DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
MISCELLANEOUS FOODS AND BEVERAGES
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PART V
y"•%
?' ^fc ^
SB,3
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 306 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 will be issued setting forth EPA'?
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 Er^A. Subject to these
limitations, EPA is making this draft contractor's report available in
order to enco'.jragp 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 Water 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
-------
-------
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory C 9 - Decaffination of Coffee
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 9 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment
alternatives. In Section VII, three alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for
various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which consumes
60 kkg (66 ton) of coffee beans per day.
Alternative C 9-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 60 kkg per day plant is 265 cu m/day (0.07 MGD). The BOD waste
Toad is 3.8 kg/kkg (7.6 Ib/ton), and the suspended solids load is
7.0 kg/kkg (14 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative C 9-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization basin, a primary clarifier, caustic neutralization,
vacuum filtration of sludge, sludge storage and hauling.
The resulting BOD waste load is 2.5 kg/kkg (5.0 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 2.8 kg/kkg (5.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $158,350
Total yearly cost: $ 56,950
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 361. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 35 percent
SS: 60 percent
Alternative C 9-III - This alternative consists of Alternative C 9-II
with the addition of an activated sludge system with nutrient addition,
sludge thickening, and dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.13 kg/kkg (0.26 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.35 kg/kkg (0.70 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $319,720
Total yearly cost: $109,440
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 362. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that two operators are required.
1197
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 361
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C9-II
(COFFEE DECAFFEINATION)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR fcASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...35.0 PERCENT BOD PEDLCTICN
TREATMENT MODULES!
8.
C.
E.
G.
3.
Y.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CLARIFIER
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCESSLPPLIES
TOTAL
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
109750.00
26660.00
10970.00
10970.00
158350.00
12490.
6520.
00
00
13180.00
11850.00
44040.00
44040.00
6330.00
6580.00
56950.00
1198
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 362
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C9-III
(COFFEE DECAFFEINATION)
ITEMIZED COST .SUMMARY FOR H ASTF.MTER TREATMENT
DESIGN EFFICIENCY.. .91.0 PERCENT "BOD REDUCTION
CHAIN
TREATMENT MODULES!
B.
c.
E.
G.
S.
Y.
H.
I.
K.
S.
Y.
B.
N.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CLARIFIER
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HOLDING TANK
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HOLDING TANK
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS?
1. LABOR
2. PCf/ER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCERSLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS*
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
244220.00
26660.00
24420.00
24420.00
319720.00
24990.00
16500.00
17220.00
21290.00
82000.00
82000.00
12790.00
14fe50.00
109440.00
1199
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 91 percent
SS: 95 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 335.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory C 10 - Soluble Coffee
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 10 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for
various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which processes
78 kkg/day (87 ton/day) of coffee beans.
Alternative C 10-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 78 kkg (87 ton/day) plant is 680 cu m (0.18 MG) per day. The
BOD waste load is 18.8 kg/kkg (37.6 Ib/ton) and the suspended solids load
is 12.3 kg/kkg (24.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative C 10-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, primary clarification, multi-stage evaporation,
caustic neutralization, and sludge storage.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.9 kq/kkg (3.8 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.25 kg/kkg (0.50 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $5,803,430
Total yearly cost: $1,291,010
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 363. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that five operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 90 percent
SS: 99 percent
Alternative C 10-III - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, primary clarification, caustic neutralization,
nutrient addition, a complete mix activated sludge system, sludge
thickening, vacuum filtration of sludge, sludge storage and hauling,
and dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.75 kg/kkg (1.5 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.74 kg/kkg (1.48 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $625,620
Total yearly cost: $220,010
-------
ro
o
IL
O
i
JJC.O
J'J.t
2*7.2
t«e.o
t*i.»
Jt.O
J5.00
«i.ce
EFFICIFMTY
FIGURE 335
AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY c 9. ALT. in
«s.io «i.oe
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 363
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C10-II
(SOLUBLE COFFEE)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEfcATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 9«5.0 PERCENT ROD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MOCuLESt
Rl..CONTROL HCtSF
FI..MULTIPLE EFFECT EVAPORATOR
INVESTMENT CCSTSJ
i.
2.
3.
4.
CCNSTRUCTICN
LAND
ENGINEERING
CCNTINGFNCY
4808430,
33320.
"80840.
490640.
00
00
00
00
5803430.00
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS*
i. LABOR sesio,
3, CHEMICALS 0,
«. MAINTENANtE&SLFPLIES 602580,
TCTAL 770360.00
00
00
0
00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING CCST 770360.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 232140.00
3. DEPRECIATION 268510,00
TCTAL 1291010.00
1202
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 364. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96 percent
SS: 94 percent
Alternative C 10-IV - This alternative provides the addition to Alter-
native C 10-11 complete mix activated sludge with nutrient addition,
and sludge thickening, vacuum filtering, storage, and hauling.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.2 kg/kkg (0.4 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is negligible.
Costs: Total investment cost: $5,956,320
Total yearly cost: $1,321,270
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 365. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that five operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 99+ percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 336.
BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory C 1 - Cakes, Pies, Etc., with Pan Wash
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 1 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide
for various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which
produces 135 kkg (150 ton) of product per day.
Alternative C 1-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent
from a 135 kkg per day plant is 454 cu m/day (0.12 MGD). The
BOD waste load is 94.2 kg/kkg (188 Ib/ton), and the suspended
solids load is 16.8 kg/kkg (33.6 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease
load is 1.7 kg/kkg (3.4 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative C 1-1I - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
screening, flow equalization, chemical treatment (coagulation by
ferric chloride, lime slurry, aluminum sulfate, and anionic poly-
electrolyte). Solids and sludge are assumed to be trucked to landfill.
1203
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 364
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C10-III
(SOLUBLE COFFEE)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FUR WA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 9A.O PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATVFNT MODULES*
81..CONTROL HCUSE
8...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
E...CLAPIFTER
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
I...PHCSPHnRU8 ADDITION
G...CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
E...CLARIFIER
G...SLUDGE THICKENER
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
Y...HOLDING TA>!K
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 365
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C10-IV
(SOLUBLE COFFEE)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FUR l«A8TEh *TER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.0 PERCENT 800 REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES;
Bl..CONTROL HCLSE
Fl..MULTIPLE EFFECT EVAPORATOR
H...N;ITRCGF.N ADCITICN
I...PHCSFHORL3 ADDITION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
8...SLUDGE THICKENED
s...VACUI!M FILTRATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSt
1,
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
33320
4935840.00
,00
00
493580.00
5956320.00
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2,
3.
TOTAL YEARLY
CO&TS:
LABOR
CHEMICALS
4. MAINTFNANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
583)0.
116270.
2990.
609300.
00
00
00
00
786870.00
CCSTS:
i, YEARLY OPERATING COST 786870.oo
2. VEARLv INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 238250.00
3. DEPRECIATION 296150.00
TOTAL
1321270.00
1205
-------
oo
o
>-
w
>-
o
(L
6
!
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load is 4.7 kg/kkg (9.4 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.50 kg/kkg (1.0 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.02 kg/kkg (0.04 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $633,850
Total yearly cost: $316,170
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 366. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that seven operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 97 percent
O&G: 99 percent
Alternative C l-III - This alternative consists of Alternative C l-II
with the addition of an activated sludge system, sludge thickening,
vacuum filtration of sludge, and additional truck hauling.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.94 kg/kkg (1.88 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.34 kg/kkg (0.68 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.005 kg/kkg (0.01 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $1,001,190
Total yearly cost: $ 389,640
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 367. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that seven operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 98 percent
O&G: 99 percent
Alternative C 1-IV - This alternative consists of Alternative C l-III
with the addition of dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.94 kg/kkg (1.88 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.17 kg/kkg (0.34 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.005 kg/kkg (0.01 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $1,036,100
Total yearly cost: $ 399,420
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 368. It is
assuned that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that seven operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 99 percent
O&G: 99 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 337.
1207
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 366
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Cl-II
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITH PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...95.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl,.CONTROL HCU3E
C1..ENTEMANN PHYSICAL CHEMICAL
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION 514330.00
2. LAND 16660.00
3. ENGINEERING 51430.00
4. CONTINGENCY 51430.00
TOTAL 633650.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR 66630.00
2. POMER 5020.00
3. CHEMICALS 124950.00
4. MAINTENANCE&SL'PPLIES 43360.00
TOTAL 259960.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1, YEARLY OPERATING COST 259960,00
2, YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 25350.00
3. DEPRECIATION 30660.00
TOTAL 316170.00
1208
-------
DRAFT
" TABLE 367
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Cl-III
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITH PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...99.0 PERCENT BOD
TREATMENT CHAIN
REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESi
Bl
Cl
H.
I.
K.
8.
3.
*.
Y.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.ENTEMANN PHYSICAL CHEMICAL
.NITROGEN ADDITION
•PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.PIPELINE
.HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT COSTSl
i.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
620450.00
16660.00
62040.00
62040.00
1001190.00
YEARLY OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
COSTSl
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCEISUPPLIES
86630.00
23670.00
131760.00
58300.00
300360.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSJ
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 300360.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
DEPRECIATION
3,
40050.00
49230.00
389640.00
1209
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 368
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Cl-IV
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITH PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...99.5 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESi
Bl
Cl
H.
I.
K.
0.
a.
w.
Y.
B.
N.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.ENTEMANN PHYSICAL CHEMICAL
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.PIPELINE
.HOLDING TANK
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
a.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
649540.00
16660.00
8^950.00
64950.00
1036100.00
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR 66630.00
2. POWER 29760.00
3. CHEMICALS 131760.00
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 58660.00
TCTAL 307010.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 307010.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY 41440.00
3. DEPRECIATION 50970.00
TCTAL 399420.00
1210
-------
O
b
u
L)
IOT.I
•II.I
tll.l
MO.i
>••*!
9U.I
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 337
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY Cl ALT. IV
-------
DRAFT
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory C 2 - Cakes, Pies, Etc.. Without Pan Vlash
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 2 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, eight alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various
levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 207 kkg
(228 ton) of product per day.
Alternative C 2-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 207 kkg per day plant is 189 cu m/day (0.05 MGD). The BOD waste
load is 2.0 kg/kkg (4.0 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 0.94 kg/kkg
(1.88 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is 0.63 kg/kkg (1.26 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative C 2-II - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization basin, a dissolved air flotation unit, a vacuum
filter for sludge, and truck hauling of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.0 kg/kkg (2.0 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.28 kg/kkg (0.56 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.19 kg/kkg (0.38 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $138,830
Total yearly cost: $ 37,390
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 369. It is assumed
that costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one half-time operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 50 percent
SS: 70 percent
O&G: 70 percent
Alternative C 2-III - This alternative consists of Alternative C 2-II
with the addition of a plastic media roughing filter with nutrient
addition.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.50 kg/kkg (1.0 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.14 kg/kkg (0.28 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.085 kg/kkg (0.17 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $165,420
Total yearly cost: $ 41,690
1212
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 369
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C2-II
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITHOUT PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTFMTF.R TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...50.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
B.,.PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
J...AIR FLOTATION
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
INVESTMENT COSTS?
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS*
1. LABC1P
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
93U70.00
26660.00
9350.00
9350.00
136830.00
6250.00
3990.00
1800.00
14190.00
26230.00
26230.00
5550.00
5610.00
37390,00
1213
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 370. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one half-time operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 75 percent
SS: 85 percent
O&G: 85 percent
Alternative C 2-IV - This alternative consists of Alternative C 2-III
with the addition of an activated sludge system, sludge thickening,
and additional capacity for vacuum filtration of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.050 kg/kkg (0.10 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.042 kg/kkg (0.084 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.026 kg/kkg (0.052 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $262,420
Total yearly cost: $ 69,300
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 371. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required full time and one
is required half-time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 95 percent
O&G: 95 percent
Alternative C 2-V - This alternative consists of Alternative C 2-IV
with the addition of dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.025 kg/kkg (0.05 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.011 kg/kkg (0.022 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.013 kg/kkg (0.026 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $291,510
Total yearly cost: $ 76,970
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 372. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required full time and one
half-time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 99 percent
O&G: 98 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 338.
1214
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 370
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C2-III
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITHOUT PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR KA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...75.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
C.
J.
S.
H,
*.
MG STATION .
.EOUALIZATICN 6ASIN
.AIR FLCTATICN
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ROUGHING FILTER
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1. CONSTRUCTION
2. LAND
3. ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
a.
COSTS!
LABOR
PCWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLF-PLIES
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY CPER.ATIKG COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
115600.00
26660.00
11560.00
11560.00
165^20.00
6250.
1000.
00
00
2180.00
15700.00
28130.00
28130.00
6620.00
69UO.OO
41690.00
1215
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 371
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C2-IV
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITHOUT PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR KASTFMTER
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...97.0 PERCENT BCD
TREATMENT CHAIN
REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
B.
C,
J.
S.
H.
X.
K.
G.
81
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
•NITROGEN ADDITION
.ROUGHING FILTER
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.CONTROL HCLSE
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2. PGKEP
3. CHEMICALS
a. M.AINTENANCF.iSLPPLlES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSj
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
196460.00
26660.00
19650.00
19650.00
262420.00
167^0.00
9030.00
218C.OO
17060.00
47010.GO
47010.00
lObOO.OO
11790.00
65300.00
1216
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 372
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C2-V
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITHOUT PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...99.0 PERCENT BOD
TREATMENT CHAIN
REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
8.
c.
J.
s.
H.
X.
K.
Q.
81
B.
N.
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS?
1. LABOR
2. POfcER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&8LPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ROUGHIhIG FILTER
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.CONTROL HOUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTPA'N
220710.00
26660.00
22070.00
22070.00
291510.00
18740.00
12650.00
2160.00
18500.00
52070.00
52070.00
11660.00
13240.00
76970.00
LAND '
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
1217
-------
ro
CO
u.
o
an.e
a«t.e
i«e.e
u«.e
111.9
•i.o
1T.O
sooo
ri.ee «.«• M.H is.ee
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 338
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C2, ALT. V
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 2-VI - This alternative consists of Alternative C 2-V
with the addition of two aerobic stabilization ponds and the deletion
of the dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.025 kg/kkg (0.05 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.022 kg/kkg (0.044 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.013 kg/kkg (0.026 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $297,900
Total yearly cost: $ 73,650
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 373. It is
assumed that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required full time and one
half-time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 98 percent
O&G: 98 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 339.
Alternative C 2-VII - This alternative consists of caustic neutralization,
nitrogen addition, and an aerated lagoon system.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.20 kg/kkg (0.40 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.28 kg/kkg (0.56 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.19 kg/kkg (0.38 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $174,000
Total yearly cost: $ 50,350
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 374. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 90 percent
SS: 70 percent
O&G: 70 percent
Alternative C 2-VIII - This alternative is the same as Alternative C 2-VII
with the addition of spray irrigation of the final effluent. It is
assumed that an additional pumping station is required and that the
spray field is 300 m (1000 ft) from the treatment plant.
Costs: Total investment cost: $256,720
Total yearly cost: $ 72,220
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 375. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required full time and one-half
time.
1219
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 373
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C2-VI
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITHOUT PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA8TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...99.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
B.
C.
J.
s.
H.
X.
K,
C.
Bl
M.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION* BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ROUGHING FILTER
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.CONTROL HOUSE
.SETTLING POND
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION
2. LAND
3. ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
5. PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
i. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4.
5.
MAINTENANCEiSlFPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
232340.00
16660.00
23230.00
23230.00
2440.00
297900.00
18740.00
9030.00
2160.00
17230.00
490.00
47670.00
47670.00
11920.00
14060.00
73650.00
1220
-------
iS
o
IM.O
171.•
IM.I
U7.I
ttS.l
O
XI
u
• 9.1
ST.O IT-
SO.00 55.00 «0.00 »5.0« TO,II 71.00 10.00 11.00 fl.OO «S.OO 100.00
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 339
INVESTMEW AND YEARLY COST FOR SUBCATEGORY C2, ALT. VI
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 374
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C2-VII
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITHOUT PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WA8TE&ATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 90.0 PERCENT 900 REACTION
TREATMENT
Bl.,CONTROL
G...CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
a.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
1390PO.OO
3330.00
13
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 375
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C2-VIII
(CAKES, PIES, ETC. WITHOUT PAN WASH)
ITEMIZED COST SUGARY FOP WASTEMTKR TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN "EFFICIENCY.,,100.0-PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
INVESTMENT COSTS?
1.
2.
3.
«.
5.
Bl..CONTROL HCUSE
G,..CAUSTIC NELTRALIZATICN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
U...'SPRAY IRRIGATION
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC L
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
COSTS:
LABOR
CHEMICALS
MAINTFNANCE&SLPPLIE3
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
19990.00
19U10.00
I9aio.oo
3770.00
256720.00
187^0.00
iQ7ao.oo
15790.00
«700.00
HO.00
50110.00
50110.00
10270,00
11640.00
72220.00
1223
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
O&G: 100 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 340..
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies for
ouDcategory C 3 - Bread and Buns
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 3 was developed in Section
V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives. In
Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being applicable engi-
neering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels
of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 41 kkg (45 ton)
of product per day.
Alternative C 3-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 41 kkg per day plant is 100 cu m (0.026 MG) per day. The BOD waste
load is 0.88 kg/kkg (1.76 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 0.46 kg/kkg
(0.92 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative C 3-II - This alternative provides a pumping station,
flow equalization, primary clarification, complete mix activated
sludge with nutrient addition, sludge thickening, vacuum filtration
of sludge, and sludge storage and hauling.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.07 kg/kkg (0.14 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.12 kg/kkg (0-24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $195,350
Total yearly cost: $ 52,510
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 376. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required full time and one-
half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 92 percent
SS: 75 percent
Alternative C 3-III - This alternative provides the addition to Alter-
native C 3-II of a dual media filtration unit.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.035 kg/kkg (0.070 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.03 kg/kkg (0.06 Ib/ton).
1224
-------
ro
I\J
CJl
(/)
d
u.
o
HT.O
II*. I
IT*.I
111.9
111.*
Itl.t
1C
o
3D
»O.T
50.C IV.
*7.ee «i.eo
t ••••••••• t •••••••••g ••••••••• t ••••••••• f ••••••••• t ••••••••• 9 •••
to. fl« 41.00 «i.ee «i.ee ««.oe «».ee tt.eo
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 340
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C2, ALT. VIII
looee
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 376
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C3-II
(BREAD AND BREAD RELATED PRODUCTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA8TEMTER TREATMENT"CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 92,0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
81
9.
C.
E.
H.
I.
K.
0.
s,
Y.
.CONTROL
.PIMPING
HCUSE
STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CLARIFIER
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2. PG*ER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCER5UPPLXFS
TOTAL
140570.00
26660.00
140*0.00
14060.00
195350.00
18740,00
6790,00
1990.00
8750.00
36270.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 36270.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST WECrVERY 7610.00
3. DEPRECIATION 8430.00
TOTAL e>2510,00
1226
-------
DRAFT
Costs: Total Investment cost: $211,550
Total yearly cost: $ 57,310
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 377. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that t>ne operator is required full time and
one-haIf time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96 percent
SS: 93 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 341.
Alternative C 3-IV - This alternative replaces the activated sludge
system of Alternative C 3-III with an aerated lagoon.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.44 kg/kkg (0.88 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.054 kg/kkg (0.11 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $205,550
Total yearly cost: $ 43,070
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 378. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 88 percent
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory C 7 - Cookie and Cracker Manufacturing
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 7 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, six alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide
for various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which
produces 204 kkg (224 ton) of product per day.
Alternative C 7-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent
from a 204 kkg (224 ton) per day plant is 341 cu m/day (0.09 MGD).
The BOD waste load is 2.0 kg/kkg (4.0 Ib/ton), the suspended solids
load is 1.5 kg/kkg (3.0 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
0.85 kg/kkg (1.7 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
1227
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 377
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C3-III
(BREAD AND BREAD RELATED PRODUCTS)
ITEMIZED COST SLMHARY FOR bASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... Qfe.O PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
61
B.
C.
E.
H.
I.
*.
0.
S.
Y.
B.
M.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CLARIFIER
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHC8PHOPUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HOLDING TANK
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS?
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CCNTJKGENCY
TCTAl
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS*
1. LABOR
2. FCWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TCTAL
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
154070.00
26660.00
15410.00
15410.00
211550.00
18740
8510
,00
,00
1990.00
10370.00
39610.00
39610.00
8460.00
9240.00
57310.00
1228
-------
'&
<
8
b
1
:«t.c
JfC.5
16H.O
ro
ro
vo
o
o
132.0
ilt.O
j?c.e
a
5
66. C
5Z.J
«C.CC «1.C9
«a.ce «s.ee «»
EFFICIENCY
. ee «e.eo
FIGURE 341
INVESTMENTT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C3, ALT. Ill
lee.eo
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 378
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C3-IV
(BREAD AND BREAD RELATED PRODUCTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA8TEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
e.
H.
I.
L.
B.
N.
.PUMPING STATION
.NITRHGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOCN
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRAIN
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
CONTINGENCY
PVC L
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSi
1. LA80W
2.
3.
4.
5.
PCKER
CHEMICALS
MAINTE^AN'CERSUPPLlES
PVC LINER
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS*
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YFARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
U3970.00
28320.00
14400.00
14400.00
4.U60.00
205550.00
12490.00
4900.00
270.00
8060.00
270.00
25990.00
25990.00
8220,
9B60,
00
00
43070.00
1230
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 7-II - This alternative consists of flow equalization,
air flotation, and storage and truck hauling of soldis and sludge.
It is assumed that the separated solids are hauled to a rendering company
at no cost to the bakery.
The resulting BOD waste load is" 0.8 kg/kkg (1.6 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.45 kg/kkg (0.9 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.3 kg/kkg (0.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $110,030
Total yearly cost: $ 40,490
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 379. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 60 percent
SS: 70 percent
O&G: 65 percent
Alternative C 7-III - This alternative is the same as Alternative C 7-II
with the addition of an aerated lagoon system.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.1 kg/kkg (0.2 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.15 kg/kkg (0.3 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.09 kg/kkg (0.18 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $230,060
Total yearly cost: $ 59,260
An itemized breadkown of costs is presented in Table 380. It is
assumed that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 90 percent
O&G: 90 percent
Alternative C 7-IV - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative C 7-1II.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.04 kg/kkg (0.08 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.06 kg/kkg (0.12 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.05 kg/kkg (0.10 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $262,790
Total yearly cost: $ 68,340
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 381. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
1231
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 379
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C7-II
(COOKIE AND CRACKER MANUFACTURING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HASTEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...60.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
C,..EQUALIZATION BASIN
J...AIR FLOTATION
B...PUMPING STATION
Y...HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
66230.00
4160.00
6620.00
6820.00
110030.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR 12490.00
2. PGKER 2210.00
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES . 16100.00
TOTAL 30800.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1, YEARLY OPERATING COST 30800.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 4400.00
3. DEPRECIATION 5290.00
TOTAL U0490.00
1232
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 380
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C7-III
(COOKIE AND CRACKER MANUFACTURING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR fcASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
C.
J.
B.
Y.
L.
.EQUALIZATION BASIM
.AIR FLCTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.HOLDING TANK
.AERATED LAGCCN
INVESTMENT CCSTS:
1.
2.
3.
«.
5,
CCKSTRUCT10
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
COSTS!
LABOR
CHEMICALS
MAIMTEMNCfc'ISlPPLIES
PVC LTKER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATJK6 COST
?. VEARLY IMVF.STMENT
rCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
5000.00
18440.00
18440.00
3770.00
230060.00
12490.00
8740.00
0.0
17440.00
1
-------
TABLE 381
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C7-IV
(COOKIE AND CRACKER MANUFACTURING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
C.
J.
B.
Y.
L.
B.
N.
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.PULPING STATION
TANK
LAGOON
STATION
.HOLDING
.AERATED
.PUMPING
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS:
1.
I.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
5. PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
COSTSi
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAIMTFNANCERSLPPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSt
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
211680.00
5000.00
21170.00
21170
3770
00
00
262790.00
00
00
0
00
00
14150.
0.
16160
140
44940.00
44940.00
10510.00
12890.00
66340.00
1234
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.0 percent
SS: 96 percent
O&G: 94 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 342.
Alternative C 7-V - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon
of Alternative C 7-IV with activated sludge and adds sludge vacuum
filtration and sludge thickening. The dual media filter is deleted.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.1 kg/kkg (0.2 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.15 kg/kkg (0.30 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.085 kg/kkg (0.17 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $281,170
Total yearly cost: $101,490
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 382. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 90 percent
O&G: 90 percent
Alternative C 7-VI - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative V.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.04 kg/kkg (0.08 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.06 kg/kkg (0.12 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.05 kg/kkg (0.10 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $313,890
Total yearly cost: $110,570
i
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 383. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.0 percent
SS: 96 percent
O&G: 94 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 343.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory D 1 - Candy and Confectionery
A model plant representative of Subcategory D 1 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, six alternatives were selected as being
1235
-------
r\>
CO
b
W)
z
l-l
t-
0.
<
o
IM.7
ill.*
t««.t
ITI.I
lit.l
IH.I
e
M.I IT
*•!••'
t
/
*••,•••••••••,•••••••••,•«•••••••,•••••••••,•••••••••«•••••••••,••»•»••••,••••»••••••••••»•••,
ta.OO M.O* TI.OC ?»,•• •!.•• ••«•• ••.«• «!.!• «».OI IM*«*
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 342
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C7. ALT. IV
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 382
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C7-V
(COOKIE AND CRACKER MANUFACTURING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES?
C.
J.
B.
Y.
K.
Q.
s.
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.HOLDING TANK
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLIDGE THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTRATION
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION
2. LAND
3. ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
230850.00
4160.00
23060.00
23080.00
281170.00
12490.00
13170.00
2440.00
48290.00
76390.00
76390.00
11250.00
13850.00
101490.00
1237
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 383
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C7-VI
(COOKIE AND CRACKER MANUFACTURING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA3TEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY..,98.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
C.
J.
B.
Y.
K.
Q.
s.
B.
N.
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.HOLDING TANK
.'ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA«N
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCEtSLPPLlES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
256110.00
4160.00
2SB10.00
25810.00
313890.00
12490.00
18590.00
2440.00
49000.00
82520.00
82520.00
12560.00
15490.00
110570.00
1238
-------
INJ
OJ
vo
10
5
tf)
I
a
<
u
lll.T
ITt.4
190.1
III.*
IM.l
lll.l
lll.O
••••••••.•••••••••.•••••••••,•••••••••«•••••••••«•••••••••••••*•
•0.00 «t.OO «».00 «.00 M.OO 49.00 «*.0« «?.00 «I.OO M.OO 100.00
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 343
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C7, ALT. VI
-------
DRAFT
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide
for various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which
produces 97 kkg (107 ton) of finished product per day.
Alternative D 1-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 97 kkg (107 ton) per day plant is 375 cu m (0.099 MG) per day. The
BOD waste load is 6.94 kg/kkg (13.9 Ib/ton), and the suspended solids
load is 0.65 kg/kkg (1.31 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative D 1-II - This alternative provides a pumping station,
flow equalization, nitrogen addition, and an aerated lagoon.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.35 kg/kkg (0.70 Ib/ton), and
the suspended solids load is 0.12 kg/kkg (0.24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $242,460
Total yearly cost: $ 70,230
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 384. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 82 percent
Alternative D l-III - This alternative replaces the aerobic lagoon
of Alternative D l-II with activated sludge and provides sludge
thickening, aerobic digestion, and truck hauling of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.21 kg/kkg (0.42 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.078 kg/kkg (0.15 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $299,400
Total yearly cost: $105,840
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 385. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 88 percent
Alternative D 1-IV - This alternative adds sand drying beds to Alter-
native D l-III.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.21 kg/kkg (0.42 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.078 kg/kkg (0.15 Ib/ton).
1240
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 384
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Dl-II
(CANDY AND CONFECTIONERY)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEfcATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESt
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L..*AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRICTION 19«380.00
2. LAND 4000.00
3. ENGINEERING 19440.00
4. CONTINGENCY 19440.00
5. PVC LINER 5200.00
TOTAL 242460.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSt
1. LABOR 6250.00
2. PC*ER 3060.00
3. CHEMICALS 7920.00
4. MAINTENANCE4SLPPLIES 31110.00
5. PVC LINER 270.00
TOTAL U8610.00
TOTAL YEARLY. CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 48610.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 9700.00
3. DEPRECIATION 11920.00
TOTAL 70230.00
1241
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 385
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Dl-III
(CANDY AND CONFECTIONERY)
ITEMIZED COST SLMVA.RY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULE8»
51
B.
c.
H.
K.
0.
R.
.CONTROL HCLSE
.PUMPINC STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEPCBIT DIGESTOK
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR
2. PChER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCEI8LPPL1E3
TOTAL
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING CCST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
224510.00
29990.00
22450.00
• 22450.00
299400.00
37480.00
14740.00
7920.00
20250.00
30390.00
80390.00
11960.00
13470.00
105840.00
1242
-------
DRAFT
Costs: Total investment cost: $425,670
Total yearly cost: $116,120
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 386. It is
assumed that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It is
further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 88 percent
Alternative D 1-V - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative D 1-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.10 kg/kkg (0.20 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.039 kg/kkg (0.078 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $459,300
Total yearly cost: $125,540
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 387. It is
assumed that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.5 percent
SS: 94 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 344.
Alternative D 1-VI- This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative D l-II.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.14 kg/kkg (0.28 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.039 kg/kkg (0.078 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $276,080
Total yearly cost: $ 79,650
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 388. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98 percent
SS: 94 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 345.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory D 2 - Chewing Gum
A model plant representative of Subcategory D 2 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
1243
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 386
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Dl-IV
(CANDY AND CONFECTIONERY)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR M8TE&MER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
B.
C.
H.
K.
C.
R.
T.
.CONTROL KLSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC RIGESTCR
.SAND DRYING BEDS
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSj
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3, CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCERSLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
335290.00
23320.00
33530.00
33530.00
425670.00
37480.00
H740.00
7920.00
18830.00
78970.00
78970.00
17030.00
20120.00
116120.00
1244
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 387
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Dl-V
(CANDY AND CONFECTIONERY)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESl
81
B.
C.
H.
K.
Q.
R.
T.
B.
N.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.PULPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC DIGE8TOR
.SAKC DRYING BEDS
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS»
1. LABOR
2. PCfcER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCEaSl'FPLlES
TOTAL
363320.00
23320.00
36330.00
36330.00
459300.00
37480
20600
7920
00
00
00
19370,00
85370.00
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSI
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 85370,00
2, YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 18370.00
3. DEPRECIATION 21800.00
TCTAL 125540.00
1245
-------
IL
O
§
O
060.0
024.5
369.0
353.S
316.0
2C2.5
2*7.0
Zlt.S
m.o
1«C.5
109.0
:. eo
vt.oe <».oo
EFFICIENCY
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 388
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Dl-VI
(CANDY AND CONFECTIONERY)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEi-sATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN. EFFICIENCY... 98.5 PERCENT BOD REDUCTIC*
TREATMENT MODULES!
B.
C.
H.
L.
B.
N.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOON
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS?
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CCSTSl
LABOR
POKER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSI
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY I-NVF.STMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
222400.00
4000.00
22240.00
22240.00
5200.00
276080.00
6250.00
8920.00
7920.00
31650.00
270.00
55010.00
55010.00
11040.00
13600.00
79650.00
1247
-------
277.0
ro
-P»
oo
IL
O
23
8
O
235.»
210.9
19U.2
17J.S
1S2.B
132.1
HI.a
«C.7
7C.«
oc.oo «i. oe
is.ee ««.ee «».cc 96. co
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 345
INVESTMENT ANU YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY Dl , ALT. VI
««.eo tee.ee
-------
DRAFT
In Section VII, seven alternatives were selected as betng applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various
levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 70.9 kkg
(78.2 ton) of chewing gum per day.
Alternative D 2-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 70.9 kkg (78.2 ton) per day plant is 322 cu m (0.085 MG) per day.
The BOD waste load is 3.17 kg/kkg (6.34 Ib/ton), and the suspended
solids load is 0.43 kg/kkg (0.86 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative D 2-II - This alternative proivdes a pumping station, flow
equalization, nitrogen addition, and an aerated lagoon.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.16 kg/kkg (0.32 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.14 kg/kkg (0.28 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $345,260
Total yearly cost: $ 99,860
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 389. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 68 percent
Alternative D 2-III - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon of
Alternative D 2-II with activated sludge and provides sludge thickening
and aerobic digestion.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.095 kg/kkg (0.19 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.09 kg/kkg (0.18 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $246,210
Total yearly cost: $ 86,780
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 390. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 79 percent
Alternative D 2-IV - This alternative adds sand drying beds to Alter-
native D 2-III.
1249
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 389
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D2-II
(CHEWING GUM)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MASTEfcATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESj
6...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGCON
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINEP
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
a.
5.
CCSTSt
LABOR
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS: ]
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
271290.00
6330.00
27130.00
P7130.00
13380.00
3«5260.00
6250.00
<*9830.00
4690.00
6270.00
2060.00
69100.00
69100.00
13810.00
16950.00
99860.00
1250
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 390
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D2-III
(CHEWING GUM)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION1
TREATMENT MODULES*
Bl..CONTROL HOUSE
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
K...ACTIVATEO SLUDGE
G...SLUDGE THICKENER
R...AEROBIC CIGESTOR
INVESTMENT CCSTSt
1.
2.
3.
... 4.
CCNSTRl'CTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSt
1. LABOR
2. PChER
3, CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENfANCE&SLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
180880.00
29150.00
18090.00
18090.00
246210.00
37480.00
10480.00
4690.00
13430.00
66060.00
66080.00
9850.00
10850.00
86760.00
1251
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load ts 0.093 kg/kkg (0.19 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.09 kg/kkg '(0.18 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $319,750
Total yearly cost: $101,670
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 391. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 79 percent
Alternative D 2-V - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative D 2-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.063 kg/kkg (0.12 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.056 kg/kkg (0.11 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $352,020
Total yearly cost: $102,230
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 392. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98 percent
SS: 89 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 346.
Alternative D 2-VI - This alternative adds a pumping station, a pipeline,
and a spray irrigation field to Alternative D 2-III. 'This alternative
provides for no discharge of polluted wastewater.
Costs: Total investment cost: $465,530
Total yearly cost: $113,250
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 393. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 347.
Alternative D 2-VII - This alternative adds a pumping station, a pipe-
line, and a spray irrigation field to Alternative D 2-III. This alter-
native provides for no discharge of polluted wastewater.
1252
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 391
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D2-IV
(CHEWING GUM)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ^ASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
PI
B.
C.
H.
K.
G.
R.
T.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLLDGE THICKENER
.AERCBIC HIGESTCR
.SAND DRYING BEDS
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
a.
COSTS?
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
250850.00
18740.00
25080.00
25080.00
319750.00
37«80
10080
0690,
00
00
00
21180.00
73830.00
73830.00
12790.00
15050.00
101670.00
1253
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 392
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D2-V
(CHEWING GUM)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
B.
C.
0.
R.
T.
e.
N.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITRGGFN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC DIGESTOR
.SAND DRYING BEDS
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS;
1. LABOR
2. PChER
3. CHEMICALS
a. MAINT'ENAKCE&SLPPLIES
TCTAU
TOTAL VEARLY CCSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YFARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
277740.00
18740.00
27770.
27770.
00
00
352020.00
37480.00
15670.00
4690.00
13650.00
71490.00
71490.00
14080.00
16660.00
102230.00
1254
-------
U.
O
1-4
I-
Q.
5
J53. e
326.3
272.
2t«.S
nz.e
166.1
139.
112.7
B6.0
si.cfl 9?.oe «j.«e *«.eo «s.cs »».ec «?.eo
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 345
INVESTMENT! AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY D2, ALT. V
«4.00 100.06
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 393
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D2-VI
(CHEWING GUM)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEhATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
8...PUMPH'6 STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
U...SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POfcEP
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
5. PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVF?TMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
350U20.00
34650.00
35040.00
35040.00
13360.00
468530.00
6250.00
51290.00
4690.00
6530.00
2060.00
72820.00
72820.00
18740.00
21690.00
113250.00
1256
-------
01
•sj
IL
O
>-
*H*
>
9s
u
£69.0
.C
358.9
321.
28*.0
Z87.C
210.0
JT3.0
136.0
99.0 f
«S.CC
.00 97.ee
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 347
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY 02. ALT. VI
99.00 100.00
-------
DRAFT
Costs: Total investment cost: $346,650
Total yearly cost: $ 89,970
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 394, It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 348.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory D 3 - Gum Base
A model plant representative of Subcategory D 3 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, six alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various
levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 105 kkg
(116 ton) of gum base per day.
Alternative D 3-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent
from a 105 kkg per day plant is 356 cu m (0.094 MG) per day. The
BOD waste loadisl.45 kg/kkg (2.91 lb/ton), and the suspended solids
load is 0.39 kg/kkg (0.78 lb/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative D 3-II - This alternative provides a pumping station,
flow equalization, nitrogen addition, and an aerated lagoon.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.10 kg/kkg (0.20 lb/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.03 kg/kkg (0.06 lb/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $242,420
Total yearly cost: $ 74,610
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 395. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
fuother assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 93 percent
SS: 92 percent
Alternative D 3-III - This alternative replaces the aerobic lagoon of
Alternative D 3-II with activated sludge and provides sludge thickening
and aerobic digestion.
1258
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 394
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D2-VII
(CHEWING GUM)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WASTEhATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESi
Bl
B.
C.
H.
K.
Q.
R.
U.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC DIGESTOR
.SPRAY IPP.JGATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSt
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAKO
ENGINEERING
CCNTINGEK'CY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCSTSi
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
KAINTENANCEISUPPLIE3
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS*
1. YEARLY OPERATING CCST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
260000.00
34650.00
26000.00
26000.00
346650.00
37480.00
11940.00
4690.00
6390.00
60500.00
60500.00
13870.00
15600.00
89970.00
1259
-------
J87.0
320.9
li.
O
•8
266.7
ro
en
o
W
8
J«2.6
2U.5
16S.J
U
13S.2
66.0
-Y
•.
too.co
«J.oc
«5.e:
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 348
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY Dz, ALT. VII
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 395
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D3-II
(GUM BASE)
ITEMIZED COST SLf'MAPY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 93.0 PERCENT BOD DEDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1. CCNSTBUCTTCN 195450.00
2. LAND 3500.00
3. ENGINEERING 19540.00
4. CONTINGENCY i954o.oo
5. PVC LINER 4390.00
TCTAL 242420.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS*
1. LABOR 6250.00
2. FCKER 39300.00
3. CHEMICALS 2430.00
4. MAINTF.NANCE4SI.PPLIES 4730.00
5. PVC LINER 250.00
TOTAL 52960.00
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTfil
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 52960.00
2. YEARL* INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 9700.00
3. DEPRECIATION 11950.00
TCTAL 74610.00
1261
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.087 kg/kkg (0.17 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.027 kg/kkg (0.054 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $218,870
Total yearly cost: $ 75,770
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 396. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 94 percent
SS: 93 percent
Alternative D 3-IV - This alternative adds sand drying beds to Alter-
native D 3-III.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.087 kg/kkg (0.17 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.027 kg/kkg (0.054 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $248,350
Total yearly cost: $ 82,920
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 397. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 94 percent
SS: 93 percent
Alternative D 3-V - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative D 3-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.029 kg/kkg (0.058 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.012 kg/kkg (0.024 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $281,420
Total yearly cost: $ 92,150
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 398. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98 percent
SS: 97 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 349.
Alternative D 3-VI - This alternative adds spray irrigation onto
Alternative D 3-II and results in no discharge of polluted wastewaters.
1262
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 396
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D3-III
(GUM BASE)
ITEMIZED COST StMMPY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 93.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESi
Bl
0.
C.
H.
K.
0.
R.
.CONTROL HCL8E
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITPCGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLLiCGE THICKENER
.AKPCBIC CIGESTCR
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
c.
3.
4.
CCNSTPUCTTCN
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
TCTAL YEARLY
COSTS*
LABOR
2. PCWER
3. CHEMICALS
TCTAL
CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION-
TOTAL
157«00.00
29990.00
15740.00
15740.00
218870.00
37480,
8720,
2430,
8950,
00
00
00
00
57580.00
57580.00
6750.00
9440.00
75770.00
1263
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 397
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D3-IV
(GUM BASE)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 93.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
81
P.
0.
H.
K.
Q.
R.
T.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC CIGE3TOR
.SAND PRYING BEDS
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
a,
3.
4.
COSTS:
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCERSL'PPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
192380.00
17490.00
19240.00
19240.00
246350.00
37480.00
8720.00
2430.00
12620.00
61450.00
61450.00
9930.00
11540.00
62920.00
1264
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 398
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D3-V
(GUM BASE)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR bASTEMTES TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.0 PERCENT POO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES?
61..CONTROL HOUSE
8...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITKCGEN ADDITION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
G...SLUDGE THICKENER
R...AEROBIC DIGESTOP
T...SANC DRYINf? PEDS
B...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTPA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTS»
1.
CONSTRUCTION
3. ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
COSTS?
CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
219950.00
17490.00
21990.00
21990.00
261420.00
37480.00
1«310.00
2430.00
13470.00
67690.00
67690.00
11260.00
13200.00
92150.00
1265
-------
282.C
o:
261.3
1
Ot
8
178.S
J57.8
137.1
u
116.4
75.e
. co
9*.jc «5.oo «6.cc
EFFICIENCY
99.ee iec.cc
FIGURE 349
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY D3, ALT. V
-------
DRAFT
Costs: Total investment cost: $377,260
Total yearly cost: $ 89,140
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 399. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 350.
Alternative D 3-VII - This alternative adds spray irrigation onto Alter-
native D 3-III and provides no discharge of polluted wastewater.
Costs: Total investment cost: $326,720
Total yearly cost: $ 89,230
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 400. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 351.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory D 5 - Chocolate with Condensory Processing
A model plant representative of Subcategory D 5 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, eight alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various
levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 330 kkg
(360 ton) of chocolate per day.
Alternative D 5-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 330 kkg per day plant is 761 cu m (0.201 MG) per day. The BOD
waste load is 7.48 kg/kkg (14.9 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load
is 1.68 kg/kkg (3.35 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is 0.69 kg/kkg
(1.38 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative D 5-11 - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, and air flotation.
1267
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 399
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D3-VI
(GUM BASE)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR
DESIGN EFFICIENCY. ..100.0
MSTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
t... SPRAY IHRIGATICN
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
PVC
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSi
1. LABOR
2. PCHEP
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTEMANCESSLPPLIES
5. PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY CPP.RATIKG COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
281440.00
35150.00
261^0.00
28140.00
4390.00
377260.00
6250.00
40660.00
2430.00
7150.00
250.00
56940.00
56940.00
15090.0<^
17110.00
69 I a 0.00
1268
-------
u.
o
w
z
l-«
I-
O
3T8.C
S«7.6
317.2
22*.0
t«!.2
tea.a
76.0 I r
«c!«9 ?i!e» «z!s: «j!:e ««!:s
EFFICIENCY
97.OC «8.BO
100.00
FIGURE
AND YEARLY- COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY D3, ALT. VI
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 400
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D3-VII
(GUM BASE)
ITEMIZED COST SLMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
B.
c.
H.
K.
Q.
R.
U.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.PUMPIK.pl STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.3LICGE THICKENER
.AtRCPIC OIGESTOP
.SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
CONSTRUCTION
2. LAND
«. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
COSTS*
LABOR
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
243350.00
3^650.00
326720,00
37^80.00
10280.00
2^30.00
11370.00
61560.00
61560.00
13070.00
14600.00
89230.00
1270
-------
s
u.
o
327.C
301.6
27*.<>
251.0
226.2
(0
8
>
SB^
>
2CJ.C
us.e
O* II
** - • *
ue.2
T5.C
«:.ee
«s.ee «
EFFICIENTY
17.00
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load is 5.24 kg/kkg (10.5 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 1.18 kg/kkg (2.36 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.28 kg/kkg (0,56 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total Investment cost: $170,350
Total yearly cost: $ 37,860
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 401. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 30 percent
SS: 30 percent
O&G: 60 percent
Alternative D 5-III - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, and an aerated lagoon.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.37 kg/kkg (0.74 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.25 kg/kkg (0.50 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.07 kg/kkg (0.14 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $484,700
Total yearly cost: $199,330
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 402. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 85 percent
O&G: 90 percent
Alternative D 5-IV - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon of
Alternative D 5-III with activated sludge and provides sludge thickening
and aerobic digestion.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.22 kg/kkg (0.44 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.17 kg/kkg (0.34 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.069 kg/kkg (0.14 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $565,180
Total yearly cost: $196,740
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 403. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 90 percent
O&G: 90 percent
1272
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 401
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D5-II
(CHOCOLATE WITH CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTFMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 30.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TRF.ATMFNT MODULES*
B...PULPING STATION
C...EQULIZATICN BASIN
J...AIR FLOTATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINFEPJNG
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR
2. PC*EP
3. CHEMICALS
4. MA
TOTAL
PPLIES
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2, YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RFCCVEPY
3, DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
111190.00
33320.00
11420.00
1U20.00
170350.00
12490.00
4720.00
0.0
6990.00
2«200.00
24200.00
6810.00
6850.00
37B60.00
1273
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 402
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D5-III
(CHOCOLATE WITH CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SLMKARY FOR WASTEhATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EGLALIZATICN BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
CCNSTRUCTICN
LAND
ENGINEERING
ti. CONTINGENCY
5* PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
TOTAL YEARLY
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 403
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D5-IV
(CHOCOLATE WITH CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SLMpAfrY FOP KASTFkATER T*tATM£NT
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95,0 PEPCPM POO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
PI
B.
C.
H.
K.
e.
R.
BttL HCLSE
.PUMPING STATION
.ECULIZATICN PASI
.NITRCGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.3LLCRE THICKENER
.AERCBir DIGESTCff
CCNSTRtCTICN
LANO
INVESTMENT CCSTS:
1 .
2,
3.
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS:
1.
2.
3. CHEMICALS
33320.00
44320.00
565180.00
37«8:0.00
22730.00
4. VAINTENANiCESSLPPLlES 52880.00
TCTAL 147540.CO
TCTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 147540.00
2. YEARLY INVEST^FNT
COST RECOVERY 22610.00
3. DEPRECIATION 26590.00
TCTAL 196740.00
1275
-------
DRAFT
Alternative D 5-V - This alternative adds sand drying beds to Alter-
native D 5-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.22 kg/kkg (0.44 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.17 kg/kkg (0.34 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.069 kg/kkg (0.14 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $954,170
Total yearly cost: $227,630
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 404. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 90, percent
O&G: 90 percent
Alternative D 5-VI - This alternative adds air flotation to Alternative
D 5-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.15 kg/kkg (0.30 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.12 kg/kkg (0.24 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.028 kg/kkg (0.056 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $623,250
Total yearly cost: $208,200
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 405. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98 percent
SS: 93 percent
O&G: 96 percent
Alternative D 5-VII - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative D 5-VI.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.025 kg/kkg (0.15 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.034 kg/kkg (0.068 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.0069 kg/kkg (0.014 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $651,200
Total yearly cost: $215,360
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 406. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that three operators are required.
1276
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 404
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D5-V
(CHOCOLATE WITH CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTEP TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOO RECL'CTICN
TREATMENT MQDULESj
81
9.
C.
H.
.
T.
.CQNTRGL
.PUMPING STATION
.EQL'ALIZATICN e^SI
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AERC9IC DIGESTCW
.SAND DRYING BEDS
INVESTMENT COSTS:
1.
2.
3.
a.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS?
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
a. MAINTFNAKCERSLPPLIES
TOTAL
763910.00
37aeo.oo
76390.00
76390.00
954170.00
37480
22730
00
00
00
08970.00
103630.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 103630.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY 36170.00
3. DEPRECIATION 05830.00
TOTAL
227630.00
1277
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 405
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D5-VI
(CHOCOLATE WITH CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZFD COST SUMMARY FOP WASTE^ATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.0 PERCENT SCO REDUCTION'
TREATMENT MODULES*
Bl..CONTROL HCLSE
8...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
(3...SLUDGE THICKENER
R...AERCPir DIGFSTOR
J...AIR FLOTATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION U91610.00
2. LAND 33320.00
3. ENGINEERING 49160.00
it. CONTINGENCY «9lfeO.OO
TCTAL 623250.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSt
1. LABOR 37«80.00
2. FOER 3^500.00
3. CHEMICALS 22730.00
4. MA.INTENANCERSUPPLIES 59060.00
TOTAL 153770.00
TCTAL YEARLY COSTS*
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST 153770.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECCVFRY 2^930.00
3. DEPRECIATION 29500.00
TOTAL 208200.00
1278
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 406
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D5-VII
(CHOCOLATE WITH CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR i*ASTE*ATFR TREATMENT CHAT*
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... «9.0 PEprEN.T BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULfcSi
ROL HCLSE •
0...PUMPING STATION'
C...F.QUALIZATICN BASIN
H..,NITRCGF\ ADDITION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Q,..SLLPGE THICKENER
F«..,AERCB1C riSESIO
J...AIR FLGTATICN
B...PUMP ING STATIC^
N...HUAL KFCIA PRESSURE FJLTBA'M
INVESTMENT CCSTS:
CCNSTRiCTICN
LAND
3.
TCTAL
33320.00
SlUQO.OO
•5U90.00
651200.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCST&I
1. LABOR 37«80.00
2. PQWEK 39790.00
3. CHfeMICALS 22730.00
U, MAlNTEN'ANCrRSlPPLIES 59a?0.00
TCTAL 15S42C.OO
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSJ
1. YEARLY OPc»iTIK,'G COST 15««?0.00
2. YEARLY I^!VE?^^'E^T
CCST KFCCVFRY 26050.00
3. DEPRECIATIC3K 30690.00
TCTAL
215360.00
1279
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 98 percent
O&G: 99 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 352.
Alternative D 5-VIII - This alternative adds air flotation to Alternative
D 5-III.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.22 kg/kkg (0.44 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.17 kg/kkg (0.34 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.028 kg/kkg (0.055 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $542,770
Total yearly cost: $217,040
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 407. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 90 percent
O&G: 96 percent
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies for
Subcategory D 6 - Chocolate Without Condensory Processing
A model plant representative of Subcategory D 6 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, eight alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various
levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 220 kkg
(240 ton) of chocolate per day.
Alternative D 6-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent
from a 220 kkg per day plant is 920 cu m (0.243 MG) per day. The
BOD waste load is 4.63 kg/kkg (9.24 Ib/ton), the suspended solids
load is 1.50 kg/kkg (3.01 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is 1.06
kg/kkg (2.12 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative D 6-II - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, and air flotation.
1280
-------
u.
o
-------
TABLE 407
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D5-VIII
(CHOCOLATE WITH CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR
3ESIGN EFFICIENCY... <57.0
<*ASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
fe... PUMPING STATION
C. ..EQIALIZATIO BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
J..tAie FLOTATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSI
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CCNSTRUCTTO
LAND
CONTINGENCY
FVC L
TCTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CCSTSj
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTF.NANCE&SLPPLI6S
PVC LU'ER
TCTAL
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
438140.00
5660.00
43810.00
43810.00
11350.00
542770,00
12490.
115810.
00
00
00
22730.
16930.00
510.00
U8470.00
168U70.00
21710.00
26860.CO
217040.00
1282
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load Is 3.24 kg/kkg (6.48 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load Is 1.05 kg/kkg (2.1 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
0.42 kg/kkg (0.84 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $185,710
Total yearly cost: $ 40,170
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 408. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 30 percent
SS: 30 percent
O&G: 60 percent
Alternative D 6-III - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, and an aerated lagoon.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.23 kg/kkg (0.46 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.32 kg/kkg (0.44 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 1.06 kg/kkg (2.1 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $546,650
Total yearly cost: $219,260
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 409. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 85 percent
O&G: 90 percent
Alternative D 6-IV - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon
of Alternative D 6-III with activated sludge and provides sludge thickening
and aerobic digestion.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.18 kg/kkg (0.36 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.20 kg/kkg (0.40 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
0.106 kg/kkg (0.21 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $406,730
Total yearly cost: $129,920
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 410. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96 percent
SS: 87 percent
O&G: 90 percent
1283
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 408
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D6-II
(CHOCOLATE WITHOUT CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SLMMARY FOR '*ASTE*ATEP TREATMENT CHAIN"
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 30.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION*
TREATMENT MODULESj
B...PULPING STATION
C...E&11ALIZATICN BASIN
J...AIR FLOTATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSI
1. CONSTRUCTION 126990.00
2. LAND 33320.00
3. ENGINEERING 12700.00
4. CONTINGENCY 12700.00
TOTAL 185710.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSi
1. LABOR 12490.00
2. POWER 5420.00
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTENANCERSLPPLIES 7210.00
TOTAL 25120.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 25120.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 7430.00
3. DEPRECIATION 7620.00
TOTAL 40170.00
1284
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 409
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D6-III
(CHOCOLATE WITHOUT CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SLHMRY FOR M3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESi
8...PUMPING STATION
C. ..EQL4LIZATICN BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSt
1.
2.
3.
H.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TCTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
TCTAL YEARLY
COSTSl
LABOR
PCWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
COSTS*
1, YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
439020.00
MfeO.OO
43900.00
43900.00
13670.00
546650.00
6250.
140780.
10530,
12200,
610,
00
00
00
00
00
170370.00
170370.00
21870.00
27020.00
219260.00
1285
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 410
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D6-IV
(CHOCOLATE WITHOUT CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY.., 95.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
81
8.
C.
H.
K.
0.
R.
.COMRCL HCUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AERCPIC DIGESTOR
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCNSTRLCTICN
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
COSTS!
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCERSLFPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSI
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
311170.00
33320.00
31120.00
31120.00
406730.00
37480.00
21290.00
10530.00
P5680.00
94980.00
94980.00
16270.00
18670.00
129920.00
1286
-------
DRAFT
Alternative D 6-V - This alternative adds sand drying beds to Alternative
D 6-IV,
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.18 kg/kkg (0.36 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load ts 0.20 kg/kkg (0.40 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
0.106 kg/kkg (0.21 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $581,990
Total yearly cost: $144,720
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 411. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96 percent
SS: 87 percent
O&G: 90 percent
Alternative D 6-VI - This alternative adds air flotation to Alternative
D 6-I.V.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.18 kg/kkg (0.36 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.14 kg/kkg (0.28 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.032 kg/kkg (0.064 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $643,830
Total yearly cost: $156,710
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 412. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96 percent
SS: 91 percent
O&G: 97 percent
Alternative D 6-VII - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative D 6-VI.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.046 kg/kkg (0.092 Ib/ton), the suspended
soldis load is 0.06 kg/kkg (0.12 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.0106 kg/kkg (0.02 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $686,580
Total yearly cost: $168,720
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 413. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
1287
-------
.DRAFT
TABLE -411
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D6-V
{CHOCOLATE WITHOUT -CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST "SUMMARY POP WASTE*ATEP TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN' EfFIClENCY,. .. 95.0 PERCENT B.OO DEDUCTION
T-R.E.-AT.MENT
PI.. CONTROL HCL-SE
B, ..PLJKPINi: .STATION
C ;EQL?AII.Z
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 412
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D6-VI
(CHOCOLATE WITHOUT CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FDR hA.STEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 96.0 PERCENT BOO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MUDULESi
Bl
B.
C.
H.
K,
G.
P.
T.
J.
.CCMROL HOUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AERCPIC PIGE8TOR
.SAND DRYING PEDS
.AIR FLOTATION
INVESTMENT COSTSf
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSi
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
«. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TOTAL .
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
51«310.00
26660.00
51430.00
51430.00
643830.00
374PO.OO
21360.00
10530.00
30730.00
100100.00
100100.00
25750.00
30860.00
156710.00
1289
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 413
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D6-VII
(CHOCOLATE WITHOUT CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEMTER TREATMENT
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.0 PERCENT PCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
ei
B.
C.
H.
K.
0.
R.
T.
J.
B.
N.
CCMRCL HCLSE
PUMPING STATION
FGUAL1ZATITN BASIN*
NITROGEN ADDITION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLUDGE THICKENER
AERC8IC DIGESTCR
SAND DRYING BEDS
AIR FLOTATION
PUMPING STATION
DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTPA.'N
INVESTMENT COSTS*
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CC3TSI
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY CPFPATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RFCCVP.RY
3. DEPRECIATION1
TOTAL
5U9900.00
26660.00
54990.00
54990.00
686580.00
37480.00
28850.00
10530.00
31400.00
108260.00
106260.00
27460.00
33000.00
166720.00
1290
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 96 percent
O&G: 99 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 353.
Alternative D 6-VIII - This alternative adds air flotation to Alternative
D 6-III.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.18 kg/kkg (0.36 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.15 kg/kkg (0.30 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.032 .kg/kkg (0.064 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $608,510
Total yearly cost: $231,260
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 414. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96 percent
SS: 90 percent
O&G: 97 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 354.
1291
-------
£
<
8
0.
o
631.2
575. u
510.6
061.8
ro
u>
t\3
to
8
608.0
352.2
ie«.e
tzo.o
«o.oo
«a.05 <)5.08 96.00
EFFICIENCY
97.oe se.oo 99,00 100.00
FIGURE
INVESTNENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY D6, ALT. VII
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 414
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D6-VIII
(CHOCOLATE WITHOUT CONDENSORY PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED C03T SUMMARY FOR WASTE^ATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,.. 96,0 PERCENT 800 REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
B.
C.
H.
L.
J.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOON
.AIR FLOTATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
TOTAL YEARLY
CCSTSl
LABOR
POKER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
490560.00
6160.00
49060.00
49060.00
13670.00
603510.00
6250.00
140640.00
10530.00
18570.00
610.00
176600.00
176800.00
24340.00
30120.00
231260.00
1293
-------
IL
O
CO
O
z
609.0
570.0
53I.C
K53.C
375.0
33t.O
O
_l
I-
I—I
Q_
O
25S.O
9s.ec 9i.es
«7.ee «e,cc 99.00 jco.oo
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 354
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUEGATEGORY 1)6. ALT. VIII
-------
DRAFT
PET FOODS
£nst. and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategory B 5 - Low Meat Pet Food
A model plant representative of subcategory B 5 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide
for various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which pro-
duces 159 kkg (175 ton) of product per day.
Alternative B '5-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
159 kkg per day plant is 556 cu m (0.147 MS) per day. The BOD waste
load is 3.55 kg/kkg (7.11 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is
2.66 kg/kkg (5.33 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is 1.40 kg/kkg
(2.80 ib/tbn).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative B 5-II - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, dissolved air flotation, and vacuum filtration of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.1 kg/kkg (2.2 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.53 kg/kkg (1.0 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
0.70 kg/kkg (1.4 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $229,630
Total yearly cost: $ 59,780
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 415. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 70.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
0&6: 50.0 percent
Alternative B 5-III - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native B 5-II a complete-mix activated sludge system, a sludge thickener
for the waste activated sludge, and increased capacity for the vacuum
filter.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.11 kg/kkg (0.22 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.11 kg/kkg (0.22 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.14 kg/kkg (0.28 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: 5511,100
Total yearly cost: $125,490
1295
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 41,5
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B5-II
(LOW MEAT PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR NA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY.6870.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
C..»C.QUALIZATICM BASIN
BB.0PUMPING STATION
J88BAIR FLOTATION
BeoePUMPING STATION
88.9VACUUM FILTRATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSs
lo CONSTRUCTION 187890.00
2. LAND 4160.00
3. ENGINEERING 18790.00
4. CONTINGENCY 18790.00
TOTAL 229630.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSs
1. LABOR 12490.00
2. POWER 10860,00
3. CHEMICALS 4260.00
4. MAINTSNANCESSLPPLIES 11710.00
TOTAL 39320.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS?
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST 39320.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 9190.00
3e DEPRECIATION 11270.00
TOTAL 59780.00
1296
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 416. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.0 percent
SS: 96.0 percent
O&G: 90.0 percent
Alternative B 5-IV - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to Alternative B 5-III.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.071 kg/kkg (0.14 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.053 kg/kkg (0.10 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.07 kg/kkg (0.14 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $557,310
Total yearly cost: $138,950
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 417. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.0 percent
SS: 98.0 percent
O&G: 95.0 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 355.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategory B 6 - High Meat Pet Food
A model plant representative of subcategory B 6 was developed in Section
V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives. In
Section VII, five alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various
levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 270 kkg
(300 ton) per day.
Alternative B 6-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction 1n the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
270 kkg per day plant is 1100 cu m (0.3 MG) per day. The BOD waste
load is 54 kg/kkg (108 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 21 kg/kkg
(42 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is 31 kg/kkg (63 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative B 6-II - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization and centrifugation.
1297
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 416 ~
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B5-III
(LOW MEAT PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...97.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
Bl
C.
B.
J.
B.
S.
K.
0.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3, CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
412040.00
16660.00
M200.00
41200.00
511100.00
24990.00
31210.00
7240.00
16890.00
00330.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 80330.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 20440.00
3. DEPRECIATION 24720.00
TOTAL 125490.00
1298
-------
TABLE 417
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B5-IV
(LOW MEAT PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...98,0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES?
81
C.
B.
J.
B.
S,
K.
Q,
B.
N.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
•SLUDGE THICKENER
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTSf
1.
2.
3.
a.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
450550
16660
45050
«00
.00
.00
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
i. LABOR
e. POKER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
45050.00
557310.00
24990.00
39600.00
7240.00
17600.00
89630.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1, YEARLY OPERATING COST 89630.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 22290.00
3. DEPRECIATION 27030,00
TOTAL 138950.00
1299
-------
d
o
b
(/)
2
in
a
o
u
^^
£
I-H
d.
<
O
S9I.O
101.1
*
/
5
401.1
111.*
SII.S
111.*
101,7
lit.*
101,»
** • * ' * ......«...•••••••••,•••••••••.•••••
TO.Ofl T».M T*.«» »«.0«
14.01 *T*0« 1»0.«»
iilo*
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 355
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY B5, ALT. IV
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load is 27 kg/kkg (54 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 6.3 kg/kkg (12.6 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
12.4 kg/kkg (24.8 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $243,880
Total yearly cost: $101,560
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 418. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 50.0 percent
SS: 70.0 percent
O&G: 60.0 percent
Alternative B 6-III - This alternative adds air flotation and vacuum
filtration to the treatment modules of Alternative B 6-II.
The resulting BOD waste load is 8.1 kg/kkg (16.2 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 1.3 kg/kkg (2.6 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load is
4.3 kg/kkg (8.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $310,850
Total yearly cost: $132,390
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 419. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 85.0 percent
SS: 94.0 percent
O&G: 96.0 percent
Alternative B 6-IV - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native B 6-III, a complete-mix activated sludge treatment system sludge
thickening for the waste activated sludge, and additional vacuum
filter capacity.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.54 kg/kkg (1.08 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.63 kg/kkg (1.26 Ib/ton),and the oil and grease load
is 1.24 kg/kkg (2.48 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $908,830
Total yearly cost: $397,000
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 420. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.0 percent
SS: 97.0 percent
O&G: 96.0 percent
1301
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 418
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B6-II
(HIGH MEAT PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST Sl*KA°Y
DESIGN EFFICIENCY..,
»ASTFXATER TPEAT^M CHAIN
rEHCFNT BC',0 PEDHCTICN
TREATMENT MCDULES:
INVESTMENT
El . .COf T-r.L M. USE
C .. . E r: U A L \ 7 A T I f K B*
B.. .Pl'fPINCn STATIC^
C. . .rtN7»IrUG*
V. . .HLLC INin TA
i. CCNSTKLCT:
2. lANP
3 . E N G T fj E F. K I'
U. CLNTIKl-EW
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS:
1. LM'n
2. PPrtf-
3.
H. K
TC7H
39980.00
16Q50.00
169QO.OO
243680.00
2^990.00
],a970.00
0.0
alfeSO.OO
81610.00
TCTAL YEARLY CGSTS>
1. VEAPLY CF£«ATING CCS1 81610.00
2. YEARLY ii\Vr;STf ENT
CCST pPCrvFttY 9760.00
3, OrFSEClATiO^ 10190.00
TCTAl J01560.00
1302
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 419
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B6-III
(HIGH MEAT PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SbMfAPY FOP '•«. a?TF* A TE5 T^t^T^'fcN'T CHAIN.
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... fc5.0 -FPCFM rTqTFLGATJf:^
Y.,.H-ji.ur.-.; Tif-K
S , . . V A C L- U i" F I L T K A T IC *
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CCN-STRtCTICN c2?730.CO
2. LAIviD <998C.OO
3. EMGI^EEBING 2P570.00
TCTAt 310850.CO
YEARLY OPEHATI\': CrSTS:
2. PCI«ER 15050.00
3. CHEi^lCM-3 0.0
TCTAL 106^20.00
TCTAL YEARLY COSTS*
i. YEARLY OPERATING CCST lofca^o.oo
CCST PF.CCVFRY 1?U30.00
3. PEPSECIATITN. I3540.cn
TCTAL 13?390.on
1303
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 420
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B6-IV
(HIGH MEAT PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP KASTEMTER TPfeATf--&M CHAIN
PESIGV EFFICIENCY,. . 99.0 PERCENT BOD RECL-CTIO
TREATMENT MCDuLESi
B1...CCMTPCJL KLSF
C...EOLAHZATICN PASI'v
3 , . . PI * ? IMT5 STATION
v...HOLD ING TANK
J...AIR FLOTATION
S... VACUUM FILTRATION
K...ACTIVATED SLUOGt.
'3...SLLPGE THICKENER
INVESTMENT CCoTSs
1. CONSTRUCTION 72^050.00
e • LAND 39980.00
3 . ENGINEERING 724100 , 00
TCTAL " 90883o!oO
YEARLY UPEPATIM, COSTS:
1. LABOR 2^990.00
3. CHEMICALS S5l2o!oO
if. NAl'vTFMANCcRSUPPLlt'S 6fc690.00
*C'AL 3l7clO.OO
TOTAL YEARLY C.i-fiTf:
i. VCAPLV CF^^iVIKt COST 317£10.00
CCST «'FCrvFF.Y 36350.00
TTT'''. 397000.00
1304
-------
DRAFT
Alternative B 6-V - This alternative adds dual media filtration to Alter-
native B 6-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.54 kg/kkg (1.08 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.21 kg/kkg (0.42 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load
is 0.62 kg/kkg (1.24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $956,910
Total yearly cost: $410,850
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 421. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.0 percent
SS: 99.0 percent
O&G: 98.0 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 356.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategory B 7- Dry Pet Food
A model plant representative of subcategory B 7 was developed in Section
V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives. In
Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels
of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 270 kkg (300 ton)
per day.
Alternative B 7-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
270 kkg per day plant is 114 cu m (0.03 MG) per day. The BOD waste
load is 0.085 kg/kkg (0.17 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is
0.042 kg/kkg (0.08 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is 0.11 kg/kkg
(0.21 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative B 7-II - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, and dissolved air flotation.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.042 kg/kkg (0.085 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.008 kg/kkg (0.016 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.055 kg/kkg (0.11 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $74,120
Total yearly cost: $20,940
1305
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 421
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B6-V
(HIGH MEAT PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SL^ASY Ff,P uA8TE*AT£R TREAT&EM CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIFNCV... 00.5 PE.fcCE>T BuD FFCuC
TREATMENT
S1..COKTP-OL I-CLSE
r...EQUALIZATION 6A5IN
^...PU^PTf-T STATION
C. . .Of NTPIFLGATTCK!
Y...HC.Lr,IK-G TANK
J...ATK FLIRTATION
S...VACLLK FILTRATION
K...ACTIVATEC- SLLDGt
G...SLLDGE Ti-ICKENEK
F. ..PULPING STATION
N...OUAL M'ECTA PKESSLPT FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTS:
1. CONSTRUCTION 76^110.00
c. LAND 39980.00
3. E^GINf.6 Riot's 76^10.00
KT*L V56910.00
YEARLY CPERAT^
-------
co
o
«S7.0
y) *»».«
tt
5
d
Q 7»5.«
b
(0
2 7PO.J
W)
(0
8
U
0.
3
c-
is.co »o.ee «5.ee
T:.CO 7s.se ie.ce
EFFICIENCY
IS.CO 4S.CO 95.00 ifiO.OO
FIGURE 356
INVESTMEhfT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY 86, ALT. V
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 422. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one-half time operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 50.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
O&G: 50.0 percent
Alternative B 7-III - This alternative provides complete mix activated
sludge in addition to Alternative B 7-II.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0085 kg/kkg (0.017 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.0059 kg/kkg (0.012 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.016 kg/kkg (0.032 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $125,910
Total yearly cost: $ 34,380
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 42/3. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare §16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 90.0 percent
SS: 86.0 percent
O&G: 85.0 percent
Alternative B 7-IV - This alternative provides dual media filtration in
addition to Alternative B 7-III.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.004 kg/kkg (0.008 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.0017 kg/kkg (0.0036 Ib/ton), and the oil
and grease load is 0.0088 kg/kkg (0.018 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $153,030
Total yearly cost: $ 41,450
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 424. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95.0 percent
SS: 96.0 percent
O&G: 92.0 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 357.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategory B 8- Soft Moist Pet Food
A model plant representative of subcategory B 8 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being
1308
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 422
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B7-II
(DRY PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FCR NASTEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...50.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4,
C...EGULIZATICN BASIN
8...PUMPING STATION
J...AIP FLOTATION
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS:
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
n. MAPJTFNANCE&SIPPLIES
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY
CCSTSJ
i. YEARLY CP&RATING COST
2. YFAPLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
56300.00
4160.00
5B30.CO
5830.00
74120.00
6250.00
2050.00
0.0
6180.00
14480.00
14U80.00
2960.00
3500.00
20940.00
1309
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 423"
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B7-III
(DRY PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,..90.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
8...PUMPING STATION
J...AIR FLOTATION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
97980.00
6330.00
9600.00
9600.00
125910.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR 12490.00
2. POKER 4060.00
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES 6890.00
TOTAL 23460.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 23460,00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 5040.00
3. DEPRECIATION 5880.00
TOTAL 34380.00
1310
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 424
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B7-IV
(DRY PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEHTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,.,95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
C,
B.
J.
K.
8.
N.
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CGSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSi
1. LABOR
2. PCWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE8SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY
COSTS*
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
120560.00
6330.CO
12060.00
12060.00
153030,00
12490.00
6940.00
0.0
8670.00
26100.00
26100.00
6120.00
7230.00
41450,00
1311
-------
co
ro
U_
O
i
z
8
UJ
u
Q_
5
. o
1«0.*
J17.J
100.«
17.0
.t e
»0,J
20.0 IV
40,00 *5.00 70.00 79.00 60.00 85.CO 10.00 »J.CO 100.00
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 357
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY B7, ALT. IV
-------
DRAFT
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for
various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces
500 kg (550 ton) per day.
Alternative B 8-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
500 kkg per day plant is 114 cu m (0.03 MG) per day. The BOD waste load
is 0.89 kg/kkg (1.77 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 0.48 kg/kkg
(0.96 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is 0.18 kg/kkg (0.36 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative B 8-11 - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, dissolved air flotation, and vacuum filtration of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.36 kg/kkg (0.72 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.096 kg/kkg (0.19 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.36 kg/kkg (0.72 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $247,670
Total yearly cost: $ 89,780
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 425. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 60.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
O&G: 80.0 percent
Alternative B 8-111 - This alternative provides in addition to Alternative
B 8-11 a complete-mix activated sludge system and a sludge thickener
for the waste activated sludge. Additional capacity for the vacuum filter
is included.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.036 kg/kkg (0.072 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.048 kg/kkg (0.096 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.011 kg/kkg (0.022 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $717,810
Total yearly cost: $194,050
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 426. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.0 percent
SS: 90.0 percent
O&G: 94.0 percent
1313
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 425'
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B8-II
(SOFT MOIST PET FOOD)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...60.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTICN
TREATMENT MODULES!
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
B...PUMPING STATION
J...AIR FLOTATION
B...PUMPING STATION
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING CCST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
202930.00
4160.00
20290.00
20290.00
247670.00
12490.00
18610.00
17020.00
19370.00
67690.00
67690.00
9910.00
12160.00
89780.00
1314
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 42S
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE
(SOFT MOIST PET FOOD)
3-111
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...96.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODUUESi
Bl
C.
B.
J.
B.
S.
K.
Q.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIE3
TOTAL
564290.00
16660.00
56430.00
58430.00
717610.00
00
00
24990
57220
21260.00
26790.00
130260.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 13C280.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 28710.00
3, DEPRECIATION 35060.00
TOTAL 194050.00
-------
DRAFT
Alternative B 8-IV - This alternative provides dual media filtration in
addition to Alternative B 8-III.
The resulting BOD waste load isO.018 kg/kkg (0.036 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.014 kg/kkg (0.028 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.0054 kg/kkg (0.011 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $913,950
Total yearly cost: $213,510
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 427. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.0 percent
SS: 97.0 percent
O&G: 97.0 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 358.
MISCELLANEOUS AND SPECIALITY PRODUCTS
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory A 29 - Flavorings and Extracts
A model plant representative of subcategory A 29 was developed in Section
V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives. In
Section VII, eleven alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels
of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 300 cu m (0.08 MG)
of finished flavors per day.
Alternative A 29-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
300 cu m (0.08 MG) per day plant is 125 cu m (0.033 MG) per day. The
BOD waste load is 0.56 kg/cu m (4.6 lb/1000 gal), and the suspended
solids load is 0.054 kg/cu m (0.45 lb/1000 gal).
Alternative A 29-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a holding tank and spray irrigation of the raw waste effluent. Truck
hauling of alcohol still bottoms and wastewater generated from the
vacuum still and organic synthesis areas is also provided.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0 kg/cu m (0.0 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $102,590
Total yearly cost: $ 18,570
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 428. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that one-half time operator is required.
1316
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 427
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE
(SOFT MOIST PET FOOD)
3-IV
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...98.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
61
C.
B.
J.
B.
S.
K.
G.
B.
N.
.CONTROL HCLSE
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PULPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
4( CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSt
1. LABOR
2. PCKER
3. CHEMICALS
«• MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
622800.00
166590.00
62260.00
62280.00
913950.00
24990.00
65810.00
21280.00
27500.00
139580.00
139580.00
36560.00
37370.00
213510.00
1317
-------
CO
00
Q
b
U)
§
>«
o
<
G
•ll.l
TM.I
•M.9
SI*.I
SII.S
•n.l
SU.I
ITt.l
M.I IT
e
*••,••••••••*,•••••••••,•••••••••.••••
• •,11 M,M TI.M U.ll
•••••••$•••
II,Cl I«.H
EFFICIENCY
•1,11 U.ll '*.«! 111.11
FIGURE 358
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY Be, ALT. IV
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 428
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-II
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUGARY FOR KASIE^ATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY, ..100.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
I...SPRAY
INVESTMENT CCSTS!
1.
2.
3.
LA.NP
EN-i-INFER IMG
CCNTJKGFNCY
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS?
1. I A SCR
3! CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE1SIPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
11000.00
7630.00
7&30.00
icas^o.oo
1000.00
0.0
2640.00
9890.00
9890.00
«100. 00
4580.00
16570.00
1319
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: TOO percent
Alternative A 29-III - 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. Truck
hauling of alcohol still bottoms and wastewater generated from vacuum
still and organic synthesis areas is also provided.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.041 kg/cu m (0.102 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $143,380
Total yearly cost: $ 37,280
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 429. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 92.6 percent
SS: 76.9 percent
Alternative 29-IV - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration of
Alternative A 29-111 with aerobic digestion followed by sand drying
beds.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0-041 kg/cu m (0.34 lb/1000 gal), and the
suspended solids load is 0.0123 kg/cu m (0.102 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $196,570
Total yearly cost: $ 44,310
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 430. It is assumed
that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 92.6 percent
SS: 76.9 percent
Alternative A 29-V - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalization tank, and an aerated lagoon. Truck hauling of alcohol
still bottoms, and wastewater generated from vacuum still and organic
synthesis areas is also provided.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.041 kg/cu m (0.34 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.0123 kg/cu m (0.102 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost. $163,470
Total yearly cost: $ 43,530
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 431. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 92.6 percent
SS: 76.9 percent
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 429
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-III
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FQP wASTF.MTFR TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 92.6 PERCENT ROD REDUCTION!
TREATMENT MODULES:
8...PULING STATION
C...6QI.ALIZAT1CN BASIN'
K..,ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Q...5LLD6E THICKENER
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
Y...HOLCTMG TANK
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCNSTRUCTTO
LAND
ENGINEERING
CCNTIMGFNCY
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSt
1. LABOR
2. PCfcER
3. CHEMICALS
4. PAIMTENANCE4SIPPLIES
TCTAL
97260.00
26660.00
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 430
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-IV
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SlMKAPY FOR MSTEMTEP TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY.. . 92.f> FtRCFNT «GD DEDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES
B...PIjN'FP'C STATIC^
C...EMALI7.ATICN BASIN
K...ACTIVATED 5LUDGE
C...SI.LDGE THICKENER
P.,.AfcRCRIC CIGESTOR
T...SAKD TRYING BEDS
Y...HCLDING TANK
INVESTMENT
CG8TS»
1.
2 .
3.
CCNSTRUCTICN
LAND
ENGINEERING
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSt
1. LABOR
2, FCWEP
3. CHEMICALS
a. MAJNTENANCE4SLPPLIES
TCTAL
TCTAL VEAPLY CCSTSJ
i. YEARLY CPEPATING CCST
2. YEAftLY INVES
CCST RECCVFPY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
151320.00
1^990.00
15130.00
15J30.00
196570.00
12490.00
7690.00
0.0
7190.00
27370.00
27370.00
9080.00
1322
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 431
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-V
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 9?.6 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
8...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
L...AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
5.
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
EMGINFERIMG
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINES
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
CCSTSl
LABOR
PCHER
CHEMICALS
MAINJTF.NANCERSLPPLIES
PVC
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSs
1 . YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST 4F.CCVFPY
3.
TC7AL
131530.00
1670.00
13150.00
13150.00
3970.00
163470.00
12490.
IflOflO.
0.
2260.
90.
00
00
0
00
00
28900.00
29900.00
6540.00
8090.00
43530. 00
1323
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 29-VI - This alternative provides dual media filtration in
addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 29-111.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.020 kg/cu m (0.17 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.0062 kg/cu m (0.051 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $160,180
Total yearly cost: $ 42,240
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 432. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.3 percent
SS: 88.5 percent
Alternative A 29-VII - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 29-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.020 kg/cu m (0.17 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.0062 kg/cu m (0.051 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $213,370
Total yearly cost: $ 49,260
_An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 433. It is
assumed that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.3 percent
SS: 88.5 percent
Alternative A 29-VIII - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 29-V.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.020 kg/cu m (0.17 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.0062 kg/cu m (0.051 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $180,280
Total yearly cost: $ 48,490
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 434. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.3 percent
SS: 88.5 percent
Alternative A 29-IX - This alternative provides carbon adsorption in
addition to the treatment modules of Alternative VI.
1324
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 432
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-VI
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FDR NASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 96.3 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESi
B...PUMPING STATIC!*
C...FQLALIZATICN BASIN
K...ACTIVATED SLL'OGE
G...SLUDGE THICKENER
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
Y...HOLDING TANK
B...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR
2. PCNER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING CC9T
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
1920
5310
IN
111260.00
26660.00
uno.oo
11130.00
160180.00
,00
,00
00
00
29150.00
29150.00
6410.00
66fiO.OO
42240.00
1325
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 433
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-VII
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTE*ATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 96.3 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MOOULESj
8.
C.
K.
Q.
R.
T.
Y.
a.
.PUMPING STATION
.EGUALIZJTICh BASIN
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC DIGESTGK
.SANO DRYING BEDS
.HOLDING TAKK
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSJ
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
TCTAL YEARLY
COSTS!
LABOR
POER
CHEMICALS
TCTAL
CCSTSt
1. YEARLY CPERATIKT, COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVFRV
3. DEBRECIATION
TCTAL
165320.00
16530.00
16530.00
213370.00
12490.00
9650.00
0.0
8670.00
30810.00
30810.00
6530,
9920,
00
00
49260.00
1326
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 434
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-VIII
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR M8TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... «6.3 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION'
TREATMENT MODULESi
INVESTMENT CCSTS»
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
B...PUMPING STATIC*
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
L...AERATED LAGCOlv
P...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FRTRA'N
CONSTRICTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINE*
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1, LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4.
5.
MAINTENANCESSLPPLIES
PVC L
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY CPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
1670.00
1^550.00
lasso.oo
3970.00
180280.00
12490.00
16000.00
0.0
3770.00
90.00
32350.00
3P350.00
7210.00
8930.00
aea9o.co
1327
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0123 kg/cu m (0.102 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.004 kg/cu m (0.033 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $207,270
Total yearly cost: $ 61,610
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 435. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.8 percent
SS: 92.3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 359.
Alternative A 29-X - This alternative provides carbon adsorption in
addition to the treatment modules of Alternative VII.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0123 kg/cu m (0.102 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.004 kg/cu m (0.033 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $260,490
Total yearly cost: $ 68,640
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 436. It is assumed
that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.8 percent
SS: 92.3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 360.
Alternative A 29-XI - This alternative provides carbon adsorption in
addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 29-VIII.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0123 kg/cu m (0.102 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.004 kg/cu m (0.033 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $227,390
Total yearly cost: $ 67,880
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 437. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1600 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.8 percent
SS: 92.3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 361.
1328
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 435
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-IX
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR W6STEMTFR TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.8 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
6...PUFFING STATION
C...EQI.ALIZATICN BASIN
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0...SLUDGE THICKENER
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
Y...HCHBING TANK
E...PULPING STATION
N...OUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
Z...ACTIVATED CARBCN AHSCRPTICK
INVESTMENT CCSTS:
1.
2.
3.
CCNSTPUCTICN
LAND
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
LABOR
POFR
CHEMICALS
YEARLY OPERATING
1
a
TCTAL
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING CCST
e. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST KFCCvERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
150510.00
26660.
15050.
00
00
15050.00
207270.00
12^90
11900
1920
17980
00
00
00
00
44290.00
44290.00
8290.00
9030.00
61610.00
1329
-------
aoe.o
.a
UL
O
iS
IS*.7
CO
co
o
tic.5
105.a
ee.i
I
u
*^
_l
a.
5
57.0
«i.oc «2.oo «j.ee .««.of «i.oe «».oo «7.co
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 436
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-X
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR KASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN! EFFICIENCY... 97.6 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION'
TREATMENT MOOULESi
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
c...SLUDGE THICKENER
R...AEROBIC DIGESTGR
T...SAND DRYING BEDS
Y...HOLDING TANK
3...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
Z...ACTIVATED CARBON ACSCRFTl'O
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCNSTRUCTICN
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
2.
3.
PCWEF
CHEMICALS
4. MAINTFNANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
20^580,00
11990.00
20460.00
20460.00
260490.00
12490.
12120.
0.
21340.00
45950.00
00
00
0
45950.00
10420.00
12270.00
6664Q.OO
1331
-------
1*1.0
154.1
cz
<
8
217.
co
CO
ro
5
I5J.S
130.6
199.1
U
»T.4
»5.7
o
a».o
FIGURE 360
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A 29, ALT. IV, VII, X
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 437
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A29-XI
(FLAVORING AND EXTRACTS)
ITEMIZED CCST SIMMjRY FQfl M8TEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.7 PERCENT BCfJ REDUCTION
TREATVFNT MODULES:
INVESTMENT CCSTS:
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
•3, ..PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
L...AERATED LAGCON
R...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRAI
Z...ACTIVATED CA.RBCN ADSCRPTIC*
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TCTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
a.
5.
CCSTS!
LABOR
CHEMICALS
KAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
PVC LINER
TCTAL
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSI
1, YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
1670.00
16480.00
leaeo.oo
3070.00
227390.00
12490.00
18470.00
0.0
1644G.OO
90.00
47490.00
47490,00
9100.00
11290.00
67680.00
1333
-------
M8.0
b
C/7
|
z
1*1.0
171.5
US. 5
117.0
«e.s
tu
i
»0.0
«o.co «i.co «2.co 43.ee «*.co o.eo »».oo 17.co <«.eo 99.00 100.00
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 361
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A 29, ALT. V, VIH. XI
-------
DRAFT
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategofy A 31, Bouillon
A model plant representative of subcategory A 31 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, seven alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels
of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 7.3 kkg (8.0 ton)
of bouillon products per day.
It is estimated that the effluent from a 7.3 kkg (8.0 ton) per day plant
is 114 cu m (0.03 MG) per day. The BOD waste load is 46.9 kg/kkg
(93.8 lb/ton). the suspended solids load is 3.13 kg/kkg (6.26 Ib/ton),
and the oil and grease load is 2.35 kg/kkg (4.69 Ib/ton).
Alternative A 31-1 - This alternative consists of pumping station, a
holding tank, and spray irrigation of the raw waste effluent.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0 kg/kkg (0.0 lb/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.0 kg/kkg (0.0 lb/ton) and the oil and grease load is
0.0 kg/kkg (0.0 lb/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $92,030
Total yearly cost: $10,840
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 438. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that no operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
O&G: 100 percent
Alternative A 31-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalization tank, a complete-mix activated sludge basin, a sludge
thickening and vacuum filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 2.34 kg/kkg (4.68 lb/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.626 kg/kkg (1.25 lb/ton) and the oil and
grease load is 0.626 kg/kkg (1.25 lb/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $264,500
Total yearly cost: $ 59,290
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 439. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
O&G: 73.3 percent
1335
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 438
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A31-I
(BOUILLON CUBES)
fEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR fcASTF.MTER TREATMENT CHAIN
•SIGN EFFICIENCY... 100.fl PERCENT BOO REDUCTION
iEATMENT MODULES:
Y...HOLDING TAM<
U...SPPAY IRRIGATION
DIVESTMENT COSTSi
1. CONSTRUCTION 66150.00
2. LAND 12660.00
3. ENGINEERING 6610.00
4. CONTINGENCY 6610.00
TOTAL 92030.00
•:ARLY OPERATING CCSTS»
1. LABOR 0.0
2. PO.F.R . Q80.00
3. CHEMJPAIS 0.0
1. MAINTENANCERSUPPLIES 2210.00
TOTAL 3190.00
!TAL YEARLY CCSTS»
1. YEARLY OPERATING CPST 3190.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 36eo.oo
3, DEPRECIATION 3970.00
TOTAL 10840.00
1336
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 439
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A3!-II
(BOUILLON CUBES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEkATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULE?!
Bl
P.
C.
K.
G.
S.
.CONTROL HCISE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATICN BASIN
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTPATION
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
«. CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
COSTSJ
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
«. MAINTF.NANCERSUFPLIES
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
198200.00
26660.00
19820.00
19820.00
26«500.00
12U90.00
16700.00
2160.00
5450.00
36820.00
36620.00
10580.00
11890.00
59290.00
1337
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 31-111 - This alternative replaces the vacuum filtration
of Alternative A 31-11 with sand drying beds.
The resulting BOD waste load is 2,34 kg/kkg (4.68 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.626 kg/kkg (1.25 Ib/ton) and the oil and
grease load is 0.626 kg/kkg (1.25 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $342,090
Total yearly cost: $ 72,940
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 440. It is assumed
that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
O&G: 73.3 percent
Alternative A 31-IV - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalization tank, and an aerated lagoon.
The resulting BOD waste load is 2.34 kg/kkg (4.68 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.626 kg/kkg (1.25 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load
is 0.626 kg/kkg (1.25 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $157,920
Total yearly cost: $ 41,660
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 441. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one-half time operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
O&G: 73.3 percent
Alternative A 31-V - This alternative provides dual media filtration in
addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 29-11.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.09 kg/kkg (2.18 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.313 kg/kkg (0.626 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load
is 0.313 kg/kkg (0.626 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $281,050
Total yearly cost: $ 64,180
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 442. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
1338
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 440
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A31-III
(BOUILLON CUBES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA8TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MQDUIE9|
61
B.
C.
K.
0.
T.
.CONTROL HCLSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.SAND DRYING BEDS
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCNSTRUC TICK-
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCT*L
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCSTSr
LABOR
PCWEP
CHEMICALS
I^AINTENANCERSLPPLIES
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
366420,00
19990.00
26840.00
26640.00
342090.00
12490
14670
0
.00
.00
.0
16000,00
43160.00
43160.00
13680.00
16100.00
72940.00
1339
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 441
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A3!-IV
(BOUILLON CUBES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA8TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESi
B...PUMPING STATION
C...FQIALIZATICN BASIN
L...AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
a.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CCSTSr
LABOR
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SL'PPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSi
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TCTAL
126060.00
3000.00
12610.00
12610.00
3620.00
157920.00
6250.
18540.
00
00
0.0
2720.00
80.00
27590.00
27590.00
6320.00
7750.00
01660.00
1340
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 442
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A3T-V
(BOUILLON CUBES)
ITEMIZED COST SUHMARY FOR HA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.7 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MQDULESi
81
B.
C.
K.
0.
8.
B.
N.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSi
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
211040.00
26660.00
21200.00
21200.00
281050.00
12490.00
18550.00
2180.00
7000.00
40220.00
40220.00
11240.00
12720.00
64180.00
1341
-------
212.0
oo
J^
ro
LL
O
s
i
¥
8
*•»
X
V-*
o:
o
237.
213.1
.«
i»e.s
:«e.2
125.
10).«
o «»«3
«o.oo
«2.cc o.oo <*.ao
47.00 «e.co
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 362A
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A 31, ALT. II. V
100.00
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.6 percent
SS: 90.0 percent
O&G: 86,7 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 361.
Alternative A 31-VI - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 31-in.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.09 kg/kkg (2.18 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.313 kg/kkg (0.626 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load
is 0.313 kg/kkg (0.626 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $358,640
Total yearly cost: $ 77,840
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 443. It is
assumed that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.6 percent
SS: 90.0 percent
O&G: 86.7 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 362B.
Alternative A 31-VII - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 31-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.09 kg/kkg (2.18 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.313 kg/kkg (0.626 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load
is 0.313 kg/kkg (0.626 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $174,470
Total yearly cost: $ 46,540
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 444. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that one-half time operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.6 percent
SS: 90.0 percent
O&G: 86.7 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 363,
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategory A 32 - Non-Dairy Creamer
A model plant representative of subcategory A 32 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, five alternatives were selected as being
1343
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 443
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A3!-VI
(BOUILLON CUBES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
JESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.7 PERCENT 800 REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES;
Bl..CONTROL KCUSE
8...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Q...9LLOGE THICKENER
T...SAND DRYING BEDS
B...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE
FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
/EARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
COSTS!
LABOR
PCWF.R
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
1. YEARLY CPERA.TING COST
2. YEARLY IMVF.ST*F.NT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
232210.00
28220.00
28220.00
358640.00
12490.00
16530.00
0.0
17540.00
46560.00
46560.00
14350.00
16930.00
77840.00
1344
-------
co
-P>
in
CO
s
J5S.O
lie.3
301.*
I6C.7
72.8
» ————~^
«?!ec «»!oe
EFFICIENCY
«7.oe
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 444
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A3T-VII
(BOUILLON CUBES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ^ASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.5 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQULIZATKN BASIN
L...AERATED LAGOON
B...PUMPING STATION
N...OUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CCNSTPUCTICN
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
. 1.
2.
3.
a.
5.
CCSTSt
LABOR
CHEMICALS
fAINTENANCE&SUPPLlES
PVC LIN'EP
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CC8T8I
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEAKLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
13*5870.00
3000.00
13990.00
13990.00
3620.00
17«<170.00
,6250.00
20390.00
0.0
«270.00
60.00
30990.00
30990.00
6960.00
8570.00
46540,00
1346
-------
CO
V)
b
i
1
179.0
161.6
1)8. »
iee.0
ej.i
*».«
5».a
• 1.0
«0.00 41.00 <2.00 41.00 4a.4« 4S.CO 4».00 47.00 48.00 49.00
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 363
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A 31, ALT. IV, VII
100.00
-------
DRAFT
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for
various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces
either 91 kkg (100 ton) of solid creamer per day.
It is estimated that the effluent from a 91 kkg (100 ton) per day plant
is 64.3 cu m (0.017 MG) per day. The BOD waste load is 0.78 kg/kkg
(1.56 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 0.312 kg/kkg (0.624 Ib/ton),
and the oil and grease load is 0.184 kg/kkg (0.369 Ib/ton).
Alternative A 32-1 - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
holding tank and spray irrigation of the raw waste effluent.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0 kg/kkg (0.0 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.0 kg/kkg (0.0 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load is
0.0 kg/kkg (0.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $58,360
Total yearly cost: $13,830
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 445. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that one-half time operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
O&G: 100 percent
Alternative A 32-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
flow equalization, dissolved air flotation, nutrient addition, a
complete-mix activated sludge basin, a sludge thickening, and a sludge
holding tank.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.025 kg/kkg (0.050 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.071 kg/kkg (0.142 Ib/ton) and the oil and
grease load is 0.0425 kg/kkg (0.085 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $157,360
Total yearly cost: $ 40,610
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 446. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.8 percent
SS: 77.2 percent
O&G: 77.4 percent
Alternative A 32-111 - This alternative consists of a pumping station,
a flow equalization tank, nutrient addition and an aerated lagoon.
1348
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 445
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A32-I
(NON-DAIRY CREAMER)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMfcNT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT 800 REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
INVESTMENT COSTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
U... SPRAY IRRIGATION
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2. POfcER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTFNANCERSL'PPLIES
TCT*t
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
1. YEARLY CPEP.ATHG COST
i. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
43920.00
5660.00
4390.00
4390.00
58360.00
6250.00
920.00
0.0
1700.00
8870,00
8870.00
2330.00
2630.00
13830.00
1349
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 446
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A32-II
(NON-DAIRY CREAMER)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEK A-TER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...96.8 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
B.
C.
J.
M.
I.
K.
Q.
Y.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BA8IN
.AIR FLOTATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.8LLDGE THICKENER
.HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
a.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
i. LABOR
2. PCfcER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
106920.00
26660.00
10890.00
10890.00
157360.00
12490.00
4210.00
220.00
10870.00
27790.00
27790.00
6290.00
6530.00
40610.00
1350
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.025 kg/kkg (0.050 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0,071 kg/kkg (0,142 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load
is 0.0425 kg/kkg (0.085 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $148,790
Total yearly cost: $ 42,380
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 447. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.8 percent
SS: 77.2 percent
O&G: 77.4 percent
Alternative A 32-IV - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 32-11.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0106 kg/kkg (0.0212 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.0142 kg/kkg (0.0284 Ib/ton) and the oil and
grease load is 0.0142 kg/kkg (0.0284 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $183,100
Total yearly cost: $ 47,270
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 448. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.6 percent
SS: 95.5 percent
O&G: 92.5 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 364.
Alternative A 32-V - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 32-1II.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.0106 kg/kkg (0.0212 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.0142 kg/kkg (0.0284 Ib/ton) and the oil
and grease load is 0.0142 kg/kkg (0.0284 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $164,220
Total yearly cost: $ 46,960
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 449. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.6 percent
SS: 95.5 percent
O&G: 92.5 percent
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 447
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A32-III
(NON-DAIRY CREAMER)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FO* WASTE^ATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 96.8 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MOOULESj
B. .PUMPING STATION
C.
H.
I.
L.
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHCSPHORUS ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION 118270.00
2. LAND 3330.00
3. ENGINEERING 11830.00
4. CONTINGENCY 11830.00
5. PVC LINER 3530.00
TCTAL U8790.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR 12490.00
2. POWER 10590.00
3. CHEMICALS 220.00
a. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES 5810.00
5. PVC LINER 50.00
TCTAL 29160.00
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING CCST 29160.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY 5950.00
3. DEPRECIATION 7270.00
TCTAL 42380.00
1352
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 448
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A32-IV
(NON-DAIRY CREAMER)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA8TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...96.6 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
B.
C.
J.
H.
I.
K.
a.
Y.
B.
N.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.HOLDING TANK
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING
i.
2.
3.
4.
COSTS!
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIE3
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2, YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
130360.00
26660.00
13040.00
13040.00
163100.00
12490.00
6540.00
220.00
12660.00
32130.00
32130.00
7320.00
7820.00
47270.00
1353
-------
CO
en
U».T
IM.
fe
10 112.1
lio.e
8
•0.2
a!
U
(J
28.1
u. e
«o.oo
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 449
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A32-V
(NON-DAIRY CREAMER)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,.. 98.6 PERCENT BOD DEDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
8...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
I...PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
B...PUMPING STATION
N...PUAL MFDIA PRESSURE FILTPA«N
INVESTMENT COSTS?
1. CONSTRUCTION 131140.00
2. LAND 3330.00
3. ENGINEERING 13110.00
<». CONTINGENCY 13110.00
5. PVC LINER 3530.00
TOTAL 164220.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR 12490.00
2. PCWER 12000.00
3. CHEMICALS 220.00
4. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIE8 7590.00
5. PVC LINER 50.00
TOTAL 32350.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 32350.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 6570.00
3. DEPRECIATION 8040.00
TOTAL 46960.00
1355
-------
165.0
UJ.T
-------
DRAFT
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 365.
Cost and Reducti on Benefi ts of A1ternative Treatment
Techno!ogles for Subcategbry A 33- Yeast"
A model plant representative of subcategory A 33 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of apply control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, twenty alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels
of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 82 kkg (90.4 tons)
of yeast per day.
Alternative A 33-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
82 kkg (90.4 ton) per day plant is 2650 cu m (0.70 MG) per day. The
BOD waste load is 204 kg/kkg (407 Ib/ton), and the suspended solids
load is 60 kg/kkg (120 Ib/ton).
The model plant assumes segregation of process water from storm, cooling,
and other non-contact water discharges. Third separation spent beer
is assumed to be reused as second separation wash water.
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative A 33-11 - This alternative provides a control house, flow
equalization, nutrient addition, and an aerated lagoon system.
The resulting BOD waste load is 3.23 kg/kkg (6.46 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $3,031,510
Total yearly cost: $1,802,880
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 450. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.4 percent
SS: 97.3 percent
Alternative A 33-1II - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-11 dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $3,077,380
Total yearly cost: $1,813,590
1357
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 450
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-II
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.4 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
B.
C.
H.
I.
L.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
2431550.00
TCTAL
243150.00
243150.00
66920.00
3031510.00
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CCSTSl
LABOR 24990.00
POWER 1277220.00
CHEMICALS 105780.00
MAINTENAN'CE&SLPPLIES 122430.00
PVC LINER 860.00
TOTAL
1531260.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING CCST1531280.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 121260.00
3. DEPRECIATION 150340.00
TOTAL 1802880,00
1358
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 451. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that two operators are required,
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.2 percent
SS: 98,7 percent
Alternative A 33-IV - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-1II activated carbon adsorption.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.6 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.40 kg/kkg (0.80 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $3,695,700
Total yearly cost: $1,913,920
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 452. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.6 percent
SS: 99.3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 366.
Alternative A 33-V - This alternative provides a control house, flow
equalization, primary clarification, nutrient addition, a complete-mix
activated sludge system, sludge thickening aerobic digestion, and
vacuum filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 3.23 kg/kkg (6.46 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,263,380
Total yearly cost: $ 686,240
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 453. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.4 percent
SS: 97.3 percent
Alternative A 33-VI - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-V dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,308,260
Total yearly cost: $ 696,940
1359
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 451
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-III
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA8TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.2 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
81
B.
C.
H.
I.
L.
N.
.CONTROL HCLSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
..NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOON
.DUAL HF.OIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
2469760.00
24740.00
246980.00
246980.00
88920,00
3077380.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2.
3.
4.
POWER
24990.00
1283170.00
CHEMICALS 105780.00
MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 123060.00
TOTAL
LINER
860.00
1537860.00
TOTAL YEARLY
CCSTSl
i. YEARLY OPERATING cosTi537860.oo
2t YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 123100.00
3. DEPRECIATION 152630.00
TOTAL 1813590.00
1360
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 452
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-IV
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP fcASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.6 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCOULESi
61
B.
C.
H.
I.
L.
N.
Z.
.CONTROL HCL'SE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOON
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE
FILTRA'N
.ACTIVATED CARBCN ADSORPTION
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1. CONSTRUCTION
2. LAND
3. ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
5. PVC LINER
TOTAL
2965040.00
24740.00
298500.00
298500.00
88920.00
3695700.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4.
5.
TOTAL
24990.00
1300550.00
105780.00
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES 150360.00
PVC LINER 860.00
1582540.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING CCST1582540.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY U7830.00
3. DEPRECIATION 183550.00
TOTAL 1913920.00
1361
-------
co
o>
ro
o:
<
u.
o
o
tn
o
o
o
w
^
h-4
s
itn.o
J?04.»
3317.2
3127.8
270«.0
2J7C.i
oe jec «soe ««eo <»oe «»oc «TCO <«.eo
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 366
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COST FOR SUBCATEGORY A 33, ALT. IV
100.00
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 453
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-V
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.4 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
81
B.
C.
E.
H.
I.
K.
Q.
R.
8.
Y.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CLARIFIER
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC DIGESTOR
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
I8446'3o.oo
48810.00
164460.00
184460.00
2262380.00
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
COSTS!
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCERSLPPLIES
TOTAL
37480.00
269650.00
119940.00
58990.00
485060.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 485060.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 90500.00
3. DEPRECIATION 110680.00
TOTAL
686240.00
1363
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs Is presented in Table 454. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that three operators are required,
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.2 percent
SS: 98.7 percent
Alternative A 33-VII - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-VI activated carbon adsorption.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.62 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.40 kg/kkg (0.80 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,926,580
Total yearly cost: $ 797,280
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 455. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.6 percent
SS: 99.3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 367.
Alternative A 33-VIII - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration in
Alternative A 33-V with spray irrigation of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 3.23 kg/kkg (6.46 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,608,540
Total yearly cost: $ 771,590
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 456. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.4 percent
SS: 97.3 percent
Alternative A 33-IX - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-VIII dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.60 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,654,390
Total yearly cost: $ 782,300
1364
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 454
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-VI
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HASTEkATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.2 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
Bl. .CONTROL HGLSE
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
E...CLARIFIER
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
I...PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0...SLUDGE THICKENER
R...AEROBIC OIGESTOR
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
Y...HOLDING TANK
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
TCTAL
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
1682670.00
48810.00
186290.00
188290.00
2308260.00
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCSTSl
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
37480.00
275600.00
118940.00
59620.00
491640.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST U91640.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 92330.00
3. DEPRECIATION 112970.00
TOTAL 696940.00
1365
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 455
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-VII
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR hASTEMTCR TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.6 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
Bl
B.
C.
E.
H.
I.
K.
G.
P.
3.
Y.
N.
Z.
.CONTROL WCLSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CLARIFIER
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AERCBIC DIGESTOR
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HOLDING TANK
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTPA'N
.ACTIVATED CARBON ABSORPTION
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
2396150.00
48610.00
239610.00
239810.00
2926580.00
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSt
1. LABOR 37480.00
2. POKER 292980.00
3. CHEMICALS 118940.00
4. MA1NTENANCE&SLPPLIES 86930.00
TOTAL 536330.00
TOTAL YEARLY
COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 536330.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 117060.00
3. DEPRECIATION U3890.00
TOTAL 797280.00
1366
-------
co
u.
o
8
\
2*27.0
7702.*
22S«.7
2ojs.»
1606.S
1582.a
use.)
»86.0
4c.oc 4t.ee «2.ee «j.ee
15. ce «».eo «7.oo
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 367
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COST FOR SUBCATEGORY A 33, ALT. VII
leo.oe
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 456
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-VIII
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED CCST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 96.4 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MGDULESj
Bi
B.
C.
E.
H.
I.
K.
0.
P.
Y.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CLARIFIER
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC CIGESTOR
.HOLDING TANK
.SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT COSTS?
i.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
2152260.00
25620.00
215230.00
215230.00
2606540.00
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR 37480.00
2. POWER 361610.00
3. CHEMICALS 77230.00
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 41790.00
TOTAL 538110.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 538110.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY 104340.00
3. DEPRECIATION 129140.00
TOTAL 771590.00
1368
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 457, It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It 1s further
assumed that three operators are required,
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99,2 percent
SS: 98,7 percent
Alternative A 33-X - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-IX activated carbon adsorption.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.6 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.40 kg/kkg (0,80 Ib/ton),
Costs: Total investment cost: $3,272,710
Total yearly cost: $ 882,620
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 458. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.6 percent
SS: 99.3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 368.
Alternative A 33-XI - This alternative provides a control house, multi-
effect evaporation of high strength waste with all necessary feed and
by-product storage and pumping, flow equalization, nutrient addition,
and an aerated lagoon system to treat evaporator condensate and all
other low strength wastes.
The resulting BOD waste load is 3.23 kg/kkg (6.46 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $3,925,790
Total yearly cost: $1,311,960
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 459. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that six operators are required.
In addition to the segregation of process water and the reuse of third
separation beer, it is assumed that evaporation treats 50 percent of
total plant flow (spent beer) containing 75 percent of the BOD and
suspended solids. Evaporator removal efficiency is 90 percent of the
BOD and 99 percent of the suspended solids in spent beer. It is recog-
nized that evaporation may require additional boiler and cooling capacity
not reflected in the costs presented.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.4 percent
SS: 97.3 percent
1369
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 457
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-IX
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEkATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.2 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
B.
C.
E.
H.
I.
K.
a.
R.
Y.
U.
N.
CONTROL HCUSE
PUMPING STATION
EQUALIZATION BASIN
CLARIFIER
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLUDGE THICKENER
AEROBIC DIGESTOR
HOLDING TANK
SPRAY IRRIGATION
DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE
FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCNSTPUCTICN
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
2190470.00
25820.00
219050.00
219050.00
2654390.00
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR 37480.00
2. PCHER 387560.00
3. CHEMICALS 77230.00
«. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 42420.00
TOTAL 544690.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 544690.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 106180.00
3. DEPRECIATION 131430.00
TOTAL 782300.00
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 458
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-X
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,.. 99.6 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES?
Bl
B.
C.
E.
M.
I.
K.
Q.
R.
Y.
U.
N.
Z.
.CONTROL HCISE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CLARIFIER
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC DIGESTOR
.HOLDING TANK
.SPRAY IRRIGATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
.ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION"
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
2705750.00
25620.00
270570.00
270570.00
3272710.00
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSj
1. LABOR 37460.00
2. PGMER 404940.00
3. CHEMICALS 77230.00
4. MAINTF.NANCE&SUPPLIES 69720.00
TOTAL 589370.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 589370.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 130910.00
3. DEPRECIATION 162340.00
TOTAL 882620.00
1371
-------
327J.O
CO
•-J
ro
U.
o
10
o
O
2772.6
2522.a
2272.2
2622.0
1771.
1SJ1.6
127}.a
1021.2
77J.O
9c.cc 91.00
«3.oe
<«.cc «».co
EFFICIENCY
«T.CO «e.eo ««.oo 100.00
FIGURE 368
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A 33, ALT. X
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 459
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XI
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR KA8TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.a PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
81
Y.
B.
Y.
B.
Fl
C.
H.
I.
L.
.CONTROL
.HOLDING
.PUMPING
.HOLDING
.PUMPING
.MULTIPLE
HCUSE
TANK
STATION
TANK
STATION
EFFECT
EVAPORATOR
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN AUDITION
.PHOSPHORUS APDITICN
.AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT COSTS:
1.
2.
3.
a.
5.
CCNSTRUCTTCN
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
3230260.00
12910.00
323030.00
323030.00
36560.00
3925790.00
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CCSTS»
LABOR
PCI^ER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
PVC LINER
00
00
TOTAL
74970.
771200.
34610.00
76630.00
1660.00
959290.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 959290.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 157030.00
3. DEPRECIATION 195640.00
TOTAL 1311960.00
1373
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 33^X11 - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-XI dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1,62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1,62 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $3,971,660
Total yearly cost: $1,322,680
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 460. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.2 percent
SS: 98.7 percent
Alternative A 33-XI11 - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-XII activated carbon adsorption.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.62 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.40 kg/kkg (0.80 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $4,589,990
Total yearly cost: $1,423,000
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 461. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.6 percent
SS: 99,3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 369.
Alternative A 33-XIV - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon
system in Alternative A 33-XI with primary clarification, a complete-
mix activated sludge system, sludge thickening, aerobic digestion, and
vacuum filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 3.23 kg/kkg (6.46 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $4,173,620
Total yearly cost: $1,162,480
An itemized breakdwon of costs is presented in Table 462. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.4 percent
SS: 97.3 percent
1374
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 460
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XII
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,.. 99.2 PERCENT BOO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MQDULESt
Bl
.CONTROL
.HOLDING
B
B.
.HOLDING
.PUMPING
HCUSE
TANK
STATION
TANK
STATION
Fi..MULTIPLE EFFECT EVAPORATOR
C,..EQUALIZATION BASIN
H...MTSC6EN ADDITION
I...PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOON
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TCTAL
3268
-------
«s«o.o
«2ft2.l
§ J9JH.2
J»0».l
3Z»». &
9
<
224«.7
o
tilt. 0
Y ——— Y
«t.co «2.eo
«<.ce «».co 97. se ta.eo
EFFICIENCY
<«.oo too.oo
FIGURE 369
INVESTWEMT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A33, ALT. VIII
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 461
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XIII
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR KASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.6 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
.CONTROL
.HOLDING
.PUMPING
.HOLDING
.PUMPING
.MULTIPLE
HOUSE
TANK
STATION
TANK
STATION
EFFECT
EVAPORATOR
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOON
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
.ACTiVATED"CARBO~N ADSORPTION
INVESTMENT CCSTSt
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
3763760.00
12910.00
378380.00
378380.00
36560.00
4569990.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSt
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4.
5.
74970.00
7Q4530.00
34810.00
MA1NTENANCE&SUPPLIES 104560.00
PVC LINER 1680.00
TOTAL
1010550.00
TOTAL YEARLY
COSTS t
i. YEARLY OPERATING COSTIOIOSSO.OO
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 1P3600.00
3, DEPRECIATION 228850.00
TOTAL 1423000.00
1377
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 462
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XIV
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUGARY FOR WASTEkATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.4 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
CONTROL
PUMPING
HOLDING
PUMPING
HOLDING
MULTIPLE
HCUSE
STATION
TANK
STATION
TANK
EFFECT
EVAPCRATCR
EQUALIZATION BASIN
CLASIFIER
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLLDGE THICKENER
AERCBIC DIGESTOR
VACUUM FILTRATION
HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT COSTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
3437350.00
48810.00
343730.00
343730.00
4173620.00
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
COSTS:
LABOR
TOTAL
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
74970.00
608990.00
32730.00
72610.00
789300.00
TOTAL YEARLY
COSTSI
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 789300.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 166940.00
3. DEPRECIATION 206240.00
TOTAL
1162480.00
1378
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 33-XV ^ This alternative provides in addition to
Alternative A 33-XIV dual media filtration,
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3,24 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.62 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $4,219,500
Total yearly cost: $1,173,190
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 463, It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.2 percent
SS: 98.7 percent
Alternative A 33-XVI - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native XV activated carbon adsorption.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1,6 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.40 kg/kkg (0.80 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $4,837,810
Total yearly cost: $1,273,520
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 464, It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.6 percent
SS: 99.3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 370.
Alternative A 33-XVII - This alternative replaces vacuum filtration
in Alternative A 33-XIV with spray irrigation of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 3.23 kg/kkg (6.46 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $4,199,160
Total yearly cost: $1,141,040
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 465. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.4 percent
SS: 97.3 percent
1379
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 463
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XV
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.2 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
Bl.,CONTROL
B...PUMPING
HCUSE
STATION
Y...HOLDING TANK
8...PUMPING STATION
Y...MOLDING TANK
Fl.. MULTIPLE EFFECT EVAPORATOR
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
E...CLARIFIER
H...NITROGEN ADDITION
I...PHCSPHORUS ADDITION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
C...SLUDGE THICKENER
R...AEROBIC DIGESTOR
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
Y...HOLDING TANK
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVFSTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
a.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
3475570.00
48810.00
347560.00
347560.00
4219500.00
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&8LPPLIES
74970.
614940.
32730.
73240.
00
00
00
00
TCTAL
795880.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 795860.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
168780.00
208530.00
TOTAL
1173190,00
1380
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 464
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XVI
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.6
HASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
PERCENT BOO REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
CONTROL
PUMPIMG
HOLDING
PUMPING
HOLDING
MULTIPLE
HCUSE
STATION
TANK
STATION
TANK
EFFECT
EVAPCRATCR
EQUALIZATION BASIN
CLAPIFIEB
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLUDGE THICKENER
AEROBIC DIGESTOR
VACUUM FILTRATION
HOLDING TANK
DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
ACTIVATED CA'RBO: ADSORPTION
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
3990840.00
46810.00
399060.00
399080.00
4637810.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSI
1. LABOR 7«970.00
2. POWER 632320.00
3. CHEMICALS 32730.00
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 100540.00
TOTAL 840560.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 840560.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 193510.00
3. DEPRECIATION 239450.00
TOTAL 1273520.00
1381
-------
co
CO
ro
otoi.e
373?. 2
33*7.
i
O
«i.oo «2.oe <3.ee
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 465
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XVII
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA8TEWATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 96.fl PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
81
B.
Y.
B.
Y.
Fl
C.
E,
H.
I.
K.
0.
R.
Y.
U.
CONTROL
PUMPING
HOLDING
PUMPING
HOLDING
MULTIPLE
HCUSE
STATION
TANK
STATION
TANK
EFFECT
EVAPORATOR
EQUALIZATION BASIN
CLARIFIEP
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLUDGE THICKENER
AEROBIC DIGESTOR
HOLDING TANK
SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSt
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
3«50020.00
59140.00
345000.00
345000.00
4199160.00
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSJ
1. LABOR 74970.00
2. POWER 602310.00
3. CHEMICALS 23370.00
4. MAINTENANCE&SIPPLIES 65420.00
TCTAL 766070.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 766070.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 167970.00
3. DEPRECIATION 207000.00
TCTAL 1141040.00
1383
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 33-XVIII - This alternative provides in addition to
Alternative A 33-XVII dual media filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.62 kg/kkg (3.24 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.62 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $4,245,020
Total yearly cost: $1,151,740
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 466. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.2 percent
SS: 98.7 percent
Alternative A 33-XIX - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native A 33-XVIII activated carbon adsorption.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.6 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is' 0.40 kg/kkg (0.80 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $4,836,350
Total yearly cost: $1,252,070
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 467. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99.6 percent
SS: 99.3 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 371.
Alternative A 33-XX - This alternative provides a holding tank and spray
irrigation of the effluent.
The resulting waste load is zero.
Costs: Total investment cost: $1,056,800
Total yearly cost: $ 108,630
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 468. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that six operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategory A 34 - Peanut Butter PTants
with Jar Washing.
A model plant representative of subcategory A 34 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
1384
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 466
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XVIII
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEUATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.2 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES}
CONTROL
PUMPING
HOLDING
PUMPING
HOLDING
MULTIPLE
HCtSE
STATION
TAKK
STATION
TANK
EFFECT
EVAPORATOR
EQUALIZATION BASIN
CLAPIFIF.R
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLUDGE THICKENER
AERCBIC DIGESTOR
HOLDING TANK
SPRAY IRRIGATION
DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTS:
1.
H.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
3488240.00
59140.00
348620.00
346820.00
4245020.00
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCSTSi
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
CAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TCTAL
74970.00
606260.00
23370.00
66050.00
772650.00
TCTAL YEARLY CCSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 772650.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 169800.00
3. DEPRECIATION 209290.00
TOTAL 1151740.00
1385
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 467
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XIX
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.6 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
CONTROL
PUMPING
HOLDING
PUMPING
HOLDING
MULTIPLE
HOUSE
STATION
TANK
STATION
TANK
EFFECT
EVAPCRATGR
EQUALIZATION BASIN
CLARIFIED
NITROGEN ADDITION
PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLtOGE THICKENER
AEROBIC DIGESTOR
HOLDING TANK
SPRAY IRRIGATION
DjJAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
ACTIVATED CAfiBCN ACSCRPTI'CN
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TCTAL
4003510.00
59140,00
400350.00
400350.00
4863350.00
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
COSTS:
LABOR
POI*ER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCERSUPPLIES
TCTAL
74970.00
625640.00
23370,00
93350.00
817330.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 617330,00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY 194530.00
3, DEPRECIATION 240210.00
TOTAL 1252070.00
1386
-------
fa
W 37«T.J
sooa.5
26)0.2
221T.9
«o.oo «t.co «j.oo «j.e« «*.e« tj^es «».ce ir.'ee «el
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 371
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COST FOR SUBCATEGORY A 33, ALT. XIX
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 468
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A33-XX
(YEAST)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
Y...HOLDING TANK
U,.,SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION 686310.00
2. LAND 233230.00
3. ENGINEERING 68630.00
4. CONTINGENCY 6Bfc30.00
TOTAL 1056800.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR 2500.00
2. PC*ER 7640.00
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTFNANCE&8UPPLIES 15040.00
TOTAL 25180.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 25180.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 42270.00
3, DEPRECIATION 41180,00
TOTAL 108630.00
388
-------
DRAFT
In Section VII, three alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for zero discharge
for the model plant.
Alternative A 34-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a peanut butter plant practicing jar washing is 2800 1 (740 gal) per day.
It is assumed that wastes associated with jar washing and cleanup are
segregated from non-contact water discharges.
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative A 34-11 - This alternative provides a holding tank and
spray irrigation.
The resulting BOD waste load is zero, the suspended solids load is
zero, and the oil and grease load is zero.
Costs: Total investment cost: $37,920
Total yearly cost: $ 5,190
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 469. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that no operators are required.
It is assumed that wastes associated with jar washing and cleanup are
segregated from non-contact water discharges.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
O&G: 100 percent
Alternative A 34-1II - This alternative provides a holding tank and
truck hauling.
The resulting BOD waste load is zero, the suspended solids load is
zero, and the oil and grease load is zero.
Costs: Total investment cost: $23,800
Total yearly cost: $ 2,400
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 470. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It
is further assumed that no operators are required.
It is assumed that wastes associated with jar washing and cleanup are
segregated from non-contact water discharges.
1389
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 469
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A34-II
(PEANUT BUTTER WITH JAR WASHING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HASTEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...IOC.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES}
Y...HOLDING TAKK
U.,. SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT COSTS}
1. CONSTRUCTION 29160.00
2. LAND 2920.00
3. ENGINEERING 2920.00
«. CONTINGENCY 2920.00
THAI. 37920.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS:
1. LAbOR 0.0
2. PCI*ER euo.oo
3. 'CHEMICALS o.o
4. MAINTENAMCERSLPPLIFS 1080.00
TCTAL 1920.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 1920.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 1520.00
3. DEPRECIATION 1750.00
TOTAL 5190.00
1390
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 470
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A34-III
(PEANUT BUTTER WITH JAR WASHING)
ITEMIZED COST StMMARY FOR MSTSUkTEft TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Y.,.HOLDING TANK
V,.. TRUCK HAILING
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1. CONSTRICTION 8450.00
2. LAND 2670.00
3. ENGINEERING 840.00
«. CONTINGENCY 840,00
TCTAL 12800.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSi
1. LABOR 0.0
2. PCI*EP 0.0
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTENANCEISIPPLIES 1380.00
TOTAL 1380.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST iseo.oo
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RFCCVERY 510.00
3. DEPRECIATION 510.00
TCTAL 2400.00
1391
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
O&G: 100 percent
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategory A 35 - Peanut Buttler Plants
Without Jar Washing"!
A model plant representative of subcategory A 35 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, three alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives.
Alternative A 35-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
peanut butter plant not practicing jar washing is 757 1 (200 gal ) per
day.
It is assumed that cleanup wastewater is segregated from all non-contact
water discharges.
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative A 35-11 - This alternative provides a holding tank and spray
irrigation.
The resulting BOD waste load is zero, the suspended solids load is
zero, and the oil and grease load is zero.
Costs: Total investment cost: $37,170
Total yearly cost: $ 5,120
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 471. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that no operators are required.
It is assumed that all cleanup wastewater is segregated from non-contact
water discharged.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
O&G: 100 percent
Alternative A 35-1II - This alternative provides a holding tank and truck
hauling.
The resulting BOD waste load is zero, the suspended solids load is
zero, and the oil and grease load is zero.
Costs: Total investment cost: $12,710
Total yearly cost: $ 1,560
1392
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 471
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A35-II
(PEANUT BUTTER WITHOUT JAR WASHING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR I«ASTE*ATER TREATMENT CHAIN YU
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT ROD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MQDULESl
Y...HOLDING TAK'K
L...SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
i. CCNSTRUCTICM 28700.00
2. LAND 2730.00
3. ENGINEERING 2870.00
4. CCNTINGENCY 2870.00
TOTAL 37170.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS*
1. LABOR 0.0
2. PChER 830.00
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES 1080.00
TOTAL 1910.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 1910.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY 1490.00
3. DEPRECIATION 1720.00
TCTAL 5120.00
1393
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 472. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that no operators are required.
It is assumed that cleanup wastewater is segregated from all non-contact
water discharged.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
O&G: 100 percent
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment
Technologies for Subcategdry A 36 - Pectin
A model plant representative of subcategory A 36 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, ten alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels
of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 1.8 kkg (2.0 ton)
of unfinished pectin per day.
Alternative A 36-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
1.8 kkg (2.0 ton) per day plant is 1530 cu m (0.404 MG) per day. The
BOD waste load is 4128 kg/kkg (8256 Ib/ton), and the suspended solids
load is 1751 kg/kkg (3502 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative A 36-11 - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
holding tank, and spray irrigation of the raw waste effluent. Truck
hauling of water softening regenerate, diatomaceous filter cake and
sluice water, and alcohol still bottoms is also provided.
The resulting BOD waste load is zero, and the suspended solids load is
zero.
Costs: Total investment cost: $605,360
Total yearly cost: $ 61,450
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 473. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that no operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
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 filtration.
1394
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 472
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A35-III
(PEANUT BUTTER WITHOUT JAR WASHING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP I»A3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT BOD PEDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
Y...HOLDING TANK
V... TRUCK HAILING
INVESTMENT CCSTSJ
1. CONSTRUCTION 8360.00
2. LAND 2670.00
3, ENGINEERING 840.00
4, CONTINGENCY SdQ.OO
TCTAl 12710.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS»
1. LABOR 0.0
2. POI*ER 0.0
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
«. MAINTENANCF8SUPPLIES 550.00
TCTAL 550.00
TCTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY CPEPAT1KG COST 550.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECCVERY 510.00
3. DEPRECIATION 500.00
TOTAL. 1560.00
1395
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 473
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-II
(PECTIN)
TEMIZEO COST SUMMARY FOR KA8TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
ESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT 800 REDUCTION
REATMENT MODULES!
NVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
Y...HOLDING TANK
U...SPRAY IRRIGATION
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
EARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. M.INTENANCERSUPPLIES
TOTAL
OTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
i. YEARLY CPERATJKG COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
389020.00
138540.00
38900.00
38900.00
605360.00
0.0
4620.00
0.0
9280.00
13900.00
13900.00
24210.00
23340.00
61450.00
1396
-------
DRAFT
Truck hauling of water softening regenerate, diatomaceous filter cake and
sluice water and alcohol still bottoms is also provided.
The resulting BOD waste load is 208.5 kg/kkg (417.0 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 175.1 kg/kkg (350.2 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,315,170
Total yearly cost: $1,032,870
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 474. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that four operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 94.9 percent
SS: 90.0 percent
Alternative A 36-IV - This alternative replaces the vacuum filtration
module of alternative A 36-1II with sand drying beds.
The resulting BOD waste load is 208.5 kg/kkg (417.0 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 175.1 kg/kkg (350.2 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $3,697,430
Total yearly cost: $1,282,820
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 475. It is
assumed that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It is
further assumed that four operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 94.9 percent
SS: 90.0 percent
Alternative A 36-V - This alternative replaces the vacuum filtration
module of alternative A 36-111 with spray irrigation of digestor sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 208.5 kg/kkg (417.0 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 175.1 kg/kkg (350.2 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,322,150
Total yearly cost: $1,007,310
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 476. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that four operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 94.9 percent
SS: 90.0 percent
Alternative A 36-VI - This alternative consists of a pumping station, a
flow equalization tank, and an aerated lagoon. Truck hauling of alcohol
still bottoms, diatomaceous filter cake and sluice water, and water
1397
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 474
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-III
(PECTIN)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY POP WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 94.9 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
81
B.
C.
G.
K.
C.
R.
3.
V.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.ECUALIZATION BASIN
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLLDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC OIGESTOR
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HAULING
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
1895990.00
39980.00
169600.00
169600.00
2315170.00
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSf
1. LABOR 49960.00
2. POWER 392410.00
3, CHEMICALS 18230.00
<*• MAWENANCE&SIPPLIES 365860.00
TOTAL 826500.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 826500.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY 92610.00
3. DEPRECIATION 113760.00
TOTAL 1032870.00
1398
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 475
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-IV
(PECTIN)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEKATEP TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 9*1.9 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
B.
C.
G,
K.
a.
R.
T.
.CONTROL HCLSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC DIGESTOR
.SAND DRYING BEDS
.HAULING
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
3064390.00
20160.00
306440.00
306440.00
3697430.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS*
1. LABOR 49980.00
2. POKER 383930.00
3. CHEMICALS 8010.00
4. MAINTENANCERSUPPLIES 50*5140.00
TOTAL 951060.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 951060.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 147900.00
3. DEPRECIATION 183860.00
TOTAL 1282820.00
1399
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 476
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-V
(PECTIN)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEWATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 94.9 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES?
01
B.
C.
R.
K.
0.
P.
V.
U.
v.
.CONTROL HCLSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC DIGESTOR
.HOLDING TANK
.SPRAY IRRIGATION
.HAULING
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
a.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
1923660.00
13490.00
192390.00
192390.00
2322150.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSi
1. LABOR 49980.00
2. POKEP 364900.00
3. CHEMICALS 8010.00
4. MAINTENANCEISUPPLIES 356100.00
TOTAL 798990.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 798990.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 92890.00
3. DEPRECIATION 115430.00
TCTAL 1007310.00
1400
-------
DRAFT
softening regenerate is also provided.
The resulting BOD waste load is 208.5 kg/kkg (417.0 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 175.1 kg/kkg (350.2 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $737,920
Total yearly cost: $658,860
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 477. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one full-time and one-half time operator is
required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 94.9 percent
SS: 90.0 percent
Alternative A 36-VII - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 36-111.
The resulting BOD waste load is 104.3 kg/kkg (208.6 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 83.4 kg/kkg (167.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,352,740
Total yearly cost: $1,041,740
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 478. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that four operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.5 percent
SS: 95.2 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 372.
Alternative A 36-VIII - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 36-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 104.3 kg/kkg (208.6 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 83.4 kg/kkg (167.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $3,734,990
Total yearly cost: $1,291,530
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 479. It is assumed
that land costs $20,510 per hectare ($8300 per acre). It is further
assumed that four operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97,5 percent
SS: 95.2 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 373.
1401
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 477
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-VI
(PECTIN)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOB WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 9«.9 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES*
P...PULPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
L... AERATED LAGOON
V..,HAILING
INVESTMENT COSTSt
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
CCSTSt
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
HAINTENANCERSUPPLIFS
PVC LINER
TOTAL
590200.00
8660.00
59020.00
59020.00
21020.00
737920.00
187UO.OO
226180.00
0.0
346990.00
970.00
592880.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 592880.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 29520.00
3. DEPRECIATION 36*160.00
TOTAL 658860.00
1402
-------
TABLE 478
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-VII
(PECTIN)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FDR MSTEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIRN EFFICIENCY.., 97.5 PERCENT ROD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
B1..COMRGL HCU9E
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
6...CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
*...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Q...SLUDGE THICKENER
P...AEROBIC DIGESTOR
8...VACUUM FILTRATION
V...HAULING
B...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS:
1. CONSTRUCTION 1927300.00
2. LAND 39980.00
3. ENGINEERING 192730.00
4. CONTINGENCY 192730.00
TOTAL 2352700.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR 49980.00
2. POWER 397390.00
3. CHEMICALS . 18230.00
4. MAINTFNANCE&SUPPLIES 366390.00
TOTAL 831990.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST 331990.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 94110.00
3. DEPRECIATION 115640.00
TOTAL 1041740.00
1403
-------
JJ?3.C 1
J22C.9
ar?«.» i
i
i
i
i
1956.7 I
I
l??;.e I
I
05 Ie
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 479
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-VIII
(PECTIN)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.5 PERCENT 600 REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
91..CONTROL. HOUSE
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
G...CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
K...ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Q...SLUDGE THICKENER
R...AEROBIC DIGESTCR
T...SANO DRYING BEDS
V...HAULING
B...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CGST.SI
i.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
20160.00
309570.00
309570.00
3734990.00
YEARLY
OPEPATUG
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCSTS»
LABOR
POER
CHEMICALS
PAINTFNANCE&SIPPLIE8
TOTAL
49980.00
388920.00
8010.00
509460.00
956390.00
TOTAL YEARLY
COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 956390,00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY U9400.00
3. DEPRECIATION 185740.00
TOTAL
1291530.00
1405
-------
37J5.0
o
CT>
§ 3^'':
2*00.1
HV.o
hH •«.; 7 \
Q.
«-.;;. «j.c« o-i.rc *-.c: «5.cc «».oc 97.eo ?e.co «9.oo joc.oe
EFFICENCY
FIGURE 373
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A36, ALT. IV, VIII
-------
DRAFT
Alternative A 36-IX - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 36-V.
The resulting BOD waste load is 104.3 kg/kkg (208.6 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 83.4 kg/kkg (167.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $2,359,710
Total yearly cost: $1,016,190
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 480. It is assumed
that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is further
assumed that four operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.5 percent
SS: 95.2 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 374.
Alternative A 36-X - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative A 36-VI.
The resulting BOD waste load is 104.3 kg/kkg (208.6 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 83.4 kg/kkg (167.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $775,490
Total yearly cost: $667,730
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 481. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one full-time and one half time operator is
required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97.5 percent
SS: 95.2 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 375.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory B 1 - Frozen Prepared Dinners.
A model plant representative of subcategory B 1 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for
various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces
140 kkg (150 ton) per day.
Alternative B 1-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from 0.140 kkg
per day plant is 1100 cu m (0.3 MG) per day. The BOD waste load is
16.7 kg/kkq (33.4 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 12.5 kg/kkg
(25 Ib/ton), and the soil and grease load is 16.7 kg/kkg (33.4 Ib/ton).
1407
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 480
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-IX
(PECTIN)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.5 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES?
Bl
B.
C.
G.
K.
Q.
R.
v.
u.
v.
8.
N.
CONTROL HOUSE
PUMPING STATION
EQUALIZATION BASIN
CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLtDGE THICKENER
AEROBIC DIGE8TOP
HOLDING TANK
SPRAY IRRIGATION
HAULING
PUMPING STATION
DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSt
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
1955180.00
13490.00
195520.00
195520.00
2359710.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS*
1. LABOR 49960.00
2. PCfcER 389890.00
3. CHEMICALS 8010.00
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 356610.00
TOTAL 80««90.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 804490.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 94390.00
3. DEPRECIATION 117310.00
TOTAL 1016190.00
1408
-------
?36C.C
!<:$<;.I
5 !?'.«.§
H
Z
>
>
1277.t
1C07.C i
< i . e e
: 3 . : •:
97.cc
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 481
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE A36-X
(PECTIN)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTFMTCR TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97.5 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESi
B.
C.
L.
V.
B.
N.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AERATED LAGOON
.HAULING
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3,
4,
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
COSTSl
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCF&SL'PPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
621510.00
8660.00
62150.00
62150.00
21020.00
775490.00
16740.00
231160.00
O.C
347500.00
970.00
598370.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 596370.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 31020.00
3. DEPRECIATION 38340.00
TOTAL 667730.00
1410
-------
77*.e
7*4.2
75?.
fa
(0 7-10.*
721,8
717.C
70S. 2
t *»«.«
i. os
co 45. «e «».ee »7.ee «e.ec
EFFICIENCY
««.oo ieo.ee
FIGURE 375
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A 36, ALT. VI. X
-------
DRAFT
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative B 1-1I - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, dissolved air flotation, and vacuum filtration and sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 6.7 kg/kkg (13.4 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 2.5 kg/kkg (5.0 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
3.3 kg/kkg (6.7 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $244,020
Total yearly cost: $ 85,680
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 482. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 60.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
O&G: 80.0 percent
Alternative B 1-1II - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native B l-II a complete-mix activated sludge system with sludge thickening
for the waste activated sludge. Addition vacuum filter capacity 1s included.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.67 kq/kkg (1.3 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.75 kg/kkg (1.5 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
1.0 kg/kkg (2.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $606,680
Total yearly cost: $169,940
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 483. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.0 percent
SS: 94.0 percent
O&G: 94.0 percent
Alternative B 1-IV - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native B l-III a dual media filter.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.33 kg/kkg (0.66 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 0.25 kg/kkg (0.50 Ib/ton), and the oil and
grease load is 0.50 kg/kkg (1.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $652,580
Total yearly cost: $183,010
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 484. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
1412
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 482
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Bl-
(FROZEN PREPARED DINNERS)
•n:
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...60.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
B.,.PUMPING STATION
J...AIR FLOTATION
B...PUMPING STATION
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCNSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE1SIPPLIES
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
199660.00
4160.00
19990.00
19990.00
244020.00
12490.00
18460,00
14900.00
18060.00
63930.00
63930.00
9760.00
11990.00
65660.00
1413
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 483
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Bl-III
(FROZEN PREPARED DINNERS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,..96.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
C.
B,
J.
B.
8.
K.
Q.
.CONTROL HCU3E
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION 491680.00
2. LAND 16660.00
3. ENGINEERING 49170.00
4. CONTINGENCY 49170.00
TOTAL 606660.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR 24990.00
2. POWER 44130.00
3. CHEMICALS 21280.00
4. MAINTENANCE18UPPLXE5 25770.00
TOTAL 116170.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 116170.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 24270.00
3. DEPRECIATION 29500.00
TOTAL 169940.00
1414
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 484
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE Bl-IV
(FROZEN PREPARED DINNERS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...98.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
C.
B.
J.
B.
3.
K.
Q.
B.
N.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1,
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR
2. POHER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
529940.00
16660.00
52990.00
52990.00
652580.00
24990.00
52370,00
21260,00
26470,00
125110.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 125110.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 26100.00
3. DEPRECIATION 31800.00
TOTAL 183010.00
1415
-------
tn.o
V)
b
en
»-
q
>
+**
i
u
SIM
••I.»
JM.O
111.1
111.*
c
IT
»o.oe ••.eo «t.o« 72.00 T»,OO 10.et i«.oo 11.11 «>.«• «».oi too.e*
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 376
INVESTMENT AND \tARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY Bl, ALT. IV
-------
DRAFT
assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.0 percent
. SS: 98.0 percent
O&G: 97.0 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 376.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory B 2 - Frozen Breaded and Battered Specialities
A model plant representative of subcategory B 2 was developed in Section
V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives. In
Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being applicable engineer-
ing alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels of waste
reductions for the model plant which produces 27 kkg (30 tons) of product
per day.
Alternative B 2-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re- ^
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a
27 kkg per day plant is 189 cu m (0.05 MG) per day. The BOD waste load
is 27.8 kg/kkg (55.6 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 27.8 kg/kkg
(55.6 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is 2.8 kg/kkg (5.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative B 2-II - This alternative consists of flew equalization,
dissolved air flotation, and vacuum sludge filtration.
The resulting BOD waste load is 11.1 kg/kkg (22.2 Ib/ton), the
suspended solids load is 5.56 kg/kkg (11.1 Ib/ton) and the oil and
grease load is 0.56 kg/kkg (1.1 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $129,770
Total yearly cost: $ 38,670
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 485. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that one-half time operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 60.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
O&G: 80.0 percent
Alternative B 2-III - This alternative provides in addition to Alternative
B 2-II an activated sludge system, additional vacuum filtration capacity,
and sludge thickening.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.11 kg/kkg (2.22 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 1.11 kg/kkg (2.22 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
1417
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 485
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B2-II
(FROZEN BREADED AND BATTERED SPECIALTIES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTE*ATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 60,0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
B...PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
J...AIR FLOTATION
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSI
1. CCNSTRUCTICN 104670.00
2. LA NO 4160.00
3. ENGINEERING 10470.00
«. CONTINGENCY 10470.00
TOTAL 129770.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTS!
1. LA90R 6250.00
2. PCWFR 6030.00
3. CHEMICALS 4680.00
4. MI^TENANCEftSUPPLIES 10240.00
TOTAL 27200.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS*
1. YEASLY OPERATING COST 27200.00
2. YE.AHLY INVESTMENT
CGST RECOVERY 5190.00
3. DEPRECIATION 6280.00
TOTAL 38670.00
1418
-------
DRAFT
0.22 kg/kkg (0.44 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $239,580
Total yearly cost: $ 63,640
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 486. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.0 percent
SS: 96.0 percent
O&G: 92.0 percent
Alternative B 2-IV - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of B 2-1II.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.56 kq/kkg (1.1 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.56 kg/kkg (1.1 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
0.11 kg/kkg (0.22 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $257,830
Total yearly cost: $ 69,020
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 487. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.0 percent
SS: 98.0 percent
O&G: 96.0 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 377.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory B 3 - Frozen Bakery Products.
A model plant representative of subcategory B 3 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, four alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels
of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 114 kkg (125 tons)
of product per day.
Alternative B 3-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no re-
duction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a 114 kkg
per day plant is 114 cu m (0.3 MG) per day. The BOD waste is 40 kg/kkg
(80 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 30 kg/kkg (60 Ib/ton), and the
oil and grease load is 10 kg/kkg (20 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
1419
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 486
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B2-III
(FROZEN BREADED AND BATTERED SPECIALTIES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR KASTEKATEP TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN- EFFICIENCY... 96.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
B.
C.
J.
s.
K.
C.
.PULPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS:
1. LABOR
2. POF.R
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CGSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
102710.00
8330.00
19270.00
19270.00
239580.00
12490.00
12060.00
4680.00
12870.00
42500.00
42500.00
9580.00
11560.00
63640.00
1420
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 487
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B2-IV
(FROZEN BREADED AND BATTERED SPECIALTIES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WASTEfcATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98,0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION .
TREATMENT MODULES:
B.
C.
J.
s.
K.
Q.
B.
N.
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.AIR FLOTATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLLCGE THICKENER
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS:
i.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CCNTINGENCY
TC7AL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2. POER
3, CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
207920,
8330,
20790,
20790,
00
00
00
00
257830.00
12490.00
15000<00
4680.00
14070.00
46240.00
46240.00
10310.00
12470.00
69020.00
1421
-------
l\3
t\3
U.
O
z
^H
H
o
s
60.80 »e.oo »8.o3
7t.ee eo.ee «*.oo ee.eo <2.oe 9t.ee ieo.ee
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 377
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY B2, ALT. IV
-------
DRAFT
Alternative B 3-11 - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, dissolved air flotation and vacuum filtration of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 16 kg/kkg (32 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 6.0 kg/kkg (12 Ib/ton) and the oil and grease load is
2.0 kg/kkg (4.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $247,190
Total yearly cost: $ 89,500
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 488. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 60.0 percent
SS: 80.0 percent
O&G: 80.0 percent
Alternative B 3-III - This alternative provides in addition to
Alternative B 3-II a complete-mix activated sludge system with sludge
thickening for waste activated sludge. Since the wastewater is nutrient
deficit, addition of nitrogen and phosphorus is provided.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.6 kg/kkg (3.2 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 1.8 kg/kkg (3.2 Ib/ton], and the oil and grease load is
0.6 kg/kkg (1.2 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $804,610
Total yearly cost: $251,790
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 489. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96.0 percent
SS: 94.0 percent
O&G: 94.0 percent
Alternative B 3-IV - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native B 3-1II a dual media filter.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.8 kq/kkg (1.6 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.6 kg/kkg (1.2 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
0.3 kg/kkg (0.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $850,820
Total yearly cost: $265,250
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 490. It is assumed
that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It is further
assumed that two operators are required.
1423
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 488
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B3-II
(FROZEN BAKERY PRODUCTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WA3TEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...60.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
B...PUMPING STATION
J...AIR FLOTATION
B...PUMPING STATION
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
COSTS!
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
202530.00
4160.00
20250.00
20250.00
247190.00
12490.00
16600.00
17020.00
19350.00
67460,00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 67460.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 9090.00
3. DEPRECIATION 12150.00
TOTAL 89500.00
1424
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 489
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B3-III
(FROZEN BAKERY PRODUCTS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...96.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
Bl
C.
B.
J.
B.
8.
H.
I.
K.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION 656630.00
2. LAND 16660.00
3. ENGINEERING 65660.00
4. CONTINGENCY 65660.00
TOTAL 804610.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR 24990.00
2. POWER 66180.00
3. CHEMICALS 52020.00
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 37020.00
TOTAL 180210.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 180210.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 32180.00
3. DEPRECIATION 39400.00
TOTAL 251790.00
1425
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 490
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B3-IV
(FROZEN BAKERY PRODUCTS) -
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...98.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
C.
B.
J.
B.
3.
H.
I.
K.
Q.
B.
N.
.CONTROL HOUSE
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.PHOSPHORUS ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
COSTSl
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
TOTAL
695140.00
16660.00
69510.00
69510.00
850620.00
24990.00
74770.00
52020.00
37730.00
189510.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 189510.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 34030.00
3. DEPRECIATION 41710.00
TOTAL 265250.00
1426
-------
DRAFT
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98.0 percent
SS: 98.0 percent
O&G: 97.0 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 378.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of A1t.ernatt.ye. Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory B 4 - Tomato - Cheese ~ Starch
A model plant representative of Subcategory B 4 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, three alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various
levels of waste reductions for the model plant which produces 36 kkg
(40 tons) of finished product per day.
Alternative B 4-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no reduction
in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from a 36 kkg
per day plant is 378 cu m (0.1 MG) per day. The BOD waste load is 7.3
kg/kkg (14.6 Ib/ton), the suspended solids load is 4.17 kg/kkg (8.34 Ib/ton),
and the oil and grease load is 2.8 kg/kkg (4.2 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative B 4-II - This alternative provides a pumping station, flow
equalization, dissolved air flotation, and vacuum filtration of sludge.
The resulting BOD waste load is 4.4 kg/kkg (8.8 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 1.2 kg/kkg (2.4 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load is
0.84 kg/kkg (1.7 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $149,340
Total yearly cost: $ 43,060
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 491. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 40 percent
SS: 70 percent
O&G: 70 percent
Alternative B 4-III - This alternative provides in addition to Alter-
native B 4-II a complete mix activated sludge system with sludge
thickening of the waste activated sludge. Additional vacuum filter
capacity is included.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.44 kg/kkg (0.88 Ib/ton), the suspended
solids load is 0.42 kg/kkg (0.84 Ib/ton), and the oil and grease load
is 0.28 kg/kkg (0.56 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $297,240
Total yearly cost: $ 79,340
1427
-------
ro
oo
O
fa
CO
§
u
isut
TT«.»
tt.OI *«.fl M.ll Tl.flfl
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 378
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY B3, ALT. IV
«»••• IM.M
-------
DRAFT
TABLE ~49V
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B4-II
(TOMATO-CHEESE-STARCH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...40.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
B...PUMPING STATION
J...AIR FLOTATION
B...PUMPING STATION
S...VACUUM FILTRATION
INVESTMENT CC8TSI
1. CONSTRUCTION
2, LAND
3. ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
CCST88
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE18UPPLIE8
TOTAL
120960.00
4160.00
12100,00
12100.00
149340.00
12490.00
6350.00
2160.00
6610.00
29630.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 29830.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 5970.00
3. DEPRECIATION 7260.00
TOTAL 43060.00
1429
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 492. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that two operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 94 percent
SS: 90 percent
O&G: 90 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 379.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of AUerhative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategbry B 9 - Chili Pepper and Paprika""
A model plant representative of Subcategory B 9 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, three alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide
for various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which
processes 104 kkg (115 ton) of raw material per day.
Alternative B 9-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 104 kkg per day plant is 1900 cu m (0.5 MG) per day. The BOD
waste load is 14.5 kg/kkg (29.0 Ib/ton), and the suspended solids
load is 9.1 kg/kkg (18.1 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative B 9-1I - This alternative consists of a control house,
a pumping station, flow equalization, a complete mix activated sludge
system, sludge thickening vacuum filtration and sludge storage.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.02 kg/kkg (2.04 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 1.09 kg/kkg (2.18 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $481,600
Total yearly cost: $130,770
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 493. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 93.0 percent
SS: 88.0 percent
Alternative B 9-1II - This alternative provides dual media filtration
in addition to the treatment modules of Alternative B 9-II.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.58 kg/kkg (1.16 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.55 kg/kkg (1.10 Ib/ton).
1430
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 492
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B4-III
(TOMATO-CHEESE-STARCH)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,.. 94.0 PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
B.
J.
6.
S.
K.
G.
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.PUMPING STATION
.AIR FLOTATION
.PUMPING STATION
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSi
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCERSL'PPLIES
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATIOK
TCTAL
237290.00
12490.00
23730.00
23730.00
297240.00
24990.00
14120.00
2700.00
11400.00
53210.00
53210.00
11890.00
14240.00
79340.00
1431
-------
-p.
CO
ro
z
W
K-
^X
>-
*•»
>
u
JS7.0
22t.)
170.5
18?.C
te.s
0.0
1C
0.CO S5.58 «l.c: ;*.30 «2.C9 tT.SO ?J.OO 78.SO Pa.CO (4.50 45.00
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 379
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY B4, ALT. Ill
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 493
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B9-II
(CHILI PEPPER AND PAPRIKA)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HASTE^ATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 92.5 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
PL.TOK'TROL I-CL'SF
B,..PUMPING STATION
C...EQUALIZATION BASIN
K... ACTIVATED SLUDGE
G...SLUDGE THICKENER
8...VACUUM FILTRATION
Y...HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1
a
3
4
COSTS!
LABOR
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCE&SL'PPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
372180.00
34980.00
37220.00
37220.00
481600.00
37460.00
33310.00
3740.00
14650.00
89160.00
89180.00
19260.00
22330.00
130770.00
1433
-------
DRAFT
Costs: Total Investment cost: $523,790
Total yearly cost: $140,590
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 494. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 96 percent
SS: 94 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 380.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory C 4 - Egg Processing
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 4 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, three alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for
various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which processes
30 kkg (34 ton) of eggs per day.
Alternative C 4-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 30 kkg per day plant is 200 cu m (0.05 MG) per day. The BOD waste
load is 23 kg/kkg (46 Ib/ton), and the suspended solids load is
5.4 kg/kkg (10.8 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative C 4-11 - This alternative provides a two-cell aerated lagoon
with a 45 day detention time.
The resulting BOD waste load is 1.15 kg/kkg (2.3 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.81 kg/kkg (1.6 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $246,090
Total yearly cost: $ 48,270
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 495. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 85 percent
Alternative C 4-III - This alternative adds a dual media filter to
Alternative C 4-II.
1434
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 494
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE B9-III
(CHILI PEPPER AND PAPRIKA)
ITEMIZED COST 8LMMARY FOR WASTEfcATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 96.? PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
91
B.
C.
K.
Q..
S..
V..
..CONTROL HCUSE
..PULPING STATION
..EQUALIZATION BASIN
..ACTIVATED SLUDGE
..SLLDGfc THICKENER
.VACUUM FILTRATION
.HOLDING TANK
.PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTPA»N
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1.
2.
3.
a.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS?
1. LABOR
2. HGfcEH
3. CHEMICALS
4. MHNTENANCE&SUPPLIE8
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
407350,
34980,
40730,
40730,
00
CO
00
00
523790.00
37480.00
33750.00
3740.00
15230.00
95200.00
95200.00
20950.00
24440.00
140590.00
1435
-------
CO
at
U.
O
U
36*.*
327.C
287.6
20«.e
ilc.c
«o.c:
«3.:c
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 380
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY 89, ALT. Ill
ioe,oe
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 495
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C4-II
(EGG PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR fcASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
L...AERATED LAGOCN
L... AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1. CONSTRUCTION 195330.00
2. LAND 4160.00
3. ENGINEERING 19530.00
4. CONTINGENCY 19530.00
5. PVC LINER 7540.00
TOTAL 246090.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSi
1. LABOR 12490.00
2. POWER 10910.00
3, CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 2660.00
5. PVC LINER 270.00
TCTAL 26330.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 26330.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 9840.00
3. DEPRECIATION 12100.00
TCTAL 46270.00
1437
-------
DRAFT
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.69 kg/kkg (1.38 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load ts 0.16 kg/kkg (0,32 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total Investment cost: $275,200
Total yearly cost: $ 55,940
An itemized breakdown of costs ts presented in Table 496. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 97 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 381.
Alternative C 4-IV - This alternative provides an anaerobic lagoon with
10 days retention and an aerated lagoon with 6 days retention.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.46 kg/kkg (0.92 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.54 kg/kkg (1.1 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $176,810
Total yearly cost: $ 32,270
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 497. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98 percent
SS: 90 percent
Alternative C 4-V - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative C 4-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.23 kg/kkg (0.46 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.11 kg/kkg (0.22 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $205,920
Total yearly cost: $ 39,960
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 498. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 98 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 382.
1438
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 496
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C4-III
(EGG PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEM'TER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCV... 97.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
L...AERATEP LAGOON
L...AERATED LAGOON
6...PUMPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRICTION
LANP
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2. POWER
3, CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES
5. PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
219580.00
4160.00
21960,00
21960.00
7540.00
275200.00
12490.00
14520.00
0.0
4100.00
270.00
31380.00
31380.00
11010.00
13550.00
55940.00
1439
-------
s
8:
I
fH .
S!
w.i
19).I
no.«
w.t
IM.I
ISt.l
i
«I.Cfl M,M M.M U.0«
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 381
IWESTMEOT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C4. ALT. Ill
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 497
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C4-IV
(EGG PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 98.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
.3.
a,
5.
M,.. SETTLING PCND
L... AERATED LAGOON
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINEP
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
COSTS!
LABOR
PCWER
CHEMICALS
PAINTENANCE&SIPPLIES
PVC LINEP
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATUfJ COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
139440.00
A160.00
13940.00
13940.00
5330.00
176810.00
12490.00
2200.00
0.0
1430.00
450.00
16570.00
16570.00
7070.00
8630.00
32270.00
1441
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 498
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C4-V
(EGG PROCESSING)
ITEMIZED COST SUGARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
P...SETTLING FOND
L...AERATED LAPCCN
B...PULPING STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC L
TCTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
COSTS}
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTEN'ANCE&SIPPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
163690.CO
4160.00
16370,00
16370.00
5330.00
205920.00
12490.00
5620.00
0.0
2670.00
450.00
21630.00
21630.00
6240.00
10090.00
39960.00
1442
-------
CO
b
U)
i
u
IH.I
ITI.I
IM.t
Mtt
«t.M
M.H
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 382
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C4. ALT. V
-------
DRAFT
Cost and Reduction Beneftts'of/Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory C 5 - Shell Eggs
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 5 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, five alternatives were selected as being applicable
engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide for various levels
of waste reductions for the model plant which processes 12.5 kkg
(14 ton) of eggs per day.
Alternative C 5-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 12.5 kkg per day plant is 13 cu m (0.0035 MG) per day. The BOD
waste load is 1.56 kg/kkg (3.1 Ib/ton), and the suspended solids
load is 0.52 kg/kkg (1.0 Ib/ton).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative C 5-II - This alternative provides a two-cell aerated
lagoon with a retention time of 45 days.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.078 kg/kkg (0.15 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.078 kg/kkg (0.15 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $233,760
Total yearly cost: $ 32,620
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 499. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 85 percent
Alternative C 5-III - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative C 5-II.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.047 kg/kkg (0.094 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.021 kg/kkg (0.042 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $248,010
Total yearly cost: $ 36,880
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 500. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 96 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 38.3.
1444
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 499
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C5-II
(SHELL EGGS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTEP TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
8...PUMPING STATION
L...AERATED LAGCCN
L,.,AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION 186290.00
2. LAND 2670.00
3. ENGINEERING 18630.00
4. CONTINGENCY 18630.00
5. PVC LINER 75*40.00
TOTAL 233760.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSj
1. LABOR 6250.00
2. POKER 3050.00
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTENANCE&5UPPLIE3 2150.00
5. PVC LINER 270.00
TOTAL 11720.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 11720.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 9350.00
3. DEPRECIATION 11550.00
TOTAL 32620.00
1445
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 500
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE
(SHELL EGGS)
C5-III
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHAIN CBL.DBN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 97,0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESj
e... PUMPING
L... AERATED
L... AERATED
P. ..PUMPING
STATION
LAGOON
LAGOON
STATION
N...DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
a.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TOTAL
YEARLY
OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
COSTSj
LABOR
POKER
CHEMICALS
MAINTFNANCE&SL'PPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSi
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
198160.00
2670.00
19820.00
19820.00
7540.00
248010.00
6250.00
3980.00
0.0
4190.00
270.00
14690.00
14690.00
9920.00
12270.00
36680.00
-------
>-
^^
>-
U
i
227.)
20!.»
1*1.
1*2.?
HO.5
75.0
51.7
32.0
«o.co «t.oo «2.oo ij.cc
47.ee «a.co
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 383
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C5, ALT. Ill
tea.oe
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C 5-IV - This alternative consists of an anaerobic lagoon
with 10 days retention and an aerobic lagoon with 6 days retention.
The resulting BOD waste load ts 0.031 kg/kkg (0.062 Ib/ton), and the
suspended sol Ids load is 0.052 kg/kkg (0,10 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $137,640
Total yearly cost: $ 22,010
An itemized breakdown of costs ts presented in Table 501. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98 percent
SS: 90 percent
Alternative C 5-V - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative C 5-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.016 kg/kkg (0.032 Ib/ton), and the
suspended solids load is 0.01 kg/kkg (0.02 Ib/ton).
Costs: Total investment cost: $151,890
Total yearly cost: $ 26,250
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 502. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 99 percent
SS: 98 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 384.
Cost and Reduction Benefits of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory C 12 - Prepared Sandwiches
A model plant representative of Subcategory C 12 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alternatives.
In Section VII, two alternatives were selected as being applicable.
Alternative C 12-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load.
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative C 12-11 - This alternative provides a holding tank and truck
hauling of all wastewater. It is assumed that hauling cost is $100
(1974) per haul and that there are five hauls per week.
1448
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 501
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C5-IV
(SHELL EGGS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR fcASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN BML
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 9fi.O PERCENT BCD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
6...PUMPING STATION
M...SETTLING POND
L... AERATED LAGOON
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1. CONSTRUCTION 109030.00
2. LAND 2670.00
3. ENGINEERING 10900.00
4. CONTINGENCY 10900,00
5. PVC LINER 4140.00
TCTAL 137640.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSl
1. LABOR 6250.00
2. PO^ER 1960.00
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
U. MAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES 1390.00
5. FVC LINER 150.00
TOTAL 9750.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 9750.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 5510.00
3. DEPRECIATION 6750.00
TOTAL 22010.00
1449
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 502
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C5-V
(SHELL EGGS)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WA8TCMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 99.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
8. .PUMPING STATION
.SETTLING POND
L.
8.
N.
.AERATED LAGOON
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FRTRA'N
INVESTMENT CCSTSJ
1. CONSTRUCTION 120900.00
2. LAND 2670.00
3. ENGINEERING 12090.00
4. CONTINGENCY 12090.00
5. PVC LINER 4140.00
TCTAL 151890.00
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
1. LABOR 6250.00
2. PC^ER 2890.00
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
4. MAINTENANCE&SL'PPLIES 3420.00
5. PVC LINER 150.00
TCTAL 12710.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSI
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 12710.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 6080.00
3. DEPRECIATION 7460.00
TOTAL 26250.00
1450
-------
u.
o
8
0)
8
a!
u
13-9.0
126.0
113.0
tce.o
«7.6
7U.6
t!.0
ae.c
"O.OC *I.OJ 'f.OC 9J.OC '«.CC Cf.CO 9r>.OC »?.CO <6,CO 99,60 100,00
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 384
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY C5, ALT. V
-------
DRAFT
Costs: Total investment cost: $11,540
Total yearly cost: $22,960
An Itemized breakdown of costs ts presented tn Table 503.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
O&G: 100 percent
Cost and Reduction Benefits-of'Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Subcategory D 4 - Vinegar
A model plant representative of Subcategory D 4 was developed in
Section V for the purpose of applying control and treatment alter-
natives. In Section VII, seven alternatives were selected as being
applicable engineering alternatives. These alternatives provide
for various levels of waste reductions for the model plant which
produces 78 cu m (20,000 gal) of vinegar per day.
Alternative D 4-1 - This alternative assumes no treatment and no
reduction in the waste load. It is estimated that the effluent from
a 78 cu m per day plant is 90.8 cu m (0.024 MG) per day. The BOD
waste load is 1.92-kg/cu m (16.0 lb/1000 gal), and the suspended solids
load is 5.38 kg/cu m (10.8 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: 0
Reduction Benefits: None
Alternative D 4-II - This alternative provides a pumping station,
flow equalization, caustic neutralization, nitrogen addition, and
an aerated lagoon.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.096 kg/cu m (0.8 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.43 kg/cu m (3.6 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $172,400
Total yearly cost: $ 44,360
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 504. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It
is further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 95 percent
SS: 92 percent
Alternative D 4-III - This alternative replaces the aerated lagoon
of Alternative D 4-II with a complete mix activated sludge system
and provides sludge thickening, aerobic digestion, and truck hauling.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.06 kq/cu m (0.5 lb/1000 qal), and the
suspended solids load is 0.27 kg/cu m (2.25 lb/1000 qal).
1452
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 503
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE C12-II
(PREPARED SANDWICHES)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY.,.*100 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESg
Y...HOLDING TANK
INVESTMENT CCSTSi
1. CONSTRUCTION 9620.00
2. LAND 0.0
3. ENGINEERING 960.00
4. CONTINGENCY 960.00
TC7AL 11510.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS*
1. LABOR 0.0
2. POWER 0.0
3. CHEMICALS 0.0
a. MAINTENANCE&SL'PPLIES 21920.00
TCTAL 21920.00
TOTAL YEARLY COSTSI
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 21920.00
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 460.00
3. DEPRECIATION 580.00
TOTAL 22960.00
1453
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 504
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D4-II
(VINEGAR)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR MSTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MCDULESj
B...PUMPING STATION
G...CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
H..,NITROGEN: ADDITION
L...AERATED LAGOCN
INVESTMENT CCSTSJ
1.
2.
3.
«.
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LINER
TCTAL
YEARLY OPERATING CCSTSl
i. LABOR
2.
3.
4.
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAINTENANCF&SUPPLIES
5, PVC LINER
TCTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
137970,00
2920.00
13800.00
13600.00
3910.00
172000.00
6250.00
1^990.00
5060.00
2630.00
60.00
28990.00
28990.00
6900.00
8470.00
44360.00
1454
-------
DRAFT
Costs: Total Investment cost: $206,560
Total yearly cost: $ 77,530
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 505. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 95 percent
Alternative D 4-IV - This alternative adds sand drying beds to
Alternative D 4-III.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.058 kg/cu m (0.48 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.27 kg/cu m (2.25 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $245,210
Total yearly cost: $ 86,050
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 506. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 97 percent
SS: 95 percent
Alternative D 4-V - This alternative adds dual media filtration to
Alternative D 4-IV.
The resulting BOD waste load is 0.038 kg/cu m (0.32 lb/1000 gal), and
the suspended solids load is 0.16 kg/cu m (1.3 lb/1000 gal).
Costs: Total investment cost: $271,660
Total yearly cost: $ 92,930
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 507. It is
assumed that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). It
is further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 98 percent
SS: 97 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 385.
Alternative D 4-VI - This alternative consist of Alternative D 4-II
plus a pumping station, pipeline, and spray irrigation field. This
alternative results in no discharge of polluted wastewater.
Costs: Total investment cost: $225,870
Total yearly cost: $ 50,950
1455
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 505
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D4-III
(VINEGAR)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEKATER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESl
81
B.
C.
6.
H.
K.
Q.
R.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEROBIC D16ESTCR
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSi
1. LABOR
2, POER
3, CHEMICALS
a. MAINTENANCE&SLPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
i. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
00
00
149920.
26660.
14990.00
14990.00
206560.00
37480.00
6020.00
5060.00
9720.00
60260.00
60260.00
6260.00
6990.00
77530.00
1456
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 506
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D4-IV
(VINEGAR)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY... 95.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES:
PI
B.
C.
G.
h.
K.
0.
R.
T.
.CONTROL HCUSE
.PUMPINB STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEPCBIC DIGESTOR
.SAND DRYING BEDS
INVESTMENT COSTSl
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2, POWER
3. CHEMICALS
4. MAINTENANCEISIPPLIES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS:
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
190740.00
16330.00
19070.00
19070.00
245210.00
37480.00
6020.00
5060.00
14240.00
64800.00
64600.00
9810.00
11440.00
86050.00
1457
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 507
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D4-V
(VINEGAR)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR hASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY,., 98.0 PERCENT 900 REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
Bl
B.
C.
G.
H.
B
N
.CONTROL HCLSE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQLALIZATICN BASIN
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLUDGE THICKENER
.AEPCblC DIGESTCR
.SAND DRYING BEDS
.PUMPING STATION
.DUAL MEDIA PRESSURE FILTRA«N
INVESTMENT COSTS!
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
«• CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING COSTS!
1. LABOR
2. PCt^EW
3. CHEMICALS
«• MAINTENANCEiSlPPLlES
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY COSTS!
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
CCST RECCVFRY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
212770.00
16330.00
21260.00
21280.00
271660.00
37«80.00
10620.00
5060,00
16130.00
69290.00
69290.00
10870.00
12770.00
92930.00
-------
cn
vo
to
8
(J
272.0
232.S
233. C
211.8
1'a.fl
17«.S
:si.o
1)5.S
116.0
77.0
4o.ee
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 508
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D4-VI
(VINEGAR)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOP WASTEMTER TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY...100.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULESi
B.
6.
H.
L.
U.
.PUMPING STATION
.CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.AERATED LAGOON
.SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSt
1.
2.
3.
«•
5.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
CONTINGENCY
PVC LTNER
TOTAL
YEARLY OPERATING
1.
2.
3.
5.
COSTS!
LABOR
POWER
CHEMICALS
MAXNTEMNCEISI'PPLIES
PVC LINER
TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY
3. DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
175590.00
11250.00
17560.00
17560.00
3910.00
225870.00
6250.00
15950.00
5060.00
3870.00
60.00
31190.00
31190.00
9030.00
10730.00
50950.00
1460
-------
226.0 I
I
a.
5
207.1
te«.6
m.a
1)3.2
139.0
116.8
«e.6
ec.c
62.2
90.oo 9i!oo 92!oo ""sloe"
ie.ce 99.00 100.00
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 386
INVESTteNT PND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATCGQRY 04, ALT. VI
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 509
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE D4-VII
(VINEGAR)
ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR HA3TEKATCR TREATMENT CHAIN
DESIGN EFFICIENCY..,100.0 PERCENT BOD REDUCTION
TREATMENT MODULES!
81
8.
C.
G.
H.
K.
C.
R.
U.
.CONTROL HCL'SE
.PUMPING STATION
.EQUALIZATION BASIN
•CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZATION
.NITROGEN ADDITION
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.SLIDGE Tf-ICKENER
.AERCBIC CIGESTOR
.SPRAY IRRIGATION
INVESTMENT CCSTSl
1.
2.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
LAND
ENGINEERING
4. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
167530.00
11000.00
18750.00
18750.00
236030.00
YEARLY OPERATING COSTSt
!• LABOR 37«80,00
2. POWER 8970.00
3. CHEMICALS 5060.00
«. MAINTENANCE&8UPPLIES 10970.00
TOTAL 62*180.00
TOTAL YEARLY CCSTSl
1. YEARLY OPERATING COST 624PO.OO
2. YEARLY INVESTMENT
COST RECOVERY 9440.00
3. DEPRECIATION 11250.00
TCTAL 83170.00
1462
-------
257.0
221.0
295.0
17J.O
CO
8
1S7.0
t«t.O
o
129.0
«J.O
77.0
sc.ce
«2.oc
<«.ec
i».eo «i.co teo.oe
EFFICIENCY
FIGURE 387
INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR SUBCATEGORY D«, ALT. VI1
-------
DRAFT
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 508. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that one operator is required one-half time.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 386,
Alternative D 4-VII - This alternative consists of Alternative D 4-III
plus a pumping station, pipeline, and spray Irrigation field. This
alternative results in no discharge of polluted wastewaters.
Costs: Total investment cost: $236,030
Total yearly cost: $ 83,170
An itemized breakdown of costs is presented in Table 509. It is
assumed that land costs $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). It is
further assumed that three operators are required.
Reduction Benefits: BOD: 100 percent
SS: 100 percent
A cost efficiency curve is presented in Figure 387.
RELATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The major energy requirement for the alternative treatment technologies
is for aeration. Generally, aerated lagoons require greater levels of
electricity because of mixing than do equivalent activated sludge
systems.
Table 510 presents a summary of the power use and associated cost
for each of the treatment alternatives.
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
The generation of sludge and the accompanying necessity for handling
and disposal is an inherent part of wastewater treatment, and is perhaps
the most perplexing problem associated with treatment. A common method
of sludge disposal is application to the land. This may be done in a
variety of ways. When sludge volumes are relatively small, discharge
into shallow trenches may only be required. Larger flows of liquid
sludge may be spread on land by gravity flow or by spraying, either
from trucks or pipe networks. Dried sludge may be spread by dump trucks.
It is fortunate in the miscellaneous foods and beverages industry that
wastewater sludges usually are free of inorganic ions that could cause
groundwater contamination under adverse disposal procedures or be
harmful to agricultural crops. With proper application, such sludges
can improve soil structure and benefit crops.
1464
-------
TABLE 510
YEARLY ELECTRICAL USE AND COST ASSOCIATED
WITH ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT DESIGNS
Alternative
Power Used
(kw-hr)
Yearly Cost
(Thousands of Dollars)
Alternative Power Used
(kW-hr)
1
TI
Yearly Cost
(Thousands of Dollars)
(Vegetable Oil Processing and Reflninn)
Al-I
Al-II
Al-III
Al-IV
Al-V
Al-VI
Al-VII
Al-VIII
A2-I
A2-II
A3-1
A3-11
A3-III
A4-I
A4-II
A4-III
A5-I
A5-II
A5-III
A5-IV
A5-V
A5-VI
A5-VII
A5-VIII
0
146,364
211,818
321,212
386,667
64,242
146,970
205,455
.0
0
25,758
0
3,030
29,697
0
25,152
0
45,152
465,152
619,697
712,727
1,420,909
1,575,455
1,668,485
0
4.83
6.99
10.60
12.76
2.12
4.
6.
.85
.78
0
0
0.85
0
0.10
0.98
0
0.83
0
.49
15.35
20.45
23.52
46.89
51.99
55.06
1.
A6-1
A6-II
A6-III
A6-IV
A6-V
A6-VI
A6-VII
A6-VIII
A7-I
A7-II
A7-III
A7-IV
A7-V
A7-VI
A7-VII
A7-VIII
A8-I
A3-11
A8-III
A8-IV
A8-V
A8-VI
A8-VII
A8-VIII
0
64,848
787,879
979,697
1,110,909
2,775,455
2,967,273
3,098,485
0
116,364
1,415,758
1,666,667
1,925,455
4,977,273
5,228,182
5,486,970
0
: 100,303
1,048,182
1,276,061
1,489,091
3,609,091
3,836,970
4.050.000
0
2.14
26.00
32.33
36.66
91.59
97.92
102.25
0
3.84
46.72
55.00
63.54
164.25
172.53
181.07
0
3.31
34.59
42.11
49.14
119.10
126.62
133.65
-------
TABLE 510 (CONTINUED)
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
(Vegetable 011 Processing and Refining)
A9-I
A9-II
A9-III
A9-IV
A9-V
A9-VI
A9-VII
A9-VIII
A10-I
A10-II
A10-III
A10-IV
A10-V
A10-VI
A10-VII
A10-VIII
All-I
All-II
All-III
All-IV
All-V
All-VI
All-VII
All-VIII
0
128,788
1,525,455
1,794,848
2,090,000
5,873,333
6,143,030
6,437,879
0
113,030
1,163,030
1,409,091
165,758
4,908,182
5,154,242
5,402,727
0
146,667
1,816,364
2,113,030
2,460,606
6,993,030
7,289,394
7,636,970
0
4.25
50.34
59.23
68.97
193.82
202.72
212.45
0
3.73
38.38
46.50
54.70
161.97
170.09
178.29
0
4.84
59.94
69.73
81.20
230.77
240.55
252.02
A12-I
A12-II
A12-III
A12-IV
A12-V
A12-VI
A12-VII
A12-VIII
A13-I
A13-II
A13-III
A13-IV
A13-V
A13-VI
A14-I
A14-II
A14-III
A14-IV
A14-V
A14-VI
A14-VII
A15-I
A15-II
A15-III
0
131,212
1,459,090
1,732,121
2,034,242
6,205,758
6,478,788
6,780,909
0
47,576
29,364
457,879
1,518,182
1,682,424
0
183,333
232,424
303,636
414,545
463,333
534,850
0
0
0
4.33
48.15
57.16
67.13
204.79
213.80
223.77
0
1.57
9.69
15.11
50.10
55.52
0
6.05
7.67
10.02
13.68
15.29
17.65
0.83
0
0
-------
TABLE 510 (CONTINUED)
Alternative Power Used . Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
A16-I
A16-II
A16-III
A16-IV
A16-V
A16-VI
A16-VII
A16-VIII
A16-IX
A16-X
A16-XI
A16-XII
A16-XIII
A17-I
A17-II
A17-III
A17-IV
A17-V
A17-VI
(Beverages)
20,569,091
21,117,576
22,067,273
13,891,212
14,439,697
15,389,394
13,040,909
13,589,394
14,539,091
13,005,152
13,553,636
14,503,333
0
68,463,636
70,051,818
73,091,818
46,011,818
47.600,303
0
678.78
696.88
728.22
458.41
476.51
507.85
430.35
448.45
479.79
429.17
447.27
478.61
0
2259.30
2311171
2412.03
1518.39
1570.81
A17-VII
A17-VIII
A17-IX
A17-X
A17-XI
A17-XII
A17-XIII
A18-I
A18-II
A18-III
A18-IV
A18-V
A18-VI
A18-VII
A18-VIII
A18-IX
A18-X
A18-XI
A18-XII
A18-XIII
A19-I
A19-II
A19-III
A19-IV
50,640,000
43,338,778
44,927,273
47,966,970
9,760,000
10,105,151
10,843,333
5,026,364
5,371,212
6,109,394
4,719,091
5,064,242
5,802,424
4,690,303
5,035,455
5,773,636
0
12,167,878
12,346,969
11,902,727
1671.12
1430.18
1482.60
1582.91
0
322.08
333.47
357.83
165.87
177.25
201.61
155.73
167.12
191.48
154.78
166.17
190.53
0
401.54
407.45
62.79
-------
TABLE 510 (CONTINUED)
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
A19-V
A19-VI
A19-VII
A20-I
A20-II
A20-III
A20-IV
A20-V
A20-VI
A20-VII
A20-VIII
A20-IX
A20-X
A21-I
A21-II
A22-A-I
A22-A-II
A22-A-III
A22-A-IV
A22-A-V
A22-A-VI
A22-A-VII
A22-A-VIII
A22-A-IX"-
2,081,818
1,876,364
2,055,455
0
733,030
873,636
962,727
747,272
847,879
937,273
3,118,182
3,218,788
3,308,182
0
150,303
0
13,130,909
13,307,273
2,377,273
2,553,636
2,516,970
2,693,333
2,403,939
2,533,030
68.70
61.92
67.83
0
25.51
28.83
31.77
24.66
27.98
30.93
102.90
106.22
109.17
0
4.96
0
433.32
439.14
78.45
84.27
83.06
88.88
79.33
83.59
A22-B-I
A22-B-II
A22-B-III
A22-B-IV
A22-B-V
A22-B-VI
A22-B-VII
A22-B-VIII
A22-B-IX
A23-I
A23-II
A23-III
A23-IV
A24-I
A24-II
A24-III
A24-IV
A24-V
A24-VI
A24-VII
A24-VIII
A24-IX
0
2,506,061
2,635,152
598,788
727,878
666,667
795,758
624,242
674,242
0
156,667
206,667
185,758
0
10,277,879
10,407,576
10,225,758
10,355,455
10,200,000
10,329,697
13,255,455
13,384,848
0
82.70
86.96
19.76
24.02
22.00
26.26
20.60
22.25
0
5.17
6.82
6.13
0
339.17
343.45
337.45
341.73
336.60
340.88
437.43
441.70
-------
TABLE 510 (CONTINUED)
u
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
vo
A25A-I
A25A-II
A25A-III
A25B-I
A25B-II
A25B-III
A26-I
A26-II
A26-III
A26-IV
A26-V
A26-VI
A26-VII
A27-I
A27-II
A27-III
A27-IV
A27-V
A27-VI
A27-VII
A28-I
A28-II
A28-III
A28-IV
0
0
25,455
0
0
26,667
0
301,212
389,394
275,758
363,939
1,075,152
1,163,333
0
350,909
479,697
325,455
454,242
1,036,667
1,165,455
2,122,727
836,364
659,394
836,364
0
0
0.84
0
0
0.88
0
9.94
12.85
9.10
12.01
35.48
38.39
0
11.58
15.83
10.74
14.99
34.21
38.46
70.05
27.60
21.76
27.60
A28-V
A28-VI
A28-VII
A28-VIII
A28-IX
A28-X
A28-XI
A28-XII
A28-XIII
A30-I
A30-II
A30-III
*A30-IV
A30-V
A30-VI
*A30-VII
A30-VIII
C8-I
C8-II
C8-III
C8-IV
C8-V
C9-I
C9-II
C9-III
CIO-1
C10-II
C10-III
C10-IV
2,300,606
1,014,242
836,970
014,242
399,394
113,030
936,061
113,030
49,091
0
575,455
503,939
2,640,606
704,242
632,727
2,769,394
55,758
0
157,576
228,182
66,970
137,576
0
197,576
560,606
3,317,273
1,266,970
3,523,333
75.92
33.47
27.62
33.47
79.18
36.73
30.89
36.73
1.62
0
18.99
16.63
87.14
23.24
20.88
91.39
84
0
20
53
21
4.54
0
6.52
18.50
0
109.47
41.81
116.27
-------
TABLE 510 (CONTINUED)
Alternative
Power Used
(kw-hrl
Yearly Cost
(Thousands of Dollars
Alternative
Power Used
(kw-hrl
Yearly Cost
(Thousands of Dollars
(Bakery and Confectionery Products)
Cl-I
Cl-II
Cl-III
Cl-IV
C2-I
C2-II
C2-III
C2-IV
C2-V
C2-VI
C2-VII
C2-VIII
C3-I
C3-II
C3-III
C3-IV
C7-I
C7-II
C7-III
C7-IV
C7-V
C7-VI
Dl-I
Dl-II
Dl-III
Dl-IV
Dl-V
Dl-VI
0
152,121
717,273
901,818
0
120,909
121,212
273,636
66,061
273,636
292,727
325,455
0
205,756
257,879
148,485
0
66,970
264,848
428,788
399,091
563,333
0
92,727
446,667
446,667
624,242
269,697
3.
4.
.9.
2.
9.
9.
0
5.02
23.67
29.76
0
.99
.00
.03
.18
.03
.66
10,74
0
6.79
8.51
4.90
0
2.21
8.74
14.15
13.17
18.59
0
3.06
14.74
14.74
20.60
8.90
D2-I
D2-II
D2-III
D2-IV
D2-V
D2-VI
02-VII
D3-I
D3-II
D3-III
D3-IV
D3-V
D3-VI
D3-VII
D5-I
D5-II
D5-III
D5-IV
D5-V
D5-VI
D5-VII
D5-VIII
06-1
D6-II
D6-III
06-IV
D6-V
D6-VI
D6-VII
D6-VIII
1
0
510,000
317,576
317,576
474,848
1,555,242
361,818
0
1,190,909
264,242
264,242
433,636
238,182
311,515
0
143,030
3,507,576
1,043,939
1,043,939
1
,045,455
1,175,455
3,509,394
0
164,242
4,266,061
645,152
645,152
647,273
874,242
4,267,879
51
11,
- .0
49.83
10.48
10.48"
15.67
.29
.94
0
39.30
8.72
8.72
14.31
40.86
10.28
0
4.72
115.75
34.45
34.45
34.50
38.79
115.81
0
5.42
140.78
21,
21
21.36
28.85
140.84
.29
.29
-------
TABLE 510 (CONTINUED)
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
Alternative Power Used Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
B5-I
B5-II
B5-III
B5-IV
B6-1
B6-II
B6-III
B6-IV
B6-V
B7-I
B7-II
B7-III
B7-IV
B8-I
B8-II
B8-III
B8-IV
(Pet Foods')
0
329,091
945,758
1,206,061
0
453,636
456,061
3,648,788
3,914,545
0
62,121
123,636
210,303
0
570,000
1,733,939
1,994,242
0
10.86
31.21
39.80
0
14.97
15.05
120.41
129.18
0
.05
.08
.94
0
18i81
57V22:
65.81
2.
4.
6.
(Miscellaneous and Specialty Products)
A29-I
A29-II
A29-III
A29-IV
A29-V
A29-VI
A29-VII
A29-VIII
A29-IX
A29-X
A29-XI
0
30,303
226,364
233,030
425,455
285,758
292,424
484,848
360,606
367,273
559,697
0
1.00
7.47
7.69
14.04
9.43
9.65
16.00
11.90
12.12
18.47
A3!-I
A31-II
AST-Ill
A31-IV
A31-V
A3!-VI
A31-VII
A32-I
A32-II
A32-III
A32-IV
A32-V
A33-I
A33-II
A33-III
A33-IV
A33-V
A33-VI
A33-VII
A33-VIII
A33-IX
A33-X
A33-XI
A33-XII
A33-XIII
A33-XIV
29,697
506.061
444,545
561,818
562,121
500,909
617,879
27,879
127,576
320,909
198,182
363,636
0
38,703,636
38,883,939
39,410,606
8,171,212
8,351,515
8,878,182
11,563,939
11,744,242
12,270,909
23,369,696
23,550,000
24,076,666
18,454,242
0.98
16.70
14.67
18.54
18.55
16.53
20.39
0.92
4.21
10.59
6.54
12.00
0
1277.22
1283.17
1300.55
269.65
275.60
292.98
381.61
387.56
404.94
771.20
777.15
794.53
608.99
-------
TABLE 510 (CONTINUED)
ro
Alternative
A33-XV
A33-XVI
A33-XVII
A33-XVIII
A33-XIX
A33-XX
A34-I
A34-II
A34-III
A35-I
A35-II
A35-III
A36-I
A36-II
A36-III
A36-IV
A36-V
A36-VI
A36-VII
A36-VIII
A36-IX
A36-X
Bl-I
Bl-II
BT-III
Bl-IV .
B2-I
B2-II
B2-III
B2-IV
Power Use Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
18,634,545
19,161,212
18,251,818
18,432,121
18,958,787
231,515
0
24,455
0
0
25,152
0
0
140,000
11,891,212
11,634,242
11,663,636
6,853,939
12,042,121
11,785,454
11,814,848
7,004,848
0
559,394
1,337,273
1,586,970
0
182,727
377,576
454,545
614.94
632.32
602.31
• 608.26
625.64
7.64
0
0.84
0
0
0.83
0
0
4.62
392.41
383.93
384.90
226.18
397.39
388.92
389.89
231.16
0
18.46
44.13
52.37
0
6.03
12.46
15.00
Alternative
B3-I
B3-II
B3-III
B3-IV
84- 1
O^ X
B4-II
B4-III
B9-I
u y i
B9-II
B9-III
C4-I
C4-II
C4-III
C4-IV
C4-V
C5-I
C5-II
C5-III
C5-IV
C5-V
C12-I
C12-II
D4-I
D4-II
D4-III
D4-IV
D4-V
D4-VI
D4-VII
Power Use Yearly Cost
(kw-hr) (Thousands of Dollars)
0
563,636
2,005,455
2,265,758
o
192,424
427,879
Q
1,009,394
1,174,242
0
330,606
110,303
66,667
110,303
0
92,424
120,606
59,394
87,576
0
0
0
454,242
243,030
243,030
321,818
483,333
271,818
0
18.60
66.18
74.77
0
6.35
14.12
0
33.31
38.75
0
10.91
14.52
2.20
3.64
0
3.05
3.98
1.96
2.89
0
0
0
14.99
8.02
8.02
10.62
15.95
8.97
-------
DRAFT
The treatment alternatives developed in Section VII are not expected
to have stgnigicant effects on atr quality if properly located and
operated. Odors are always a potential problem in the treatment of
organic wastes: however, the predominately aerobic systems discussed
herein should not create odor problems. Nevertheless, treatment systems
and disposal sites should be located an appropriate distance from (and,
if possible, downwind from) habitations.
Spray irrigation of wastewaters or sludges can cause problems of
windblown droplets. If it is assumed that sanitary wastes have been
removed, no threats to health should exist. If spray systems are not
in proximity to neighbors, significant problems should not exist.
The sight of wastewater treatment facilities may be aesthetically
unpleasant to some persons. However, a realization of this fact
during plant design can often minimize such effects.
Noise levels should not exceed those of well-designed municipal treat-
ment systems which are currently being approved for construction in
populated areas.
1474
-------
DRAFT
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1977, are to
specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the applica-
tion of the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available.
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available is generally
based upon the average of best existing performance by plants of various
sizes, ages and unit processes within the industrial category and/or
subcategory. In the Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages point source cate-
gory, this is based upon performance levels achieved by exemplary plants.
Consideration must also be given to:
a. The total cost of application of technology in relation to
the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such
application;
b. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved;
c. The process employed;
d. The engineering aspects of the application of various types
of control techniques;
e. Process changes;
f. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements);
g. Availability of land for use in wastewater treatment-disposal.
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available emphasizes treat-
ment facilities at the end of a manufacturing process but includes the
control technologies within the process itself when these are considered
to be normal practice within the industry.
A further consideration is the degree of economic and engineering
reliability which must be established for the technology to be "currently
available." As a result of demonstration projects, pilot plants, and
general use, there must exist a high degree of confidence in the engineering
and economic practicability of the technology at the time of construction
or installation of the control facilities.
1475
-------
DRAFT
EFFLUENT REDUCTIONS ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF BEST
PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR THE MIS-
CELLANEOUS-FOODS AND "BEVERAGES POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Based upon the information contained in Sections II through VIII of
this document it has been determined that the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of the Best Practicable
Control Technology currently available is as listed in Tables 511
through 515.. No limitations are presently recommended for Subcategory
C 69 Ice Manufacturings because the quality of the effluent at the
present time is quite good--reported at 1 mg/T BOD and 5 mg/1 suspended
solids. These values indicate that further pollutant reduction would
be impractical.
It is further recommended that for all cases in which discharge of waste-
waters is allowed, the pH of the wastewaters be in the range of 6.0 to
9.0; that no visible floating oil and grease be allowed; and, for
Subcategories A 7-12, a concentration of nickel no greater than 0.02
mg/1 be allowed. Technologies presently exist and have been reliably
demonstrated to achieve this level. Technologies presently exist and
have been reliably demonstrated to achieve this level.
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available, as described
in Section VII9 is generally the equivalent of secondary biological treat-
ment. The recommended treatment alternatives for each subcategory are
indicated in Tables 511 through 515. The wastewaters from the Miscel-
laneous Foods and Beverages Industry are for the most part highly bio-
degradable as documented by existing treatment systems within the sub-
categories s by extensive municipal treatment case histories, and/or
the nature of the wastes' characteristics.
A few exceptions hav been determined to exist for individual waste components
or exceptional waste streams. In those few cases where biological treat-
ment is not demonstrated and would not be expected to be reasonably or
feasibly effectives, considerable discussion has been presented in approp-
riate sections of this document and alternative technology presented
where applicable. Noteworthly examples include the unfeasibility of
biologically treating wastewater from ice manufacturing and high strength
wastes such as still age. For small volume wastes9 alternative disposal
such as conveying the waste to a municipal treatment plant or approved
land site have been presented.
The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for Sub-
categories A 2, A 39 A 4, A 259 A 34, A 35 C 129 E 1-6, and F 1-4 is
direct land disposal or hauling to a municipal sewage system or approved
land disposal site. The Best Practicable Control Technology for Sub-
category A 15 is land spreading, spray irrigation, or hauling to a
municipal sewage system or approved land disposal site. The Best Prac-
ticable Control Technology for Subcategory A 20 is land spreading.
1476
-------
TABLE 511
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BPCTCA)
FOR VEGETABLE OIL PROCESSING AND REFINING
SUBCATEGORY
A 1
A 2
A 3
A 4
A 5
A 6
A 7
A 8
A 9
A10
All
A12
A13
A.14
Am
UNITS
kg/kkg oilseed crushed
kg/kkg oilseed crushed
kg/kkg olives processed
kg/kkg olives processed
kg/kkg crude oil processed
kg/kkg crude oil processed
kg/kkg crude oil processed
kg/kkg crude oil processed
kg/kkg crude oil processed
kg/kkg crude oil processed
kg/kkg crude oil processed
kg/kkg crude oil processed
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
RECOMMENDED
TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE
A 1- II
A 2- II
A 3- I
A 4- 11
A 5- IV
A 6- IV
A 7- IV
A 8- IV
A 9- IV
AID- IV
All- IV
A12- IV
A13-III
A14-UI
A1R-TTT
Bl
MAX.
30-DAY AVE.
0.0072
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.035
0.067
0.13
0.10
0.13
0.097
0.16
0.12
0.060
0.015
0.00
3D
MAX. DAY
0.018
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.087
0.017
0.32
0.26
0.33
0.24
0.39
0.30
0.15
0.037
n.no
SS
MAX.
30-DAY AVE.
0.0090
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.035
0.061
0.13
0.10
0.13
0.11
0.17
0.14
0.075
0.015
0.00
MAX . DAY
0.023
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.087
0.15
0.32
0.26
0.33
0.27
0.44
0.36
0.19
0.037
0.00
OBG
MAX.
30-DAY AVE.
0.0054
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.014
0.023
0.051
0.041
0.058
0.048
0.069
0.060
0.075
0.0080
0.00
MAX DAY
0.0135
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.035
0.057
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.17
0.15
0.19
0.024
0.00
-------
TABLE 512
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BPCTCA)
FOR BEVERAGES
c
£
SUBCATEGORY
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A30
C8
C9
CIO
Fl
UNITS
kg/cu m beer produced
kg/cu m beer produced
kg/cu m beer produced
kg/kkg barley processed
kg/kkg grapes crushed
kg/cu m wine produced
kg/kkg grain mashed
kg/kkg'grain mashed
kg/thousand proof
gallons produced
kg/cu m finished prod.
kg/cu m finished prod.
kg/cu m finished prod.
kg/kkg finished prod.
kg/kkg coffee beans
kg/kkg coffee beans
kg/kkg coffee beans
RECOMMENDED
TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE
V
V
V
1 IV
II
II
II
VI
II
II
II
IV
IV
A 28-VIII
A 30-11
C 8-III
C 9-III
C 10-.III
-
BOD
MAX.
30-DAY AVE.
0.28
0.55
0.48
0.22
0.77
0.28
0
0.26
0.054
1.2
0
0.052
0.24
0.0050
2.0
0.070
0.19
0.95
0
MAX. DAY
0.70
1.4
1.2
0.55
2.3
0.83
0
0.65
0.14
3.0
0
0.13
0.60
0.013
5.0
0.21
0.48
2.4
0
SS
MAX.
30-DAY AVE.
0.39
0.76
0.68
0.13
0..11
0.41
0
0.32
0.072
0.69
0
0.030
0.14
0.0010
5.5
0.070
0.19
0.95
MAX DAY
0.97
1.9
1.7
0.32
0.34
1.2
0
0.80
0.18
1.7
0
0.075
0.35
0.0025
13.0
0.21
0.48
2.4
-------
Subcategory
Cl
C2
C3
C7
Dl
D2
D3
D5
D6
TABLE 513
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BPCTCA)
FOR BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
Cl-III
C2-IV
C3-II
C7-V
Dl-IV
D2-IV
D3-IV
D5-V
D6-V
BOD
Max
30-Day
Ave
0.50
0.050
0.060
0.1
0.15
0.12
0.085
0.037
0.23
Max
Day
1.3
0.15
0.18
0.25
0.45
0.36
0.24
1.1
0.69
SS
Max
30-Day
Ave
0.50
0.050
0.060
0.10
0.075
0.090
0.085
0.25
0.23
O&G
Max
Day
1.3
0.15
0.18
0.25
0.22
0.27
0.24
0.75
0.69
Max
30- Day
Ave
0.11
0.030
0.040
0.050
--
—
--
0.07
0.11
Max
Day
0.28
0.090
0.12
0.13
—
—
—
0.021
0.33
NOTE: All units in terms of kg/kkg of finished product.
-------
Subcategory
B5
B6
B7
TABLE 514
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BPCTCA)
FOR PET FOODS
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
B5-III
B6-IV
B7-III
B8-III
BOD
Max
30-Day
Ave
0.18
0.51
0.0046
0.18
Max
Day
0.45
1.28
0.012
0.45
SS
Max
30- Day
Ave
0.18
0.51
0.0046
0.18
O&G
Max
Day
0.45
1.28
0.012
0.45
Max
30- Day
Ave
0.065
0.51
0.0031
0.028
Max
Day
0.17
1.28
0.0080
0.075
NOTE: All value in terms or kg/kkg finished product.
-------
TABLE 515
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BPCTCA)
FOR MISCELLANEOUS AND SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
Subcategory
A 29
A 31
A 32
A 33
A 34
A 35
A 36
B 1
B 2
B 3
B 4
B 9
C 4
C 5
D 4
E 1-6
F 2-4
Units
kg/cu m finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg of raw material
kg/kkg of raw material
kg/kkg of raw material
kg/cu m of finished prod.
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
A 29rIII
A 31-11
A 32-11
A 33- XIV
A 34-111
A 35-1 I I
A 36-111
B l-III
B 2-III
B 3-III
B 4-III
B 9-II
C 4-II
C 5-II
D 4- IV
H
_
BOD
Max.
30- day Ave.
0.041
2.34
0.025
3.23
:0
0
208.5
0.78
0.81
1.07
2.38
0.65
1.3
0.080
0.060
0
0
Max. Day
0.10
5.85
0.063
6.46
0
0
417
1.95
2.03
2.68
5.94
1.63
3.9
0.24
0.18
0
0
SS
Max.
30-day Ave.
0.012
0.63
0.071
1.62
0
0
175.1
0.78
0.81
1.07
2.38
0.65
1.3
0.80
0.030
0
0
Max. Day
0.030
1.58
0.18
3.24
0
0
350
1.95
2.03
2.68
5.94
1.63
3.9
0.24
0.29
0
0
O&G
Max.
30-day Ave.
.
0.63
0.043
-
0
0
-
0.29
0.23
0.46
1.59
0.43
0.13
0.020
-
0
0
Max. Day
—
1.26
0.086
-
0
0
-
0.73
0.57
1.14
3.97
1.08
0.39
0.060
-
0
0
-------
DRAFT
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Since the wastewaters generated by the miscellaneous foods and bever-
ages Industry are for the most part highly biodegradable,, biological
treatment is the most applicable technology. As developed in Section
VII9 activated sludge and aerobic lagooning are the most applicable types
of biological treatment employed. Commonly, high-strength industrial
waste requires modifications of the activated sludge design' as applied
to^ treatment of municipal waste. These modifications include longer
detention times9 completely mixed basins, and larger secondary clar-
ifiers. The complete-mix system is preferred over other activated
sludge systems for food and beverage waste because it is less suscep-
tible to shock loads (the completely mixed basin partially smooths out
organic load variations), oxygen utilization rate is constant through-
out the basin9 and lined earthen basins can be used for economy.
The longer detention time is necessary because of the high BOD con-
centrations; it is not uncommon for a complete-mix system to require
several days of aeration, but it nevertheless should not be confused
with an extended aeration system.
A primary disadvantage of any activated sludge system is operational
difficulty. Operators must be well trained specialists; the not uncommon
industrial practice of assigning personnel from the maintenance depart-
ment or the chemistry lab to "take care" of the wastewater treatment
plant has in many instances led to chronically poor treatment efficiencies.
Even with the best operations, however9 a biological system is susceptible
to periodic upsets. Perhaps the most common problem is "sludge bulking"
in which rising sludge in final clarifiers causes floating matter to
be discharged in the plant's effluent. The floating material can
considerably increase BOD and suspended solids concentrations in the
effluent.
Sludge bulking can often result from poor operation allowing inadequate
aeration or nutrient Ievels9 improper food to microorganism ratio9 or
improper sludge age. It is essential that operators maintain frequent
(at least daily) testing of the dissolved oxygen levelss suspended
solids concentrations9 and nutrient concentrations in the aeration
basin9 the nutrient concentrations in the effluent, and, of course,
the sludge volume index. But since upsets will invariably occur,
even with the best operation and most constant monitoring, it is to
be expected that upon occasion biological systems will far exceed the
maximum daily levels recommended in this document.
A second problem associated with biological systems is sludge generation.
The sludge from an activated sludge system can be expected to have a
solids content normally ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 percent. In this docu-
ment it has been conservatively assumed that the sludge has a solids con-
tent of 0.5 percent; it should be realized that in many cases the con-
-------
URAFT
centration will be higher and the sludge volume generated considerably
lower.
The disposal of sludge, as discussed in Section VIII, can be a serious
problem. Land disposal (lagooning, land spreading, spray irrigation) is
the most common disposal method and usually the most cost effective.
The feasibility of land disposal of sludge (or wastewater for that matter)
is essentially one of economics—the availability of suitable land
reasonably close to the treatment plant. Pumping of sludge to disposal
areas up to ten miles from the treatment plant is usually justifiable,
and trucking of dewatered sludge even farther is common. In some specific
cases, however, sludge disposal may produce severe hardships on particular
plants.
As discussed in Section VII, a variety of treatment modules other than
those discussed in this document may be employed in the miscellaneous
foods and beverage industry. For particular installations, other modules
could be more cost effective. This can only be determined on a case by
case basis.
One of the most cost effective methods for wastewater treatment/disposal
is crop irrigation. The limitations on the use of such disposal must
be determined based on the nature of the wastewater as well as the
nature of the crop to be irrigated. It should be noted that in some
instances nutrient addition might be necessary since many of the discharges
from miscellaneous foods and beverages industries are nutrient deficient.
If such is the case, a significant cost could be incurred.
Again, due to the fact that the treatment technologies developed in this
document are required to be applicable to all areas of the country, all
earthen basins recommended in this report have been lined with PVC liner.
It is to be expected that a number of the installations affected by this
study are located in areas where soil and geologic conditions make such
lining unnecessary. For this reason, the cost of lining has been shown
as a separate item in the cost tables of Section VIII.
Land costs have been shown as a discrete cost item for the same reason.
Of all factors associated with the cost analysis, land cost is certainly
the most variable. It has been generally assumed that non-land restric-
tive treatment systems (e.g., activated sludge, vacuum filtration) are
required in highly industrialized areas of minimal land availability
and that land costs $41,000 per hectare ($16,600 per acre). Non-land
restrictive treatment trains have been assumed to be located in semi-rural
areas with land costs of $4100 per hectare ($1660 per acre). In a few
cases, where treatment trains are intermediate between land restrictive
and non-land restrictive, a cost of $20,500 per hectare ($8300 per acre)
has been assumed.
In reality, land costs can vary from a few hundred dolalrs per hectare
to several million depending on plant location.
1483
-------
DRAFT
Evaporation has been chosen as a viable alternative for treating
high strength wastes in the rum and yeast industries. Evaporative
concentration offers the advantage of reducing pollutant and hydraulic
loads to biological treatment while at the same time producing potentially
saleable by-products. In addition, recovery equipment requires less
operating space than biological systems.
Evaporators must be designed and sized to fit the needs of individual
users. Some major factors that determine equipment selection, and
therefore capital and operating costs, include: (1) volume and initial
concentration of feed solution, (2) final by-product concentration,
(3) physical properties of the liquor to be treated, and (4) availability
of required utilities. Currently available facilities ranging in size
from small pilot plants to installations providing 204,000 kg/hr
(450,000 Ib/hr) evaporation must be sized both on the volume of water
and the quantity of solids to be handled. The more concentrated the
influent materialp the less water removal and therefore less energy
required to concentrate to a desired value. For a given influent
volume, the final concentrate volume depends on the initial percentage
of solids in the influent. An evaporator that concentrates a 2 per-
cent solids material to 30 percent solution removes over 90 percent
of the initial water while evaporating a 2 percent solution to only
15 percent removes over 80 percent of the water. High concentration
frequently requires specialized equipment depending on the physical
characteristics of the liquid. Physical characteristics (156) of
evaporator liquor that influence equipment design, sizing, and operation
include viscosity, undissolved solids, temperature sensitivity, and
boiling point elevation.
All plants within each subcategory studied utilize similar basic
production processes. Although there are deviations in equipment and
production procedures, these deviations do not significantly alter the
characteristics of the wastewater generated. Application of the best
technology currently available does not require major changes in existing
industrial processes for the subcategories studied. Water conservation
practices, improved housekeeping and product handling practices9 and
improved maintenance programs can be incorporated at virtually all plants
within a given subcategory.
The technology to achieve these recommended effluent limitations is
practiced within the subcategories under study or can be readily trans-
ferred from technology in other industries. The concepts are proven,
available for implementation, and applicable to the wastes in question.
However, up to two years may be required from design initiation to plant
start-up. The waste treatment techniques are also broadly applied within
many other industries. The technology required may necessitate improved
monitoring of waste discharges and of waste treatment components on the
part of some plants, and may require more extensive training of personnel
in the operation and maintenance of waste treatment facilities. However,
these procedures are currently practiced in some plants and are common
practice in many other industries.
1484
-------
DRAFT
COSTS OF APPLICATION
The costs of obtaining the effluent reductions set forth herein are
itemized 1n Section VIII. The; investment and yearly costs of the
recommended treatment alternatives are summarized in Table 516.
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The primary non-water quality environmental impact of the alternative
treatment technologies, as summarized in Section VIII, is the generation
of sludges requiring ultimate land disposal. Available technology,
however, if properly applied can assure that land disposal systems
are maintained, commensurate with soil tolerances and in such a manner
as to prevent ground water contamination.
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN APPLYING EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
The above assessment of what constitutes the Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available is predicted on the assumption of a
degree of uniformity among plants within each subcategory that does
not necessarily exist in all cases. One of the more significant var-
iations that must be taken into account in applying limitations is
availability of land for retention and/or treatment of wastewater.
While the control technologies described herein have been formulated
in most cases for minimal land requirements, individual cases of extreme
lack of land may present difficulties in applying even these technologies.
In other cases, the degree of land availability may dictate one treatment
alternative over another, or allow treatment costs to be considerably
less than those presented.
In the case of multi-product plants, an important point to consider is
that the summation of the parts may not necessarily make up the theore-
tical whole. A plant, for example, that processes products covered under
several of the subcategories covered in this document could be theore-
tically expected to meet a cumulative limitation; however, quite often
the cumulative wastewater from such a plant will exceed the calculated
quantity.
There are several subcategories in which no correlation may exist
between the final effluent and the unit of production on a short term
basis due to the batch nature of the process or to the cleanup periods.
For example, distillers (Subcategories A22, A23, and A24) may not mash
grain for periods of one to five days while fermentation, distillation,
etc., are still contributing to the waste effluent. The same case exists
for malt beverage breweries (Subcategories A16, A17, and A18) and
wineries (Subcategories A20 and A21). In such cases, it is recommended
that the plant capacity, measured on a long term basis, be utilized in
applying the effluent limitations.
1485
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 516
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS
FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES (BPCTCA)
Subcategory
(Vegetable oil
processing and
refining)
A 1
A 2
A 3
A 4
A 5
A 6
A 7
A 8
A 9
A 10
A 11
A 12
A 13
A 14
A 15
(Beverages)
A 16
A 17
A 18
A 19
A 20
A 21
A 22
A 23
A 24
A 25
A 26
A 27
A 28
A 30
C 8
C 9
C 10
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
Total
Investment
Cost
Total
Yearly
Cost
A l-II
A 2-II
A 3-1
A 4-II
A 5-IV
A 6-IV
A 7-IV
A 8-IV
A 9-IV
A 10-IV
A 11-IV
A 12-IV
A 13-111
A 14-111
A 15-111
V
V
V
IV
II
II
VI
II
II
II
IV
IV
A 28-VII
A 30-11
C 8-II
C 9-III
C 10-111
172,650
19,450
40,850
254,970
386,850
497,190
718,630
628,590
743,140
646,270
813,980
722,000
295,200
217,340
0
32,580
1,510
i5,460
49,530
91,380
116,050
164,520
140,210
171,620
146,640
191,110
166,810
70,200
44,070
1,200
3,730,960
11,377,110
1,056,780
709,240
414,130
381,640
839,260
133,720
2,644,060
14,670
210,270
264,650
393,000
358,430
181,710
319,720
625,620
1,029,500
3,107,230
440,710
176,410
116,400
52,310
221,570
28,200
698,640
153,470
47,070
61,140
109,130
97,010
78,600
109,440
220,010
1486
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 516 (CONT'D)
Subcategory
(Bakery and
Confectionery
Products)
C 1
C 2
C 3
C 7
D 1
D 2
D 3
D 5
D 6
(Pet Foods)
B 5
B 6
B 7
B 8
(Miscellaneous
and Special
Products)
A 29
A 31
A 32
A 33
A 34
A 35
A 36
B 1
B 2
B 3
B 4
B 9
C 4
C 5
C 12
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
Total
Investment
Cost
Total
Yearly
Cost
C l-III
C 2-IV
C 3-II
C 7-V
D 1-IV
D 2-IV
D 3-IV
D 5-V
D 6-V
B 5-III
B 6-IV
B 7-III
B 8-III
A 29-111
A 31-11
A 32-11
A 33-V
A 34-111
A 35-111
A 36-111
B l-III
B 2-III
B 3-III
B 4-III
B 9-II
C 4-II
C 5-II
C 12-11
$1,001,190
262,420
195,350
281,170
425,670
319,750
248,350
954,170
581,990
511,100
889,940
125,910
717,810
$389,640
69,300
52,510
101,490
116,120
101,670
82,920
227,630
144,720
125,490
398,130
34,380
194,050
143,380
264,500
157,360
2,262,380
12,800
12,710
2,315,170
606,680
239,580
804,610
297,240
481 ,600
246,090
233,760
11,540
37,280
59,290
40,610
686,240
2,400
1,560
1,032,870
169,940
63,640
251,790
54,350
130,770
48,270
32,620
22,960
1487
-------
DRAFT
Another factor to be considered is that a biological treatment system
requires a period of stabilization up to several weeks before optimum
efficiency can be expected. During this start-up period, large varia-
tions in both BOD and suspended solids concentrations can be expected
in the discharge.
Variations in the effluent may also be expected due to upsets of a
biological treatment system. The maximum daily limitations recommended
herein do not make allowance for such upsets. When upsets occur, these
parties responsible for treatment plant operation should immediately
report the occurence to the appropriate authorities, take the necessary
steps to correct the situation, and report the probable cause of the
upset.
Climatic conditions may also affect biological systems. Although the
treatment systems developed herein were done so for relatively cold
winters (the equivalent of upper New York State), decreased biological
activity can be normally expected during winter months. In extremely
cold climates (e.g., North Dakota, Alaska), added cost may be necessary
for the heating of treatment systems.
1488
-------
DRAFT
SECTION X
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1983, are
to specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the best available technology economically achievable.
The best available technology economically achievable is not based
upon an average of the best performance within an industrial category,
but is to be determined by identifying the very best control and
treatment technology employed by a specific point source within the
industrial category or subcategory, or where it is readily transferable
from one industrial process to another. A specific finding must be
made as to the availability of control measures and practices to elim-
inate the discharge of pollutants, taking into account the cost of such
elimination.
Consideration must also be given to:
1. The age of equipment and facilities involved;
2. The process employed;
3. The engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques;
4. Process change;
5. Cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting from
application of the best economically achievable technology;
6. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
In contrast to the best practicable control technology currently available
the best economically achievable technology assesses the availability in
all cases of in-process controls as well as control or additional treat-
ment techniques employed at the end of a production process.
Those plant processes and control technologies which at the pilot plant
semi-works, or other level, have demonstrated both technological perfor-
mances and economic viability at a level sufficient to reasonably justify
investing in such facilities may be considered in assessing the best
available economically achievable technology. The best available eco-
nomically achievable technology is the highest degree of control technology
that has been achieved or has been demonstrated to be capable of being
designed for plant scale operation up to and including "no discharge" of
1489
-------
DRAFT
pollutants. Although economic factors are considered in this development,
the costs for this level of control are intended to be the top-of-the-line
of current technology subject to limitations imposed by economic and
engineering feasibility. However, the best available technology economi-
cally achievable may be characterized by some technical risk with respect
to performance and with respect to certainty of costs. Therefore, the
best available technology economically achievable may necessitate some
industrially sponsored development work prior to its application.
EFFLUENT REDUCTIONS ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Based upon the information contained in Sections III through VIII of this
document, it has been determined that the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best available technology
economically achievable Is as listed in Tables 517 through 521 .
Recommendations concerning pH, temperature, floating oil and grease,
and nickel are the same as presented in Section IX.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The Best Available Technology Economically Achievable for the miscellan-
eous foods and beverage industry, as described in Section VII, is gener-
ally the equivalent of tertiary physical/chemical treatment. The recom-
mended treatment alternatives are indicated in Tables 517 through 52T .
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The engineering aspects of this level of technology are the same as
discussed in Section IX.
COSTS OF APPLICATION
The costs of obtaining the effluent reductions set forth herein are
Itemized in Section VIII. The investment and yearly costs of the recom-
mended treatment alternatives are summarized in Table 522 .
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The non-water quality environmental impact of this level of technology
is the same as that discussed in Section IX.
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN APPLYING EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
As indicated above, the technology for this level is characterized by
some technical risk with respect to performance and certainty of cost;
it is expected that development work will be necessary prior to its
application. Other factors to be considered include those discussed in
Section IX.
1490
-------
TABLE 517
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BATEA) FOR VEGETABLE -OIL PROCESSING & REFINING .
Subcategory Units
A 1 kg/kkg oilseed crushed
A 2
A 3 kg/kkg olives processed
A 4 " "
A 5 kg/kkg crude oil processed
A 6 "
A 7 " • "
A 8 "
A 9
A 10
A 11
A 12
A 13 kg/kkg finished product
A 14 " "
A 15
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
III
II
I
II
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
IV
IV
I
BOD
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.0036
0
0
0
0.021
0.035
0.076
0.051
0.073
0.048
0.076
0.060
0.030
0.0080
0
Max.
Day
0.090
0
0
0
0.052
0.087
0.19
0.13
0.18
0.12
0.19
0.15
0.075
0.020
0
SS
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.0045
0
0
0
0.017
0.030
0.063
0.051
0.073
0.056
0.087
0.072
0.037
0.0080
0
Max.
Day
0.011
0
0
0
0.043
0.075
0.16
0.13
0.18
0.14
0.22
0.18
0.092
0.020
0
O&G
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.0027
0
0
0
0.0070
0.012
0.025 ,
0.020
0.029
0.024
0.035
0.030
0.037
0.004
0
Max.
Day
0.0068
0
0
0
0.017
0.030
0.062
0.050
0.073
0.060
0.087
0.075
0.092
0.12
0
-------
TABLE 518
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BATEA) FOR BEVERAGES
-P.
10
ro
Subcategory
A 16
A 17
A 18
A 19
A 20
A 20
A 21
A 22
A 23
A 24
A 25
A 26
A 27
Units
kg/cu m beer produced
kg/kkg barley processed
kg/kkg grapes crushed
kg/cu m wine produced
kg/kkg grain mashed
n n
kg/1000 proof gal produced
kg/cu m finished product
BOD
SS
O&G
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
VI
VI
VI
V
III
III
II
VII
III
III
II
V
V
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.14
0.27
0.24
0.11
0.38
0.14
0.13
0.027
0.58
0
0.026
0.12
Max.
Day
0.35
0.67
0.60
0.27
1.1
0.14
0.32
0.062
1.55
0
0.065
0.30
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.19
0.38
.0.34
0.065
0.054
0.19
0.16
0.036
0.35
0
0.015
0.070
Max.
Max. 30-day
Day Ave.
0.48
0.95
0.85
0.16
0.16
0.56
....
0.40
0.09
0.86
0
0.037
0.17 .
Max.
Day
•
....
-------
TABLE 518 (CON'T)
S
to
Subcategory
A 28
A 30
C 8
C 9
C 10
F 1
Units
kg/cu m finished product
kg/kkg finished product
kg/kkg coffee buns
BOO
SS
O&G
Reconroended
Treatment
Alternative
XI
V
III
III
IV
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.0025
1.0
0.030
0.10
0.25
0
Max.
Day
0.0063
2.5
0.009
0.25
0.60
0
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.00050
1.0
0.030
0.10
0.25
0
Max.
Day
0.0013
2.5
0.09
0.25
0.60
0
Max.
30-day
Ave.
.._— _
0.020
0.050
0.16
0
Max
. Day
0.06
0.13
0.40
0
-------
-Ji
vo
TABLE 519
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BATEA) FOR BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS
BOD SS O&G "*
Subcategory
C 1
C 2
C 3
C 7
D 1
D 2
D 3
D 5
D 6
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
IV
V
III
VI
VI
V
V
VII
VII
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.25
0.030
0.030
0.050
0.075
6.080
0.030
0.075
0.045
Max.
Day
0.65 .
0.090
0.090
0.13
0.22
0.24
0.090
0.22
0.13
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.25
0.030
0.030
0.050
0.040
0.045
0.035
0.035
0.060
Max.
Day
0.65
0.090
0.090
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.18
Max.
30-day
Ave,
0.04
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.01
Max.
Day
0.10
0.060
0.060
0.080
0.03
NOTE: All units in terms of kg/kkg finished product.
-------
to
01
TABLE 520
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES (BATEA) FOR PET FOOD
BOD SS O&G
Subcategory
B 5
B 6
B 7
B 8
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
IV
V
IV
IV
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.09
0.26
0.0023
0,090
Max
Day
0.23
0.64
0.0060
0.23
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.09
0.26
0.0023
0.090
Max.
Day
0.23
0.64
0.0060
0.23
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.033
0.26
0.0016
0.014
Max.
Day
0.085
0.64
0.0040
0.038
NOTE: All units in terms of kg/kkg finished product.
-------
TABLE 521
c
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. GUIDELINES
(BATEA) FOR MISCELLANEOUS AND SPECIALITY PRODUCTS
BOD
Subcategory Units
A 29 kg/cu m finished product
A 31 kg/kkg finished product
A 32 "
A 33 .' "
A 34 "
A 35 "
A 36 . "
B 1
B 2
B 3
B 4 "
B 9 kg/kkg raw material
C 4
C 5 " "
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
VI
V
IV
VI
III
III
VII
IV
IV
IV
III
III
V
IV
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.020
1.1
0.11
1.6
0
0
104
0.39
0.41
0.54
1.2
0.33
0.21
0.030
Max.
Day
0.050
2.7
0.26
3.2
0
0
209
0.98
1.0
1.3
3.0
0.82
0.63
0.090
ss
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.0062
0.31
0.014
0.81
0
0
83.4
0.39
0.41
0.54
1.2
0.33
0.21
0.030
O&G
Max.
Day
0.016
0.78
0.035
1.6
0
0
167
0.98
1.0
1.3
3.0
0.82
0.63
0.090
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0.31
0.014
0
0
0.15
0.12
0.23
0.80
0.22
0.07
0.010
Max.
Day
0.62
0.028
0
0
0.37
0.29
0.57
3.0
0.54
0.21
0.030
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 522
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT AND YEARLY COSTS FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
(BATEA)
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
Subcategory
(Vegetable
Oil Processing
and Refining)
A 1 III
A 2 II
A 3 I
A 4 II
A 5 V
A 6 V
A 7 V
A 8 V
A 9 V
A 10 V
A 11 V
A 12 V
A 13 IV
A 14 IV
A 15 III
(Beverages)
A 16 VI
A 17 VI
A 18 VI
A 19 V
A 20 III
A 21 II
A 22 VII
A 23 III
A 24 III
A 25 II
A 26 V
A 27 V
A 28 XI
A 30 V
C 8 III
C 9 III
C 10 IV
Total
Investment
Cost
Total
Yearly
Cost
$
189,960
19,450
40,850
254,970
459,900
620,340
1,004,970
856,530
075,830
919,530
214,140
1,063,760
327,930
259,260
0.0
3,870,380
11,778,750
1,594,850
761,830
434,350
381,640
884,220
149,750
2,671,130
14,670
227,790
288,560
474,860
382,030
207,430
319,720
5,956,320
37,680
1,510
5,460
49,530
117,120
148,780
216,450
183,240
229,000
199,530
256,440
225,270
79,280
62,190
1,200
1,062,060
3,201,290
461,230
187,330
122,300
52,310
232,060
32,940
705,710
153,470
52,630
67,840
137,000
103,680
85,260
109,440
1,321,270
1498
-------
Subcategory Units
C 12
D 4 kg/cu m finished product
E 1-6
F 2-4
TABLE 521 (CON'T)
BOD SS QiG
Recommended
Treatment
Alternative
II
V
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0
0.040
0
0
Max.
Day
0
0.12
0
0
Max.
30-day
Ave.
0
0.020
0
0
Max.
Day
0
0.060
0
0
Max.
30-day
. Ave.
0
0
0
Max.
Day
0
0
0
vo
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 522(CONT'D)
Recommended
Treatment
Subcategory Alternative
(Bakery and
Confectionery
Products)
C 1 IV
C 2 V
C 3 III
C 7 VI
D 1 VI
D 2 V
D 3 V
D 5 VII
D 6 VII
(Pet
Foods)
B 5 IV
B 6 V
B 7 IV
B 8 IV
(Misc. and
Spec. Products)
A 29 VI
A 31 V
A 32 IV
A 33 VI
A 34 III
A 35 III
A 36 VII
B 1 IV
B 2 IV
B 3 IV
B 4 III
B 9 III
C 4 V
C 5 IV
C 12 II
D 4 V
Total
Investment
Cost
Total
Yearly
Cost
,036,100
291,510
211,550
313,890
276,080
352,020
281,420
605,250
686,580
557,310
956,910
153,030
913,950
160,180
281,050
183,100
2,308,260
12,800
12,710
2,352,740
652,580
257,830
850,820
297,240
523,790
205,920
137,640
11,540
271,660
399,420
76,970
57,310
110,570
79,650
102,230
92,150
207,990
168,720
138,950
410,850
41,450
213,510
42,240
64,180
47,270
696,940
2,400
1,560
1,041,740
183,010
69,020
265,250
54,350
140,590
39,960
22,010
22,960
92,930
1499
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
This level of technology is to be achieved by new sources. The term
"new source" is defined in the Act to mean "any source, the construc-
tion of which is commended after the publication of proposed regulations
prescribing a standard of performance." New source technology shall be
evaluated by adding to the consideration underlying the identification
of best available technology economically achievable a determination of
what higher levels of pollution control are available through the use
of improved production processes and/or treatment techniques. Thus, in
addition to considering the best in-plant and end-of-process control
technology, identified in best available technology economically achievable,
new source technology is to be based upon an analysis of how the level of
effluent may be reduced by changing the production process itself. Alter-
native processes, operating methods or other alternatives must be con-
sidered. However, the end result of the analysis will be to identify
effluent standards which reflect levels of control achievable through
the use of improved production processes (as well as control technology),
rather than prescribing a particular type of process or technology which
must be employed. A further determination which must be made for new
source technology is whether a standard permitting no discharge of pol-
lutants is practicable.
At least the following factors should be considered with respect to
production processes which are to be analyzed in assessing new source
technology:
1. The type of process employed and process changes;
2. Operating methods;
3. Batch as opposed to continuous operations;
4. Use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw materials;
5. Use of dry rather than wet processes (including substitution
of recoverable solvents for water); and
6. Recovery of pollutants as by-products.
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS FOODS AND BEVERAGES
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Based upon the information contained in Sections III through VIII of this
document, it has been determined that the degree of effluent reduction
obtainable for new sources is as follows:
1501
-------
Subcategories A 1 - 15
Subcategory A - 16
— the same as that developed in
Section IX.
-- maximum 30-day average and maximum
day^BOD and suspended solids, respectively
0.070, 0.17, 0.097, 0.24 kg/cu m beer
produced.
Subcategories A 17 - 18 —
Subcategory A 20
Subcategory A 21
Subcategory A 29
not applicable since, by definition,
there can be no new sources within
these Subcategories.
maximum 30-day average and maximum
day BOD and suspended solids, respectively:
0.23, 0.69, 0.031, and 0.093 kg/kkg grapes
crushed.
, maximum 30-day average and maximum
'day BOD and suspended solids, respectively:
0.083, 0.025, 0.11, and 0.34 kg/cu m wine
produced.
maximum 30-day average and maximum day
BOD and suspended solids, respectively:
0.012, 0.03, 0.0040, 0.010 kg/cu m
finished flavors produced.
All other Subcategories — the same as that developed in Section X.
PRETREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS
In general, wastewaters from the miscellaneous foods and beverage
industry contain no constituents that are considered to be incompatible
with a well designed and operated municipal wastewater treatment plant,
nor any constituents that would pass through such a system.
Potential problems which could occur include (1) slug loads due to wide
variations of flow and/or waste strength with time, (2) acidic or
caustic wastes, (3) excessive oil and grease concentrations, and (4) in-
adequate dilution in the municipal system for particular high strength
wastes. Each of these problems must be considered on a case by case
basis in terms of both the nature of the industrial wastewater and the
capacity of the municipal system.
The problem of slug loads can usually be alleviated by the use of flow
equalization prior to discharge. Adjustment of pH may be necessary if
the pH of the raw wastewater is below 6.0 or above 9.0, although a
given municipality may have requirements differing from this. In any
industrial operation oil and grease contamination is a possibility and,
if in-plant. measures, are inadequate to prevent its occurence ,in the plant's
effluent, facilities for oil skiriming may have to be provided.
1502
-------
DRAFT
In the case of vegetable and animal fats and oils, virtually all plants
having these constituents in their wastewaters currently provide
skimming, gravity separation, and, in some cases, dissolved air flot-
ation before discharge to municipal sewers.
Those industries which generate wastewaters with significant concentrations
of vegetable or animal fats and oils include vegetable oil processing and
refining; coffee production; bakery and confectionery production (specifically
Subcategories C 1, C 2, C 3, C 7, D 5, and D 6); Pet Food production; and
Subcategories A 31, A 32, B 1, B 2, B 3, B 4, B 9, and C 5.
In the case of extremely high strength industrial waste being discharged
to a relatively small municipal system, considerable pretreatment (even
to the extent of equivalent secondary treatment) may be necessary. A
careful accessment must be made of the dilution capacity of a municipal
system before discharging such an industrial waste to it.
Of all the industries considered herein, only ice manufacturing and olive
oil processing yielded concentrations of dissolved solids and/or chlorides
appreciably above those levels found in municipal sewage. Whether a
municipality should accept high dissolved solids or chlorides must be
decided on a case by case basis.
1503
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering,
Inc. (ESE), of Gainesville, Florida. The Project Director was
Mr. John U. Crane, P.E.
The study involved the services of four additional offices. SCS Engineers
of Long Beach, California (SCSL) was responsible for data collection, de-
finition of the industry, wastewater characterization, development of
control and treatment technology, and recommendations of guidelines for
pet food, frozen specialties, chili pepper and paprika, dehydrated soup,
and macaroni products. SCS Engineers of Reston, Virginia, (SCSR) held
similar responsibilities for coffee, bakery products, eggs, manufactured
ice, prepared sandwiches, and chicory. Environmental Associates, Inc.
(EAI) of Corvallis, Oregon, was responsible for candy and confectionery
products, chocolate products, chewing gum, vinegar, popcorn, molasses,
honey, and sweetening syrups/and provided assistance in the study of the
California wine industry. Reynolds, Smith & Hills (RSH) of Jacksonville,
Florida, provided much of the preliminary work for cost analyses. Also,
Dr. Richard H. Jones, P.E., of Gainesville provided consultation in the
development of basic treatment design assumptions. Cost analyses for
all subcategories were performed by ESE. Computerized data handling
services were provided by EAI.
The key personnel on the ESE team included Mr. David R. Swift who managed
the vegetable oil processing and refining segment of the study; Mr. James
B. Cowart who managed the malt beverage, malt, distilled spirits, wine,
and soft drink industries; Mr. Edward M. Kellar who managed much of the
field work for ESE in addition to assuming responsibilities for peanut
butter and yeast; Mr. Wayne Pandorf who was responsible for pectin,
olive oil, tea, and various other products; Mr. Daniel P. Casali who managed
ESE's in-house data handling and computerized cost analysis systems; and
Mr. Jack B. Sosebee who directed the laboratory analyses of all wastewater
samples collected for the project.
The Project Manager for SCSL was Mr. J. Curtis Schmidt, P.E., and his
principal assistant was Mr. Kenneth LaConde. The Project Manager for
SCSR was Mr. E. T. Conrad, P.E., who was assisted by Messrs. Gary L. Mitchell,
David H. Bauer, Richard W. Corvlin, and Thomas A. Wimmer. The Project
Manager for EAI was Mr. Dennis W. Taylor; Mr. Michael D. Swayne and
Mr. James M. Reiman developed and operated EAI's computerized data handling
system.
Invaluable technical direction and guidance were provided by the Effluent
Guidelines Division of EPA. Appreciation is particularly expressed to the
Project Officer, Mr. Richard V. Watkins, P.E., and to the Assistant Project
-------
DRAFT
Officers, Messrs. David Alexander and Gary Fischer, for their dedica-
tion, encouragement, and technical and administrative assistance.
Acknowledgement is also due to numerous plant managers, plant engineers,
and other industry personnel without whose cooperation and assistance
in site visits and information gathering, the project could not have
been completed.
The list of industry officials who spent considerable time in traveling
to and attending meetings throughout the country, in gathering and
providing information, and in critiquing the work as it developed; and
government officials, both federal and local, who provided assistance,
is far too long to be included in this section. But special recognition
and appreciation is due to the following:
Mr. Dwight Bergquist, Henningsen Foods, Inc.
Mr. F. M. Bloomberg, Rieel and Foods, who contributed considerable
input to the process description for soybean oil degumming.
Mr. Salvatore Cannavo, L. A. Dreyfus Company
Mr. Marion Glower, Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc.
Mr. Hugh Cook and Mr. Ted Weller, California Wine Institute.
Mr. John Eck, Fleischmann Distilling Company.
Mr. Giles S. Farmer, Anderson-Clayton Foods, who gave invaluable
assistance in preparation of the process descriptions for edible
oils.
Dr. Paul Hess, Hershey Foods.
Mr. Bernard Hurst, James B. Beam Distilling Company
Mr. Harry Korab and the members of the Effluent Control Committee,
National Soft Drink Association.
Dr. Hans Lineweaver, USDA, Western Region Research Laboratory,
Berkely, California.
Miss Jacqueline McCurdy, Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.
Mr. Paul Peters, ITT Continental Bakeries.
Dr. A. C. Rice, Taylor Wine Company, who organized a technical corn^-
mittee to represent the New York Wine Industry.
Mr. Jim Rullman, Schenley Distillers.
1506
-------
DRAFT
Dr. Edward Segel and the members of the Effluent Committee, United
States Brewers Association.
The staffs of all offices involved—secretaries, technicians, and engineers-
deserve special recognition and appreciation for an effort requiring dedica-
tion, hard work, and long hours to produce a massive amount of work in an
incredibly short period of time.
1507
-------
DRAFT
REFERENCES
1. Handbook For Monitoring Industrial Wastewater, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (August 1973).
2. Census of Manufactures, (1972) Industry Series, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, MC72(P)-20A-2, Washington,
D.C., March, 1974.
3. Egg Products, United States Department of Agriculture, Statistical
Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board, Pou 2-5 (7-74), Washington,
D.C., July 26, 1974.
4. Gorman, J., Seymour Foods, Inc., Personal Communication,(December
19, 1974).
5. Preliminary Report 1972 Census of Manufactures Industry Series,
Bread, Cake, and Related Products, United States Department
of Commerce, MC72(P)-20E-1, Washington, D.C., January 1972.
6. Gerrish, D.s Secretary, American Bakers Association, Personal Commun-
ication (September 19, 1974).
7. Bergquist, H., Chief Chemist, S. B. Thomas Baking Company, Personal
Communication;(November 26, 1974).
8. Creed, J., Executive Vice President, Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers'
Association, Personal Communication (December 26, 1974).
9. Pieper, W.E., Secretary, Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers' Associa-
tion, Personal Communication;(October 11, 1974).
10. Lees, R., Jackson, E. B., Sugar Confectionery and Chocolate Manufac-
ture, Leonard Hills Books, Aylesbury, Great Britain, 1973.
11. Soderquist, M. R., "Activated Carbon Renovation of Spent Cherry
Brine," JWPCF. 43 (8).(August, 1971).
12. Cook, M. K., "Manufacture of Chewing Gum", L. A. Drefus Company.
13. Dunning, W. 1956, "Unit Operations in a Mechanical Extractions
Mill", Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 133(10).
14. USDA Marketing Research Report 1972.
15. U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1974 Statistics.
16. Smith, A. K., "Practical Considerations in Commerical Utilization
of Oilseeds," Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 48:
(January, 1971).
1509
-------
UKMM
17. Winner, S., 1974, "The Changing Face of the Soybean Market", Soybean
Digest Blue Book, March 1974.
18. Doty, H.O., and Lawler, J. V., 1971, "Present and Potential Markets
for Safflower Oil," Fats and Oils Situation:(June. 1974).
19. Cofield, E. P., 1951, "Solvent Extraction of Oilseed," Chemical
Engineering;(Jan. 1951).
20. Brennan, P. J., 1963, "Making the Most out of Cottonseed Processing"
Chemical Engineering:(Jan. 1963).
21. Rockwell, C. R., 1971, "Dust Control". Journal of the American Oil
Chemists' Society (Jan. 1971).
22. Hutchin's, R. P., 1968, "Processing Control of Crude Oil Production
from Oilseeds," Journal of American Oil Chemists' Society (November
1968).
23. Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing Equipment, "Solvent Extraction
Equipment," Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, N. Y.
24. Markley, K.S., Soybeans and Soybean Products, Interscience, Pub.,N.Y.
25. Kingsbaker, C. L., 1970, Solvent Extraction Techniques for Soybeans
and Oilseeds: Resolventizing and Toasting", Journal of the American
Oil Chemists' Society,(October, 1970).
26. Bloomberg, F. Personal Communication (1974).
27. Food Fats and Oils. Institute of Shortening and Edible Otis, Inc,,
4th Edition, Washington, D.C., August, 1974.
28. USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service Statistics 1972, as reported
in the Soybean Digest Blue Book. American Soybean Association,
Hudson, Iowa:(March 1974).
29. 1970 Directory, The Edible OiVIndustry in the United States,
Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc., Washington, D.C.,
1970.
30. Sanders, J. H., "Processing of Food Fats - A Review", Journal of
Food Technology. 13(1). (1959).
31. 1974 Modern Brewery Age Blue Book.
32. U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1975, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
33. Skinner, C., General Manager, Barley and Malt Institute, Personal
Communication:(1974).
1510
-------
DRAFT
34. Economic Research Report by the Wine Advisory Board, 1972 -
Wine Industry Statistical Report No. 21, 22, 23, 24, January,
March, April, and August 1974.
35. Amerine, M. A., et. al.. The Technology of Wine Making, AVI
Publishing Company, Inc., 1972.
36. Boruff, C. S., Blaine, R. K., "Ind. Wastes - Grain Distillery
Feeds and Wastes," Sewage and Ind. Wastes,(Oct., 1953).
37. Hiat, "Anaerobic Degredation of Rum Distillery Waste," Masters
Thesis, Clemson University ( December, 1972).
38. 1973 Sails Survey of the Soft Drink Industry, National Soft Drink
Association.
39. Parker, M. E., Elements of Food Engineering. Volume I, Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, New York, 1952.
40. Jacobs, M. B., Synthetic Food Adjuncts, D. Van Nostrand Company
Inc., New York, 1947.
41. Annual Coffee Statistics, Pan American Coffee Bureau, New York,
New Yorkr(1972).
42. Sullivan, Richard, Secretary, National Coffee Association, Personal
Communication.(December 16, 1974).
43. Coffee Drinking in the United States, Pan American Coffee Bureau,
New York, New York, Winter.. (1974).
44. Payne, M., President, National Ice Association, Personal Communica-
tion, (September 19, 1974).
45. ASHRAE Handbook & Products Directory, 1974 Applications, American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers,
Inc., New York, N.Y. (1974).
46. Durst, J. R., Edible Oils and Fats. Food Processing Review No. 5,
Noyes Development Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1969.
47. Manley, R. B., Honey Production in the British Isles, Bradley &
Sons, L.T.D., The Crown Press, 1936.
48. Woodroof, J. G., Peanuts: Production, Processing, Products,
AVI Publishing Co., Inc., 1973.
49. U. S. Standards for Grades of Peanut Butter, Agricultural Market-
ing Service, USDA, March 23, 1962.
1511
-------
UK6fcAFT
50. Commodities Yearbook. 1974.
51. White, J., Yeast Technology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1954.
52. "The A-B's of Liquid Farming," Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Esso Oilways
(May 1957).
53. Seng, W. C., "Recovery of Fatty Materials From Edible Oil Refinery
Effluents," Environmental Protection Technology Series.
54. Becker, K. W., "Control of Pollutants from Air and Water for
the Oilseeds Industry," Blaw-Knox Chemical Plants, Inc., Report
E-2517 Rev. 2-70.
55. Francois, R., "Measures Against Water Pollution in Industries
Producing Edible Oils and Fats," Pure Applied Chemistry. 29_,
(1972).
56. "1974 Brewery Effluent Wastewater," USBA, Inc., Washington, D. C.,
(November 1974).
57. LeSeeleur, L. A., "A Perspective on Brewery Effluents," Technology
Quarterly of the Master Brewers Association of America, 8^ (1)
(January 1971).
58. Stein, J. L., et. al., "Concentration of Brewery Spent Grain
Liquor Using a Submerged Combustion Evaporator," Proceedings of
the 4th National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes (December 1973).
59. O'Rourke, J. T., Tomlinson, H. D., "Extreme Variations in Brewery
Waste Characteristics and Their Effect on Treatment," 17th Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue (1962).
60. "Biological Treatability Studies and Process Design of a Brewery
Wastewater," AWARE (October 1971).
61. Ruf, H. W., e_t. al_., "Malt House Waste Treatment Studies In
Wisconsin," Sewage Works Journal. 7., (3) (May 1935).
62. Isaac, P. G., "Malting Effluents," Effluent and Water Treatment
Journal (November 1969).
63. Simpson, J. R., "Treatment and Disposal of Effluents," Brewers'
Journal (August-September 1967).
64. Crawford, C. M., E and J Gallo Winery, Modesto California,
Personal Communication (September 1974).
65. Pearson, E. A., e_t. a\_., "Treatment and Utilization of Winery
Wastes," Proceedings of the 10th Industrial Waste Conference.
Purdue (May 1955).
1512
-------
DRWftFT
66. 702 Forms, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
67. Skofis, E., Chief Chemist, Roma Winery, Modesto, California,
Personal Communication (1974).
68. Coast Laboratories, "Progress Report to the Wine Institute,"
(November 30, 1946).
69. Schroeder, W. D., et. al., "Biological Treatment of Winery
Stillage," Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium on Food
Processing Wastes (December 1973).
70. Blaine, R. K., Van Lanen, J. M., "Application of Waste-to-
Product Ratios in the Fermentation Industries," Biotechnology
and Bioengineering. IJ/., (2) (1962).
71. Unpublished In-Plant Study, American Distilling Company.
72. Rullman, J., Staff Engineer, Schenley Distillers, Personal
Communication (1974).
73. "Converts 220,000 Gal/Day Waste Stillage Problem Into $1,500,000/yr
Feed Sales," James Beam Distillery, Food Processing (June 1973).
74. Nack, J., Production Manager, McClain, D., Chief Chemist, American
Distilling Company, Personal Conmunication (1974).
75. Stone, L, Dr., Director of Research, Hiram Walker Distillers,
Personal Communication (1974).
76. Sobolov, M., et. aj_., "Wastewater Treatment at Hiram Walker's
New Distillery," Industrial Wastes (March/April 1973).
77. Clower, M., Chief Ecology Engineer, Seagram Distillers, "Green
Company Report," Personal Communication (1974).
78. Thomas, J. L., Sanborn, D. A., "Activated Sludge - Bio-Disc
Treatment of Distillery Waste," Proceedings of the 4th National
Symposium on Food Processing Wastes (December 1973).
79. "Rum Distillery Slops Treatment by Anaerobic Contact Process,"
EPA 660/2-74-074 (1974).
80. McHaffie, A., Plant Manager, Jacquin Distillers, Personal
Communication (1974).
81. Shirley, D., Plant Manager, Florida Distillers, Personal Com-
munication (1974).
1513
-------
DRAFT
82. General Foods Corporation, Report on Raw Wastewater Character-
istics (January 1975).
83. Entenmann, C., Owner, Entenmann's Bakery, Inc., Personal Commun-
ication (December 18, 1974).
84. McKee, J., Executive Vice President, McKee Baking Company,
Personal Communication (October 21, 1974).
85. Havens and Everson, Consulting Engineers, "Waste Solvent Separa-
tion and Disposal," Gum Base Division, Beach Nut, Inc., Prelim-
inary Design and Cost Estimate, N.Y., N.Y. (October 1971).
86. Rudolfs, W., Trubnick, E. H., "Treatment of Compressed Yeast
Wastes," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 42, (4) (April 1950),
87. Koziorowski, B., Kucharski, J., Industrial Waste Disposal.
(Chapter 29, The Fermentation Industry, Section 4, Yeast Fac-
tories), Pergammon Press, N. Y., 1972.
88. Siderwicz, W., "A Waste Survey of the Egg Breaking Industry,"
Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. (1974).
89. Schultz, J., Unpublished Data (1974).
90. "Policy on Subsurface Emplacement of Fluids by Well Injection,"
A policy statement issued by the Environmental Protection Agency
with accompanying "Recommended Data Requirements for Environ-
mental Evaluation of Subsurface Emplacement of Fluids by Well
Injection," Washington, C. C. (February 1973).
91. Ukeles, R., "Growth of Pure Cultures of Marine Phytoplankton
in the Presence of Toxicants," Journal of Applied Microbiology.
JO (1962).
92. Proposed Criteria for Water Quality. Volume I, U. S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., October .1973.
93. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards. Revised, 1962,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U. S. Public
Health Service Publication 956, Washington, D. C., 1962.
94. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, N. Y., 1972.
95. Fair, G. M., et. al., Water and Wastewater Engineering, Volume II,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N. Y., 1968.
96. Clark, J. W., ert. aJL, Water Supply and Pollution Control.
International Textbook Company, Scranton, 1971.
1514
-------
DRAFT
97 . Nemerow , N . L . , Theories and Practices of Industrial Waste
Treatment, Add is on -Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mass.,
98. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., Water Quality Engineering for Practic-
ing Engineers. Barnes & Noble, Inc., N. Y., 1970.
99.. Grinkevich, A., "Pretreatment of Vegetable Oil Refinery Waste-
water," Proceedings of the 5th National Symposium on Food Proces-
sing Wastes. Environmental Protection Technology Series (June 1974).
100. Loehr, R. C. , "Statement Presented to the Illinois Pollution
Control Board," (March 5, 1971).
101. McCarty, P. L., "Report on a Laboratory Investigation to Deter-
mine the Treatability of Edible Oil Processing and Soap Manufac-
turing Wastes," (1971).
102. Adams, C. E. Eckenfelder, W. W. , "Letter From Consulting Engineer-
ing Firm, Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc."
103. Watson, K. S., et. al. , "Joint Treatment Verses Pretreatment of
Food Processing Wastes," JWPCF. 46, (8) (August 1974).
104. Foree, E. G., et. al . , "The Anaerobic Filter for the Treatment
of Brewery Press Liquor Waste," University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky (April 1972).
105. Schwartz, H. G. , Jones, R. H., "Characterization and Treatment
of Brewery Wastes," Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
Gainesville, Florida, Proceedings of the 3rd National Symposium
on Food Processing Wastes, Corvalis. Oregon (1972).
106. McWhorter, T. R. , Zielinski, R. J., "Waste Treatment for the
Pabst Brewery at Perry, Georgia," 26th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue (May 1971).
107. Windell, J. T. , et. al., "Substitution of Brewer's Single Cell
Protein into PelleteJTish Feed," Feeds tuffs (May 20, 1974).
108. Jewell, W. J., et. al . , "The Use of Pure Oxygen for the Biological
Treatment of Brewery Wastewaters," 26th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue, Extension Series 140 (May 1971).
109. Eckenfelder, W. W. Plummer, A. H., "Treatment of Brewery Waste-
water by High Rate Biological Process," 25th Industrial Waste
Conference . Purdue (1972).
1515
-------
JKAFT
110. Lewis, H. V., Bays, J. D., "Application of Ceramic Diffusers
to Pure Oxygen Treatment," Presented at the 47th Annual WCPF
Conference (October 1974).
111. Ryder, R. A., "Winery Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation,"
Presented at the 28th Annual Waste Conference, Purdue (May 1973).
112. Tofflemire, T. J., i§_t. al., "Unique Dual Lagoon System Solves
Difficult Wine Waste Treatment Problem," Water and Wastes En-
gineering .(December 1970).
113. Rice, A. C., Director of Research, The Taylor Wine Company,
Hammonsport, N. Y., Personal Communication (1974).
114. LaBella, S. A., Thaker, I. H., "Treatment of Winery Wastes by
Aerated Lagoon, Activated Sludge Process, and Rotating Biological
Contactors or "RBC", 27th Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue
(May 1972).
115. "Improved Distilling Material Production Methods as an Aid in
Still age Disposal," Coast Laboratories, Fresno, California.
116. "1947 Grape Stillage Disposal, July 21, 1948," Coast Laboratories,
Report to the Wine Institute (July 1948).
117. Vaughn, R. H., Marsh, G. L., "The Disposal of Dessert Winery
Waste," The Wine Review (November 1945).
118. Schroeder, E. D., "Pilot Scale Treatment of Wine Stillage,"
Draft for the Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
119. Tofflemire, T. J., "Survey of Methods of Treating Wine and Grape
Wastewater." American Journal Enol. Viticult.. 23, (4) (1972).
120. "Preliminary Special Report on Land Disposal of Stillage,"
Coast Laboratories, Report to the Wine Institute (Januaryl, 1947).
121. "Progress Report," Coast Laboratories (October 31, 1946).
122. "Progress Report," Coast Laboratories (November 30, 1946).
123. "Grape Stillage Disposal by Intermittent Irrigation," Coast
Laboratories, Report to the Wine Institute (June 1947).
124. York, G. K., "Land Disposal of Stillage - Analyses of Soil Core
Samples," Report to the Wine Institute, Environmental Studies
Committee (November 3, 1972).
1516
-------
DRAFT
125. York, 6. K., "Land Disposal of Wineous Stillage: III. Analyses
of Grounwater Supplies," Department of Food Science & Technology,
University of California.
126. York, G. K., "Land Disposal of Vinous Stillage: II. Analysis
of Soil Core Samples, Water and Still age," Report to the Wine
Institute Environmental Studies Committee Meeting (March 14, 1974).
127. Delker, J. S., City of Fresno "Waste Analysis for Municipal
Wineries"(1971, 1973, and 1974).
128. Stander, G. J., "Treatment of Wine Distillery Wastes by Anaerobic
Digestion," Proceeding of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue, I_I_, (3) (July 1967).
129. Chadwick, T. H., Schroeder, E. D., "Characterization and Treat-
ability of Pomace Stillage," JWPCF, 45, (9) (September 1973).
130. Jackson, C. J., "Whiskey and Industrial Alcohol Distillery Wastes,"
Institute of Sewage Purification. Part 1 (1956).
131. Ahlgren, R. M., "Engineering Study of Rum Distillery Waste Treat-
ment for EPA," Aqua-Chem, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin (July 1973).
132. Stander, G. J., "Effluents from Fermentation Industries," Parts
I, II, III, and IV, Journal of the Institute of Sewage Purifica-
tion, 3_, (4).
133. Sen, B. P., Bhaskaran, T. R., "Anaerobic Digestion of Liquid
Molasses Distillery Waste," JWPCF (October 1962).
134. Biaggi, N., "Studies of Rum Distillery Wastes in Puerto Rico,"
PhD Thesis, University of Michigan.
135. Burnett, W. E., "Rum Distillery Wastes: Laboratory Studies on
Aerobic Treatment," Water and Sewage Works (September 1973).
136. Bhaskaran, T. R., "Utilization of Materials Derived From Molasses
Distillers," Advances in Water Pollution Research. Volume 2,
Pergammon Press, London, 1965.
137. Ono, H., Fermentation Research Institute, Agency of Industrial
Science and Technology, Japan.
138. Shea, T. G., ejt. al_., "Investigation of Rum Distillery Slops
Treatment by Anaerobic Contact Process," Proceeding of the Fifth
National Sypmosium on Food Processing Wastes.
1517
-------
DRAFT
139. National Coffee Association, ad hoc Committee on Effluent Guide-
lines, Personal Communication (January 9, 1975).
140. Chalmers, R. K., "Treatment of Wastes From Food Manufacture
and Coffee Processing," Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial
Waste Conference.(2) (July 1968).
141. Russel, D., Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator, McKee Baking
Company, Personal Communication (January 28, 1975).
142. Onford, H. E., "Breaking in an Industrial Waste Treatment Plant,"
A paper presented at the Water Pollution Control Convention,
Atlanta City (March 22, 1975).
143. Eldridge, E. F.. Industrial Waste Treatment Practice, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1942.
144. Tatlock, M. W., "Treatment of Yeast Products Wastes," Proceedings
of the 3rd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue, Extension 64 (1947).
145. Buswell, A. M., "Industrial Engineering Chemistry" (1950).
146. "Complete Mix Activated Sludge Treatment of Citrus Process Wastes,"
Water Pollution Control Research Series 12060 EZY 08/71.
147. Hee, A., et. al., "A Study of Waste Treatment Alternatives For
Egg Breaking Plants," unpublished paper, Cornell University,
Ithaca, N. Y. (1974).
148. Moats, W. A., Harris, C. E., "Recovery of Egg Solids From Waste-
water From Egg Grading and Breaking Plants," Agricultural Research
Service, USDA, Beltsville, Maryland (1974).
149. Bui ley, N. R., e_t. aj_., "Biological Treatment of Egg Processing
Wastewater," Department of Agricultural Engineering, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, B. C.
150. Bailey, H. H., e£. al_., Progress Report No. 5, "Pilot Tests
of Biological Treatment Processes Using Plastic Media and Rock
Trickling Filters," unpublished data (1973).
151. Cornell University, "Egg Breaking and Processing Wastes," EPA
Demonstration Project No. S-802174 (August 1974).
152. Gillert, P., Personal Communication (1974).
153. Siderwicz, W., unpublished data and Personal Communication (1974).
154. Jewell, W. J., et. al., "Egg Breaking and Processing Waste Control
and Treatment," EPA Demonstration Project No. S-802174 (August 1974).
1518
-------
DRAFT
155. Maystre, T., Geyer, J. C., "Charges for Treating Industrial
Wastewater in Municipal Plants," JWPCF. 42, (7) (July 1970).
156. Antony, A. P., Ahlgren, R. M., "Modern Handling Methods for
Grain Effluents," Aqua-Chem, Inc., presented at the Masters
Brewers Assoc. of America (June 12, 1971).
UNCITED
VEGETABLE OIL PROCESSING AND REFINING
"Deodorizing Edible Oils," Chemical Engineering (September 1946).
"Fats and Oils," USDA Marketing Research Report (1972).
"Fatty Oil Refing Process," Chemical and Process Engineering, (May 1971).
Gillies, M. T., "Shortenings, Margarines, and Food Oils," Food Technology
Review. No. 10 (1974).
Goldsmith, R. L., et. al_., "Treatment of Soy Whey by Membrane Processes,"
Proceedings of the 3rd National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.
Hutchins, R. P., "Solvent Extraction Including Seed Pretreatment,"
Journal of American Oil Chemistry Society, 33_, (10) (October 1956).
"The Impact of Oily Materials on Activated Sludge Systems," Hydroscience,
Inc. Water Pollution Control Research Series.
"Improving Soybean Oil From Damaged Beans," Food Engineering (December
1973).
McDermott, G. N., Polkowski, L. B., "Taboos vs. Rational Approaches
to Animal and Vegetable Oils and Fats in Municipal Systems," 61st
Annual Meeting of American Oil and Chemistry Society, New Orleans, La.
(April 1970).
McNeil, K. E., et.. a].., "Effluent Treatment at Farleigh Mill," Proc.
Qd. Soc. Sugar Cane Technology - 41st Conference (1974).
"Now Castor Oil by Solvent Extraction," Editorial Staff Report, Chemical
Industries, 64 (June 1949).
Quigley, R. E., Hoffman, E. L., "Flotation of Oily Wastes," Proceedings
of the 21st Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue, 50 (2) (1966T
"Report on a Laboratory Investigation to Determine the Treatability of
Edible Oil Processing and Soap Manufacturing Wastes," Proctor & Gamble,
Perry L. McCarty, Consultant, Stanford, California (April 1971).
1519
-------
DRAFT
Riepma, S. F., The Story of Margarine. Public Affairs Press, Washington
D. C., 1970.
Sullivan, F. E., "Non-Caustic Refining of Edible Oils and Fatty Acids,"
Chemical Engineering (April 15, 1974).
Sullivan, F. E., "Refining of Oils and Fats," J. Am. Oil Chemists Society
(October, 1968).
Switzer, D. K., McDermott, 6. N., "A Case History of Conveyance of Waste-
waters From an Edible Oil Refining Plant in Municipal Sewers," Proctor
& Gamble Co. (Nov., 1973).
"Tall Oil Industry," Bulletin No. 1, Tall Oil Association, N. Y.
Wallterstein, J. S., et. al., "Recovery of Proteins from Wheat Mashes
with Suflite Waste Liquor," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 36_,
(8) (August, 1944).
Ziemba, J. V., "First Cottonseed Protein Plant Now On-Stream," Food
Engineering (November, 1973).
BEVERAGES
Agostini, A., "Utilization of By-Products of Vines and Wines," Die
Wynboer (Augustus, 1964).
Ault, R. G., "An Approach to the Problem of Brewery Effluents," Chemistry
and Industry (Jan., 1969).
Bloodgood, D. E., "Industrial Wastes - The Industrial Waste Problem, !II.
Strawboard, Petroleum and Distillery Wastes," Sewage Works Journal (July,
1947).
Boruff, C. S., "Pollution Control Measure in the Fermentation Industry,"
Chemical Engineering Progress, 55, (11) (November, 1959).
Boruff, C. S., "Waste Problems in the Fermentation Industry," Sewage
Works Journal (March, 1940).
Boruff, C. S., et. al_., "Water for Grain Alcohol Distilleries," Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, 35, (11) (November, 1943).
Boruff, C. S., "Grain Distilleries," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry,
44 (March, 1952).
"Bottling Breakthrough Beverages at 1000 to 2000 BPM," Food Engineering
(March, 1969).
1520
-------
DRAFT
Brookman, G. T., Kevin C. T., "The Effect of Wastewater from Gin and
Vodka Production at the Hartford Plant on the MDC Sewage System," TRC
Project No. 31336 (May, 1974).
Bueltman, C. G., "Bio-Oxidation of Brewery Wastes," 14th Ind. Waste Conf.,
Purdue (1959).
Burkhead, C. E., et. al_., "Biological Treatment of Distillery Waste,"
Proceedings 23rd Ind. Waste Conf.. Purdue (May 7-9, 1968).
Burkhead, C. E., et. al_., "Pollution Abatement of a Distillery Waste,"
Water and Wastes Engineering (Industrial).
Carson, C. T., "Treatment of Distillery Wastes," Water and Sewage Works
(July 1951).
Cooke, F. M., Berg, H. W., "Table Wine Processing Practices in the
San Joaquin Valley," Reprinted from American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture. 24, (4) (1973).
Davidson, A. B., Banks, J. F., "Anaerobic Treatment of Distillery
Wastes (Pi lot-PI ant Studies)," Proceedings of the 4th Industrial
Waste Conference. Purdue (1948).
Downing, G. G., Lewis, H. V., "Plant Brews Good Effluent," Water and
Wastes Engineering (November 1972).
Ducellier, G., "Recovery of Materials from the Wastewater from Wine
Distilleries by Drying the Mixture of Solid and Liquid Wastes," Water
Research, ]_, Pergammon Press, 1973.
Galeano, S. F., "Brewery and Distillery Wastes, Characteristics, and
Treatment," (November 3, 1964).
Gillies, M. T., "Soft Drink Manufacture," Food Technology Review, 8^,
(1973).
Gudger, C. M., Bailes, J. C., "The Economic Impact of: Oregon's Bottle
Bill," Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon (March 1974).
Haynes, E., et.. c»l_., "Winery Wastewater Treatment," Proceedings of the
3rd National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.
Hodgson, A. N., Johnston, J., "Industrial Wastes: The Treatment of
Winery Wastes at Gelenelg, South Australia," Sewage Works Journal,
12., (2) (March 1940).
Isaac, P. G., "Treatment and Disposal of Brewery Effluents," Brewers'
Guild Journal (September 1966).
1521
-------
DRAFT
Jackson, C. J., "Fermentation Waste Disposal in Great Britain" The
Distillers Company, LTD, London, England.
Jackson, C. J. Lines, 6. T., "Measures Against Water Pollution in
the Fermentation Industries," Pure Applied Chemistry. 29_ (1972).
Klassen, C. W., Troemper, A. P., "Wastes from a Whiskey Distillery
Sources and Characteristics," 3rd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue,
(1947).
Lines, G., "Liquid Wastes From the Fermentation Industries," Water
Pollution Control (1968).
Mermelstein, N. H., "Water Purification for Beverage Processing,"
Food Technology (February 1972).
Mondavi, R. M., Havighorst, C. R., "Winemaking Surges Ahead," Food
Engineering (February 1971).
Morgan, W. T., "Jacquin-Florida Waste Treatment Facility Pilot Plant
Operation," (November 1972).
Newton, D., et. al_., "Pilot Plant Studies for the Evaluation of
Methods of Treating Brewery Wastes," 16th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue (1961).
Oliver, J. H., "The Disposal of Malting and Brewery Effluents," Brewers'
Guild Journal. 47, (556) (February 1961).
Trearchis, G. P., "Modern Brewery Insturmentation," Brewers' Guild
Journal. 47, (556) (February 1961).
Paulette, R. G., et. al., "A Pollution Abatement Program for Distillery
Wastes," JWPCF. 42, (71 (July 1970).
Porges, R., Struzeski, E. J., "Waste From the Soft Drink Bottling
Industry," JWPCF, 33, (2) (February 1961).
Rao, B. S., "A Low Cost Waste Treatment Method for the Disposal of
Distillery Waste (Spent Wash)," Water Research. 6_, Pergamon Press, 1972.
"A Report on Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks, SIC 2086, and Flavoring
Extracts and Syrups, SIC 2087," Associated Water and Air Research
Engineers, Inc. (August 1971).
"Report on Investigation of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal at the
Paul Masson Winery, Soledad, Califronia," Kennedy Engineers, Inc.
(November 1974).
1522
-------
"Reuse, Recovery, Lower Pollution From Brewery," Environmental Science
and Technology. £ (June 1972).
Ridgway, J. W., et. a].., "Progress on the Spary Drying of Distillers'
Solubles," 3rd Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue (1947).
Shaw, P. A., "Pollution of the Mokelumne River by Winery Wastes,"
Sewage Works Journal. j), (4) (July 1973).
Smith, A. J., "Waste Treatment in The Liquor Distilling Industry,"
National Distillers and Chemical Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio.
"Stainless Steel Modernizes Winemaking," Food Engineering (January 1970),
Stokes, R. D., "An Evaluation of Current Practice in The Treatment
of Winery Wastes," University of New South Wales, Thesis (February 1967),
Trauberman, L., "Schlitz Builds Pacesetting Brewery," Food Engineering
(September 1972).
Vaughn, R. H, Marsh, 6. L., "Disposal of California Winery Waste,"
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 45 (December 1953).
Von Lossberg, e_t. al_., "Brewery Wastes and Treatment," 26th Industrial
Waste Conference, Extension Series 140 (May 1971).
Wagner, P., "Wines, Grape Vines, and Climate," American Hines and
Winemaking, Alfred A. Knopp, 1956.
Wallach, A., Wolman, A., "Industrial Wastes - Treatment of Distillery
Wastes," Sewage Works Journal, J4., (2) (March 1942).
"Winery Innovates Waste Treatment," Food Engineering (June 1972).
Woodley, R. A., "Spray Irrigation of Fermentation Wastes," Water and
Wastes Engineering, 6_, (3) (March 1969).
MISCELLANEOUS AND SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
Asquew, S., McCormick and Company, Inc., Personal Communication
(January 1975).
Barma, B., Kalamazoo Spice Extraction Company, Personal Communication
(December 6, 1974).
Blanchard, D. B., A. C. Legg Packing Company, Inc., Personal Commun-
ication (December 1974).
Cerosky, R. F., General Foods Corporation, Kalumet Baking Powder,
Personal Communication (December 16, 1974).
Frey, C. N., "History and Development of the Modern Yeast Industry,"
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 22, (11) (November 1930).
1523
-------
DRAFT
Goldstein, E., Cumberland Manufacturing Company, Personal Communication
(December 9, 1974).
Janson, A., French Foods, Inc., Personal Communication (December 1974).
Kayser, W. C., Hulman and Company Manufacturers, Clabber Girl Baking
Powder, Personal Communication (December 27, 1974).
Krause, H., Baltimore Spice Company, Personal Communication (December
1974).
"The Manufacture of Dried Food Yeast," Anheuser-Busch, Inc., St. Louis,
Mo. (October 1951).
Masincup, R., Plant Manager, Virginia Egg Producers, Inc., Personal
Communication (December 5, 1974).
Miller, H. K., "Baking Powders," Florida Agricultural Esp. Station,
Bulletin No. 52 (February 1900).
Padula, A., R. C. Bigelow, Inc., Personal Communication (December 12,
1974).
"Peaunts - Culture and Uses," American Peanut Research Education Assoc.,
Inc. (1973).
Regos, L. C., Astor Products, Inc. Personal Communication (December 6,
(1974).
Reichman, R., Farmer Brothers, Inc., Personal Communcation (December 6,
(1974).
Rhee, K. C., et. a\_.t "Recovers Protein From Peanuts," Food Engineering,
(May 1973).
Schilling, A., Lawry's Foods, Inc., Personal Communication (December 4,
1974).
Tone, T., Tone Brothers, Inc., Personal Communication (December 4, 1974).
Wysocki, G., "Recovers Salable Products from Waste Yeast," Food
Engineering (October 1972).
Zimmerman, D., Watkins Products, Inc., Personal Communication (December
6, 1974).
GENERAL
Anderson, D., "Developments in Effluent Treatment in The Food Industry,"
Water and Sewage Works. 117, (7) (July/August 1970).
1524
-------
DRAFT
Beck, E. C., Bt. al_., "Electrocoagulation Clarifies Food Wastewater,"
Food Technology (February 1974).
Bendixen, T. W., et. al., "Cannery Waste Treatment by Spray Irrigation-
Runoff," JWPCF. 41_, (IT (March 1969).
Berg, E. L., Brunner, C. A., "Pressure Filtration of Secondary Treat-
ment Plant Effluent," Water and Wastes Engineering (October 1969).
Berthouex, P. M., Polkowski, L. B., "Optimum Waste Treatment Plant
Design Under Uncertainty," JWPCF. 42, (9) (September 1970).
Bevan, D., "Disposal of Sugar Mill Wastes," Proceeding Qd. Soc. Sugar
Cane Technological Conference 36 (1969).
Bevan, D., "Recycling - or Reclamation?" Proceeding Qd. Soc. Sugar
Cane Tech. Conference 40 (1973).
Boyle, W. C., "Lagoons and Oxidation Ponds," JWPCF. 43_ (June 1971).
Chipperfield, P. J., "Performance of Plastic Filter Media in Industrial
and Domestic Waste Treatment," JWPCF. 39, (11) (November 1967).
Chipperfield, P. J., et. al_., "Multiple-Stage, Plastic-Media Treatment
Plant," JWPCF. 44, (10)" (1972).
Cook, H., "Statement on the Proposed Policy for Establishment of
Waste Discharge Requirements Within the Central Valley Region,"
Wine Institute (Novemer 1970).
Gulp, R. L., Roderick, R. E., "The Lake Tahoe Water Reclamation Plant,"
JWPCF. 38, (2) (February 1966).
Cupit, J. V., "Economic Aspects of Sewage Works Design," Water Pollution
Control. 68, (2) (1969).
Eckenfelder, W. W., Fr., Ford, D. L., "Economics of Wastewater Treatment,"
Chemical Engineering (August 25, 1969).
Eliassen, R., Dr., Tchobanoglous, 6., Dr., "Advanced Treatment Processes,"
Chemical Engineering (October 14, 1968).
Evans, D. R., Wilson, J. C., "Capital and Operating Costs - AWT,"
JWPCF, 44, (1) (January 1972).
Eymann, R. H., "Micro-Filter Membrane Can Be Backwashed," Food Engineer-
ing (December 1971).
"Pretreatment of Discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works," Federal
Guidelines, EPA, Office of Water Programs Operations, Washington, D. C.
1525
-------
DRAFT
Glide, L. C., "Measures Taken Against Water Pollution In the Food
Processing Industry," PAC 29/1-G.
Graham, R. P., "Process Modification of Avoil Pollution," Western
Regional Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service (9/9/74).
Griffiths, J., "The Control and Treatment of Trade Effluents," Water
Pollution Control (1968).
Kalinske, A. A., "Enhancement of Biological Oxidation of Organic
Wastes Using Activated Carbon in Microbial Suspensions," Water and
Sewage Works (June 1972).
Kraus, L. S., "Plant Operation - Sludge Digestion at Peoria, Illinois,"
Sewage Works Journal. 5_, (4) (July 1933).
Lamp, G. E.,Jr., "Package Treatment Plant Prices," JWPCF. 46, (11)
(November 1974).
Lawler, F. K. Wright, R. G., "All-Out for Process Automation," Food
Engineering (November 1973).
Levin, G. V., et. al_., "Pilot-Plant Tests of a Phosphate Removal Process,"
JWPCF. 44, (I0l~(October 1972).
Litchfield, J. H., "Industrial Wastes," JWPCF. 45, (6) (June 1973).
Logan, J. A., et. ^1_., "An Analysis of the Economics of Wastewater
Treatment," JWPCF. 34, (9) (September 1962).
McBeath, B. C., Eliassen, R., "Sensitivity Analysis of Activated
Sludge Economics," Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE (April 1966).
McGauhey, P. H., Krone, R. B., "Soil Mantle as a Wastewater Treatment
System," SERL Report No. 67-11, University of California (December 1967).
Minturn, R. E., "Advanced Techniques for Aqueous Processing and Pollution
Abatement," ORNL-NSF-EP-72 (March 1974).
Paladino, W. C., Jr., "System Engineering Assures Quality at Low Cost,"
Food Engineering (August 1972).
"Pollution Report." Food Engineering (June 1973).
Porges, R., Mackenthun, K. M., "Waste Stabilization Ponds: Use, Function,
and Biota," Biotechnology and Bioengineering. V., (4) (1963).
"Study of the Effectiveness and Impact of the Oregon Minimum Deposit Law,"
Applied Decisions Systems (October 1974).
1526
-------
DRAFT
Rainbow, C. S. , Dr., "Industrial Wastewater Reclamation," Water and
Sewage Works (November 29, 1968).
Rizzo, J. L., Schade, R. E., "Secondary Treatment with Granular Activated
Carbon," Mater and Sewage Works (August 1969).
Rodgers, C. H. , "Multi-Stage Evaporative Cooler," Chemical Engineering,
(October 1948).
Rowan, P. P., et. al., "Estimating Sewage Treatment Plant Operation and
Maintenance Costs.^JWPCF, 33, (2) (February 1961).
Rowse, J. A., Rowse, S. B. , "Advances Fruit-Waste Treatment," Food
Engineering (July 1970).
Seidler, R. J., "Continuous Aerobic Sanitation for Treatment of Food
Processing Wastes and Production of Recoverable Protein," Project No.
C6519.9 Submitted to CHzM (December 22, 1971).
Shah, K. L., Reid, G. W. , "Techniques for Estimating Construction Costs
of Waste Treatment Plants," JWPCF, 42, (5) (May 1970).
Smith, R. , "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of Wastewater,"
JWPCF. 40, (9) (September 1968).
Swanson, C. L., "New Wastewater Treatment Processes," Civil Engineering,
ASCE (September 1971).
Talley, W. J. , "Cuts Waste Disposal Costs Centrifugal Wastewater Con-
centrator," Food Engineering (April 1973).
Thomas, D. G. , "Engineering Developemt of Hyperfiltration with Dynamic
Membranes," Part IV (April 1974).
Uridil, J. E., PhD, "Pollution and Industry," (February 13, 1970).
Wiley, H. W. , "Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Convention of
the Assoc. of Official Agricultural Chemists," USDA Bulletin No. 99.
Williams, R. T. , "Classifying Industrial Wastewater Emissions," Water
And Sewage Works (July 1974).
Willoughby, E., Patton, V. D., "Design of A Modern Meat-Packing Waste
Treatment Plant," JWPCF, 40, (1) (January 1968).
Zang, J. A., e_t. aJL , "Electrodialysis in Food Processing," Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series 69. (1962)
"Water Quality Criteria 1972," Natl. Academy of Sciences and Natl.
Academy of Engineers for the EPA, Washington, D. C. , (U.S. Government
Printing Office, Stock No. 5501-00520) (1972).
1527
-------
JRAFT
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY
Absorption - The taking up of one substance into the body of another.
Acidulation - An edible oil refining method whereby water soluble
soaps or soapstqck is treated with sulfuric acid to yield free fatty
acid derivatives.
Activated Carbon - Carbon particles usually obtained by carboniza-
tion of cellulosic material in the absence of air and possessing
a high adsorptive capacity.
Activated Carbon Process - The removal of pollutants from a water
or wastewater by the use of the adsorptive capacity of active carbon.
Activated Sludge - Sludge floe produced in raw or settled wastewater
by the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other organisms in the presence
of dissolved oxygen and accumulated in sufficient concentration by
returning floe previously formed.
Activated Sludge Process - A biological wastewater treatment process
in which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated
and aerated. The sludge is subsequently separated from the treated
wastewater (mixed liquor) by sedimentation and wasted or returned
to the process as needed.
Active Dry Yeast - A leavening agent containing 8 percent moisture
used by small bakeries, blenders of ready-to-bake cake mixes, and
repackagers.
Adsorption - The adherence of a gas, liquid, or dissolved material
on the surface of a material.
Aerated Lagoon - A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond
in which mechanical or diffused-air aeration is used to supplement
the oxygen supply.
Aerobic - A condition in which free, elemental oxygen is present.
A1bumin - The white of an egg.
Aldehyde - (Webster) - Any of various highly reactive compounds
typefied by acetaldehyde and characterized by the group CHO.
Alkalinity - Alkalinity is a measure of the capacity of water to
neutralize an acid.
1529
-------
DRAFT
Ammoniator- Apparatus for applying ammonia or ammonium compounds to
water.
Anaerobic - A condition in which free, elemental oxygen is absent.
Anti-micotic - An agent that inhibits mold growth.
Anti-mycotic
Backwashing - The operation of cleaning a filter by reversing the
flow of liquid through it and washing out matter previously captured
in it.
Backset - Screened or "thin" still age that is returned from the
base of the whiskey separating column to the fermenter, as used in
the distilled spirits industry.
Bakers Compressed Yeast - A leavening agent containing approximately
70 percent moisture and used by large bakeries.
Bar Rack - A screen composed of parallel bars, either vertical or
inclined, placed in a waterway to catch debris.
Barometric Condenser - See Condenser, Barometric.
Barometric Leg - A long vertical pipe through which spent condenser
water leaves the condenser. Serves as a source of vacuum.
Barometric Leg Mater - Condenser cooling water.
Barrel - AS.used in the Malt Beverage Industry, a barrel contains
31 gallons.
Basin - A natural or artificially created space or structure which
has a shape and character of confining material that enables it
to hold water.
Bee's Wings - Small particles removed form the corn kernel edges,
after separation from the cob.
Benthic Organisms - See benthos .
Benthos - Aquatic bottom - dwelling organisms.
Biochemical - Pertaining to chemical change resulting from biological
action.
Bio-degrade - To biologically reduct the complexity of a chemical
compound or substance by splitting off one or more groups or large
component parts; decompose.
Biodegradability - The destruction or mineralization of either natural
or synthetic organic materials by microorganisms.
1530
-------
DRAFT
Biological Filter - A bed of stone or other medium through which
wastewater flows or trickles that depends on biological action for
its effectiveness.
Biological Wastewater Treatment - Forms of wastewater treatment in
which bacterial or biochemical action is intensified to stabilize,
oxidize, and nitrify the unstable organic matter present. Intermit-
tent sand filter, contact beds, trickling filters, and activated
sludge processes are examples.
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand is a semiquantitative measure of
biological decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It
is determined by measuring the oxygen required by microorganisms
to oxidize the contaminants of a water sample under standard labojp*
atory conditions. The standard conditions include incubation fot-
five days at 20°C.
BOD Load - The BOD content, usually expressed in mass or weight
per unit time, of wastewater.
Boiler Slowdown - See blowdown.
Biological Oxidation - The process whereby living organisms convert
organic matter into a more stable or mineral form.
Bleaching - An edible oil refining process in which adsorbent materials
such as Fuller's or diatomaceous earth are used to treat edible
oils for color removal.
Blowdown - The water discharged from a boiler or cooling tower
to dispose of accumulated salts.
Boiler Blowdown - Discharge from a boiler system designed to prevent
a buildup of dissolved solids.
Boiler Feedwater - Water used to generate steam in a boiler. This
water is usually condensate, except during boiler startup, when
treated fresh water is normally used.
Bouillon - Evaporated seasoned meat extract.
Bowl Cake - A term used to describe natural gum base material which
has been remelted and screened, prior to manufacturing of chewing
gum.
Brandy - A distillate of wine produced at 189° or less proof.
(a) Neutral Brandy - is that produced at 171° to 189° proof.
(b) Beverage Brandy - is that distilled at 170° or less proof,
usually 165° to 169°.
1531
-------
DRAFT
Brine - Concentrated salt solution remaining after removal of distilled
product.
BJJJ - Quantity of heat required to raise one pound of water one
degree Fahrenheit. Abbreviation for Britain Thermal Unit.
Bulking Sludge - An activated sludge that settles poorly because
of a floe of low density.
Bushel - The weight of grain contained in a bushel varies by industry
as follows:
(a) Barley = 22 kg (48 Ib)
(b) Malt = 15 kg (34 Ib)
(c) Distillers Grain = 25 kg (56 Ib)
Cannery Olive Pits - Pits removed from olives which have been prepared
for canning.
Caustic Refinery - A refinery method whereby edible fats or oils
are treated by caustic soda to purify and remove free fatty acids,
phosphatides and prote'inaceous substances by converting them to
water soluble soaps or "foots" called soapstock.
Capital Costs - Costs which result in the acquisition of, or the
addition to, fixed assets.
Checks - Shallow ponds utilized for the evaporation and percolation
of wine still age by the method of intermittent irrigation.
Clarification - Removing undissolved materials from a liquid by
settling, filtration, or flotation.
Clarifier - A unit of which the primary purpose is to reducfc the
amount of suspended matter in a liquid.
Coagulation - In water and wastewater treatment, the destabilization
and initial aggregation of colloidal and finely divided suspended
matter by the addition of a floe-forming chemical or by biological
processes.
COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand. Its determination provides a measure
of the oxygen demand equivalent to that portion of matter in a sample
which is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.
Comminute - To reduce to minute particles or fine powder; to breakup,
chip, or grind; to pulverize.
Compensation Point - As commonly used, the compensation point in
water refers to that intensity of light which is such that photosyn-
thetic oxygen production during daylight hours will be sufficient
to balance the oxygen consumption during the whole 24-hour period.
1532
-------
DRAFT
Composite Sample - A combination of samples taken at selected intervals
to minimize the effect of the variability of individual samples.
Individual samples are proportional to the flow at time of sampling.
Concentration - The amount of a given substance in a unit volume. For
wastewater, normally expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/1).
Condensate - Water resulting from the condensation of vapor, as in
an evaporator.
Condenser - A heap exchange device used for condensation.
Barometric: Condenser in which the cooling water and the vapors
are in physical contact; the condensate is mixed
in the cooling water.
Surface: Condenser in which heat is transferred through a
barrier that separates the cooling water and the
vapor. The condensate can be recovered separately.
Condenser Water - Water used for cooling in a condenser.
Congeners - The flavor constituents in beverage spirits.
Conditioner - Oilseeds are prepared for extraction by treating the
oilseeds in a vertical stack steam cooker , known as the bean or
seed "conditioner".
Cooling Tower Slowdown - See Slowdown.
Decanting - Separation of liquid from solids by drawing off the upper
layer after the heavier material has settled.
Degumming - A process whereby phosphatides are removed and recovered
from soybean oil.
Delinting - In the preparation of cottonseed for oil extraction,
cotton fiber is removed from the seeds in two steps, first cut and
second cut. The fiber is then sold to cotton felt or cellulose
manufacturers. The motes, or remaining fibers, are sold for their
cotton content.
Deodorization - The Treatment of fats and oils by steam distillation
for the removal of trace constituents that produce undesirable flavors
or odors.
Diatomaceous Earth - A viable earthy deposit composed of nearly pure
silica and consisting essentially of the shells of the microscopic
plants called diatoms. Diatomaceous earth is utilized as a filter
media or filter aid in the canning of food and beverage processing
industries.
Digestion - See Sludge Digestion.
1533
-------
DRAFT
Dissolved Solids - See Solids.
Distillate - Condensed vapors from the solution which form the product
of distilling.
Distilling Material - Wine without sugar used in the production of
wine spirits by distillation. Pomace, lees, filterwash, and unmarket-
able special natural wine are all sources of distilling material.
Distillation - A process of evaporation and recondensation used for
separating liquids into various fractions according to their boiling
points or boiling ranges.
P.O. - Dissolved Oxygen is a measure of the amount of free oxygen
in a water sample. It is dependent on the physical, chemical, and
biochemical activities of the water sample'.
Drain Screw - A trough-like screw conveyor with orifices along the
bottom of the trough to allow liquid to drain from the conveyed solid
mass.
Dry Cleaning - Cleaning without the use of water.
"Effect" - In systems where evaporators are operated in series of
several units, each evaporator is known as an effect.
Electrodialysis - Process for removing ionized salts from water
through the use of ion-selective ion-exchange membranes.
Edible Peanuts - Those genera in high quality peanuts grown for use
in such products as peanut butter, candy, salter roasted nuts, or
other edible products.
Emulsifier - A surface-active agent for promoting formation and
stabilization of a mixture of two incompletely misct'ble liquids.
Enrobe - Coating of the nougat or base bar with some type of cover-
ing, generally chocolate.
Enrobe - Cookie and snack cake bakers term for completely covering
an item with a coating or icing.
Entrainment - The entrapment of liquid droplets containing contami-
nants in the water vapor produced by evaporation.
Equalization Basin - A holding basin in which variations in flow and
composition of a liquid are averaged. Such basins are used to provide
a flow of reasonably uniform volume and composition to a treatment
unit.
Essential Oils - Liquids which occur naturally in many types of plants
or which may be reproduced by a combination of substances in the plant
upon reaction with one another in the presence of water.
1534
-------
DRAFT
Ester - An often fragrant compound formed by the reaction between
an organic add and an organic solvent usually with elimination
of water.
Evaporator - A closed vessel heated by steam and placed under a
vacuum. The basic principle is that syrup enters the evaporator at
a temperature higher than its boiling point under the reduced pressure,
or is heated to that temperature. The result is flash evaporation
of a portion of the liquid
Expand - To increase in size; to enlarge by opening out or spreading.
Extrude - To shape by forcing through a specially designed opening
often after a previous heating of the material or of the opening
or of both.
Extrusion - A process whereby a material is forced through a small
diameter opening into a desired shape.
FAC Color - Method Cc-13a-43, Fat Analysis Committee of the Americal
Oil Chemists Society, for color measurement of oil samples.
Feed Wort - A mixture of cane and beet molasses that is diluted with
water, clarified, sterilized, and pH adjusted, and used to provide
carbon, sugar, and other nutrients necessary for yeast growth.
Fermentation - The production of alcohol and carbon dioxide from
fermentable carbohydrates by the action of yeast.
Filter- A device or structure for removing solid or colloidal matter
from a liquid. The filtering medium consists of a granular material,
finely woven cloth, unglazed porcelain, or specially prepared paper.
Filter Press - In the past the most common type of filter used to
separate solids from sludge. It consists of a simple and efficient
plate and frame filter.
Fining - Cleaning process to clear a liquid of suspended matter.
Fines - Small peanut particles and other foreign material removed
from peanut kernels during roasting , blanching, and grinding of
shelled peanuts for use in peanut butter.
Finished Specific Flavors - Flavors formed by the precision compound-
ing or blending of flavoring extracts, acids, water, sugar, coloring
agents and other flavoring ingredients to specified concentration
and proportions.
Fixed Beds - A filter or adsorption bed where the entire media is
exhausted before any of the media is cleaned.
1535
-------
DRAFT
Flavor Change - A change in the type of product packaged in a soft
drink bottling or canning plant. Such a change necessitates cleaning
of all equipment associated wiht the previous product.
Flocculant - A substance that induces or promotes fine particles in
a colloidal suspension to aggregate into small lumps, which are more
easily removed.
Flotation - The raising of suspended matter to the surface of the
liquid in a tank as scum - by aeration, the evolution of gas, chemi-
cals, electrolysis, heat, or bacterial decomposition - and the sub-
sequent removal of the scum by skimming.
FOG - Fats, Oil, and Grease
Fondant - A soft, creamy confection.
Foots - See Caustic Refining
Frappe - Whipped egg albumen which has been mixed wiht sugar and
glucose syrup.
Fusel Oil - An inclusive term for heavier, pungent-tasting alcohols,
principally amyl and butyl alcohols.
Germicidal Treatment - Any treatment involving killing of micro-
organisms through the use of disinfecting chemicals.
GPP - Gallons per day.
GPM - Gallons per minute.
Heads - A distillate containing a high percentage of low-boiling
components such as aldehydes.
High Wines - Beverage spirit distillates which have undergone complete
distillation.
Homogenization - The blending of dissimilar substances into a smooth
consistency.
Hops - The dried, conelike fruit which is boiled with wort to impart
additional flavor and aroma to beer.
Humectant - A substance that promotes retention of moisture (as
glycol, sorbitol).
Hydrogenation - An edible oil refining process in which hydrogen,
with the aid of a nickel catalyst, is added directly to the unsaturated
carbon chain of a fatty acid to 1) increase the stability of the
fat to oxidative rancidity, 2) and to produce a semi-solid "plastic"
quality for use in certain foods.
1536
-------
DRAFT
Hydro!ization - The addition of HO to a molecule.
Hygroscopic - Tending to absorb moisture from the atmosphere.
Impoundment - A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space which is
used for storage of wastewater.
Industrial Wastes - The liquid wastes from industrial processes, as
distinct from sanitary wastes.
Industrial Wastewater - Wastewater in which industrial wastes pre-
dominate.
Inedible Peanuts - Surplus or peanuts too low in quality for food
use commonly crushed for oil and meal.
Ion Exchange - A chemical process in which ions from different
mol-ecules are exchanged.
Ion Exchange Resins - Resins consisting of three-dimensional hydro-
carbon networks to which are attached ionizable groups.
Ketone - (Webster) - An organic compound with a carbonyl group
attached to two carbon atoms.
Kitchen - Cooking and mixing area in a confectionary plant.
Knead - To work a product into a homogeneous malleable mass by
pressing, squeezing, etc.
Kraus Process - A modification of the activated sludqe process in
which aerobically conditioned supernatant liquor from anaerobic
digesters is added to activated sludge aeration tanks to improve
the settling characteristics of the sludge and to add an oxygen
resource in the form of nitrates.
Lactating - Secreting milR.
Lagoon - A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in
which aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
Land Spreading - The disposal of wastewater on land to achieve
degradation by soil bacteria.
Lautering - Separation of soluble materials from spent grains.
LC50 - Median lethal dose concentration; the concejntration of a test
material that causes death to 50 percent of a population within a
given time period.
1537
-------
DRAFT
Lecithin - A natural component of crude soybean oil containing a
complex mixture of phosphatidyl ethanolamine, phosphotidyl serine,
phosphotidyl inositol, and other associated substances.
Lees - The yeast, pulp, and tartarate sediment resulting from fermen-
tation and finishing operations in the wine industry.
Low Grade Olive Oil- That olive oil which is generally obtained by
subsequent (other than first pressing) pressing of whole ripe olives
or which does not meet the requirements of taste, odor and free
fatty acid content as determined for virgin otl.
Malting - The germination of barley to develop enzymes,
Mashtun - Vessel in which the conversion of grain starches into
maltose sugar takes place.
Mashing- The process involving cooking, gelatinization of starch,
and conversion, changing starch into grain sugar.
Mastication - To reduce to a pulp by crushing or kneading.
Masticator - A machine which by the use of rotating blades thoroughly
mixes ingredients until they are well blended.
Mesophyllic micro-organisms - Those microorganisms growing or thriv-
ing best in an intermediate temperature environment (typically 15-35cC)
Metabolism - The sum of the processes concerned in the building
up of protoplasm and its distruction incidental to life; the chemical
changes in living cells by which energy is provided for the vital
processes and activities and new material is assimilated to repair
the waste.
MGD - Million gallons per day.
mg/1 - Milligrams per liter (equals parts per million (ppm) when
the specific gravity is unity).
Miscella - In the solvent extraction of oilseeds, the oil-hexane
mixture is refered to as the miscella.
Mixed Liquor - A mixture of activated sludge and organic matter under-
going activated sludge treatment in the aeration tank.
Mixed Media Filtration - A combination of different materials through
which a wastewater or other liquid is passed for the purpose of
' treatment, or conditioning.
ml/l-.MWinters per liter.
l_ - Machine which is use
Fes into desired shapes.
1538
Mogul - Machine which is used in the candy industry to mold and set
candie
-------
DRAFT
Moisture - Loss in weight due to drying under specified conditions,
expressed as percentage of total weight.
Moisture Content - The quantity of water present in a sludge expressed
in percentage of net weight.
Molasses - A dark-colored syrup containing sugar produced as a by-
product in cane and beet sugar processing and in the production of
citrus concentrates.
Multiple Effect Evaporation - The operation of evaporators in a
series.
Must - The juice, skin, and seeds from crushed grapes.
Municipal Sewage - The spent water of a community. See wastewater.
Natural Flavoring Extract - A solution in ethyl alcohol of proper
strength of the sapid and odorous principles derived from an aromatic
plant, parts of the plant, or essential oil from the plant, with or
without coloring matter, conforming in name to the plant used in its
preparation.
Net BOD - The amount of BOD added by a process; the difference be-
tween the BOD load of a plant's discharge and its intake.
Non-contact Wastewaters - Those wastewaters such as spent cooling
water which are independent of the manufacturing process and contain
no pollutants attributable to the process.
Non-dairy Coffee Creamer - A vegetable oil blend used as a dairy
product substitute.
Nougat - Center of candy bar, also termed "base bar."
Nutrients - The nutrients in contaminated water are routinely analyzed
to characterize the food available for micro-organisms to promote
organic decomposition. They are:
Ammonia Nitrogen (NHj, mg/1 as N
KJeldahl Nitrogen (ON?, mg/1 as N
Nitrate Nitrogen (NO ). mg/1 as N
Total Phosphate (TP)
-------
DRAFT
Peanut Butter - A cohesive, comminuted food product prepared from
clean, sound, shelled peanuts by grinding or milling properly roasted,
mature peanut kernels from which the seed coats have been removed
and to which salt is added as a seasoning agent.
Pectin - A water soluble substance contained in the peel of citrus
fruits which binds adjacent cell walls in plant tissues and yields
a gel which is used in the preparation of fruit jellies, and to some
extent in the pharmaceutical industry.
jM - pH is a measure of the negative log of hydrogen Ion concentration.
Pharmaceutical Dry Yeast - A form of yeast used by the pharmaceutical
industry as a protein and vitamin dietary supplement.
Plate and Frame Filter - A filtering device consisting of a "screen"
fastened inside a metal frame.
Plasticiser - a) Various ingredients which are added to chewing
gum bases to achieve a desired softness.
b) Agents such as vegetable oils, food emulsifiers,
or even shaved ice bended into dewatered yeast to improve extrud-
ability and ease of packaging.
Polluted Wastewaters - Those wastewaters containing measurable
quantities of substances that are judged to be detrimental to re-
ceiving waters and that are attributable to the process.
Polyelectrolytes - A coagulent aid consisting of long chained or-
ganic molecules.
Pomace - The skin, pulp, and seed solids present after separation
from a liquid such as juice or oil.
Post-Mix - Bulk fountain syrup prepared at the point of consumption
from a stainless steel pressurized cannister.
Pre-Mix - Bulk finished beverage ready to be dispensed from a stain-
less steel pressurized cannister.
Precoat Filter- A type of filter in which the media is applied to
an existing surface prior to filtration.
Preliminary Filter - A filter used in a water treatment plant for the
partial removal of turbidity before final filtration.
Proof - Alcoholic Content of a liquid at 16°C (60°F), stated as twice
the percentage of alcohol by volume (United States aefinition).
Proof Gallon - A standard U. S. gallon containing 50 percent alcohol
by volume.
1540
-------
DRAFT
Racking - The decanting of liquid from settled residues, as used
in the wine and malt beverage industries.
Raw Wastewater - Wastewater prior to treatment.
Returned Sludge - Settled activated sludge returned to mix with
incoming wastewater.
Retort - A vessel in which food substances are subjected to heat,
usually under pressure.
Ridge and Furrow Irrigation - A method of irrigation by which water
is allowed to flow along the surface of fields.
Rotary Vacuum Filter - A rotating drum filter which utilizes suction
to separate solids from the sludge produced by clarification.
Roughing Filter - (1) A wastewater filter of relatively coarse
material operated at a high rate to afford preliminary treatment
(2) For water treatment, see preliminary filter.
Sanitary Sewage, Sanitary Wastewater- Liquid wastes from residences
or commercial establishments, as distingished from industrial wastes.
Schn'eckens - An older method of desolventizing oilseed meats developed
in "Germany where the meats oil passed through a series of steam
jacketed tubes called "schneckens".
Secondary Wastewater Treatment - The treatment of sanitary sewage
by biological methods after primary treatment by sedimentation,
usually considered to remove 90 percent or more of the influent BOD.
Semolina - The purified middlings of durum or other hard wheat used
for macaroni and other alimentary pastes.
Set - Conditioning of a product by allowing it to remain in a humidity
controlled room for certain periods of time.
Settleable Solids - See Solids.
Settlings - The material which collects in the bottom portion of a
clarifier.
Setting Pond - See Clarifier.
Sewerage - System of piping, with appurtenances, for collecting and
conveying wastewater from source to discharge.
Skimming - The process of removing floating grease or scum from the
surface of wastewater.
1541
-------
DRAFT
Sludge - The accumulated solids separated from wastewater during
treatment.
Sludge Cake - Sludge that has been dewatered to a moisture content
of 60 to 85 percent.
SludgeDewatering - The process of removing the moisture content
of a sludge to such an not air extent that the sludge is spadable.
Sludge Digestion - The process, by which organic or volatile matter
in sludge is gasified, liquified, mineralized, or converted to a
more stable organic matter tfirough the activities of either anaerobic
or aerobic organisms.
Sludge Drying - The process of removing a large percentage of mois-
ture from sludge by drainage or evaporation.
Sludge Thickening - The process of increasing the solids concentra-
tion of a sludge, but not to such an extent that the sludge is
spadable.
Sludge handling - The transport, storage, treatment, and disposal of
sludge.
Slurry - A watery mixture or suspension of insoluble matter.
Soapstock - See Caustic Refining
Solids - Various types of solids are commonly determined on water
samples. These types of Solids are:
Total Solids - (TS): The material left after evaporation and
drying of a sample at 100° to 105°C.
Dissolved Solids - (DS): The difference between suspended
solids and total solids.
Volatile Solids - (VS): Organic material which is lost when
the sample is heated to 550°C.
Settleable Solids (STS): The materials which settle in an
'=sa "~~ Imhoff cone in one hour.
Suspended Solids (SS): The material removed from a sample
filtered through a standard glass fiber
filter and dried at 103-105°C.
Spadable Sludge - Sludge that can be readily forked or shoveled>
(ordinarily under 75 percent moisture.
Sparkling Wine - A grape wine which has more than 1.5 atmospheres of
pressure at 10°C (50°F) and less than 14 percent alcohol by volume.
1542
-------
DRAFT
Spent Beer - Residual nutrients separated from harvested yeast by
centrifugal separation.
Spray Evaporation - A method of wastewater disposal 1n which water
is sprayed into the air to expedite evaporation.
Spray Irrigation - A method of irrigation by which water is sprayed
from nozzles onto a crop. In order to avoid clogging of the nozzles,
the water must be relatively low in suspended solids.
Spray Pond - A basin over which water is sprayed from nozzles; generally
used for reduction of water temperature.
Spirits, Fruit - A distillate of wine produced at 190° or higher proof.
Spirits, Wine - Includes beverage brandy, neutral brandy, and fruit
spirits, i.e., all distillates eligible to be used in the production
of dessert wines, not reduced below 140° proof.
Stabilizers - Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils or other emu!si-
fiers added to peanut butter to improve spreadibility and prevent
oil separation.
Sti11 age - The de-alcoholized residue discharged from the base of
the still column.
Stock Yeast - A pure culture of the desired yeast strain grown for
starting or "seeding" the main yeast fermentation tanks.
Sub!imination - Change of matter from the solid state to the gaseous
state withous passing through the liquid state.
Surface Condenser - See Condenser, Surface.
Suspended Solids - Solids found in wastewater or in the stream which
in most cases can be removed by filtration. The origin of suspended
matter may be man-made wastes or natural sources as from erosion.
Synthetic Flavoring Extract - A solution in ethyl alcohol of proper
strength of the odorous principles derived from the combination of
esters, aldehydes, ketones and other synthetic compounds.
Table Wine - A grape wine having an alcoholic content not in excess
of 14 percent by volume.
Tails - A residual alcoholic distillate.
Terpenes - (Webster) - Any of various isomeric hydrocarbons C10H,fi
found present in essential oils and used as solvents in organic
synthesis.
1543
-------
DRAFT
Total Solids - See Solids
Trub - Insoluble materials which collect in the brew kettle.
Turbidity - A condition in a liquid caused by the presence of fine
suspended matter and resulting in the scattering and absorption of
light; an analytical quantity usually reported in arbitrary turbi-
dity units determined by measurements of light defraction.
Virgin Olive Oil - That olive oil which is generally obtained from
the first pressing of whole ripe olives or which meets requirements
of taste, odor and free fatty acid content as determined for virgin
oil.
Volatile Solids - See Solids
Votators - A type of heat exchanger used in peanut butter production
prior to deaeration and packaging.
Waste Sludge - Settled activated sludge in excess of the amount
needed for return to mix with incoming wastewater.
Waste Streams - Any liquified waste material produced by an industrial
process.
Waste Water - In a legal sense, water that is not needed or that
has been used and is permitted to escape, or that unavoidably escapes.
Wastewater - The spent water of residences, commercial buildings,
industrial plants, and institutions.
Wine GaTTo_n__- A measure of actual volume, i.e., a U.S. gallon contains
0.00378 cu m (231 cu in).
Winterization - An edible oil refining process in which oils are
chilled by refrigeration to remove higher melting fractions that
may produce clouding in the final product.
Wort - A mixture of maltose and water.
Yeast Cream - Mature yeast that has been removed from fermentation
tanks and centrifugally separated from spent nutrients prior to
dewatering.
1544
-------
DRAFT
CONVERSON TABLE
MULTIPLY
TO OBTAIN
acre
acre-feet
British Thermal
Unit
cubic feet
cubic feet/
minute
cubic feet/
second
cubic yards
Farenheit
degrees
feet
gallon
gallon/
minute
gallon/ton
horsepower
inches
inches of
mercury
ac
ac ft
BTU
cu ft
cu ft/
min
cu ft/
sec
cu yd
of
ft
gal
gal /min
gal /ton
hp
in.
in. Hg
0.4047
1233.49
0.2520
0.02832
0.2832
1.699
0.7646
0.5555(°F-32)1
0.3048
3.785
0.06308
4.173
0.7457
2.540
0.03342
ha
cu m
Kg cal
cu m
cu m
min
cu m/
min
cu m
°C
m
1
I/sec
1/kkg
kw
cm
atm
hectares
cubic meters
Kilogram- calory
cubic meters
cubic meters/
minute
cubic meters/
minute
cubic meters
centigrade
degrees
meters
1 i ters
liters/
second
liters/
metric ton
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
1545
-------
DRAFT
ounces
pounds
pounds/
cubic foot
pounds/ton
million
gallons/day
mile
pound/
square inch
square feet
ton
oz
Ib
lb/
cu ft
Ib/ ton
MGD
mi
/ 1 PS1'9'
(gage)
sq ft
ton
28.35
0.4536
16.02
0.5000
3.785
1.609
0.068052
0.09290
0.9072
gm
kg
kg/
cu m
kg/kkg
cu m/
day
km
a tin
sq m
kkg
grams
kilograms
kilograms/
cubic meters
kilograms per
metric ton
cubic meters/
day
kilometer
atmosphere
square meters
metric tons
yard
0.9144
m
(1000 kilograms)
meters
1 Actual conversion, not a multiplier
2 Add 1.0 after multiplying to obtain absolute pressure
1546
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX A SIC Code
MISCELLANEOUS FOODS & BEVERAGES
Telephone Survey Form A
Date:
Process Code: Interviewer:
Firm: Phone:
Principal Products Investigated
Plant:
Mailing Address: Zip
Plant Contacts: Titles:
Telephone No.:
Corporate Name:
Address:
Telephone No.:
Corporate Contacts: Titles:
Who can release plant records? •
1.0 PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS
Principal Products Production Volume Season
Quantity of Waste Effluent in Gal/Day
2.0 METHOD OF WASTE EFFLUENT DISPOSAL.
2.1 Municipal-surcharge basis:
Is pretreatment provided?
2.2 Navigable waters—Method of treatment(check)[]No treatment,
[ ]screening, [ ]primary settling, [ ]activated sludge,
[ ]biological filter, [ ]chemical addition, [ ]aerated lagoon,
[ ]stabilization pond(s), [ ]land application with runoff,
other
1547
-------
DRAFT
Misc. Foods & Beverages
Tel. Survey Form A
Page 2
2.3 Land Disposal—zero discharge (check) [ ]Spray irrigation,
[ ]holding ponds, other
3.0 HISTORICAL DATA BASE
3.1 Check the following kinds of data that are available on this
plant? [ ]municipal records, [ ]state reports, [ ]data
gathered by private consultant, [ ] Association questionnaires,
[ ]FPA permit, [ ]Army Corps permit, [ ]published literature
on plant, [ ]in-plant studies; other
3.2 Document each data source as to title, date and person or agency
having access to data.
3.3 Is the raw waste data collected for single or combined
products? or materials?
3.4 Does matching flow volume information exist for the data base
collected? What is the source of flow volume
information? •
3.5 Can the production data be easily related to the data base
available?
3.6 What analyses were run? (check) [ ]Flow,[ " ]BOD, [ JTSS,
[ ]DSS, [ ]"SS, [ ]pH, [ ]COD, [ ]PO, [ ]TOC, [ ]Nutrients,
Other _______ ______
3.7 Check the waste streams sampled:[]Cooling water,f]clean-up,
[ ]process water, .other
3.8 Who did the analyses?
Type of samples (check)[]grab samples,[]timed composites,
[ 1flow proportioned composites, other
3.9 Is cost information available on waste treatment?
3.10 Are treatment efficiencies available on treatment
systems?
4.0 Do any unique process or waste treatment systems exist at this plant?
Explain
5.0 REMARKS:
1548
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages
Effluent Guideline Study
Processing Information
SIC Code:
Firm:
Process Code:
1.0 PRINCIPLE PRODUCTS
Date:.
Interviewer:
Average Production
Per Day Per
Vol ume
Shift
1.1 Plant Operations: Hours/Day
Average number of working days/year
Days/Year
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
2.1 Raw Material Storage: Describe type, form, and method of storage.
2.2 Process Flow Diagram: Draw on page 2 a simplified process flow diagram of
the plant's process line documenting all points of major wastewater flow,
solid waste removal, water use, recirculation and/or recycling.
2.3 Describe the Finished Product: Describe types and sizes.
1549
-------
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
DRAFT
SIC Code:
Process Code: Date:
2.2 Draw a simplified process flow diagram of the plant's process line documenting
all points of major wastewater flow, solid waste removal, water use (including
non-contact cooling water) recirculation and/or recycling.
1550
-------
DRAFT
3.0 WATER USAGE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
3.1 Source(s) of In-Plant Water Supply: Process water Boiler Feed
Cooling water Other
3.2 What Is the average quantity of waste effluent discharged per day and per shift?
3.3 Is treatment provided for incoming water? If so, what portion of it is being
treated and what 1s the nature of the treatment?
3.4 Describe the general cleanup of the plant during daily plant operations.
3.5 Describe plant modifications and/or procedures used in the past to reduce
wastewater strength or volume (Draw schematic on back of this sheet.), Please
include also the costs vs. cost savings of these modifications.
3.6 Describe any future process changes and their desired effects.
1551
-------
DRAFT
FORM C
Treatment Information
SIC Code: Date:
Process Code:
4.0 WASTES DISCHARGED TO A MUNICIPAL FACILITY
4.1 Describe pretreatment, if any. List Installation costs, operation and
maintenance costs, and cost savings.
4.2 If wastes are discharged to a municipal system, what is the surcharge based on?
(eg. flow, BOD, SS, etc.)
4.3 wnat is approximate annual cost of disposal to municipality:
5.0 WASTES DISCHARGED TO NAVIGABLE WATERS OR LAND DISPOSAL
5.1 Draw process flow diagram on page 5 of the existing end-of-line waste treatment
process.
5.2 Describe the technique of disposal of solid wastes generated by the treatment
process (eg. sludges, screened solids, or trucking of liquid wastes).
5.3 What is the number of employees and age of the present treatment facility?
1552
-------
DRAFT TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM
SIC Code:
Process Code: Date:
5.1 Draw a flow diagram of the existing end-of-l1ne waste treatment process
(note size of lagoons» types of equipment used, acreage, how system 1s
managed, etc).
1553
-------
DRAFT
5. List below the } Total ^tlal investment cost of treatment facility (year)
following: 2. Investment cost of each effluent treatment component
(year Installed)
Treatment Component Cost Year
TOTAL
5.5 Estimated cost to construct plant today $
5.6 What are the estimated annual maintenance costs attributable to waste
treatment?
Plant labor ' Other
Engineering
Consulting labor
Laboratory
5.7 What are the estimated annual energy costs attributable to waste treatment?
Kilowatts per day or per unit product
Electricity generated or purchased ' "
Cubic feet of ..(type of fuel)
consumed/day or per unit product
Steam 1n Ibs./day at P.S.I.
Other
5.8 What is approximate value of nearby land ($/acre)? What 1s distance to
nearby open land?
5.9 Is zero discharge feasible for your plant?
5.10 If not, what is the maximum treatment level that 1s feasible for your plant?
1554
-------
DRAFT
FORM D
Historical Data
Attach copies of all available historical data to these sheets.
Separate data by individual products if possible. Include daily
production figures to correspond to data. (See attached historical
data form.)
6.0 DATA BASE
6.1 Copy of analyses obtained?
6.2 Is the data obtained for screened wastes? Yes No Not Applicable
6.3 If the plant has screening before discharge, what are their size, type,
and initial costs at installation?
6.4 Is the data obtained for samples collected after or before gravity separa-
tion or skimming?
6.5 If the plant has gravity separation and/or skimming, what are their size,
types, and initial costs at installation?
6.6 Indicate by numbered arrow on the waste treatment diagram (page 5) where
wastewater samples were taken for historical data. What type of sampling
technique was used:
6.7 What were frequency of samples? Who did sampling? Who did analysis?
Any deviations from standard chemical methods?
6.8 Is the raw waste data collected for single or combined products?
6.9 Does matching flow volume information exist for the data base collected?
What is the source of flow volume in-
formation?
6.10 Can the production data be easily related to the data base available?
7.0 Remarks:
1555
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
DATA HANDLING SYSTEM
In order to determine the natural distribution of the major wastewater
parameters, cumulative probability plots were made using computerized
statistical routines. The purpose of these plots was to determine
which theoretical probability model best fit the actual data.
The first model tried was the standard normal distribution. It was
determined that while the normal distribution model was accurate for
some data, there were many instances in which the range of data was
large and tended to be skewed with a few relatively high values. Also,
the normal distribution allows for negative values which in reality do
not occur for the pollutant parameters being examined.
The problems of the normal distribution are eliminated by the use of
a log normal distribution. This commonly used distribution has only
positive values and is skewed right to allow for a few high values.
Another advantage is that the set of the logarithm of values conforms
to the normal distribution and standard, readily-available statistical
techniques can be employed.
It was assumed that data from any one plant would approximate a normal
distribution and could be described with standard statistical methods.
When data from several plants were combined, in most cases the final
process statistics were generated with log normal statistics. These
are the statistics reported in the summary tables of Section V.
If it is desired, other minimum and maximum values can be computed for
other probabilities of being exceeded by going the required number of
standard deviations above or below the mean in the log domain and then
taking the inverse log function of the result. The standard deviation
in the log domain can be computed using Log S=Log (max/mean) where the
max and mean values are given on the summary tables. For example, a
simple way to obtain an estimate of the maximum which is only exceeded
by above five percent of the industry segment is to compute the square
of the maximum value and divide by the mean value of the summary table,
since the standard deviation is about two standard deviations above the
mean.
For each parameter to be printed on the summary table, the computer
selects the mean values from the data base for the subject plants and
first calculates the material logarithm of each value and then the
arithmetic mean of the logarithms. For the "log mean" on the summary
table, the inverse log function is taken on the mean logarithm of the
parameter. To determine minimum and maximum values, the logarithmic
standard deviation is calculated, then is added to and subtracted from
the mean log. The inverse log function taken on the mean log minus
one log standard deviation produces the "minimum" on the table, and
1556
-------
DRAFT
plus one log standard deviation produces the "maximum". Statistically,
the range covered by the minimum and maximum should contain approxi-
mately 66 percent of the true population.
Mathematically, the calculations may be expressed as follows:
"log mean" = in'1
log standard deviation =
E(log mean -
— -
(0.5)
"minimum"
In"' [log mean - log standard deviation]
"maximum" = In"1 [log mean + log standard deviation]
It should be noted that all calculations involve natural logarithms.
The results, however, would be the same if common logarithms were used.
EXAMPLE OF DATA PROCESSING
A hypothetical processing plant from which a set of historical data
was obtained, is assumed. Three sample points contributed to the
total effluent from the plant: sample points 1 and 2 are different
outfalls from the product preparation area, and sample point number 3
is from the packaging area. The historical data set is as follows:
Sample Pt. #1
Sample Pt. #2
Sample Pt. #3
DATE
6-2-74
6-3-74
6-4-74
6-5-74
6-2-74
6-3-74
6-4-74
6-5-74
6-1-74
6-15-74
6-17-74
7-2-74
MG.D
0.152
0.172
0.139
0.161
0.061
0.112
0.039
0.087
0.0072
0.0069
0.0038
0.0120
PROD'N
25.7 tons
32.3
18.6
26.0
25.7
32.3
18.6
26.0
25.7
32.3
18.6
26.0
BOD
372
454
792
298
872
903
1050
693
213
562
317
459
The data represents 24 hour composites which included process and
cleanup wastewaters.
Generally speaking, the three sample points must be added together
to determine the total plant discharge. Two options are available,
however, for carrying out the addition. In the first case, where there
is reason to believe that there is a relationship between two or more
sample points, the correlated points are added together prior to de-
termining the mean. In the second case, where there is no reason
1557
-------
DRAFT
to believe a relationship exists between sample points, the data
from each point is averaged and the resulting means from each sample
point are summed to produce the total load. A combination of the
two system may be found in some plants, and this is the case for the
hypothetical plant. Sample points one and two are assumed to be cor-
related, as they are discharges from the same sub-process. Sample
point three is uncorrelated to the first two as it is a discharge
from a different, relatively independent sub-process. Thus, the first
two sample points will be handled by a correlated computation, and
the third point will be added in as an uncorrelated point. Graphically,
these computations can be depicted as follows:
Date
6-1-74
6-2-74
6-3-74
6-4-74
6-5-74
6-15-74
6-17-74
7-2-74
S.P. #1 S.P. #2
S.P. #3
[BODR3]
"BODR!J +
'BODRi] +
BODRiJ +
1-1 +
"BODRi '
'BODRi'
=BODR1=
Dftft D
DV/U r\T
) =
) =
"SUMio"
:SUM o=
;suM12;
- L-u"iZj
<- — jj
[BODR3]
[BODR3]
[BODR3]
| MEAN
SUMi2
L'
(MEAN
jBODR3
Mean BODR
= for plant
Where BODR is the BOD ratio in kg/kkg.
The calculation of each individual daily parameter ratio is done as
described in the accompanying PROGRAM PLANT DOCUMENTATION. For the
data above,
Date
6-1-74
6-2-74
6-3-74
6-4-74
6-5-74
6-15-74
6-17-74
7-2-74
Sample pt. #1 Sample pt. #2 Sample pt. #3
FRIO BODR FRIO BODR FRIO BODR
0/kkg) (kg/kkg) (1/kkg) (kg/kkg) (1/kkg) (kg/kkg)
1170
.249
24700
22200
31200
25800
9.19
10.1
24.7
7.69
9900
14500
8740
14000
8.63
13.1
9.18
9.70
890
852
1920
.500
.270
.881
where FRIO is the Flow ratio in 1/kkg
From the above table, the MEAN SUM OF BODR for sample points one and
two is 23.1 kg/kkg. The BODR mean for sample point number three is
0.475. Thus, the total mean BOD ratio for the plant is 23.6 kg/kkg,
1558
-------
DRAFT
as the computer rounds all computations to three significant figures.
All the parameter ratios are processed in the same manner. Minimum
and maximum values are determined by inspecting all daily ratios and
selecting the highest and lowest values of the ratio. Concentrations
of the parameters are determined in all cases by dividing the para-
meter ratio in kg/kkg by the mean flow ratio in 1/kkg. With this
method, it becomes apparent that the computed concentrations are not
identical to the observed values in the raw data. They are, however,
close to the observed values and are useful in giving the observer
an approximation of values to be found in the environment. The pH is
handled differently than the other parameters. Each pH is converted
back to its original hydrogen ion concentration, and the resulting
values are arithmetically averaged. The mean ion concentration is
then converted back to pH. Minimum and maximum values are selected
from the original raw data values.
PROGRAM PLANT DOCUMENTATION
The following documents the algorithms used by Program PLANT to compute
temporal statistics using time series inputs.
Definitions
Sample: A record containing the values of up to 20 parameters at
one point in time* and space. The list of input parameters
available is given below:
PARAMETER
UNITS
ABBREVIATION
Flow
Production
Production
Shift Length
5 day BOD
20 day BOD (Ultimate)
COD
TOC
Grease and Oil
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
Screened Solids
Total Phosphorus
Dominant Wavelength
Purity
Luminence
Gal/shift
Ton/shift
Gal /shi ft
Hours
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ml /I
mg/1
mg/1
Mu
%
%
FLOW
PROD
PROG
SHFT
BOD
BODU
COD
TOC
GRS
TKN
TDS
TS
VS
SUSP
SETT
SCR
TP
DWL
PURE
LUM
1559
-------
DRAFT
PARAMETER UNITS ABBREVIATION
Acidity/Alkalinity
Temperature
Temperature
Volatile Susp. Solids
PH
Flow Rate
Flow Ratio
Detergents
BOD Ratio
SS Ratio
mg/1
Deg F
Deg C
mg/1
pH units
I/sec
1/kkg
mg/1
kg/kkg
kg/kkg
AA
TEMF
TEMC
VSS
PH
FLWR
FRIO
DGT
BODR
SSR
*0ne point in time is considered to be a daily composite sample for
all parameters.
Sample Point: A time series record containing up to 99 samples from
a single point in space. One exception to this is the case where
multiple sample points represent the same point in space but during
different periods,of time. For example, sample point No. 1 may repre-
sent composite samples of the daily process waters and sample point
No. 2, composite samples of the daily cleanup which occurs during
another shift or in between shifts.
Sample Group: Sample points may be considered to be correlated or in-
dependent. If the points are considered correlated, they are averaged
together day by day to obtain a mathematical total composite. The
group of sample points which are correlated in this manner is called
a Sample Group. If the value of a parameter is missing for one sample
point in one sample, the values of the parameter at the other sample
points on the same day are rejected. Therefore, the correlation ana-
lysis should only be performed if all the sample points were sampled
on the same day, otherwise, data will be rejected. On the other hand,
if the sample points are treated as uncorrelated when they are really
correlated, an inferior estimate of the average will result. Hence, a
trade-off must be made between obtaining an inferior estimate because
of assuming an incorrect model or because of rejecting data. A rule
of thumb should be that, if data is missing or uncorrelated on more
than 10 percent of a time series between two points, then they should
be computed as uncorrelated sample points.
Time Statistic Algorithms: Five statistical estimators can be computed
for each wastewater parameter. To clarify the following presentation,
the following notation is defined.
1560
-------
DRAFT
Time Statistics Symbol
number n
mean m
standard deviation s
minimum 1
maximum h
Since the computation of each time statistic is a function of the
wastewater parameter, a set of algorithms are defined for each para-
meter. A symbol was defined for each set as follows:
Parameter Units Symbol
Production rate units/day P
Process time hr/day S
Flow volume gal/day V
Flow rate I/sec Q
(gal/min) Q1
Flow ratio 1/kkg F
(gal/ton) F1
Concentration mg/1 C
Concentration ratio kg/kkg R
pH pH H
Temperature C T
The symbol for each algorithm is then the matrix multiplication be-
tween each set of parameter and statistical symbols. The following
notation will use the time statistic symbol to prefix the parameter
symbol. For example, mP equals the mean production.
The input data sets are subscripted as follows:
i = a particular sample group
j = a particular sample point in a sample group
k = a particular sample value in the time series from a sample point
The following functions are also defined.
Count (A) = number of values in Set A
AMean (A) = 1 E A, The arithmetic mean of values in Set A
Count (A)
uar (M - 1 z (A - AMean(A))2, the variance of values in
v ' Count(A)-l Set A
Max (A) = The observed maximum value in Set A
Min (A) = The observed minimum value in Set A
1561
-------
DRAFT
Production Algorithms (Units/day)
nP = Count (Pi)
mP = A Mean (Pi)
sP = War (Pi)
IP = Min (Pi)
hP = Max (Pi)
The production statistics are automatically computed from the values
of the first sample group (i=l). However, it can be computed from
any of the groups on demand. It is assumed that the group with the
largest number of samples is placed in the first position.
Process Time (shift) Algorithms (hrs/day)
nS = Count (Si)
mS = A Mean (Si)
sS = //Var (Si)
IS = Min (Si) -
hS = Max (Si)
Flow Volume (mgd)
1) nV = Count (Bi max)
2) mV = E AMean (E Vkj)i
3> sv =
..
E War (Vi )
(4) IV = E Min (Vi)
(5) hV = E Max (Vi)
Notes:
(1) The number of samples for flow volume in MGD was computed using
the sample group which contributed the largest BOD. load. (Bi max)
(2) The mean flow volume is computed by summing the average flows
from each sample group i. The average flow from sample group i is
determined by averaging the sum of the daily flows from each point j.
(3) The variance of the total end of pipe flow is equal to the sum
of the variances from the individual groups. The variance of the
first group is determined by using the sum of the daily flow from
each point j.
(4) The combined (EOP) minimum and maximums are computed from the
sum of the minimums and maximums from each Group.
It should be noted that this mathematical combining will tend to give
more extreme minimums and maximums than would be observed for the
same number of naturally combined samples.
1562
-------
DRAFT
Flow Rate (gal/mln)
nQ' = nV = blank on table
(5) mQ' = a z Amean z (V/S)kg
i J
a = J_ a scale factor
60
sQ1 = a s/i. Var (V/S)i
1Q1 = a «M1n (V/S)1
hQ' = a *Max (V/S)1
Flow Rate (I/sec)
Q = .0631Q1
Notes:
(5) mQ is computed similarly to mV except that the daily flow volumes
are converted to flow rates by dividing by the shift lengths.
Flow Ratio (gal/ton)
F1 is computed in a similar manner to Q1, except that V/P is substituted
for V/S and scale factor a = 1.
Flow Ratio (L/kkg)
F = 4.17 F1
Concentration (mq/1)
nC
mC
sC
1C
hC
Count (Bi
= mR x 10°
mF
= sR x 106
mF
= 1R x 106
mT
= nR x 106
mF
max)
Concentration Ratio
(kg/kkg)
R is computed the same as F1 or Q1, except that VC/P is substituted
for V/S and the scale factor a = 4.17 x 10'6.
£H
nH = Count (H), i=l
mH |-» Calculated similarly to V
sH except VIog"' H is substituted for V and with log to the base
1H 10 taken of the result.
hH
1563
-------
------- |