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

-------