutants to navigable waters.
Alternative A 36-111 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization tank, caustic neutralization, complete-mix activated
sludge basins, sludge thickening, aerobic digestion, and vacuum filtra-
tion. A flow equalization tank is provided to dampen shock loadings to
the activated sludge basins. Neutralization of the waste is accomplished
by the daily addition of an estimated 98 kg (220 Tb) of sodium hydroxide
to the raw wastewater The complete-mix activated sludge system would be
expected to provide a BOD and suspended solids reduction of 94.9 and
90.0 percent, respectively. The amount of sludge wasted from the vacuum
filters is estimated at 25 cu m/day (0.0066 MGD).
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 90.0 percent.
797
-------
TABLE 151
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY A 36 - PECTIN
to
00
Alternative
A 36-1
A 36-11
A 36-111
A 36- IV
A 36-V
A 36-VI
A 36-VII
A 36-VIII
A 36- IX
A 36- X
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
4128
0.0
208.5
208.5
208.5
208.5
104.3
104.3
104.3
104.3
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
1751
0.0
175.1
175.1
175.1
175.1
83.4
83.4 •
83.4
83.4
Percent
BOD
Removal
o.o
100
94.9
94.9
94.9
94.9
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
Percent
SS
Removal
0.0
100
90
90
90
90
95.2
95.2
95.2
95.2
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 1,530 CU M/DAY (0.40 MGD)
BOD = 4,950 MG/L
SS = 2,100 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
— -
'
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
1
r
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE BASIN
' • 1
SLUDGE
THICKENING
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
SECONDARY
CLARIFICATION
1
VACUUM
FILTRATION
i
1
i
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
1
ALTEPNAT
A 36-VII
I
IVES
, VIII, IX
ALTERNATIVES
-A 36-1II, IV,
EFFLUENT
BOD = 250 MG/L
SS = 210 MG/L
SLUDGE TO
TRUCK HAUL
BOD = 125 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
SAND DRYING
BEDS
FIGURE 25£
SUBCATEGORY A36
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX
799
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
FLOW = 1,530 CU M/DAY (0.40 MGD)
BOD = 4,950 MG/L
SS = 2,100 MG/L
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
AERATED
LAGOON
SETTLING
PONDS
ALTERNATIVE
--». A 36-VI
EFFLUENT
BOD = 250 MG/L
SS = 210 MG/L
DUAL-MEDIA
FILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE A 36-X
EFFLUENT
BOD = 125 MG/L
SS = 100 MG/L
FIGURE 256
SUBCATEGORY A36
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES VI AND X
800
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 36-IV - This alternative consists of the same modules as
Alternative A 36-1II except vacuum filtration is replaced by sand drying
beds, resulting in twice the daily sludge production" over that of Alter-
native A 36-1II.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD and suspended solids
reduction of 94.9 and 90.0 respectively.
Alternative A 36-V '- This alternative consists of the same treatment modules
as Alternative A 36-111 except vacuum filtration is replaced by spray irri-
gation of daily sludge produced. This would require a spray field of ap-
proximately 2.3 ha (5.7 acres).
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 90.0 percent.
Alternative A 36-VI - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalization tank, caustic neutralization and an aerated lagoon.
The overall effect of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 94.9 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 90.0 percent.
Alternative A 36-VII - This alternative is identical to Alternative A 36-111
with the addition of dual-media filtration which would provide an esti-
mated additional BOD and suspended solids reduction of 2.6 and 5.2 per-
cent, respectively.
The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.5 per-
cent and a suspended solids reduction of 95.2 percent.
Alternative A 36-VIII - This alternative is identical to Alternative
A 36-IV with the addition of dual-media filtration. The overall bene-
fit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.5 percent and a sus-
pended solids reduction of 95.2 percent.
a
Alternative A 36-IX - This alternative consists of the same modules as
Alternative A 36-V with the addition of dual-media filtration. The
overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of 97.5 percent
and a suspended solids reduction of 95.2 percent.
Alternative A 36-X - This alternative consists of the same treatment
modules as Alternative A 36-VI with the addition of dual-media filtra-
tion. The overall benefit of this alternative is a BOD reduction of
97.5 percent and a suspended solids reduction of 95.2 percent.
SUBCATEGQRY A 37 - PROCESSING OF ALMOND PASTE
There are currently four known processors of almond paste in the
United States. All four discharge their process wastewater to
municipal facilities. Results of a telephone survey to three plants
and one plant visitation indicate that the production of almond paste
801
-------
DRAFT
contributes a relatively insigificant waste load to the total waste
load of the four multi-product processing plants. The production of
almond paste exists in combination with the production of a large
variety of other products such as nut pastes (i.e., pecan, walnut,
hazel nut, cashew, and apricot kernals), granulated nuts, and nut
toppings. The wastewater characteristics of almond paste processing
are currently unavailable for the following reasons: 1) the multi-
product plants contacted were unable to furnish historical data on almond
paste production alone, with the only available information being that
of the final combined products waste load, 2) the actual sampling of the
almond paste production line was impractical due to the combination of
waste streams from other product lines, and 3) production data was
unobtainable.
The industry has made no future plants for the construction of any
new almond paste processing plants and, as previously mentioned, dis-
charges its wastewaters to municipal facilities. Therefore, the pos-
sibility of a future point source discharge from an installation
primarily engaged in the production of almond paste is minimal. Due
to a lack of information on the industry's product line, production
variability, and wastewater characteristics, the development of
effluent guidelines for almond paste processing is not feasible at
this time.
SUBCATEGORY B 1 - FROZEN PREPARED DINNERS
Existing and Potential In-Pi ant Technology
The majority of wastes from the frozen specialties plant originates
from clean up of the vats, kettles, friers, mixers, piping, etc.,
which are used during preparation of the various components of
the final product. General plant cleanup, usually a continuous
process, is also a major wastewater source. Substantial reduction,
therefore, in raw waste load and wastewater treatment cost can be
realized by careful in-plant water management:
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 approxi-
mately $40.
2. Central clean up systems (valved or triggered hoses)
should be installed. 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.
802
-------
DRAFT
3. That portion of very dilute wastewater (such as defrost
water) which is not reused or recirculated, should
be discharged separately from the process wastewater.
4. Good housekeeping is an important factor in normal
pollution control. Spills, spoilage, trash, etc.
resulting from sloppy operation may be heavy con-
tributors to liquid waste loads. 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.
5. The processor should look at his handling of solid
waste. A well-operated plant will, insofar as pos-
sible, avoid solid waste contact with the liquid
waste stream. Where this is not feasible, the
solid 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.
End-of-Line Technology
This subcategory is characterized by strong wastes in terms of BOD,
SS, and 0 & G. Nevertheless an existing secondary treatment plant
(38*50) is achieving excellent pollutant removals with activated
sludge treatment preceded by a series of primary treatment and
biological treatment units. Table 152 provides data pertinent to
desing of individual treatment units. An analysis of daily reported
treatment performance during the months of October and November, 1974,
for plant 38*50 shows the effluent quality characteristics shown
below. The company reports these results are typical of plant per-
formance since 1972.
BOD, average 9 mg/1, range 1-27 mg/1
SS, average 37 mg/1, range 4-137 mg/1
O&G, average 10 mg/1, range 1-30 mg/1
pH, 7 to 8
Ninety-nine percent plus removals are reflected by the above
results based upon average influent characteristics of BOD -
3,500 mg/1, O&G - 3,000 mg/1, and SS - 4,500 mg/1. These results
were confirmed by sampling.
This plant was expanded over a ten year period beginning in 1962,
and treatment units were added as effluent discharge requirements
803
-------
TABLE 152
TREATMENT UNIT CHAIN AND MAJOR DESIGN
FACTORS FOR EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
TREATING WASTEWATER.FROM FROZEN PREPARED DINNERS
AND OTHER SPECIALTY FOODS
No. Treatment unit
1 Sweco vibrating screens (2),
20 mesh, 48 inch.
Gravity sedimentation
tanks (2), 10 ft x 125 ft
x 10 ft deep, 187,000 gal
capacity total.
Dissolved air flotation
tanks (2) 200 sq ft surface
area each.
Anaerobic lagoons (3), in
series, 1.93 MG capacity
each with 100 percent
recirculation from final
lagoon to first lagoon.
Roughing filters (2),
first filter is 5,500 cu ft
of plastic media, second
filter is 11,000 cu yd
of rock media.
Activated sludge aeration
tanks (4) rectangular with
mechanical surface aera-
tors, 141,000 gal capacity
each.
Final clarifiers (2), first
clarifier has 962 sq ft
surface area, second clari-
fier has 1,590 sq ft
surface area.
Significant design
factors
300 gpm rated capacity,
remove approximately
1,000 Ibs/day of
screenings.
200 gpd/sq ft overflow
rate and 9 hr detention
at design flow of
0.5 mgd.
1,250 gpd/sq ft over-
flow.
11 day retention at
design flow. Thick
scum .mat on lagoons
surface aids odor
prevention.
Hydraulic loading is
30 gpd/cu ft per day,
BOD loading is approx-
imately 0.36 Ib BOD/cu
ft per day.
27 hour retention time,
BOD loading is approxi-
mately 50 Ib BOD/1,000
cu ft, 100 percent
sludge recirculation
capacity.
500 gpd/sq ft overflow
rate at design flow of
0.5 mgd.
804
-------
TABLE 152 (Continued)
Significant design
No. Treatment unit factors
8 Chlorine contact tank. 30 minute detention at
design flow.
9 Sludge handling - Primary sludge and waste activated
sludge is centrifuged, thickened and disposed to
landfill. Grease skimmings are recovered and approxi-
mately 4,500 Ibs/day are sold.
805
-------
DRAFT
grew more stringent. An engineer designing a new plant would not
design the new plant in exactly the same manner. Nevertheless,
much can be learned from the long term effectiveness of the des-
cribed treatment plant when it is necessary to treat very strong
wastes and produce effluents of extraordinary quality, as is the
case here. The key to the success of the treatment system des-
cribed appears to be to remove SS and 0&6, anel the combination
of biological secondary treatment units in series, .i.e., anaerobic
lagoon roughing filter, and activated sludge. Each treatment
unit acts to remove a percentage of the wastewater pollutants
and prepare the waste properly for the following treatment unit.
Table 153 presents reported pollutant removal efficiencies through
each successive treatment unit described previously in Table 152.
The performance of the gravity clarifier and air flotation primary
treatment units should be noted. The relatively low percent removals
through the anaerobic lagoons is deceptive according to the plant
operating staff who report that the anaerobic lagoon biological
activity converts the dissolved organic pollutants into forms more
readily treated by the subsequent aerobic biological processes. In
addition, the anaerobic lagoons act as a flow equalization and
buffering unit for the succeeding treatment processes. Company
personnel report that prior to construction of the anaerobic
lagoons, performance of the trickling filters and activated sludge
units was less efficient and more erratic.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for Subcategory B 1 was developed in Section V. The
raw wastewater characteristics were as follows:
Flow (0.3 MGD)
BOD 2000 mg/1
SS 1500 mg/1
O&G 2000 mg/1
N 45 mg/1 (deficient)
P 21 mg/1 (sufficient)
The following treatment alternatives have been selected for this
subcategory:
Alternative B 1-1 - This alternative assumes no additional treatment.
Alternative B l-II - This alternative provides flow equalization,
dissolved air flotation, and vacuum filtration of sludge. The
expected BOD removal benefit is 60 percent.
Alternative B l-III - This alternative provides the addition of
complete mix activated sludge with two aeration basins and sludge
thickening to Alternative B l-II. The expected BOD removal
benefit is 96 percent.
806
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 153
REPORTED PERFORMANCE FOR TREATMENT
UNITS DESCRIBED IN TABLE
Treatment unit Percent reduction*
BOD fi&O Sf. .
Gravity sedimentation 39 79 73
Air flotation 15 14 16
Anaerobic lagoon 467
Trickling filter 15 - (3)
Activated sludge _26_ . _-_ _fi_
Totals 99 99 99
*Typical screened raw waste characteristics
are: BOD - 3,500 mg/1, O?.G - 3,000 iug/1,
and SS - 4,500 rag/1.
807
-------
DRAFT
Alternative B 1-IV - This alternative adds dual media filtration
to Alternative B l-III. The expected BOD removal benefit is 98
percent.
A summary of the pollutant removals expected is presented in
Table 154. A schematic diagram of Alternatives B 1-1 through
B 1-IV is presented in Figure 257.
SUBCATEGORY B 2 - BREADED AND BATTERED FROZEN PRODUCTS
In-Plant Technology
The existing and potential in-plant technology for Subcategory B 2
is the same as for Subcategory B 1.
End-of-Line Technology
This subcategory is characterized by strong wastes in terms of BOD and
SS per unit of production as tabulated in Section V of this document.
Design of theoretical treatment chains is difficult in this sub-
category because of extremely wide fluctuations in the flow
volume generated per unit of production. All plants identified
which manufacture breaded and battered frozen products discharge
into municipal systems. No secondary treatment or exemplary pre-
treatment facilities were found to exist in this subcategory.
Characteristics of the waste are amenable to secondary treatment and
technology transfer of activated sludge is appropriated and well-founded.
Selection of Control and Treatment Alternatives
In Section V, a model plant was developed for breaded and battered
frozen products. The plant has a flow of 190 cu m/day (0.05 MGD).
The wastewater characteristics are as follows:
BOD 4,000
SS 4,000
O&G 400
N & P (sufficient)
pH 6 to 9
The following treatment alternatives have been selected for this subcategory:
Alternative B 2-1 - No additional treatment.
Alternative B 2-II - This alternative consists of flow equalization, dissolved
air flotation, and vacuum sludge filtration. The expected BOD reduction
benefit is 60 percent.
Alternative B 2-111 - This alternative consists of the addition of
activated sludge to Alternative B 2-1I. Additional vacuum filtration
808
-------
TABLE 154
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY Bl
FROZEN PREPARED DINNERS
Unit influent
Cumulative
00
o
vo
Alt.
Bl-I
Bl-II
Bl-III
Bl-IV
Fin.
Effl.
Treatment
unit
None
Flow
Dis.
Act.
Equal.
Air Flot.
Sludge
Filtration
Characteristics, mg/1
BOD TSS O&G
2,000
2,000
2,000
800
80
40
1,500
1,500
1,500
300
90
23
2,000
2,000
2,000
400
120
60
percent removal
BOD TSS 0!
0
0
60
96
98
98
0
0
80
94
98
98
0
0
80
94
97
97
-------
DRAFT
RAW WASTEWATER
FLOW =
BOD = 2000 MG/L
SS = 1500 MG/L
O & G ~ 2000 MG/L
(0.3 MGD)
PUMPING
STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
I
TRUCK
HAULING
SLUDGE
THICKENER
1
H
VACUUM
FILTER
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE Bl-II
BOD = 800 MG/L
SS = 800 MG/L
O 6 G = 400 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE Bl-III
BOD = 80 MG/L
SS = 90 MG/L
O & G = 120 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE Bl-IV
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS = 23 MG/L
0 6 G = 60 MG/L
FIGURE
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Bl-I THROUGH Bl-IV
810
-------
DRAFT
capacity is required for thickened waste activated sludge. The aeration
basin required 19 kw (25 hp) aeration. The expected BOD reduction
benefit is 96 percent.
Alternative B 2-IV - This alternative provides the addition of dual media
filtration to Alternative B 2-III. The expected BOD reduction benefit is
98 percent.
A summary of the pollutant removals expected is presented in Table 155. A
schematic diagram of Alternatives B 2-1 through B 2-IV is shown in Figure 258.
SUBCATEGORY B 3 - FROZEN BAKERY DESSERTS
In-Plant Technology
The existing and potential inplant technology for Subcategory B 3 is
the same as for Subcategory B 1.
End-of-Line Technology
This Subcategory is characterized by strong wastes in terms of BOD,
SS, and O&G as described in Section V of this document. The rich ingredients
(butter, sugar, cream fillings, etc.) are washed from processing equipment
and dissolved in the wastewater. No plant was identified which manufactures
exclusively frozen bakery desserts and provides secondary treatment
prior to direct discharge. However, plant 38*50, described under the prepared
dinners subsection of this Section VII, provides excellent "technology
transfer" data for this Subcategory for two reasons: First, the previously
described treatment plant under Prepared Dinners also treats wastewater
from preparation of frozen pies; and second, the reported characteristics
of the wastes from preparation of frozen bakery desserts are very similar
to the characteristics of wastes reported from preparation of prepared
dinners.
An extensive pretreatment plant was installed at one of the nations
largest manufacturers of frozen bakery desserts, and provides activated
sludge treatment prior to discharge into the municipal system of a
small community. This pretreatment plant usually achieves better than
90 percent removal of COD, SS, and O&G. Table 156 provides data pertinent
to design of individual treatment units. An analysis of monthly reported
treatment performance from May, 1973 through September, 1974 shows the ef-
fluent quality characteristics shown below.
COD, average 632 mg/1, range 325-1, 750 mg/1
SS, average 132 mg/1, range 55-227 mg/1
O&G, average 57 mg/1, range 10-106 mg/1
Average raw waste characteristics through the same period are as follows:
Flow, average 0.125 mgd, range .09-0.18 mgd
COD, average 5,700 mg/1, range 4,500-7,700 mg/1
SS, average 1,550 mg/1, range 800-2,500 mg/1
O&G, average 650 mg/1, range 250-950 mg/1
811
-------
TABLE 155
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY B2
BREADED AND BATTERED FROZEN PRODUCTS
\
Unit influent
Cumulative
Alt.
B2-I
B2-II
2 B2-III
ro
B2-IV
Fin.
Effl.
Treatment
unit
None
Flow Equal.
Dis. Air Flot.
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Characteristics, mg/1
BOD TSS O&G
4,000
4,000
4,000
1,600
160
80
4,000
4,000
4,000
800
160
80
400
400
400
80
30
15
percent removal
BOD TSS 01
0
0
60
96
98
98
0
0
80
96
98
98
0
0
80
92
96
96
-------
DRAFT
RAW WASTEWATER
FLOW = 190 CU M/DAY (0.05 MOD)
BOD = 4000 MG/L
SS = 4000 MG/L
0 & G = 400 MG/L .
1
PUMPING
STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
SLUDGE
THICKENER
VACUUM
FILTER
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
H
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
1
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B2-II
BOD = 1600 MG.L
SS = 800 MG/L
0 6 G = 80 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B2-III
BOD =160 MG/L
SS = 160 MG/L
O & G = 30 MG/L
TRUCK
HAULING
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B2-IV
BOD = 80 MG/L
SS = 80 MG/L
0 & G = 15 MG/L
FIGURE 25G
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
82-I THROUGH B2-IV
813
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 156
TREATMENT UNIT CHAIN AND MAJOR
DESIGN FACTORS FOR EXISTING PRE-TREATMENT
PLANT TREATING WASTEWATER FROM
FROZEN BAKERY PRODUCTS
No. Treatment unit
1 Comminuter
2 Chemical flocculation tank(l)
with 4,300 gal capacity.
Have capability to add lime,
ferric chloride, and
nutrients.
3 Dissolved air flotation
tank(l) with 16 ft diameter
and 12 ft depth. The air
requirement is 2-3 cfm @
50 psi. Water is pumped
from top portion of tank,
mixed with air from com-
pressor, and fed to
pressurized tank for injec-
tion to bottom of flotation
unit.
4 Aeration tanks(2), each
with 213,000 gal capacity.
Three 60 HP blowers can
supply a maximum of 6,000
cfm. Normal air require-
ment is 4,000 cfm. One
20 HP mechanical aerator
aids the process.
5 Aerated storage tanks (2)
of 183,000 gal capacity
each, to be used for
storage of surge loads or
excess aeration capacity
for the activated sludge
process. After storage,
water can be returned to
the flotation or acti-
vated sludge units.
Significant design
factors
48 min retention at
average flow of 130,000
gpd.
3.8 hr retention at
average flow. 650
gpd/ft^ overflow rate.
3.3 day retention at
average flow. MLVSS
concentration ranges
from 3,000-6,000 mg/1,
3 day total retention
time at average flow.
814
-------
DRAFT
TADLE 156 (Continued)
Significant design
No. Treatment unit factors
6 . Final clarification tanks(2), 27 hrs total retention
each 14' x 50' x 14 deep. with a 93 gpd/ft^ over-
A high percentage of the flow rate.
solids are returned to the
activated sludge process.
7 Sludge storage pit that
accepts waste activated
sludge and the solids from
the air flotation unit.
815
-------
DRAFT
Average percentage reductions therefore are: COD-89 percent,
SS-91 percent, and 0&G-91 percent. These are excellent removals
for a pre-treatment facility.
Performance of the air flotation unit notes particular attention.
The company takes separate samples of the air flotation unit effluent
(See Table 156 for description of design characteristics). Average air
flotation unit effluent characteristics are as follows:
COD, average 3,500 mg/1, range 1,700-5,000 mg/1
SS, average 600 mg/1, range 400-1,000 mg/1
0&6, average 230 mg/1, range 70-600 mg/1
Referring to the noted raw waste characteristics, it can be seen
that the air flotation units achieve the following average percentage
reductions of this waste: COD-18 percent, SS-61 percent, and 0&G-64
percent.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for frozen bakery desserts was developed in Section V.
The raw wastewater characteristics were as follows:
Flow 114 cu m/day (0.3 MGD)
BOD 4000 mg/1
SS 3000 mg/1
O&G 1000 mg/1
N 40 mg/1 (deficient)
P 7 mg/1 (deficient)
pH 6 to 9
The following treatment alternatives have been selected for this
subcategory:
Alternative B 3-1 - This alternative assumes no additional treatment.
Alternative B 3-II - This alternative provides flow equalization, dissolved
air flotation, and vacuum filtration of sludge. The expected BOD removal
benefit is 70 percent.
Alternative B 3-1II - This alternative provides complete mix activated
sludge with two aeration basins and sludge thickening addition to
Alternative B 3-1I. Nutrient addition in the amounts of 220 kg/day
(490 Ib/day) NH3 and 120 kg/day (260 lb/day)H3P04 is necessary. The
expected BOD removal benefit is 97 percent.
Alternative B 3-IV - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative B 3-III. The expected BOD removal benefit is 98 percent.
A summary of the pollutant removals expected is presented in Table 157.
A schematic diagram of Alternatives B 3-1 through B 3-IV is presented
in Figure 259.
816
-------
TABLE 157
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY B3
FROZEN BAKERY PRODUCTS
Unit influent
Cumulative
Alt.
B3-I
B3-II
00
•vl
B3-III
B3-IV
Fin.
Effl.
Treatment
unit
None
Flow Equal.
Dis. Air Flot.
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Characteristics, mg/1
BOD TSS O&G
4,000
4,000
4,000
1,600
160
80
3,000
3,000
3,000
600
180
45
1,000
1,000
1,000
200
60
30
percent removal
BOD TSS 08
0
0
60
96
98
98
0
0
80
94 .
98
98
0
0
80
94
97
97
-------
DRAFT
RAW WASTEWATER
FLOW = 114 CU M/DAY (0.3 MGD)
BOD = 4000 MG/L
SS = 3000 MG/L
0 & G = 1000 MG/L
PUMPING
STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
SLUDGE
THICKENER
VACUUM
FILTER
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B3-II
BOD = 1600 MG/L
SS = 600 MG/L
0 6 G = 200 MG/L
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B3-IV
BOD =80 MG/L
SS = 45 MG/L
0 6 G = 30 MG/L
TRUCK
HAULING
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B3-III
BOD = 160 MG/L
SS = 180 MG/L
O & G = 60 MG/L
FIGURE 259
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
B3-I THROUGH B3-IV
818
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORY B 4 - TOMATO-CHEESE-STARCH COMBINATIONS
In-Plant Technology
The existing and potential in-plant technology for Subcategory B 4
is the same as for Subcategory B 1.
End-of-Line Technology
This subcategory is characterized by weak wastes in terms of BOD,
SS, and O&G. The principal product is frozen pizza and the manu-
facturing facilities are careful to waste as little of their
expensive ingredients as possible. In addition, the process waste
stream is normally substantially diluted by the cooler (freezer)
water from the freezing process. No plant was identified which
manufactures exclusively frozen tomato-starch-cheese specialties
and provides secondary treatment prior to direct discharge or
discharge to a municipal sewage syste. Characteristics of the
waste in terms of BOD and SS are similar to typical municipal waste
(see Section V of this document). Examination of the characteristics
of this waste indicate an expected high degree of pollutant removal
through conventional biological treatment methods.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for tomato-starch-cheese products was developed in
Section V. The raw wastewater characteristics were as follows:
Flow 378 cu m/day (0.1 MGD)
BOD 700 mg/1
SS 400 mg/1
O&G 200 mg/1
N & P (sufficient for biological treatment)
The following treatment alternatives have been selected for this
subcategory:
Alternative B 4-1 - This alternative assumes no additional treatment.
Alternative B 4-III- This alternative provides flow equalization,
dissolved air flotation, and vacuum filtration of sludge. The
expected BOD removal benefit is 40 percent.
Alternative B 4-III - This alternative provides two complete mix
activated sludge systems in parallel and sludge thickening addition
to Alternative B 4-11. The expected BOD removal benefit is 90
percent.
A summary of the pollutant removals expected is presented in Table
158. A schematic diagram of Alternatives B 4-1 through B 4-III is
presented in Figure 260.
819
-------
TABLE 158
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES FOR SUBCATEGORY B4
TOMATO-STARCH-CHEESE COMBINATIONS
00
ro
o
Alt.
B4-!
B4-II
Treatment
unit
None
Flow equa
1.
Dis. Air Flot.
B4-III Act. Sludge
Unit influent
Characteristics, mg/1
BOD TSS O&G
700
700
700
420
400
400
400
120
200
200
200
60
Cumulative
percent removal
BOD TSS O&G
0
40
94
0
0
70
90
0
70
90
Fin.
Effl.
40
40
20
94
90
90
-------
DRAFT
RAW WASTEWATER
FLOW = 378 CU M/DAY (0.1 MGD)
BOD = 700 MG/L
SS = 400 MG/L
0 & G = 200 MG/L
PUMPING
STATION
FLOW EQUALIZATION
SLUDGE
THICKENER
TRUCK
HAULING
VACUUM
FILTER
DISSOLVED AIR
FLOTATION
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B4-II
BOD =420 MG/L
SS = 120 MG/L
0 & G = 60 MG/L
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE B4-III
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS = 40 MG/L
0 6 G = 20 MG/L
FIGURE ?60
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
B4-I THROUGH B4-III
821
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORY B 9 PAPRIKA AND CHILI PEPPER
In-Plant Technology
Various on-going studies are being done in an effort to increase crop
yields, facilitate in-plant processing and maintain existing high quality
standards. At the same time, the individual processors are conducting
these studies with the intention of minimizing their effluent wasteloads.
These efforts encompass field research as well as in-plant controls.
Efforts have been directed towards mechanical harvesting in an effort
to reduce field costs. Mechanical harvesting, however, causes more pod
splitting, bruising, and breaking, and in some cases is responsible
for increased dirt and debris loadings. The various field work being
done is being directed toward the elimination of excess dirt and
debris and is at the same time achieving a reduction in field damage.
These efforts should reduce the organic loads experienced within the
processing plants.
The predominant flow volume and waste loads are generated in the
washing stages. Dry reels, however, were observed in most installations
to reduce the dirt, debris, and "bits" from the field prior to the
soak tanks. In most cases, considerable amounts of organics were kept
from the waste stream; the debris from the dry reels was collected and
removed as dry waste.
The other main source of wastewater originates from normal end-of-shift
cleanup, at which time all tanks, conveyors, dicers, etc. are emptied,
opened, and thoroughly washed and sanitized. Here again, employee
training and good management are of great importance to reduce
pollutant generation.
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.
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 $40.
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.
822
-------
DRAFT
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
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.
5. Maximization of in-plant water recirculation by multiple
use of water in the same unit process or reuse in other
unit processes.
6. Good housekeeping is an important factor in normal pol-
lution control. Spills, spoilage, trash, etc. resulting
from sloppy operation may be a heavy contribution of liquid
waste loads. 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.
7. 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 waste is removed prior to reaching
the waste treatment system. Screens of 20 mesh or
smaller are usually adequate to remove a large por-
tion of settleable solids. Continuous removal of
the screenings is desirable to avoid excessive
leaching of solubles by the liquid waste stream from
separate solids.
8. It is, of courses impossible to predict with exactness
the effect of in-plant pollution control such as
water use reduction and water reuse.
End-of-Line Technology
As described in Section V of this document this subcategory is
characterized by moderately weak wastes slightly stronger than the average
domestic municipal waste. All plants identified in this subcategory
discharge to municipal systems. No secondary treatment or pre-
treatment other than screening was identified. To formulate
effluent guidelines for the subcategory activated sludge technology
transfer must be appropriately adopted. Removal efficiencies
compatible with a well operated municipal secondary sewage treatment
plant are to be expected.
823
-------
DRAFT
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
A model plant for Subcategory B 9 was presented in Section V. It
had a flow of 1900 cu m/day (0.5 MGD) with the following characteristics:
BOD 400 mg/1
SS 250 mg/1
pH 6 to 9
N & P Sufficient
Table 159 lists the treatmentoalternatives and their expected efficiencies.
Alternative B 9-1 - This alternative assumes no control and treat-
ment of the present waste load contribution.
Alternative B 9-11 - This alternative includes a pumping station,
flow equalization, complete mix activated sludge (two basins and
two clarifiers) with a detention time of 17 hr and aeration of
(60 hp), sludge thickening, and vacuum filtration. The dewatered
sludge is truck hauled to land fill or suitable land disposal site.
Alternative B 9-1II - This alternative assumes the addition of
dual media filtration to Alternative B 9-11.
SUBCATEGORY C4 - EGG PROCESSING
In-Plant Technology
In-plant procedures designed to reduce the waste load from egg pro-
cessing plants center on proper training of the employees and efficient
management. The principle methods for reducing the waste load, as
described by Siderwicz (88), are the following:
1. The condition of the incoming eggs should be checked and poor
handling practices reported to the shell egg distributor.
2. Personnel who load eggs into the washer, candle the eggs,
and operate the breaking machines must be provided with an
easy and efficient method for removing and discarding
inedible eggs.
3. Egg washer brushes should be properly adjusted so as to effect
good cleaning and eliminate excessive breakage during washing.
4. Breaking machines should be periodically inspected to insure
that trays are aligned correctly to catch eggs released from
the breaker cups and that water consumption per breaking
machine is not in excess of 4 to 6 1pm (1-1.5 gpm).
5. Inclined augers should be used to transfer the egg shells to '
the hauling vehicle in order to aid in the recovery of adhering
egg solids from the broken shells.
824
-------
TABLE 159
MODEL TREATMENT MODULE CHAIN AND ESTIMATED POLLUTANT REMOVALS
SUBCATEGORY B 9
Unit Influent
Alt.
00
ro
en
B
B
B
B
9-1
9-II
9-III
9-IV
Treatment
Unit
None
Flow
Equal .
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Fin. Effl.
Characteristics,
BOD TSS
400
420
400
30
15
250
250
250
30
15
mg/1
O&G
0
0
0
0
0
Percent R<
BOD TSS
0
0
93
96
96
0
0
94
94
Cumulative
val
O&G
0
0
100
100
100
-------
DRAFT
6. Spillage of product from vats should be eliminated through
careful monitoring during filling, preferably with the use of
electronic probes.
7. Piping should be kept to a minimum and should be sloped to
allow the product to drain by gravity after the pumps are
turned off.
8. Equipment should be "chased" with water before cleaning to
recover as much product as possible, especially if the product
is to be dehydrated.
9. Land disposal of egg washer wastewater should be considered
as a method of reducing the plants waste load which must be
treated.
Many of these procedures have had wide acceptance in the egg processing
industry. Siderwicz (88 ) has reported a 40 percent reduction in BOD
loading, after implementation of the in-plant technology discussed
above, documents the effectiveness of these types of procedures.
End-of-Line Technology
Hee, et. al., (147) have considered the waste treatment alternatives
for egg procesing plants and concluded that aerobic ponds and aerated
lagoons are the most acceptable treatment alternatives. Moats and Harris
(148) reported a laboratory scale approach which yielded an 80 to 90
percent removal of BOD from egg wastes, initially ranging from 1000 to
2200 mg/1. The method used was acidification to pH 4.7 and heating to 75°C
(170°F). However, due to the high energy requirements, this method
of treatment has not been installed at any plants. Bui ley, et. al. (149)
have reported 90 to 95 percent removal of BOD in a laboratory study of
a continuous treatment model for egg wastes ranging in concentration
from 2780 to 8300 mg/1. The treatment model utilized in this study
was a two-stage aerated lagoon. Bailey (150) performed pilot plant tests
of trickling filter treatment of egg processing wastes. Up to 60 percent
BOD removal was reported for wastes ranging in concentration from 1600
to 6000 mg/1.
Cornell University (151) has conducted laboratory studies on several
methods of treating egg processing wastewater. The most efficient
method of treatment was an anaerobic lagoon followed by an aerated lagoon,
with a total detention time of 16 days. This treatment method resulted
in 98 percent removal of total COD. Activated sludge gave an average
removal of 86 percent of total COD, but excessive foaming indicated that
this method of treatment might not be suited for full scale application
to egg processing wastewater. Aerated lagoons of 10, 20 and 30 day
detention time were reported to result in 60, 70 and 80 percent removal
of total COD, respectively.
826
-------
DRAFT
At the present time, virtually all egg processing plants discharge raw
effluent to municipal systems, navigable waters or land application.
One plant included in this study has a 0.5 ha (1.2 acre) four-cell
diffused aeration lagoon. However, flow from the plant is about 6,000 .
mid (1,500 gpd), and the lagoon system is providing total retention of
the plants wastes. The wastewater from this plant has a BOD concentra-
tion of 2100 mg/1 and a suspended solids concentration of 750 mg/1.
Samples taken during the summer of 1974 (152) from the fourth cell of
the lagoon had BOD concentrations averaging 9 mg/1 and suspended solids
of 7 mg/1.
Another plant included in this study has screening, a settling basin, a
holding lagoon aid spray irrigation facilities for disposal of their
wastes. Two other processing plants have treatment facilities; however,
neither is being operated currently due to the inability to obtain
significant waste reductions. One treatment plant incorporates a
trickling filter followed by an activated sludge system. The other
employes an aeration tank.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In section V of this document a model plant was developed for the egg
processing industry. The raw waste characteristics were assumed to be
as follows:
BOD 3700 mg/1 or 23 kg/kkg
SS 850 mg/1 or 5.4 kg/kkg
N 300 mg/1
P 40 mg/1
pH 6.7 -9.0
Flow 0.2 mid (0.05 mgd)
Table 160 lists the pollutant effluent loadina and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the five treatment trails selected for this sub-
category.
Since most egg processing plants are located in rural areas, treatment
modules were not selected to minimize land requirements. In addition,
Cornell University (151) and one of the plants contacted indicated problems
in applying activated sludge treatment to egg processing wastes because
of excessive foaming of the wastewater during treatment.
Alternative C 4 - I - This alternative provides no treatment except
a catch basin to collect the shells from the waste stream.
Alternative C 4 - II - This alternative consists of a two-cell aerated
lagoon and associated settling ponds. The 95 percent removal indicated
in Tablel60 is based on the study by Bulley, ejt. ajk , (149) and the
45 day detention time of this treatment train.
827
-------
TABLE 160
Summary of Treatment Train Alternatives
Treatment Train
Alternative
C 4 -
C 4 -
C 4 -
C 4 -
oo C 4 -
bo
I
II
III
IV
V
A
L
LN
ML
MLN
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkg
23
1.2
0.69
0.45
0.30
Effluent
SS
kg/kkg
5.4
1.1
0.33
0.54
0.16
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
95
97
93
99
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
80
94
90
97
>
-n
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 4 - III - This alternative consists of the treatment
module of Alternative C 4 - II with the addition of a dual media filter
and associated pumping station. The schematic diagram of Alternative
C 4 - III is shown in Figure 261.
Alternative C 4 - IV - This treatment alternative consists of an anaerobic
lagoon, a aerated lagoon and associated settling ponds. The laboratory
studies (151) of this treatment method indicated anaerobic and aerobic
detention times of 10 and 6 days, respectively.
Alternative C 4 - V - This alternative consists of Alternative C 4 - IV
with the addition of a dual media filter and associated pumping station.
A schematic diagram of Alternative C 4 - V is shown in Figure 262.
SUBCATEGORY C 5 - SHELL EGGS
In-Plant Technology
In-plant procedures designed to reduce the wasteload from egg processing
plants center on employee training and management. The principal factors
which can contribute to reducing the wasteload are described by Siderwicz
(153 for egg processing. The factors which are applicable to shell
egg handling plants are as follows:
1. The condition of incoming eggs should be checked and poor
handling practices reported to the supplier of the eggs;
e.g., the farmer or trucker.
2. Personnel who load eggs onto the washer, candle the eggs,
and operate the grading machines must be provided with an
easy and efficient method of removing and discarding
inedible eggs. Most shell egg plants currently use buckets
on the floor to collect inedible eggs. A more efficient method
with less chance of spillage should be used.
3. Egg washer brushes should be properly adjusted so as to effect
good cleaning and eliminate excessive breaking during washing.
4. Land disposal (burial) of egg washer wastewater should be
considered as a method of reducing the plants wasteload which
must be treated or discharged to a municipal sewer.
End-of-Line Technology
At the present time most shell egg plants discharge unscreened waste-
water to municipal systems or navigable waters. Some plants utilize
evaporation/percolation retention ponds. Spray irrigation has been
utilized by some plants, but it has been found unacceptable as a result
of associated odor problems.
829
-------
DRAFT
BOD
ss
FLOW
INFLUENT
3700 MG/L
850 MG/L
0.2 MLD (0.05 MGD)
AERATED
LAGOON
AERATED
LAGOON
PUMPING
STATION
DUAL MEDIA
FILTER
EFFLUENT
BOD = 100 MG/L
SS = 60 MG/L
FLOW = 0.2 MLD (0.05 MGD)
FIGURE 261
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE C4 - III
330
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 3700
SS = 850 MG/L.
FLOW = 0.2 MLD (0.05 MGD)
ANAEROBIC
LAGOON
AEROBIC
LAGOON
SETTLING
POND
PUMP ING
STATION
DUAL MEDIA
FILTER
SETTLING
POND
EFFLUENT
BOD = 40 MG/L
SS = 25 MG/L
FLOW =0.2 MLD (0.05 MGD)
FIGURE 262
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE C4 - V
H31
-------
DRAFT
The chemical composition of wastewater from shell egg handling plants
is very similar to egg processing wastewater, except that the con-
centration of pollutants in the egg processing wastewater is higher.
A few egg processing plants have treatment facilities, and several
studies have been conducted on egg processing wastewater. The
information available on egg processing wastewater treatment is
discussed in detail in Section V of this document under Subcategory
C 4, Egg Processing.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V of this document a model plant was developed for the shell
egg industry. The unscreened raw waste characteristics were assumed
as follows:
1. Flow - 0.013 mid (3500 gpd)
2. pH - 6.7 to 9.0 ^
3. BOD - 1500 mg/1
4. SS - 500 mg/1
5. Ratio - kg BOD to kkg of product - 1.56
6. Ratio - kg SS to kkg of product - 0.52
The treatment modules in the treatment trains described below were
selected on the basis of the literature and treatment plants for
Subcategory C 4, Egg Processing.
Tablel61 lists the pollutant effluent loading and the estimated operating
efficiency of each of the six treatment trains selected for this sub-
category.
Alternative C 5 - I - This alternative provides no treatment except
a catch basin to collect the shells from the waste stream.
Alternative C 5 - II - This alternative consists of a two-cell aerated
lagoon and associated settling ponds. The 95 percent removal indicated
in Table.161 is based on the laboratory and full scale studies by Bulley,
et. al., (14
-------
TABLE 161
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
Treatment Train
Alternative
C 5 -
C 5 -
C 5 -
C 5 -
C 5 -
CO
C*2
oO
I
II
III
IV
v.
A
L
LN
ML
MLN
Effluent
BOD
kg/kkq
1.56
0.078
0.047
0.031
0.016
Effluent
SS
kq/kkg
0.52
0.075
0.021
0.031
0.010
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
95
97
98
99
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
85
96
90
98
o
73
f*
~r\
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1500 MG/L
SS = 500 MG/L
FLOW = 0.013 MLD
(0.0035 MGD)
AERATED
LAGOON
AERATED
LAGOON
PUMPING
STATION
DUAL MEDIA
FILTER
•ALTERNATIVE
C 5-11
EFFLUENT
BOD = 75 MG/L
SS = 70 MG/L
FLOW = 0.013 MLD
EFFLUENT
BOD = 45 MG/L
SS = 20 MG/L
FLOW = 0.013 MLD (0.0035 MGD)
FIGURE 263
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 5 - II AND III
834
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 5 - IV - This treatment alternative consists of an
anaerobic lagoon, a aerated lagoon and associated settling ponds.
The laboratory studies (154) of this treatment method .indicated
anaerobic and aerobic detention times of 10 and 6 days, respectively.
Alternative C 5 - V - This alternative consists of Alternative C 4-
IV with the addition of a dual media filter and associated pumping
station. A schematic diagram of Alternative C 5 - V is shown in Figure 254.
SUBCATEGORY C 6 - MANUFACTURED ICE
In-Pi ant Technology
In-pi ant technology and procedures are aimed at reducing the quantity
of wastewater discharged from ice manufacturing plants. Some plants
reduce their waste stream by incorporating a closed cooling system,
with the water used to cool the compressors recirculated through cool-
ing towers. The cooling towers must be blown down periodically. Some
plants with once-through water cooling of their compressors route this
water to their dip tanks prior to discharge.
In fragmentary ice manufacturing, the water to be frozen may be passed
through a cooling tower or other type of heat exchanger to reduce its
temperature before it 1s passed through the ice machine. Excess water
flowing through the fragmentary ice making machine and water used dur-
ing blowdown operations is recycled to this precooler, thus, almost
eliminating discharge from fragmentary ice plants.
End-of-Line Technology
No 1ce manufacturing plant in the country is known to have any form of
wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater 1s normally discharged
directly to municipal sewers or to navigable waters. One manufacturer
of fragmentary ice pumps excess water into an abandoned water will and
distributes it through an infiltration field similar to those used in
septic tanks.
The only conceivable treatment to reduce the dissolved solids concen-
tration of the wastewater to the level of the water supply is a demin-
eralization process such as electrodialysis, reverse osmosis, or ion
exchange. One ice manufacturer is known to have installed a reverse
osmosis unit to treat its incoming water supply, but no plants have
installed demineralization equipment to treat wastewater, nor have any
pilot or bench tests been run to determine their efficiencies. From
a technical standpoint, 1t is dubious whether the benefits of dis-
charging a partially demlneralized wastewater would justify the problems
created by generation and disposal of the concentrated brine generated
in the treatment facility.
835
-------
DRAFT
INFLUENT
BOD = 1500 MG/L
SS = 500 MG/L
FLOW = 0.013 MLD (0.0035 MGD)
ANAEROBIC
LAGOON
AEROBIC
LAGOON
PUMPING
STATION
DUAL MEDIA
FILTER
•ALTERNATIVE
C 5-IV
EFFLUENT
BOD = 30 MG/L
SS = 30 MG/L
FLOW = 0.013 MLD
EFFLUENT
BOD = 15 MG/L
SS =10 MG/L
FLOW = 0.013 (0.0035 MGD)
FIGURE 264
CONTROL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES C 5-IV ANn V
836
-------
DRAFT
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V, a model plant was developed for ice manufacturing. The
characteristics of its wastewater were assumed to be as follows:
1. Flow volume - average - 0.04 mid (11,000 gpd)
minimum - 0.01 mid (3,000 gpd)
maximum - 0.19 mid (50,000 gpd)
2. BOD - 1.2 mg/1
3. SS - 5.2 mg/1
4. 0.004 - kg BOD per kkg of product
5. 0.012 - kg SS per kkg of product
Alternative C 6 - I - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to the wastewater. Since wastewater from ice manufacturing plants has
been shown to be virtually free of pollutants, no treatment of the ice
manufacturing waste stream is deemed necessary. The direct discharge
of these wastewaters to navigable streams may, in some instances,
actually improve the quality of the receiving water. This was found
to be the case at one plant.
Subcategory D 4, Vinegar
Existing In-Plant Technology - Two plants of the four summarized
on Table 94in Section V recycled non-contact cooling water from
the vinegar generators. Cooling water heat exchange may be either
evaporative (cooling tower) or conductive (refrigeration); refri-
geration allowing for a completely closed system. Filter washwater
from two plants was held for 24 hours to allow for settling out
of the filter aid material prior to discharge, thereby realizing
a significant reduction in suspended solids. Also, drainage of
the last few inches of the vinegar storage tanks into a settling
tank and subsequent dry handling of the resulting sediment reduces
suspended solid loadings.
Potential In-Plant Technology - One of the first water-saving tech-
niques should be to recycle all non-contact cooling waters. Contact
cooling waters, used to cool and clean product containers after
pastuerization should be considered for recycling.
Advantageous waste management is demonstrated in such things as
adequate training of employees, close plant supervision, good
housekeeping, proper maintenance, and salvaging products that can
be reused in the process, e.g., filter aids. These improvements
will not require large sums of money to implement and may result
in economic returns as a result.
837
-------
DRAFT
End-of-Line Technology - Out of a total of seven plants visited
or contacted by the contractor, two had treatment systems resulting
in zero discharge. Four of these discharged to municipal systems
and one to a local tributary.
Treatment systems employed at the two zero discharge plants were
screening, extended aeration and holding ponds, with final discharge
to spray irrigation. Plants discharging to municipalities screened
the effluent and adjusted pH prior to final discharge. The one
plant discharging to a local tributary utilized screening, aerated
lagoon and final holding ponds with a retention time of 250 days
before discharging. This plant realized a 94 percent reduction
in BOD and COD loadings, and 54 percent in suspended solids.
Selection of Control and Treatment Technology
In Section V a model plant was developed for vinegar processing.
The raw wastewater characteristics after screening were assumed to
be as follows:
BOD 1950 rrig/1
SS 660 mg/1
pH 5.2
Flow 91 cu m/day (0.024 MGD)
Table 162 lists the pollutant effluent loading and estimated operating
efficiency of each of the treatment trains selected for this subcategory.
Alternative D 4-1 - This alternative provides no additional treatment
to tfie screened wastewater.
Alternative D 4-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization basin and acid neutralization.
Alternative D 4-III - This alternative adds to Alternative D 4-II an
aerated lagoon system with nitrogen addition.
Alternative D 4-IV - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon
system of Alternative D 4-III with an activated sludge unit. In addi-
tion, the treatment train incorporates sludge thickening, aerobic
digestion and truck hauling.
Alternative D 4-V - Alternative D 4-V is identical to Alternative D 4-IV
except for the addition of sand drying beds for sludge disposal.
Alternative D 4-VI - This alternative adds, to Alternative D 4-V, a dual
media pressure filtration system as a final treatment step.
Alternative D 4-VII - This alternative adds a pumping station, pipe line
and spray irrigation to the treatment train of Alternative D 4-III.
Alternative D 4-VIII - This alternative adds a pumping station, pipe
line and spray irrigation to the "treatment train of Alternative D 4-IV.
-------
TABLE 162
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TRAIN ALTERNATIVES
SUBCATEGORY D4
o
73
Treatment
Train
Alternative
I
II
III
CO IV
oo
10
V
VI
VII
VIII
Effluent
BOD
mg/1
1950
1950
98
60
60
30
0
0
Effluent
SS
mg/1
660
660
50
30
30
20
0
0
Percent
BOD
Reduction
0
0
95
97
97
98
1QO
100
Percent
SS
Reduction
0
0
92
95
95
97
100
100
-------
DRAFT
SUBCATEGORIES E 1 (MOLASSES, HONEY, AND SYRUPS). E 2 (POPCORN).
E 3 (PREPARED GELATIN DESSERTS). E 4 (SPICES). E 5 (DEHYDRATED SOUP).
AMU E 6 (MACARONI, SPAGHETTI. VERMICELLI. AND NOODLES)
Existing and Potential In-Plant Technology
In general, wastewater volumes and loadings can be reduced by the dry
cleaning of equipment as much as possible before cleaning with water.
Mixers, vats, hand utensils, etc., should be cleaned as thoroughly as
possible by rubber scrappers, cloths, and air hoses. Wastewater volume
can be effectively reduced by the use of high pressure spray nozzles
instead of open-ended hoses or garden type nozzles. The overall effec-
tiveness of in-plant water conservation and pollutant load reduction de-
pends on a combination of management awareness and employee training.
End-of-Line Technology
Virtually all of the plants in Subcategories E 1 through E 6 presently
discharge process wastewater to municipal sewage systems. Those plants
which do not have an access to municipal treatment have a choice
of a number of low cost disposal alternatives. The low volumes of waste-
waters generated make truck hauling practical and feasible—whether to
a municipal sewage plant or to land disposal. Those plants that have
available land can install retention ponds, land spreading systems, spray
or ridge and furrow irrigation, or even small land-related treatment and
disposal systems should local conditions permit.
Due to the low volume of these wastes, hauling to nearby treatment facilities
or disposal at suitable landfill sites is the preferred handling method.
All of these production processes result in either no production of process
wastewater or very small quantities of wastewater resulting from cleanup
operations.
SUBCATEGORIES F 2 (BAKING POWDER), F 3 (CHICORY). AND F 4 (BREAD
CRUMBS NOT PRODUCED IN BAKERIES)
AS discussed in Sections III and V, the plants associated with these
subcategories all employ dry processes which do not generate process
wastewater. No control and treatment technology for process wastewater
is necessary or appropriate for these industry subcategories.
840
------- |