oEFA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research EPA 600 279061
Laboratory March 1 979
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Treatment of
Gulf Shrimp
Cannery
Wastewater
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further deveJopment and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the hew or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-061
March 1979
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION TREATMENT
OF GULF SHRIMP CANNERY HASTEWATER
by
A.J. Szabo, Larry F. LaFleur, and Felon R. Wilson
Domingue, Szabo & Associates, Inc.
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505
Grant No. S 803338
Project Officer
Kenneth A. Dostal
Food and Wood Products Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
This study was conducted in cooperation with
The American Shrimp Canners Association
New Orleans, Louisiana
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or rec-
ommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, con-
verted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and
even on our health often require that new and increasingly more efficient
pollution control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory - Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating
new and improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently
and economically.
This report covers the construction and evaluation of a plant
scale dissolved air flotation system which was used to treat shrimp cannery
processing wastewater. Various types of coagulants and polyelectrolytes
were used with the flotation system and they resulted in significant removals
of organics, solids, and oil and grease.
An extensive inplant water use and wastewater management program
was instituted and it resulted in large overall reductions in the quantity
of pollutants generated per unit of production.
Further information on this project can be obtained by contacting
the Food and Wood Products Branch of IERL-C1.
David G. Stephan
Di rector
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
m
-------
ABSTRACT
This study reports on the operation of a plant scale dissolved
air flotation (DAF) system installed to define and evaluate attainable
shrimp cannery wastewater treatment levels. The system was operated in all
three modes of DAF pressurization. Destabilizing coagulants investigated
included alum, lignosulfonate (PRA-1), and cationic polymer (507-C). Using
alum and anionic polymer 835A as a coagulant aid, significant removals of
BOD, TSS, and oil and grease were achieved. Operating data are presented
that characterize the Gulf shrimp cannery wastewaters and show the removals
attained. Data on oyster processing wastewaters are also presented.
In conjunction with the project, water use reduction and waste-
water management practices were instituted at the study cannery, resulting
in large overall reductions of pollutants. Costs for the wastewater treat-
ment system installation, operation, and maintenance are presented. Aver-
age annual wastewater treatment equivalent costs and costs per case of fin-
ished product are estimated.
Oyster canning wastewater can be treated, and pollutant discharge
can be reduced using the DAF shrimp wastewater treatment system. The pro-
blem of the handling and disposal of the DAF skimmings sludge (and screen-
ings solids) has not been solved. Preliminary dewatering investigations
are reported in this study.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. S-803338 by
Domingue, Szabo, & Associates under the partial sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period July 1974 to
December 1977, and work was completed as of August 1978.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Abbreviations and Symbols viii
Conversion Factors ix
Acknowledgments x
I. Introduction 1
11. Summary 5
III. Conclusions 7
IV. Recommendations 11
V. Background 12
VI. Methodology 42
VII. Results 49
VIII. Discussion 80
References 100
Appendices
A. Laboratory procedures 101
B. Water and wastewater management at a shrimp cannery 105
C. Project data - Shrimp cannery wastewater treatment 113
D. Cost data 156
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Dissolved Air Flotation Operational Modes "16
2 Location Map - ASCA Member Plants 20
3 Gulf Shrimp Processing Schematic 21
4 Unloading Shirmp 22
5 Vibrating Inspection Table 22
6 Shrimp Weighing Scale 24
7 Shrimp Falling Into Peeler 24
8 Belt Distributing Shrimp Across Peeler 25
9 Shrimp Peeler 25
10 Cleaning and Washing Drums of Deveiner 27
11 Blanch Tank 27
12 Blanch Cooling Tank 29
13 Can Spillage 29
14 General Process Schematic of Oyster Canning 30
15 Oyster Boat Ready for Unloading 32
16 Drum Washer 32
17 Plan View Violet DAF System 34
18 Hydraulic Profile Full Pressurization Mode 35
19 Surge Tank 37
20 Violet DAF System, view A 37
21 Violet DAF System, view B 38
22 Alum, Acid, and Caustic Tanks and Pumps 39
23 Layout of Project Study Plant 44,45
24 30-day BOD Curve, Gulf Shrimp Cannery Wastewater 53
25 pH Response to increased Alum Addition 71
26 Chemical Oxidizer for Sludge 77
27 DAF Separation Process 83
28 Pollution Abatement Achievements, Violet Packing Co. 90
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of Pilot Plant DAF Performance 17
2 Tuna DAF Removal Efficiencies 18
3 Wastewater Flows from Shrimp Processing Operations 23
4 Process Design Summary, Violet DAF System 33
5 Shrimp Canning Unit Process Wastewater Concentrations 50
6 Screened Shrimp Wastewater Characteristics 51
7 Effluent Degradability Comparison, Shrimp Cannery Wastewater 52
8 Oyster Processing Screened Effluent 54
9 Pollutants in Oyster Processing Wastewater 54
10 Water Flumes Pollutant Increase f
11 Wastewater Treatment by Screening, Gulf Shrimp Cannery 57
12 1977 Operational Set #1 Opearating Conditions 61
13 Operational Set #1: Initial Runs With No Polymer Addition 62
14 1977 Operational Set #2 DAF Operating Conditions 63
15 Wastewater Concentrations Operational Set #2: Alum and Poly-
mer Optimization Runs 65
16 Treatment Results for Operational Set #2 (Alum and 835A Poly
mer) Optimization by Mode 66
17 Operational Set #3 Summary of Operating Conditions 67
18 Wastewater Concentrations Operational Set #3: Unattended
Runs 68
19 1977 Operational Set #4 - Operating Conditions 69
20 Wastewater Concentrations Operational Set #4: PRA and 835A
Runs 70
21 Double Polymer Runs 72
22 Wastewater Discharge Lb. Pollutant/1000 Ib. Raw Shrimp 73
23 Fall 1976 Treatment Results 74
24 DAF Sludge Data Summary 75
25 Sludge Solids Content Evaporator-Dryer Treatment 76
26 DAF Wastewater Treatment Effluent Oyster Processing - 1977 78
27 Average Discharge from DAF Treatment Oyster Processing - 1977
(Lbs/1000 Ibs Finished Product) 78
28 Summary of Design and Operating Data 86
29 Pollution Abatement Achievements Violet Packing Company 1975-
1977 89
30 Cost Effectiveness of Various Pollution Abatement Measures
for BOD Removal 91
31 Cost Effectiveness Comparisons for Removal of TSS and O&G 92
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ASCA - American shrimp canners association
BAT - Best available technology
BATEA - Best available technology economically achievable
BOD - Biochemical oxygen demand
BODc - 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
BPCTCA - Best practical control technology currently available
COD - Chemical oxygen demand
DAF - Dissolved air flotation
FFP - Full flow pressurization
gpd - gallons per day
gpm - gallons per minute
mg/1 - milligrams per liter
NTU - Nephelometric turbidity units
0 & G - Oil and grease
P - Partial pressurization
ppm - Parts per million
PRA - Lignosulfonate, commercial
R - Recycle pressurization
s - Standard deviation
TKN - Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
TS - Total solids
TSS - Total suspended solids
TVS - Total volatile solids
VSS - Volatile suspended solids
x - Mean value
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
TO CONVERT
acres
acres
Celsius
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic feet/minute
dollars/pound BOD5
Fahrenheit
feet
feet
gallons
gallons
gallons
gallons
gallons
gallons/minute
gallons/minute
gallons/minute/square foot
gallons/1000 pounds
horsepower
inches
inches
inches
microns
miles
millimeters
million gallons/day
parts per million
pounds
pound/pound
pounds/hour
pounds/square inch
pounds/cubic foot
pounds/hour/square foot
square feet
INTO
hectors or sq. hectors
square meters
Fahrenheit
cubic meters
liters
cubic meters/minute
dollars/kilogram BOD5
Celsius
centimeters
meters
cubic meters
liters
cubic feet
cubic yards
kilo-liters
liters/second
liters/minute
liters/minute/square meter
liters/1000 kilograms
kilowatts
meters
centimeters
millimeters
inches
kilometers
inches
cubic meters/second
milligrams per liter
kilograms
kilogram/kilogram
kilogram/hour
kilograms/square meter
kilograms/cubic meter
kilograms/hour/square meter
square meters
MULTIPLY BY
0.4047
4,047
°C(9/5) + 32
0.02832
28.32
0.02832
2.2
(°F - 32) 5/9
30.48
0.3048
3.785x 10~3
3.785
0.1337
4.951 x 10"3
3.79x 10-3
0.06308
3.79
23.68
8.338
0.7457
2.54x ID"2
2.54
25.4
3.937x 10-5
1.61
0.0394
1.54723
1.0
0.454
1.0
0.454
703.1
16.06
4.893
0.0929
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank all those who participated in this
joint government/industry project. Special thanks are due to Max W. Coch-
rane, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project officer for part of the
study period; Kenneth A. Dostal, EPA project officer, and American Shrimp
Canners Association officers Paul P. Selley (project manager) and Alan 0.
Robinson.
The cooperation and assistance of the following plant personnel
of the Violet Packing Company cannery in Violet, Louisiana, are also grate-
fully acknowledged: James G. Drake, vice president of manufacturing opera-
tion; Joseph Powell, plant manager; Louis Dugan, quality control supervisor;
Stan Haller, maintenance superintendent; Jerry Diaz, product procurement
manager; and John Rugaber, Pet, Inc. staff engineer. All were most helpful
and often went beyond the second mile.
Onsite personnel provided by Domingue, Szabo & Associates were:
Joe Carmo, chemist and operator; Blair Leftwich, laboratory assistant and
operator; Melvin Paret, laboratory assistant and operator; and Paul deKer-
nion, laboratory assistant and operator; and A.J. Englande, Tulane Univ.,
who assisted in jar tests.
Wastewater treatment equipment was supplied by the Water Pollu-
tion Control Division of Carborundum. Company personnel were of great assis-
tance in getting equipment installed and operational difficulties resolved,
particularly Harry Harper and Irving Snider.
Supplies of test chemicals were donated by American Cyanamid
(Angela Knappenberger, representative), Houston, Texas; Calgon Corporation,
(C. Buddy Reine, representative), New Orleans, Louisiana; American Can Com-
pany (William J. Detroit, representative), Rothschild, Wisconsin; Dubois
Chemical (Leo B. Kaough, representative), Lake Charles, Louisiana; Pearl
River Chemical Co. (L.E. Fontenot, owner), Pearl River, Louisiana; and Sys-
tems Engineering and Research (Leale Streebin, representative), Norman, Ok-
lahoma.
Test equipment was loaned for bench scale use by: DeLaval Cor-
poration, (C.L. Garrett, representative), Houston, Texas; BIF Purifax, Gel-
att Equipment Co., Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Liquatex-Rotex, Inc., Service
Engineering Co., New Orleans, Louisiana.
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
Gulf Coast shrimp fisheries are an important part of the shrimp industry of the
United States. The total shrimp catch varies from year to year and government statistics
show that the U.S. average for a recent five-year period was approximately 375,000,000
pounds per year. Of the Gulf catch of approximately 200,000,000 pounds (heads-on),
around ten percent is handled by the canning industry. Some two million cases per year
of canned shrimp are produced. The canners receive most of their product from the fish-
eries in Louisiana and Mississippi with small amounts from the other Gulf states. The
remainder of the Gulf catch is handled as fresh product or is processed and marketed as
various frozen products.
The canners of the Gulf Coast are located in Louisiana and Mississippi and
have an average operating period of approximately 120 days per year. With some plants
adding freezing facilities, extended operating periods will probably occur in the future.
The canners are an important segment of the industry, processing much of the catch from
"inside" waters, bays, estuaries and the coastlines of the Gulf states. The raw shrimp
are very perishable. The shrimp die as they are caught and brought to the surface of the
water and onto the decks of the boats where the catch is iced until it is delivered to the
processor. Because of the remote locations of the fishing areas and the time required to
reach the market and/or the processor, the shrimp vary in age when delivered to the
cannery and may be from one to four or five days out of the water. It is absolutely essen-
tial that the product be processed rapidly to preserve its freshness and wholesomeness.
Therefore, canneries normally have capabilities of peeling and processing at a high rate
per hour. When conservation agencies open the regulated inside fishing waters there is
generally a high rate of production which gradually lessens until the season is closed.
Cannery operation,then, may be from an almost continuous status during the abundant pro-
duct availability periods down to a half day or less operation on intermittent days as the
raw product becomes less available.
The wastewater production from shrimp processors results from the peeling
operation, cleaning, grading, deveining and preparation for preservation. In a cannery
there is further wastewater from the blanching and cooling operations and from retorting of
the canned product. These wastewater flows vary, dependent upon the shrimp supply, the
size of the shrimp being processed, the age and location of the catch of the shrimp, unique
individual plant characteristics and many other factors which are difficult to completely
define. The result is a strong organic wastewater containing the conventional pollutants
of oil and grease, suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand. There are no toxic
1
-------
or non-biodegradable substances In the wastes. Since shrimp processors and canners are
near the source of the raw product and were at one time supplied only by boat, most are
located on coastal waters. Although they may now receive their supplies by truck from
distant docks or landing locations, the canners continue to operate in the original facili-
ties. They are generally located on sites with limited land holdings, and many of them
are in remote developed, non-metropolitan areas. The wastewater has traditionally been
discharged to the waterways or streams on which these processors are located, although a
few urban plants discharge to public sewers. As area development has occurred and
stream conditions have varied, some few have encountered pollution control problems.
Others have not yet seen evidence of any detrimental effect on the streams.
Shrimp Canners have for many years been concerned with a solution to the
problem of wastewater disposal. In the mid-sixties, some urban canneries faced the re-
moval of their wastewater from over-loaded public sewer systems into which the plants
were discharging. Investigations were started at that time to seek proper methods for dis-
posing of such wastewater. in 1971, the non-profit trade group, the American Shrimp
Canners Association, initiated action to actively investigate the cannery wastewater. In
February, 1972, an application was submitted to EPA fora research, development and
demonstration grant to investigate shrimp cannery wastewater treatment. Studies were
subsequently conducted under the grant to establish wastewater characterizations, deter-
mine effectiveness of screening of shrimp cannery wastewater, and test pilot plant perfor-
mance of dissolved air flotation as a treatment method. The project report, "Shrimp
Canning Waste Treatment Study' published in June, 1974, recommended that there be
further investigation to: (a) establish the efficiency of a DAF treatment system on a plant
scale: (b) study process changes and operating procedures to reduce and control water use
in the cannery; and (c) investigate methods for handling separated solids and sludges
developed by wastewater treatment.
This project was intended to provide the plant scale testing of a dissolved air
flotation system for shrimp cannery wastewater treatment. Dissolved air flotation (DAF)
is a physical, solid-liquid separation process which has been proven to be effective for
wastewater treatment in many areas of the seafood processing and canning industry -
DAF operates on the principle of minute air bubble attachment and specific gravity reduc-
tion of suspended and colloidal particles, causing the subsequent rise of the solid material.
The process also becomes chemical in nature when pH adjustment is employed and/or
coagulating and flocculating chemicals are added. Being a physical-chemical treatment
operation, dissolved air flotation is particularly adaptable to intermittent flows since
start-up is relatively more quickly effective than a biological system, for example. Simi-
larly, dissolved air flotation has relatively low land area requirements. Both of these
factors are of major concern to Gulf shrimp canners since the plants operate seasonally and
intermittently, and are usually located on bays or bayous where land is a scarce commodi-
ty-
Subsequent to the enactment of P. L. 92-500 in October, 1972, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency was charged with establishing measures and regulations to
reach the interim and ultimate goals to preserve the waters of the United States. Accord-
-------
ingly, industry effluent limitation development studies were conducted and guidelines
were established. Seafood industry guidelines were published in June, 1974, and were
subsequently amended on: January 30, 1975; December 1, 1975; July 1, 1976; July 30,
1976; February 4, 1977; and February 17, 1977. Regulations of prime concern to Gulf
shrimp canneries are designated 40 CFR 408. 120-408. 126, wKich establish effluent limita-
tions for "non breaded shrimp processing", and 408.270-408.276, which establish effluent
limitations for "steamed and canned oyster processing". These regulations based best
practicable control technology currently available (BPCTCA) 1977 effluent limitations on
screening of the processing wastewater. The 1983 best available technology economically
achievable (BATEA) for shrimp processing is based on dissolved air flotation treatment
while oyster processing is based on aerated lagoon treatment, except that oyster processors
who are also shrimp processors will have limitations established on a case'by-case basi.s.
The BATEA limitations were established without the benefit of plant scale
operational data. Limited shrimp wastewater pilot study information and transfer of datq
from studies or operation of treatment systems on other seafood and food processing waste-
waters were utilized in preparing the guidelines for attainable effluent reductions. No
data were available on oyster wastewater treatment.
It was,therefore,of importance to establish and operate a plant scale waste"
water treatment system to determine the actual degree of pollutant discharge reductions
which could be attained. ASCA again sought and obtained a demonstration grant from
EPA to follow up on the findings of the earlier 1972^74 shrimp cannery wastewgrer treat-
ment pilot plant. The project was expanded to obtain data on the treatment of oyster pro-
cessing wqstewaters as, well as shrimp cannjng wqstewaters,,
The purposes and objectives for this project were to modify cannery process or
product handling to reduce organics in wastewater, to establish a cannery water use pro-
gram to limit wastewater discharge, to design and install and operate a full scale waste-
water treatment system,and to monitor the raw wastewater and treated wastewater effluents,
The project grant was received in July, 1974. An on-site laboratory was
then designed,installed and equipped in time to begin wastewater flow measurement and
characterization during November and December. The year 1975 was spent in the accu-
mulation and analysis of water use data, the sampling and analysis of unit process, and
total wastewater streams, the preparation of a water use conservation qnd wastewater
management plan, and the design and bidding of a wastewater treatment system. The
treatment system was delivered and installed by late May, 1976. Stari-up problems pre-
vented effective operation during the May-July, 1976, summer canning season. After
modifications in August and October, 1976, and in early 1977, the wastewater treatment
system was operated and monitored during the October-December, 1976, and May-July,
1977 shrimp canning seasons and during February-March, 1977 oyster canning operations.
Some additional data were collected in August, October and November during the shrimp
processing season. Data collection was completed in November, 1977.
The project has been accomplished. Water use and management was modified,
3
-------
product handling changes were instituted, the wastewater treatment system was installed
and operated, and operational data were collected.
4
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY
This study reports the findings of a project in which a plant scale dissolved
air flotation system was installed and operated at a Gulf shrimp and oyster cannery in
an effort to define and evaluate attainable wastewater treatment levels. The system was
sized to treat the entire wastewater flow from the study cannery. It was designed to pro-
vide treatment in all three DAF modes, to utilize various chemical additives and appli-
cation points, and to permit pH adjustment and control. Treatment effectiveness was
determined by monitoring selected conventional wastewater parameters, including BOD,
COD, oil and grease, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and suspended solids.
The cannery shrimp processing wastewater was characterized over several can-
ning seasons with regard to both volume and pollutant loads. Oyster processing waste-
water was studied for a short period. It was found that there was a great deal of variabili-
ty in the content of the pollutants in the wastewaters. This is undoubtedly due to the vari-
able sizes, age, source and volume of the raw product being processed. The system was
chemically sensitive, and varying removal efficiencies were reached. Day-to-day opera-
tion of the DAF wastewater treatment system in this seafood application was demonstrated.
Promising chemical destabilizing agents (coagulants) used were alum, lignosulfonate (PRA)
and polymer (American Cyanamid 507~C). At an acidic pH, with an anionic polymer
(Magnifloc 835A) as a coagulant aid, good pollutant removals were achieved. Oyster pro-
cessing wastewaters were also effectively treated with the DAF system.
Skimmings sludge disposal from the DAF system was found to be a new, un-
solved problem which requires further study. Limited project investigations developed
data on quantities and characteristics. Bench scale tests of chemical oxidizing, centrifu-
gation and heating are reported. Data on testing a pilot scale evaporator dryer are also
given.
Shrimp processing and handling requires large volumes of water, both by pro-
cess equipment design and by established procedure and custom. Water use conservation
and management measures were instituted in the study plant with resultant significant
wastewater flow and pollutant load reduction. Minor product handling modifications con-
tributed to waste load reductions.
Data obtained from system operation are given in the report. These data con-
firm the preliminary, pilot plant study conclusion that a DAF system can be an effective
-------
treatment method if the biodegradable shrimp and oyster cannery wastewaters are to be
treated prior to discharge into the marine environment. The DAF treatment system was
found to be sensitive to wastewater changes and requires very careful and knowledgeable
control to obtain the maximum removals.
The study demonstrated that: (1) water use management and control is possible
and can help to significantly reduce wastewater pollutant discharge, (2) processing modi"
fication and control can contribute to reduction of pollutants in wastewater, (3) DAF
treatment may be expected to reduce conventional pollutants in shrimp and oyster process-
ing wastewaters, and (4) the DAF treatment system will require careful operation and full
chemical addition.
-------
SECTION III
CONCLUSIONS
1. One purpose of this project was to investigate water use and to institute water
conservation measures. This was done and wastewater flow was reduced more than
43% from 7,730 gal Ions per 1000 pounds (64,300 liters per 1000 kg) of raw
shrimp processed in 1975 to 4,420 gallons per 1000 pounds (36,800 liters per 1000
kg) in 1977.
2. Another objective was to consider cannery processing or product handling proce-
dures for possible modification to reduce pollutant load in the wastewater. Sever-
al modifications were considered but were not feasible at the time. One change
from wet fluming to dry conveying was demonstrated to reduce the concentration of
pollutants in the wastewaters. The pollutant increase in weight by wet conveying
over the same length was on the order of 10%. Water use and wastewater manage-
ment techniques resulted in an overall pollutant load reduction of 60% BODc,
13%TSS and 40% O & G.
3. The screening of wastewaters prior to discharge is the current BPCTCA for shrimp
and oyster processors. This practice at the study cannery was found to be effective
as a pollutant load reduction mechanism, particularly with regard to TSS. A re-
moval of 45% TSS was found. This reduction was in addition to that achieved by
water use and wastewater management.
4. The further characterization of wastewaters from cannery unit processes and the
total discharge was undertaken. An attempt was made to correlate wastewater
pollutant load to source, size and age of raw product, but this was not successful.
The data from the effort confirm the variability and unpredictability of the cannery
wastewater content. Such variations have a direct effect on the success of the
wastewater treatment effort. Review of the data will also indicate that variations
are such that average and ranges (or standard deviations) of values are more appli-
cable than "typical" or "optimum" values.
5. The primary project purpose was to determine the achievable levels of pollutant
removals from the cannery wastewater with a plant scale dissolved air flotation
(DAF) treatment system. With some start-up difficulties, requiring a project time
extension, the system was successfully operated under various normal cannery
operating conditions and with careful control of treatment. Conclusions with
7
-------
regard to DAF Treatment of the biodegradable shrimp canning wastewater are:
(a) Pre-screening of shrimp processing wastewater is essential to satisfac-
tory treatment system control.
(b) Physical-chemical treatment of Gulf shrimp processing wastewater is a
valid technology, but it requires knowledgeable operation and control.
(c) Treatment without chemicals in the DAF system resulted in low removal
efficiencies.
(d) Chemical addition is required to control pH, coagulate and flocculate
the suspended solids and obtain significant removals of the conventional
pollutants. Acid, alum, polymer and caustic are required.
(e) The recycle mode of DAF operation can give more consistent results, in
the opinion of the investigators.
(f) With minor modifications, a DAF system to treat shrimp processing
wastewater can be successfully utilized to provide a comparable degree
of treatment for oyster processing wastewaters.
(g) Findings on the cannery wastewater treatment should also be applicable
to any shrimp processor where similar mechanical peeling, cleaning,
grading, and deveining are practiced.
6. The DAF treatment of shrimp cannery wastewater was not demonstrated to achieve
the degree of effluent reduction called for in BATEA guidelines. It is concluded
that revision of the guidelines (40 CFR 408. 123) would be required. The present
guidelines and the practicable, achievable, average pollutant discharge inlbs/
1000 Ibs (kg/1000 kg) of raw shrimp are:
PARAMETER GUIDELINES ACHIEVABLE
BOD5 10 20
TSS 3.4 10
O&G 1.1 1.4
7. Oyster canning wastewater pollutant removals by DAF system installed to treat
shrimp cannery wastewater can be expected to reach the average removal reflect-
ed by the achievable limitations shown below, as compared to BATEA guidelines
in 40 CFR 408.273, in lbs/1000 Ibs (kg/1000 kg) of finished product:
PARAMETER GUIDELINES ACHIEVABLE
BOD5 17 20
TSS 39 20
O&G 0.42 1.0
8. Achievable removals of some parameters are apparently related to initial concen-
tration. Oil and grease appears to be so related. A lesser percentage of oil and
-------
grease was found to be removed from the less concentrated oyster processing waste-
waters than from the shrimp processing wastewaters.
9. Because of the varying seasonal and intermittent operation by shrimp and oyster
canneries and processors, the land limitations faced by most operators, the highly
putrescible nature of both the raw product and the resultant processing wastes, the
Dissolved Air Flotation system appears at this time to be a viable wastewater
treatment method. With careful and constant control, it can effectively reduce
the pollutant load in the wastewater prior to discharge. Variable operating con-
ditions of from two hour to 24 hour periods, delicate instrumentation to control
pH and the addition of three or four chemicals and the amount of mechanical
equipment involved will necessitate fully staffed, highly trained operators if
adequate results are to be regularly achieved.
10. Project records of capital costs and operating and maintenance costs were used to
develop typical DAF wastewater treatment system average annual costs for an 8
peeler and for a 4 peeler processor. These costs are in year-end 1977 dollars and
include capital costs, power, labor, chemicals, sludge disposal costs, amortiza-
tion and operation and maintenance:
Size Plant Average Annual Cost
8 peelers $ 131,500
4 peelers $ 104,100
11. It was concluded from this project that the wet (5% solids), highly putrescible and
odorous sludge produced from DAF treatment of shrimp canning wastewaters will
average about 5,400 gal Ions (20,400 liters) or 27 cu. yds. (21 cubic meters) per
day and may be as high as 10,000 gallons (37,850 liters) or 50 cubic yards (38
cubic meters) per day. Since by present practice shrimp peeling hulls are screened
out and disposed of as solid wastes to landfill, it has-been assumed this may be one
way of disposing of sludges produced. However, this is not an acceptable alterna-
tive and a better solution is needed. Storage, treatment and disposal of DAF
skimmings sludge and screenings solids requires further investigation.
-------
SECTION IV
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Best Available Technology effluent limitations guidelines for shrimp processors
should be re-examined in view of the experience with this plant scale wastewater
treatment system. The levels of removals established in the guidelines do not
appear to be achievable under normal operating conditions. It is recommended
the average discharge of conventional pollutants based on DAF treatment removals,
using a complete physical-chemical system, be established as:
PARAMETER AVERAGE DISCHARGE LIMITATION
BOD5 20 lbs/1000 Ibs (kg/1000 kg) raw shrimp processed
TSS 10 lbs/1000 Ibs (kg/1000 kg) raw shrimp processed
O & G 1.4 lbs/1000 Ibs (kg/1000 kg)raw shrimp processed
2. Best Available Technology effluent limitations for oyster processors which utilize
DAF systems Installed to achieve shrimp processing limitations can be expected to
discharge average conventional pollutant quantities of:
PARAMETER AVERAGE DISCHARGE LIMITATION
BODc 20 lbs/1000 Ibs (kg/1000 kg) canned oysters
TSS 20 lbs/1000 Ibs (kg/1000 kg) canned oysters
O & G 1 lbs/1000 Ibs (kg/1000 kg) canned oysters
It is recommended this limil-ation be considered in each such case.
3. The economics of achieving the above suggested limitations should be re-examined
in view of the data developed in this project.
4. Should there be no change in the current concept of requiring the separation of
conventional pollutants from seafood processing wastewaters as solids prior to
discharge into the marine environment, there will remain a pressing need to solve
the solids disposal problem. Wet disposal on land is not practicable. An adequate-
ly funded comprehensive study, or studies, should be conducted to determine the
most feasible, cost effective method of handling and disposing of DAF skimmings
and shrimp processing screenings, including; chemical conditioning, belt press or
10
-------
filter press dewatering, evaporator drying, kiln drying, centrifuge dewatering,
etc.
5. Individual canners and processors of shrimp and oysters are encouraged to adopt
effective water use management and control measures and to plan plant and pro-
cessing modification with a view to reducing water use for transporting product,
substituting dry conveying, and using substitute methods for product cleaning,
such as low velocity air. Efforts should be directed toward keeping solids out of
water and thus out of wastewaters. Water re-use under controlled conditions may
offer promise. All of these items will require considerable time and effort to
develop and accomplish, if feasible.
n
-------
SECTION V
BACKGROUND
A. Literature Review
There exist three basic mechanisms of air flotation: Dissolved Air Flotation,
Dispersed Air Flotation, and Vacuum Flotation. All are classified as unit operations and
seek to bring about the separation of solids and liquids in a two-phase medium by combin-
ing a gas, usually air, with the solid materials for the subsequent rise of the solids with
air bubbles attached. Each process differs in the method by which air is brought out of
solution. Dissolved air is the most widely used of the flotation mechanisms and has found
application in many industrial wastewater treatment systems, as well as in municipal
sludge thickening.
In order to dissolve air into water, pressure must be applied. This follows
Henry's Law which states that the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to
the absolute pressure of the gas above the liquid at equilibrium. In mathematical form,
Henry's Law may be expressed as:
Where: P = Partial pressure of gas, atmospheres
9
SymbolXg = Equilibrium mole fraction of dissolved gas
= _ Moles gas (M ) _ and
moles gas (M ) + moles water (Mw)'
y
H = Henry's Law constant
The constant, H, is a function of chemical and physical characteristics of the
liquid. A re-arrangement of equation (1) yields:
Xg = i (2)
9 H
In this simple form, Henry's Law states that the theoretical level of saturation of a gas in
a liquid is greater at a higher liquid-gas interface pressure. A widely accepted theory
of mass transfer, the two film concept, contends that both gas and liquid films exist at the
12
-------
gas-liquid interface. The transfer of gases into solution will only occur at pressures suffi-
cient to establish the needed gradient across the gas-liquid film. When the induced pre-
ssure is released, the gradient is essentially reversed and the gas is forced back across the
interface to come out of solution as tiny bubbles. Such is the case in dissolved air flota-
tion. Air is mixed with water and the mixture is pressurized. Under pressure, the air is
forced across the gas-liquid interface to become saturated in the water. A shift in the
pressure gradient occurs when the pressure is released, and the air comes out of solution in
the form of minute bubbles with diameters of 50-100 microns. Thus, the air portion of
the flotation process has been supplied.
Mechanisms of DAF
r\ f-
Dissolved air flotation can occur by three different processes: ' (1) adhe-
sion of gas bubbles to a suspended phase, (2) gas bubbles becoming trapped in the floe
structure as the bubbles rise, and/or (3) adsorption of gas bubbles in a floe structure as it
is formed. The first process can occur by the precipitation of the gas on the solid or liquid
surface, or can occur by contact between the suspended and gas phases. This contact be-
tween suspended and gas phases is thought to be more difficult to bring about since it
relies on a direct contact between the participating phases. Vrablik^ notes that the
adhesion process, (1), is best carried out in a full pressurization situation. Solids in the
waste stream act as nuclei for bubble formation in this mode, and the retention time allows
for greater bubble-solid contact.
Process (2) is a variation of the first case of process (1) whereby contact be-
tween particle and bubble is necessary and dependent on the irregularity of the particle
surface.. Here, coagulating chemicals are employed to increase the size of the particle
through flocculation. It is to be noted that laboratory results are often not applicable
to full scale systems due to dynamic differences.
Finally, dissolved air flotation may occur by trapping both gas bubbles and
solid materials in a floe structure. This process (3) occurs after the pressure is released
and the gas is coming out of solution.
Air To Solids
One of the primary operating variables of a dissolved air flotation system is
the air to solids ratio. This is a function of and is controlled by the factors of pressure,
water temperature, and suspended solids level. Air to solids ratio (A*/S) is an expression
representative of the ratio of pounds of air released to the pounds of solids applied. The
following expressions are used to calculate A*/S and assume that an excess amount of air
is applied:
A*/S = ^ff(p/14-7 + ])"] ] (no recycle) (3)
A*/S = RCs
QX0 [f(P/14.7+l) -1] (with recycle) (4)
13
-------
The terms in the above expressions are defined as follows:
A*/S = air to solids ratio, pounds air released per pound solids applied,
Cs = gas saturation at atmospheric conditions, mg/l,
Xo = average influent suspended solids, mg/l,
f = fraction of saturation of air dissolved in the pressurization system,
P = gage pressure, psig,
Q = influent flow, mgd, and
R = recycle flow, mgd.
Generally speaking, the higher the A*/S ratio, the better the treatment will be because
more air will be available to float the solids.
Colloidal Destabillzation
Many particles found in wastewater are colloidal, i.e.,their diameters are
in the range of 0. 001 to 1. 0 microns. Such particles have an extremely low settling
velocity, and are smaller than the air bubbles which are precipitated by the dissolved air
flotation process. By the addition of coagulating chemicals, and coagulant aids, these
particles can be drawn together to form larger particles.
A common and useful coagulant is aluminum sulfate, or alum: A12(SC>4)3 '
18 H2O. When introduced into an aqueous system, alum reacts with alkalinity in the
water to form aluminum hydroxide:
A12(SO4)3 * 18H2O + 3Ca (HCO3)2 *>
2A1(OH)3+ 3CaSO4+6CO2+ 18H2O (5)
o __
The A1(OH)3 salt is actually of the form, A1X(OH)V X ^ and concentrations vary with pH.
It is the A1(OH)3 form however that is an effective coagulant. These positively charged
counter ions can bring about destabilization of negatively charged colloids by several
methods. One of the most common phenomena of particle destabilization is termed double
diffuse layer compression whereby an overshadowing of the negative colloidal charge is
brought about by the A1(OH)3 compound. The result is destabilized colloids and larger
solid particles.
Coagulant aids (polymers) do not act as destabilizing agents, but rather form
larger, tougher floes of particles which have already been destabilized and brought toge-
ther by coagulants. Polymers act as bridging agents and can be charged or uncharged,
14
-------
and, if charged, can be either positive or negative. Polymers are very useful when used
in conjunction with metal salts, but most are not effective when acting alone.
Modes of DAF Operation
There are three distinct and separate modes of hydraulic operation for dis-
solved air flotation systems, each with different operating characteristics. They are full
flow pressurization (FFP), Partial Pressurization (P), and Recycle Pressurization (R), as
illustrated in Figure 1. Each mode has its advantages and disadvantages, and usually pilot
plant studies are required to determine the optimum mode for use on a particular waste-
water. It is generally understood, however, that a shearing of floe particles occurs at
the pressure release valve when the wastewater itself is de-pressurized. The degree to
which this phenomenon affects operation and performance varies, of course, with the
type of wastewater and its nature and treatabi lity. The three modes differ in that all the
raw flow is pressurized in full flow pressurization (FFP), a portion is pressurized in partial
pressurization (P), and no raw flow is pressurized in recycle pressurization (R). Full flow
pressurization does not require a recycle pump or special flocculation chamber and, there-
fore, the full flow pressurization mode is lower in capital cost than the partial or recycle
modes. Delicate floe can be better handled with the other modes, however.
DAF Treatment in the Seafood Industry
The nature of most animal processing wastewaters, including seafood, is such
that sedimentation processes aren't applicable; oil and grease is usually at a high level,
and a large portion of solid materials exists in the wastewater in colloidal or dissolved
form. Much of the pollutional character of seafood processing wastewater is in the form
of soluble organics and soluble protein, which is conventionally removed by biological
treatment, or chemical precipitation. However, since seafood processing is seasonal, and
operates on an intermittent basis, dissolved air flotation represents a very adaptable
treatment scheme which does not incur the inherent disadvantages associated with a bio-
logical treatment system such as start-up, inadaptability to intermittent loading, and
large land area requirements. DAF also has the flexibility to include chemical precipita-
tion.
Since dissolved air flotation of seafood processing wastewater is a relatively
new application, pilot studies have been conducted for several segments of the industry to
adequately define the treatment levels which could be expected before full-scale treat-
ment is attempted. Basic results indicate that DAF removals of BOD^, TSS and O & G
have reached high levels in such areas of the seafood industry as tuna, Pacific NW shrimp,
and menhaden bailwater. '^ Similarly, dissolved air flotation has been proven success-
ful for treating salmon and other fish processing wastewaters.°'"
Table 1 gives a summary of DAF pilot plant testing on various seafood waste-
waters.
Studies at various fish processing plants in Sweden have been conducted to
15
-------
Figure I DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
OPERATIONAL MODES
EQUALIZATION
SURGE AND FLOC
TANK
RETENTION
TANK
FLOTATION
CELL
FULL FLOW PRESSURIZATION (FFP)
EQUALIZATION
PUMP
RETENTION
TANK
FLOTATION
CELL
PARTIAL PRESSURIZATION (P)
SURGE
TANK
EQUALIZATION
«-
RETENTION
TANK
PUMP
EFFLUENT
FLOTATION
CELL
RECYCLE PRESSURIZATION (R)
16
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PILOT PLANT DAF PERFORMANCE6
Wastewater Source Chemical Additive No. of Samples Parameter % Reduction
Tuna
Lime (pH 10-10.5)
Polymers
Cationic
Anionic
BOD,
TSS
O&G
65
66
66
Tuna
Menhaden Bailwater
Pacific NW Shrimp
Gulf Shrimp
Gulf Shrimp
Lime 1
Ferric Chloride
Alum or Acid (pH 5-5.3) 5
Polymer
Alum 22
Polymer
Acid (pH 5) 5
Alum
Polymer
Acid (pH 5) 2
Alum
Polymer
BOD5
TSS
O&G
COD
TSS
O&G
COD
TSS
BOD5
COD
TSS
COD
TSS
O&G
22
77
81
80
87
Near 100
73
77
70
64
83
51
68
85
\J
evaluate dissolved air flotation as a treatment method. The treatment levels reported
varied a great deal, but several conclusions regarding system optimization were drawn:
lower recycle rates (approximately 15%), faster skimmer speeds, and screening before
flotation were all conducive to better removal efficiencies. Chemicals utilized included
acid (for pH adjustment), alum, and lime; and recycle (R) was the mode of operation
generally employed.
Ertz, et a|, in their survey of dissolved air flotation treatment in the seafood
industry, took an in-depth look at four DAF installations serving tuna canneries. Minor
physical differences existed between the systems, but treatment efficiencies were relative-
ly comparable at all four installations. Table 2 is a summary of the treatment levels
attained, with the removal percentages which were suggested by the authors for BPCTCA
guidelines. Chemical addition at these plants included small alum and anionic polymer
dosages (approximately 60 mg/l and 2 mg/l, respectively), and pH adjustment. The pH
17
-------
TABLE 2. TUNA DAF REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES6
Parameter
BOD5
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
PLANT NO. 1
Mean
42.9%
74.8%
83.5%
7.8-77.9%
46.5-89.6%
43.3-98.0%
PLANT NO. 2
Projected
for BPCTCA
40%
70%
85%
BOD5 24.3%
Total Suspended Solids 48.2%
Oil & Grease 64.3%
12.0-57.0%
18.5-62.5%
0-96.8%
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 4
40%
70%
85%
BOD5
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
_
95%
88%
—
94-98%
64-99%
40%
70%
85%
BOD5
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
66%
57%
23-93%
33-97%
40%
70%
85%
was not consistently lowered to the minimum protein solubility point, however, and some
variability in operating pH was reported.
The problem of handling the solids produced by the DAF system has not re-
ceived full investigation for treatment and disposal as yet. It appears, however, that
centrifugation and/or chemical treatment may have application in the seafood industry.
Based on the dewatering practices in other industries and their relative effectiveness,
more study is needed for optimization of sludge utilization or treatment and disposal
methods for DAF sludge from the seafood industry.
Gulf Shrimp Canning Studies
Pilot and bench scale studies were conducted on Gulf Shrimp canning waste-
water prior to the installation of a full scale system. Shrimp Canning Waste Treatment
Study was the preliminary (pilot) study which led to the installation of the demonstration
plant scale DAF wastewater treatment system with which this report is concerned. The
18
-------
pilot study produced much data and many conclusions that were of major consideration in
the design and evaluation of the full scale system, and are of primary interest from an in-
dependent viewpoint. The pilot study investigated physical - chemical treatment of
shrimp canning wastewaters and characterized wastewater flows in order to provide basic
data for the design of a wastewater treatment plant.
Included in the pilot study were bench scale treatment investigations, and a
pilot scale DAF treatment plant. The lab scale treatability studies included a variety of
coagulants, coagulant aids, water conditioners, and chemicals for pH adjustment, which
were thoroughly evaluated. Several types of screens were investigated, both for the
total process flow and for discharge from the peelers, and skimmings dewatering was in-
vestigated.
The pilot scale dissolved air flotation treatment unit was sized to treat only
a portion of the total process flow (50 gpm), and was designed on criteria generally accep-
ted to be standard. Operational runs were segregated in a way to allow optimization of
individual variables to establish design criteria. Operating data were used to formulate
cost estimates for 4 and 8-peeler cannery wastewater treatment plants.
Research has been conducted by the Department of Food Science at Louisiana
State University on the nutritional value of shrimp wastewaters and, consequently, on
methods of solid-liquid separation of the protein. 10/11 In accordance with the findings
of the wastewater treatment pilot study, the food scientists noted that the optimum pH
for protein precipitation was 4.2, and the fresh blanch water was easier to treat than
wastewater of a similar nature which had been stored. Toma and Meyers'' concluded
that ferri-c chloride and ferric sulfate were the most effective of several metal salts for
coagulation. It should be noted that these tests were conducted at massive chemical
dosages, much higher than those normally encountered in wastewater treatment.
B. Shrimp Processing at Violet Project Cannery
Violet Packing Co. is located (Figure 2) on Violet Canal, on Packenham
Road, in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, approximately 17 miles down river from New
Orleans. The cannery now operates nine mechanized shrimp peelers and is one of the
largest of the Gulf Coast shrimp processors. Raw shrimp are supplied by truck from shrimp
fishing producers all along the Gulf Coast, from Key West, Florida to South Texas, with
the largest volume from the Louisiana Coast.
The Violet processing methods are typical of the other Gulf Coast shrimp
canneries. A schematic of the product and wastewater flows is shown on Figure 3.
Raw, fresh shrimp are unloaded by hand into a water filled receiving tank
(see Figure 4) where ice used in shipping is separated and removed from the shrimp. The
discharge from this receiving tank represents about 2% of the total flow and approximately
5% of the total wasteload, as shown in Table 3.
19
-------
ro
o
,A S. I kBERVI L L E M'— -*--==• W^J--*.\JlH--rL"Tvf> x< , - >„.. 9
&-A „. . .A4i^J^VW^*£
B E Rll A/»JV" ^S,-W \\ V.' TO JV*1""". t^«pi«m3bassi f J' '— \"-'"""\,l,\ <;T • rvr'">, Z A^y"
—-.-i / Zj.!^fcs^\T'^T U.BTIN^^TI, ,...,,S^W^ ¥ I *i,Jisji/l_.s.Tij.'i-?'!r-n. 41 rlf/'t
--vf/ r^m ipT'-'TSr-s^ajt. } •ff.ftH^-K.:^ r «. v^ry ;v, -,--^ „
•'i^i^^jK.^ti.j-'f'M /"Sis=fe^f'v*!i^::' fair" ;:: ^"\ , /Sv.-..
^-fN^SfiSiyr^jfeS^Ss. ^™^«~ .!"= "^M^S
*- :
(\«r rp^^^s
I _ ri3 „ / ' >n ^^.^T^
* ASCA MEMBER PLANT p1gure 2 ASCA MEMBER PLANTS
-------
Figure 3 GULF SHRIMP PROCESSING SCHEMATIC
^
.DEBRIS
SOLI D WASTE
(TO LANDFILL)
DEBRIS
J
( 10 LANDFILL)
DEBRIS
1
(TO LANDFILL)
PRODUCT FLOW ^
UJAOTC cinw
nc.L,ci VIIMO
4
INSPECTION
4
WEIGHING
4
PEELING
4
CLEANING
4
SEPARATING
4
GRADING
4
DEVEINING
*
INSPECTION
^
BLANCHING
4
COOLING
4
GRADING
4
FINAL INSPECTION
^
CAN FILLING
*
CAN SEALING
4
RETORTING
^
COOLING
i r
LABELING/PACKING
4
STORAGE'
4
SHIPPING
HEADS , SHELLS, WATER
SHELL MATERIAL, WATER ^
WATER
SHRIMPMEAT, VEINS, WATER^
SHRIMPMEAT BRINE WATER ^
SHRIMPMEAT, WATER
SALT WATER
WATER ^
WATEFL
NON- CONTACT WASTEW
WATER TO
SCRE
r
OTER
ENS
21
-------
Figure 4
Unloading Shrimp
Figure 5
Vibrating Inspection Table
-------
TABLE 3. WASTEWATER FLOWS FROM SHRIMP PROCESSING OPERATIONS
1975 DATA
gai/1000# gal/1000# No. of % of
raw shrimp raw shrimp Observe- Total
mean Std.Devia. tions flow
% of Total Waste load
(Ibs. pollutant)
BOD,
TSS O&G
Receiving
Tank
All
Peelers
All
Separators
All
Graders
All
Deveiners
All Other
Streams
Total
1975
154 63
2950 540
950 1440
203 80
1370 350
2100 --
7730
5
34 2 (359)
61
35 38 (4080)
8.3
28 12 (558)
0.3
33 3 (19)
2
30 18 (141)
23.4
27 (1650)
100
1 00 (6700)
• 5
(135)
57
(1410)
6
(159)
0.8
(19)
0.6
(160)
30.6
(584)
100
(2470)
9
( 51)
42
(244)
3
( 16)
0.2
( 1)
1.5
( 9)
44.3
(265)
100
(586)
Shrimp are moved from this tank by a flight type conveyor and dewatering
screen onto a double sided, vibrating, inspection table (See Figure 5). Debris and trash
fish are hand removed by workers as the shrimp move to an automatic, batch weigh scale
shown covered with plastic wrap in the center of Figure 6. Solid wastes generated at the
inspection table are removed by truck to a landfill.
Other conveyors transport the shrimp to the nine peeler machines. Shrimp
are shown falling into the receiving end of a Laitram peeler in Figure 7. The next, Figure
8, shows the traveling belt which distributes the shrimp evenly across the width of the
peeler. Figure 9 shows the mechanism which "peels" the shrimp. The shrimp move by
gravity through the machine and then the meat is water transported by flume for further
23
-------
Figure 6
Shrimp Weighing Scale
Figure 7
Shrimp Falling into Peeler
24
-------
Figure 8
Belt Distributing Shrimp Across Peeler
-------
processing. Heads, hulls, and appendages are removed in the peeler machine by a
series of spring loading fingers which gently press the shrimp against long rotating cylin-
ders. Tops of fingers and rubber covered rollers can be seen in Figure 9.
The discharge from the peelers constituted approximately 38% of the total
flow and a major percentage of the total wasteload in 1975 when unit processes were
characterized. The peelers were targets of water reduction measures and the total con-
sumption of water had been reduced prior to the 1977 season. No individual measure-
ments were made to ascertain the amount of water use savings in various units brought
about by water conservation, but the plan was effective in changing the total wastewater
flow from 7730gal/1000# of raw shrimp processed in 1975 to 4420 gal/1000# in 1977, a
reduction of 43%.
After the peeling operation, the shrimp meat is further cleaned in agitator
machines, then it is pumped in water to another cleaning operation performed by machines
called separators for removal of remaining shell material from the shrimp meat. From this
operation the shrimp meat is water carried through graders which separate the individual
pieces of shrimp by size. Larger sizes may be sent to the deveining operation and smaller
sizes may go directly to the canning room.
Deveining requires two steps for the operation. The first step is the slitting
of the back of the shrimp to expose the vein and the second step is the "picking" and
washing of the shrimp meat to remove the vein. Figure 10 shows the cleaning and wash-
ing drums of the deveiners in the left foreground and the bottoms of the inclined troughs
which hold the razor edges that expose the shrimp vein are shown in the upper portion of
the picture. A portion of the dry conveyor which transports the shrimp to further process-
ing can be seen in the left foreground of the photograph. Dry conveying was recommend-
ed in the water conservation program and was accomplished successfully to transport pro-
duct from the processing operation to the canning room. The deveining operation account-
ed for 18% of the total plant wastewater flow in 1975.
All shrimp are again inspected after the peeling and deveining operation.
Trash particles and incompletely peeled and deveined shrimp are removed from the pro-
duct stream. This inspection belt passes into the canning room. The canning room waste-
water discharge is the main constituent of "all other streams" in Table 3.
In order to provide a ready-to-eat, stable product, the next step involves
cooking, or blanching, of processed shrimp meat. All shrimp meat is conveyed through
a tank of hot salt water where cooking occurs. The blanch tank is shown in Figure 11.
There is a small continuous overflow from the blanch tank, which contributes meat frag-
ments and other pollutants to the waste stream. Following blanching, cooling occurs in
another tank similar to the blanch tank. The cooling tank, as shown in Figure 12, con-
tributes an overflow to the waste stream, and all tankage is dumped at the end of a shift.
The product is then air cooled on a slow moving conveyor and in a low velocity air blast
unit which separates any remaining small trash particles.
26
-------
Figure 10
Cleaning and Washing Drums of Deveiner
-------
Since the size of the shrimp to a large extent determines their use and market-
able price, shrimp are graded and canned according to size, employing such classifica-
tions as small, medium, large, deveined, etc. Following blanching and cooling, the
shrimp are separated into sizes by passage through a grader. The grader consists of a
vibrating pan with holes of various diameters which allow segregation of shrimp by size.
A final inspection is then carried out to assure a quality product before canning.
Shrimp are placed in cans mechanically and then the weight is checked and
made more exact manually. The voids in the can are filled with a brine and citric
solution. Some spillage is inherent in this step, as shown in Figure 13. The cans are
capped and then retorted. While in the retorts, the cans are cooled with water. This
water is discharged without treatment, since it represents only a moderate thermal dis-
charge. The cans are now ready for labeling and packaging and for shipping, which is
done from another location in the New Orleans area.
Wastewater from all unit processes flows to a central collection point where
it is pumped to the screening room. Here, vibrating screens remove hulls and other
large debris. The screened wastewater flows by gravity to the DAF treatment system or
to the cannery wastewater pump station for final disposal into the Mississippi River.
Solid material removed by the screening process is either dried in rotary steam kilns or
is hauled wet to a landfill.
C. Oyster Processing at Project Cannery
Oyster processing is much different than shrimp canning. Concurrent with the
differences in raw product and processing methods, the wastewaters are different.
The oyster is a filter-feeding shellfish whose natural habitat is the soft bottoms
of brackish waters. For this reason, the bays and estuaries of south Louisiana are ideal
locations for the mollusks. Harvesting is primarily a manual operation carried out on
small boats by crews of 3 to 5 men. Oysters are taken from the bottom by a clam type
dredge which is hoisted to the surface by a winch. The nature of this action is quite con-
ducive to the acquisition of large quantities of bottom mud along with the oysters. Some
fishermen wash the oysters with hoses, pumping surface water, before storage on the decks
of their boats in order to minimize storage area required, but many do not. The harvest-
ing and storage methods of the oyster fishermen contribute to great variations in the pollu-
tional character of the oyster processing and canning wastewater. In addition, the oyster
catch location and the stream bottom character contribute to the nature of the oyster pro-
cessing wastewater. The type and age of the oyster itself, in addition to the kinds and
amounts of bottom muds, etc., could also be influential on the wastewater characteristics.
The Gulf oyster processing schematic is shown on Figure 14. An understand-
ing of the processing methods will help give an insight into the wastewaters produced.
The Violet Plant unloads oyster boats (Figure 15) with industrial vacuum
28
-------
Figure 12
Blanch Cooling Tank
Figure 13
Can Spillage
29
-------
Figure 14
GENERAL PROCESS SCHEMATIC
OYSTER CANNING
RAW OYSTERS FROM BOAT
RECEIVING
TRUCK
TRUCK
WHOLE OYSTER DRUM
WASHER
GRIT CHAMBER
I 111 j^^ G_RUu§HELL BITS \
a:
uj <
PRESOAK
SHELL PILE
.VAGEABLE
^PRODUCT)
L .§. H_ELL _
1
LSHELL_
DEBRIS _|
— OYSTER PIE
11
fr
STEAM COOK
1
MECHANICAL SHUCKER
III
BRINE SEPARATOR TANK
GRIT AND
SETTLING
{ MEAT
POTS
1
GRADER
1
INSPECTION TABLE
:ES
OYSTER JU ICES. CON DENSA"
^SPILLAGE
/* GRIT, SHELLBITS, BRINE
JFLUSH WATER, DEBRIS
_v _
[DRAINAGE a WASH DOWN
— -
WHOLE
OYSTERS
1
CANNING
CITY WATER
^
TRUCK
RETORTING
WATER
LEG END-
WASTEWATER FLOW
SOLID WASTE
== OYSTER FLOW
«- DIRECTION OF FLOW
COOLING
1
PACKAGING
WATER 1
1
SHIPPING
TOTAL PLANT EFFLUENT
30
-------
lines, which is a recent modernization. Formerly, manually loaded conveyors were
utilized to transport the oysters from the boats. Oysters are conveyed to a drum washer,
the first processing step.
The drum washer consists of a rotating cylindrical container with water sprays.
Figure 16 shows this operation, which is designed to remove excessive quantities of mud
from the closed shells of the raw oysters. Beneath this washer is a grit trap which is of
a size to provide a hydraulic detention time of 5 to 6 minutes, at a flow of about TOO gpm.
Settled bits of shell and mud are removed via conveyor to a container hopper on a waiting
truck. Even with this grit trap, large amounts of silt (both organic and inorganic mater-
ials) remain in the waste stream from this point. The next step in the process is steam
cooking of the oysters. Upon steam heating, the oyster dies, the shells are partially
separated, and natural fluids are discharged. The protein juices along with steam con-
densate are contributed to the wastewater at this step. A mechanical shucker causes
separation of meat and shell. This shucker follows the steam cook and is essentially a
rotating drum with finger-like projections which carry the oyster upward until it drops.
The broken shell moves upward to a conveyor and the oyster falls into a trough below the
shucker which contains a brine solution. The meat floats, but shell particles settle and
are conveyed from the brine tank to the outside of the plant. All shell and grit is trans-
ported to a stockpile. The oyster meat passes over inspection tables where it is rinsed and
residual debris is manually removed. Final and complete separation of meat and shell is
accomplished.
The oyster canning process is similar to that for shrimp, consisting of can
filling, sealing, retorting, and cooling. The cans are manually filled with oyster meat,
water is added, and cans are then sealed. Some liquid overflow and spillage is inherent
in this step. Retorting is a batch process producing a non-contact, once through waste-
water characteristic of a slight thermal discharge. This retort cooling flow bypasses the
process wastewater treatment system and is routed directly for pumpage and discharge.
As Figure 14 illustrates, various steps of the processing and canning operation contribute
process waters which establish the nature of the wastewater.
Oyster processing wastewater, even after primary grit removal, is very high
in inorganic, silty, muddy, settleable solids. Thus the suspended solids content of the
wastewater is higher than in shrimp canning. The settleables tend to separate during re-
tention periods such as are encountered in the flotation cell of a DAF system.
D. Project DAF System Design Information
Process design parameters for the Violet DAF wastewater treatment system
were based to a large extent on the 1974 report "Shrimp Waste Treatment Study"^ which
gave recommendations for scale-up to full plant dimensions. Wastewater flows measured
and characterized in 1975 at the Violet Packing Company plant were used for determining
physical sizes of the DAF equipment. The process design summary is shown in Table 4.
31
-------
- ,-f • -._
Figure 15
Oyster Boat Ready for Unloading
Figure 16
Drum Washer
(Oyster Processing)
• '
-------
TABLE 4. PROCESS DESIGN SUMMARY*
VIOLET DAF SYSTEM
OPERATING MODE
FULL FLOW PARTIAL
RECYCLE
Influent flow, GPM
Recycle Rate-, %
Recycle Rate, GPM
Total Flow, GPM
Surface loading rate, GPM/ft2
Cell solids loading, Ib/hr/ft2
Cell retention time, minutes
Pressure, psig
Air supply (min.%, Theo. satura-
tion of pressure flow)
Air injection capacity, by air
volume (min. ), %
Air/solids ratio, Ib/lb.
700
-
-
700
2.0 max.
0. 5 max.
60 max.
40-60
75
2
0. 10 min.
700
-
-
700
2. 0 max.
0.5 max.
60 max.
40-60
75
2
0. 10 min.
700
40-50
350 max.
1050 max.
3. 0 max.
0. 5 max.
30 min.
40-60
75
2
0.05 min.
*Based on Canning Plant Screened Wastewater Concentration of TSS=500 mg/l
DAF Supplier's Performance Warranty:
% Removal BOD - 60% provided soluble does not exceed 500 ppm
% Removal TSS - Minimum 75% at all conditions outlined
% Removal O&G - 95 ppm effluent discharge with 300 ppm influent.
Since it was a requirement that the system operate in three pressurization
modes, full flow, partial flow, and recycle flow pressurization, the following equipment
and sub-systems were specified: influent meter and chemical proportioning system, receiv-
ing (surge) tank, process pumps with metered air injection systems, air saturation reten-
tion tank with pressure release valve, flotation cell, skimmings tank and pump, floccula-
tion tank with mixer, effluent (recycle) tank, coagulant and polymer feed systems with
storage tanks and feed pumps and two pH control systems with chemical storage tanks and
feed systems. The instrumentation and control panel was installed in a sheet metal build-
ing adjacent to the DAF slab. All of the process equipment was installed on a 42'-0"X
46' -3" concrete slab. Acid, caustic and alum tanks were located near the DAF slab
within a protective spill levee. All DAF tanks were steel and were internally protected
from low pH attack by a PPG poly-amid coal tar epoxy paint system. The wastewater
piping was steel and was painted with the PPG epoxy paint system on the outside. Che-
mical piping was PVC. A plan view of the installation is shown in Figure 17 and a
hydraulic profile of the full flow pressurization mode is schematically shown in Figure 18.
Due to the stringy nature of solids in shrimp processing wastewater, a non-
33
-------
SKIMMINGS
HOPPER
^-TREATMENT PLANT CONTROL
DRY CHEMICAL STORAGE 8
OPERATIONS BUDG (METAL)
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGE
pUMP STATION
TO MISS. RIVFB
- = = «5«TicTCOOUING WATER
Figure 17
PLAN VIEW
VIOLET DAF SYSTEM
SCALE IN FEET
34
-------
OO
en
NOTE:
FLOC TANK OVERFLOW TO
MAIN CELLl® ELEV. 22.76
EQUALIZATION
VALVE
INCOMING RAW
WATER FROM
SCREENS(INV.ll.5l)
MIXER
USED ONLY IN PARTIAL
AND RECYCLE MODES
SKIMMINGS
/ CHUTE
EFFLUENT
V DISCHARGE
pH ADJUST
'ALUM
FEED
Figure 18
HYDRAULIC PROFILE
VIOLET DAF
FULL PRESSURIZATION MODE
-------
contacting flow meter was specified. This was an ultrasonic meter which sensed the water
depth in an open flow nozzle (Figure 19). The wastewater then flowed into the surge
tank, an 8' ~0" diameter x 8' -0" high vessel which served as a pump sump and chemical
mixing vessel. Alum was added to the water as it traversed the open flow nozzle and
acid was metered into the falling water stream for pH control. The surge tank also con-
tained a low level pump shut off switch. A float operated 12" butterfly valve maintained
a level in the surge tank by preferentially channeling clarified effluent back to the surge
tank from the main cell in order to provide continued pump operation during periods of
low wastewater flow. This flow is termed equalization flow.
Three process pumps were furnished for the project. Two pumps took suction
from the surge tank. These could be routed either through the pressure tank, as in full
flow pressurization, or split, one through the floe tank and one through the pressure
tank, when operating in partial flow pressurization. The third pump took suction from the
effluent tank and was used only during the recycle pressurization mode. Air was metered
into each pump suction through a rotameter and ejector which operated on pressurized
wastewater from the pump discharge.
The air saturation tank or pressure tank was specified as a 75 PSI ASME code
tank with 1/8" steel thickness more than required by design in order to allow for corro-
sion effects. The pressure release valve was a manually set diaphragm valve which con-
trolled the air saturation pressure (pumping head) and thus controlled the flow rate through
the pressure tank. The tank volume was approximately 100 cubic feet. It is visible in
Figure 20.
The flotation cell (Figure 21) had a 22' - 6" main cell diameter with the
launder ring and clarified effluent flow channel extending out from the main cell giving
an overall outside diameter at the top of 25' -2". The top of the tank was 13' -4" high.
Inside the tank was the center inlet well, a baffle skirt with riser tubes to convey the
clarified water upward to the effluent channel, a top skimmings removal system consisting
initially of two arms with two added later, and a skimmings "beach" and trough area. A
bottom rotating arm was affixed to the shaft driving the skimmers. A variable speed DC
motor and gear system was used to drive these rotating parts continually or intermittently,
by a programmable time clock control.
The sludge was scraped off the top of the main cell into the skimmings hopper.
This hopper was divided into two six foot square tanks with sloping bottoms. Each tank
was valved to the suction of a positive displacement sludge pump. The pump could be
run manually or intermittently through a time clock control.
The special flocculation tank was a 12' diameter by 20' high vessel with
internal baffling, with a 1.5 hp adjustable speed mixer. This tank was proceeded by a
static, in-line mixer which served as the rapid mix portion of the chemical destabilization
process. A nominal 20 minute slow mix was provided in the floe tank during recycle mode
operation. Longer times were allowed during the partial pressurization operations.
36
-------
Figure 19
Surge Tank
Figure 20
Violet DAF System
(L-R, Alum Tank, Flocculation Tank, Surge Tank,
Flotation Cell, Pressurization Tank, Polymer Tank)
37
-------
Figure 21
Violet DAF System
(L-R, Effluent Tank, Sludge Hopper, Flotation Cell, Alum Tank)
The recycle or effluent tank was also 8 feet in diameter by 8 feet high and
provided a pumping reservoir for the recycle pump. A float operated switch provided a
low level shut off signal to protect the pump from running dry. A caustic addition line
was placed in the discharge of the tank in order to correct the pH to a level between 6.0
and 9.0, the NPDES permit requirement for final discharge into the Mississippi River.
The coagulant and coagulant aid feed systems were paced from a 4 to 20 ma
signal generated by the ultrasonic flow meter. The chemical feeding was performed by
chemical feed pumps(Figure 22) equipped with electric stroke positioners. Liquid alum
was fed from a 5,000 gallon fiberglass storage tank. Polymer was mixed as needed in
either of two 5 foot diameter by 5 foot high fiberglass tanks with a 1.5 hp mixer in each.
Two polymer tanks and two pumps were utilized in order to obtain maximum flexibility
when operating in either of the three DAF modes. Forty-five percent liquid alum
(15.3% A^Og) was fed directly and polymer was fed as a 0.25% solution.
Two pH control systems were available. The influent controller was a pro-
portional control unit capable of pacing either acid or caustic feeders and utilizing a
flow-through pH probe equipped with an ultrasonic cleaner. Similar chemical feed
pumps regulated by signals from the pH control ler-meter were used to feed the undiluted
93% H2SC>4 and 50% liquid NaOH. Both of these chemicals were stored in carbon steel
38
-------
r
J-- , .--' »-- #,
I
•
Figure 22
Alum, Acid and Caustic Tanks and Pumps
-------
tanks. The effluent pH controller action was on~off in nature and operated a pump with
manual stroke positioner to feed caustic to raise the pH value. A flow through electrode
with ultrasonic cleaner was utilized here also.
The instrumentation and control panel contained all motor starters, push but-
ton stations (except that controlling the skimmer arms), the flow meter totalizer-recorder,
the pH controllers and dual pH recorder, and run-time meters for the process pumps. The
panel was housed in an 8' x 12' sheet metal building with a small ventilator mounted in
the roof.
E. Installation and Start-up Problems
As with many experimental projects, unforeseen difficulties often arise which
lead to less than anticipated data collection. This project was no different. A history of
installation and start-up problems follows.
On November 14, 1975 bids were received for Violet Wastewater Treatment
System equipment. The Water Pollution Control Division of the Carborundum Company
submitted the low bid and was awarded the contract. The equipment was to be delivered
in 120 days, later extended to 130 days. Most equipment deliveries were complete by
April 22, 1976, several days late. The erection crew, and separate foundation, mechani-
cal and electrical contractors had completed their work by May 24, 1976.
An attempt was made by the supplier's field service representative to start-up
the DAF system. Three major problems were immediately obvious; two of the three pro-
cess pumps were inoperative, the influent pH controller was inoperative and the flow
meter was inoperative. Approximately three weeks were required to diagnose and correct
the difficulties with the process pumps. The impellers had been installed backwards and
the pump volutes had to be dismantled and reversed to give proper operation. The pump
discharge piping had to be re-arranged, also. The flow meter and the pH controller had
to be completely rebuilt by the respective factory service representatives. These pro-
blems, electrical difficulties and others continued to plague the project through June
1976. The supply of fresh shrimp dwindled after July 4, 1976, and canning operations
were sharply reduced and finally ceased.
The 1976 maximum canning period, summer shrimp season, came and went
without the DAF operation and data collection anticipated and required for treatment
system evaluation. During this time, Carborundum representatives were performing in-
tense operational adjustments and the project personnel were collecting and analyzing
raw and "treated" samples in order to ascertain performance. The 1976 summer season
closed without accomplishing the project goals.
In August, a short run of shrimp allowed operation of the equipment. Prior
to this time, in an attempt to improve performance, modifications to the floe tank and
rearrangement of some piping were performed by the supplier's field personnel. During
40
-------
the August operations, in which Carborundum technical personnel more completely ana-
lyzed the system operation, it was discovered that: (a) the center flocculation and inlet
chamber in the main flotation cell was improperly sized, (b) the number of skimmer arms
was inadequate, (c) certain deficiencies were noted in the flocculation system, and
(d) the bottom arm in the flotation cell did not function as a scraper. Modifications to
the system as originally installed were again found to be needed.
Some of the modifications were completed by the first week of October and
the treatment system operation was again commenced in mid-October. There was an
apparent improved performance, but the short supply of shrimp and the short operating
periods prevented collection of significant data. The performance warranty set forth by
the manufacturer was not demonstrated. At this time, modifications to the flocculation
equipment were not complete and it was impossible to test the equipment in the recycle
and partial pressurization modes, a part of the contract requirements.
It became apparent during the 1976 summer season that it would not be pro-
bable that the project would have been completed by the end of the year. EPA was kept
advised of the progress and of the difficulties involved. During November, the EPA
project officer visited the site and observed the progress and the difficulties. A formal
request was submitted in November to extend the project through 1977. Because the
project funds had been expended in trying to operate the plant and get the required data
during the summer and fall of 1976 when the equipment was not capable of performing
satisfactorily, it was requested that additional funds be granted to extend the operation
through the season of 1977. Also, since there had been interest by EPA and ASCA in
the collection of data on the performance of the dissolved air flotation method of treat-
ment on oyster processing wastewater, it was pointed out that this facility would be
available for operation and data collection during the 1977 oyster canning season. Sub-
sequently, EPA approved the project time extension and issued a grant amendment on
January 4, 1977 to permit the continuation of the study and data collection in order to
complete the project and to include oyster wastewater treatment and data collection.
A meeting was held with representatives of the supplier in January, 1977
and agreement was made for the correction of deficiencies and the completion of the
modifications to the equipment to provide all facilities complete for operation during the
shrimp canning season beginning in May, 1977.
The dissolved air flotation wastewater treatment system was operated for four
weeks in February-March, 1977 during oyster canning operations.
Carborundum completed the required equipment modifications and the system
was put into full operation at the opening of the summer, 1977, shrimp canning season.
Carborundum operated the system for a sufficient time to demonstrate its warranted per-
formance in the three modes. Other than the failure and replacement of the flow meter
electronics by the supplier and a somewhat abnormal service call for chemical feed pump
rehabilitation, only the normally expected component maintenance was required during
1977.
41
-------
SECTION VI
METHODOLOGY
A. General
This project was developed to evaluate several areas of pollution abatement
in the shrimp canning industry. The expected performance of a full scale system was to be
established through the control of process wastewater flows, the installation and operation
of a full scale DAF wastewater treatment system, and the collection of data on costs and
treatment effectiveness. The selected demonstration study canning plant ( at Violet,
Louisiana) was thoroughly investigated. The site, buildings, pipelines, processing unit
operations, waste streams, flow measurement and sampling points and other features were
located and scale drawings were prepared, as shown on Figure 23. An on-site laboratory
was established, water use management measures were initiated and personnel were ac-
quired to operate the project. Field work commenced in November, 1974 and continued,
intermittently, through November, 1977.
B. Water Management
In-house water use evaluation and water conservation measures were studied
by a systematic process of monitoring, evaluation and correction. Individual processes
were surveyed for water use and for wastewater production. Water meters were installed
on supply lines to the receiving tank, peelers, graders, deveiners, blanch tank, and on
the total plant well flow and the total flow from the municipal water supply. In addition,
the total wastewater flow was monitored through elapsed time meters installed on the pumps
which handled the entire cannery flow. Weirs were installed on flumes which handled the
waste flow from the peelers and from the agitators. Through these methods and points, the
amount and distribution of water use throughout the cannery was monitored. Plant person-
nel were consulted in all metering and selection and evaluation of all in-process changes
for wastewater control. Some of the methods used for volume reduction evaluation are
outlined as follows.
1. Low and high pressure water systems were evaluated. Nozzles and
orifices were investigated. The effects were reviewed.
2. It was desired to reduce fluming. Dry conveying was considered from:
(a) peeler to cleaner, (b) cleaner to separator, (c) grader to deveiner,
and (d) separator and deveiner to blanch.
3. A cooling tower was considered for retort cooling water.
42
-------
4. Counter-flow water re-use was investigated.
5. Vacuum cleaning or non-water use cleaning procedures prior to wash-
down were considered.
6. High pressure, low volume washdown was evaluated.
7. Several possible experimental changes were considered including,
(a) pre-treatment prior to peeling, (b) screen immediately after peeling,
and (c) dry conveying screenings to disposal.
After investigation and evaluation, certain water use reduction measures were initiated.
The water conservation program recommended is presented as Appendix B. In addition,
the study plant modified its water supply system. It was changed from directly pumped
wells to a storage tank with pressure controls and pressure regulating valves to give a much
more constant pressure in the system. This change, the installation of proper hoze nozzles,
and other water use management procedures were thoroughly evaluated for plant imple-
mentation.
Those process changes carried out by the study cannery for water conservation
and for process improvement were evaluated by monitoring unit process discharges for
pollutant concentration.
C. Sampling Procedures and Laboratory Control
Wastewater samples were collected at points throughout the cannery and the
DAF system for laboratory analyses. Composite samples over a period of from 30 minutes
to the entire "operating day" were used whenever possible. Prior to the installation of the
DAF system, unit process discharges were evaluated in conjunction with water and pollu-
tant reduction measures, as discussed previously. As changes were made in the cannery
operating sequence, the effects were evaluated both from a wastewater volume standpoint
and for the assessment of pollutant concentration reductions. Samples were collected for
laboratory analyses from each process during the project. This included monitoring of the
pollutant removal efficiencies obtained by screening of the raw process flow.
For DAF treatment efficiency evaluation, influent samples were taken imme-
diately after screening and effluent samples were taken from the discharge prior to caustic
addition for pH correction to between 6. 0 and 9.0. These points represented the waste-
water immediately before and immediately after DAF treatment, respectively. A portable
automatic sampler was used for many wastewater samples. Sludge samples were taken as
the semi-solid material was scraped off the flotation cell and entered the skirnmings hopper.
All samples were stored on ice while aliquots were being taken to form a
composite. Once the respective sampling period had ended, the samples were taken to the
laboratory for analysis or refrigeration. The project laboratory was established as part of
this project and included equipment and materials required to perform normal monitoring
analyses. The laboratory was adjacent to the cannery so transportation time was minimal.
Composite samples were tested as quickly as possible, but BOD and pH tests were always
43
-------
FIGURE 23A
LEGEND
- S SANITARY SEWER
CW CITY WATER SUPPLY
• WW WELL WATER SUPPLY
SAMPLE 6 FLOW MEASUREMENT
® WASTE WATER SAMPLE POINT LOCATION
D FLOW MEASUREMENT LOCATION
TYPE OF MEASUREMENT
H METER
03 TIME
a WEIR
B PUMP CURVE
(9 OTHER
44
-------
FIGURE 235
BIJSH v J f*& cwc.p/r— i
-^fxvi J^—^ L-
"[_JL. --p^•- -(-)QQ '^
orsTf* /tf-ss* oysT£A. Stfvcx&t orsrsx K£rT£-£S ~~~^—-
^ '*' ^ 0/5^* ««CtfWVS XM!« -^ " '
(^? .« * ^ '«•; .-,.*_
FIGURE 23
LAYOUT OF
PROJECT STUDY PLANT
VIOLET , LOUISIANA
-------
initiated immediately on all samples. All storage and analytical procedures were accord-
ing to Standard Methods, except as outlined in Appendix A.
D. Jar Testing and Other Laboratory Studies
Jar testing and lab "bomb" flotation testing were conducted throughout the
study, both before and during operation of the DAF plant scale system. A variety of che-
mical agents were tested prior to installation of the DAF system, while those coagulants
and coagulant aids employed on a full scale were also tested prior to use to serve as an
operational aid. These included alum, lignosulfonate, Chitosan, cationic polymer, and
a variety of polymers used as coagulant aids. Some jar testing was also conducted con-
current to the DAF system operation where time did not allow full scale study of a certain
coagulant or coagulant aid. Jar testing methods are summarized in Appendix A.
Other laboratory scale investigations were conducted, such as sludge treat-
ment methods. Included were bench-scale gravity separation investigations both at am-
bient and elevated temperatures. Chemical oxidation of sludge was experimentally used
during the study on a lab scale. Such studies were carried out in conjunction with the
DAF system evaluation.
E. Design of Treatment System
Once flow and operating characteristics of the study cannery were established,
design of the project DAF system was carried out. Design criteria were based on results
and recommendations of the pilot study previously conducted, the various manufacturer's
standard sizing, and factors characteristic to the particular study plant. This included the
design and layout of the DAF system, site preparation, foundation designs, pumping and
piping system design, electrical and instrumentation system design, and the preparation of
construction plans and specifications. The supplier was required to give a performance
guarantee. Bids were invited from DAF equipment suppliers, these were analyzed and a
contract was awarded for the DAF system. Site work was done under separate electrical,
mechanical and concrete work contracts. Project engineers represented the purchaser
(ASCA) in the completion of the installation of the facility.
F. DAF Treatment Operation
The DAF system operating runs were primarily conducted in the 1977 study
year. In 1976, various operational problems were encountered but some treatment data
were obtained during the Fall season of that year. The addition of alum and 835A polymer
with pH adjustment was the major treatment mechanism evaluated, primarily in the full
flow pressurization mode.
While determination of attainable treatment levels was the most important
goal, efforts were made to adequately define the system and its performance under various
conditions. This included initial optimization runs for operating pressure, air flow, and
pH, It was proposed to seek system optimization starting with the most basic parameters,
46
-------
establishing the relative effect of each independent variable. The project DAF wastewater
treatment system had a flocculation chamber and a recycle pump with all corresponding
piping to make it operational in recycle and partial pressurization modes, in addition to
the full flow pressurization mode. The optimization of operating mode was also conduct-
ed, since the mode of operation could affect both capital and operating costs.
The full flow pressurization mode was used as the mode for first optimization
of the basic parameters of air flow, pressure, and pH. This mode has the feature of quick
data production since minimal detention times are involved. After these preliminary tests,
optimization runs were made which sought to define performance under various dosages of
alum and polymer, and in various modes. All sample runs were of 1 hour to 3 hours dura-
tion. The system was always allowed at least one hour of stabilization prior to sampling
the effluent, and no washdown flows were included in optimizing runs.
Due to the inherent variability of the shrimp canning wastewaters, it was of
particular interest to define "day-to-day" averages, in addition to maximum performance
runs. To base system performance on the best data would be unrealistic since this degree
of removal efficiency would not always be attainable. Therefore, unattended runs were
made at night and the effluent was collected by an automatic sampler. These runs were
set up to operate on best conditions arrived at during the day runs and were then left
without adjustment for operation during the night. This method of operation was thought
to be more representative of that which could normally be expected with non-technically
trained operators. For calculating removal performance on "unattended" runs, influent
loading was based on average screened wastewater values.
Alum and 835A polymer were shown in the pilot study and by jar tests to be
the optimum chemicals for DAF treatment of shrimp cannery wastewaters and these received
the most attention. When it was felt that the optimums had been reached, other coagu-
lants were investigated. One such coagulant, lignosulfonic acid (trade name PRA) was
tested on a plant scale, after jar testing, in an effort to produce maximum removals. Add-
itionally, a liquid cationic polymer, 520C (equivalent to 507C), was tested. The point
of application of both the coagulants and coagulant aids were investigated by variation of
feed point on several occasions.
The factors describing the operation of the DAF wastewater treatment plant
were experimentally evaluated. In particular, equations which define the air to solids
ratio (equations 3 and 4 on page 14) utilize an experimental degree of saturation factor(f).
In order to define this factor in a logical manner for this project, it was experimentally
determined at the outset of the study. Air was injected into the pressurization system at
measured rates, and a dissolved oxygen probe mounted in the pressure tank yielded D.O.
concentration in the water. Knowing the temperature of the water, the degree of satura-
tion was obtained and the factor was evaluated. This was done by eliminating the consi-
deration of solids in equation (4), yielding equation (6) =
A* = Cs [f (P/H.7+ 1)-1] 8.34 (6)
47
-------
P is an operating variable (pressure, psi) and Cs is a constant which is dependent on tem-
perature. A* is found by measuring the dissolved oxygen in the water and relating that
to the saturation concentration of dissolved air at a given temperature. The pounds of air,
A*, is then determined. The only variable that remains is "f", the saturation factor.
Several readings were taken under different operating conditions and "f" factors were cal-
culated. The values of "f" ranged from 0.4 to 0.7 but most data points were centered
around 0.5. For this reason, the value of "f" = 0.5 was universally applied in the calcu-
lation of A/S ratios.
G. Cost Data
Based on the operational data obtained from the DAF wastewater treatment
system, average operating conditions were developed. This included the best overall
operating mode, chemical dosages, expected pollutant removals, etc. On the basis of
this data, cost estimates were developed for an eight-peeler and for a four-peeler can-
nery operation, as representative of Gulf processors. The basis for these cost estimates
are included in detail in Appendix D of this report. Where gaps are present in actual
data, costs are given on the basis of best available information and reasonable assumptions,
as presented in the calculations.
Cost data for the project facility are based on actual installed contract costs
ENR adjusted to the end of 1977, actual chemical costs, metered electrical consumption,
and actual wastewater flow and cannery production data. Labor and maintenance are
best estimates for the area in which the project was located.
Costs of disposing of DAF treatment skimmings were estimated from data deve-
loped during the project, information obtained from several shrimp canneries, and best
estimates from the limited information available.
48
-------
SECTION VII
RESULTS
A. Wastewater Characteristics
The untreated project shrimp cannery wastewater discharge was monitored to
obtain as much data as possible during the course of this study. Goals were to establish
the wastewater characteristics and to obtain a typical base for comparison with treated
effluent. Samples were also collected and individual shrimp cannery unit process waste-
water discharges were characterized. Treated DAF system effluent was sampled and ana-
lyzed. Flow data were collected. Detailed tabulations of project data are presented in
Appendix C.
Table 5 is a compilation of mean values of lab analyses performed on each
individual unit process wastewater within the plant. These values are for the fall 1974
and the 1975 summer and fall shrimp seasons. It is apparent that high variability occurs
in the wastewater concentrations from process to process and even within a given process.
The results of cannery effluent testing are shown in Table 6, by years and by
seasons, for the duration of the project. The compiled data indicate that in 1977 the
shrimp cannery wastewater contained a smaller concentration of pollutants than in 1976
with regard to all parameters except suspended solids. It is also noted that the results are
similar to those obtained during the earlier pilot and bench scale studies. There is, how-
ever, a wide variation of values, as indicated by the standard deviation shown and the
range of values determined. Since water conservation and pollutant load reduction mea-
sures were being put into effect from season to season during the period of data acquisition,
these steps contributed to variations in the pollutant concentrations.
Shown as Table 7 is a comparison of several parameters and relationships of
interest in the degradability of the wastewater. Figure 24 illustrates a 30-day BOD curve
performed on a screened wastewater sample in 1977. Based on these results, it is apparent
that shrimp processing wastewater is highly biodegradable and is quite variable. This
curve and the ratios shown are indicative of the character of the wastewater and are not
to be considered a source of precise values. It is generally shown, however, that the
wastewater COD/BODc ratio increased during the project period, possibly related to the
water and wastewater management techniques instituted.
During the course of both the pilot and full-scale studies, it was noted that
49
-------
TABLE 5. SHRIMP CANNING UNIT PROCESS WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
en
O
UNIT
PROCESS
Receiving
Tank
All
Peelers
Peeler
'1
Agitators
Separators
Graders
Deveinerj
Blanch
Tank
Blanch
Cooling Tank
Canning Room
Discharge
Retort
Cooling Water
BOD^ Sol.
BOD,
4,280 2,460
J 1,540)
2,600 1,660
(790)
2,320
(840)
1,070
( 990)
174
240 213
(1741.
11,800
(2,920)
513
(564)
781
(327)
12
(7)
COD Sol.
COD
7,130 4,930
(400)
4,450
(1,310)
5,430
(3,170)
3,400
(4,070)
1,020
(276)
1,110
(690)
1,230 436
(400) (153)
18,100
(7,490)
783
(640)
1,880
(1,650)
19
(14)
TKN
810
(220)
520
(130)
136
(9)
244
(69)
91
(27)
76
(88)
1,500
(270)
48
(1)
294
5
0&.G
640
(260)
ISO
(51)
260
(57)
29
(16)
36
(13)
11
(6)
13
(13)
22
(20)
10
(7)
17
(9)
5
(4)
pH
7.0
(0.3)
7.1
(0.2)
7.1
(0.2)
7.2
.(0.1)
7.3
(0.2)
7.1
(0.3)
7.4
(0.3)
5.6
(0.7)
6,8
(0.6)
7. 1
(0.4)
9
(0.8)
TS
9,870
(1,900)
8,670
(920)
9,660
(2,440)
7,390
(1,460)
6,410
( 290J
5,590
(150)
5,930
(440)
101,000
(12,700)
8,650
(1,150)
17,100
(5,750)
1, 140
(1,130)
TVS
4,450
(1,410)
2,420
(300)
3,030
(I,660J_
3,590
(4,190)
957
(155)
3,880
810
(300)
14,300
(5,950)
410
(340)
817
(181)
108
(76)
TSS
1,770
(320)
1,030
150
1,650
(620)
460
(220)
340
( 87)
172
(81)
219
(79)
6,140
(1,920)
152
(176)
329
(240)
17
(9)
TVSS
1,120
(170)
790
(93)
1,130
(190)
336
(190)
289
(78)
127
(41)
187
(70)
4,000
(850)
107
(123)
216
(126)
15
(12)
Sett.
Solids
24
(15)
108
(52)
138
(88)
8
17
(5)
6
(6)
7.3
(0.6)
0.5
(0.7)
0.7
(0.5)
0
0
Temp.
°C
6
(1)
21
2
23
(3)
23
(2)
22
(1)
23
(2)
24
(2)
98
(1)
36
(8)
29
(8)
43
(1)
Protein
5,060
(1,380)
3,250
( 810)
850
(56)
1,530.
(430)
570
(170)
480
(550)
9,380
(1,660)
300
(6)
1,840
31
Flow
gpm
93
238
31
43
16
99
36
106
21
gal/1000*
143
2,830
410
569
207
1,330
480
1,400
278
Notou 1. All wastewater characteristic values in mg/1, except pH (unlh) and Settleable Solids (ml/1).
2. Values are averages and (standard deviations).
3. Data from 1974 and 1975 seasons.
-------
TABLE 6. SCREENED SHRIMP WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
BODs
BOD5
Soluble
COD
COD
Soluble
TKN
PROTEIN
OIL&
GREASE
TOTAL
SS
VOLATILE
SS
FLOW
Gol/1000lb$.
FALL 1974
Meon
Mass
Observations
SUMMER 1975
Mean (Std.Dev.)
Mass
Observations
SUMMER 1976
Mean (Sfd.Dev.)
Mass
Observations
1440
88.4
1
1640(420)
108
7
1660(260)
87.4
7
683
45.1
2
1470
77.3
1
2580
158
1
2380(400)
157
9
3380(950)
178
12
3280
173
1
214(19)
14.1
3
1340(120)
88.4
3
124
7.6
1
151(86)
10
8
89(57)
4.7
8
456
28
1
452(167)
29.9
9
373(200)
19.6
12
370
23
1
351(150)
23.2
9
7360
7920*
6310
FALL 1976
Mean (Std.Dev.)
Mass
Observations
SUMMER 1977
Mean/Obs.
(Std.Dev.)
Mass/Obs.
FALL 1977
1330(370)
78.1
10
1050/35
(280)
42-9/23
1070(190)
59.9
9
706/33
(211)
28.2/23
3380(590)
198
13
2710/34
(550)
113/22
2480(870)
146
13
1780/28
(500)
79.5/18
225(81)
13.2
6
256/34
(43)
10.2/23
1410(510)
82.6
6
1600/34
(270)
63.8/22
138(39)
8.1
7
119/33
(34)
4.9/22
295(101)
17.3
16
491/34
(199)
17.7/23
413/33
(161)
15.5/23
Values are: Mean in mg/l; (standard deviation) in mg/1, mass in lbs/1000 Ibs raw shrimp processed, observations are number of
individual analyses in season indicated.
* Combined Summer and Fall, 1975, average wastewater discharge was 7730 gallons/1000 Ibs. of raw shrimp processed.
7040
4420
Mean/Obs.
(Std.Dev.)
1210/6
(250)
803/6
(259)
3190/6
(520)
2320/6
(320)
287/6
(36)
1790/6
(220)
80/6
(22)
590/6
(260)
509/6
(220)
-
-------
TABLE 7. EFFLUENT DEGRADABILITY COMPARISON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Summer
Ratios 1975
COD
Average BOD5 1.26
COD
Avg. Sol. BOD5
Sol. BOD5
Tot. BOD5 0.89
Sol. COD
Tot. COD 0.46
VSS
TSS 0.70
BODg
BOD2o 0.56
Sol. BOD^
Sol. BOD20 0.53
Tot. COD
Tot. BOD2Q
Summer Fall Summer Fall
1976 1976 1977 1977
1.90 2.43 2.61 2.63
2.88 2.52 2.89
0.75 0.68 0.66
0.89 0.66 0.73
0.85 0.86
0.69
-
1.61
Note: From analyses of screened wastewater flows.
the strength of both the treated and untreated wastewarer could be judged by the color and
turbidity of the liquid. This was an operational aid in the DAF system operation evalua-
tion. After screening, shrimp cannery wastewater usually has a pinkish brown to pinkish
white color and is very turbid, with turbidity values exceeding 300 NTU. The color of
the water is a reflection of the color of the product being processed; i.e., when brown
shrimp are processed, the wastewater is usually pinkish brown, when white shrimp are pro-
cessed, the wastewater is more pinkish white. The apparent color of the waste was high
in relation to the true color since most of the color was removed by filtration at 0.45 mi-
crons. The true color was removed by coagulant addition and pH adjustment. At pH 5,
even without coagulant addition, the true color will separate. Precipitation at this pH
is characteristic of many proteins.
52
-------
FIGURE 24
30 DAY BOD CURVE
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
2500
2000-
1500-
1000 •
500
t. PAYS
While screening of the raw shrimp canning process wastewater was through a
10 mesh (0.85mm) screen, there was still a good bit of settleable material which entered
the DAF system. Bits of shrimp meat and the appendages (legs) of the shrimp were not
completely removed by the screens and caused some difficulties. During the 1977 season,
settleable solids analyses were conducted on both the screened influent and DAF treated
effluent samples to define the removal. It was demonstrated that there remained a mean
value of 12.3 ml/I of settleable solids in the screened treatment plant influent. This re-
presents significant solid material with a tendency toward settling. It was found that the
project DAF system removed virtually all settleable solids.
Table 8 is a compilation of available cannery wastewater data for a portion
of the 1977 oyster processing season. A mean COD:BODc value of 5.70 was found. A
much higher mean value of suspended solids than from shrimp wastewater was observed.
Both oil and grease, and TKN are relatively low. The wide range of values given in
53
-------
Tables 8 and 9 show that oyster processing wastewater is quite variable in content and
in quantity of pollutant.
TABLE 8. OYSTER PROCESSING SCREENED EFFLUENT
BOD5
Total
Mean
(mg/l) 510
BOD5
Soluble
373
COD
Total
2770
O &G
37
TKN
110
TSS
2280
VSS
792
Settle.
Solids
(ml/1)
30
Range
(mg/l) 377-743 240-585 662-4780 3-212 59-159 704-4510 320-1080 9-49
No. of
obs. 3 39 56968
TABLE 9. POLLUTANTS IN OYSTER PROCESSING WASTEWATER*
(SCREENED EFFLUENT)
Ibs/lOOOIbs.
Mean
Range
BOD5
Total
46
8-
106
BODr
Sol.
34
33-
61
, Finished
COD
Total
296
51-
611
Product
O&G
3.7
0.3-
7.0
TKN
10.8
7-
25
TSS
180
70-
435
VSS
74
36-
134
Data from 1977, based on a maximum of 8 observations
The gross amount of raw material processed in oyster canning operations was
dependent on the availability of oysters, a situation similar to that encountered in shrimp
canning. During the 1977 oyster canning season, oyster processing was observed to occur
at a mean rate of 14,250 Ibs/hr. of raw product(s=3365 Ibs/hr.). The standard deviation
here is relatively small, indicating some stability in the processing rate. The processing
time and volume varies more, as could be expected with an intermittently supplied raw
product. Required washdown time was similar to shrimp. A one and one half hour wash-
down was noted for each processing day, regardless of processed volume or operational
time. Oyster processing was interrupted, and so was the waste flow, when boats were
being docked for unloading. A longer break occurred when plant operations had to be
ceased while waiting for a boat load of oysters to arrive. These interruptions in flow were
irregular and often were unpredictable. Flow rate during oyster processing at the study
plant was generally about 100 gpm and lasted from 3 to 20 hours per day (during 1977),
depending on the amount of raw oysters available.
54
-------
B. Water Use Management
Prior to the installation of the plant scale system, water use and wastewater
flows at the study cannery were measured during shrimp processing in preparation for the
design of the dissolved air flotation system. Water reduction and conservation measures
were recommended which would eliminate unnecessary and wasteful water use in an effort
to reduce the high flows. Because of the seasonal operations, there was not time to ini-
tiate the conservation measures and observe the resultant flows. The DAF system design
was based on the earlier established flow rate of 700 gpm. A water management plan
(included as Appendix B) was developed as a guide for shrimp canneries based on project
experience. Many of the recommended conservation items are standard wastewater reduc-
tion measures, such as dry sweeping of floors, high pressure-low volume washing, and the
installation of dependable valved hose nozzles. Other conservation items were more spe-
cific to the industry, such as: (a) the reduction of product water transport minimizing
shrimp-water contact in order to keep dissolved protein at a minimum and (b) the operation
of water using machines at higher pressures but lower flows. Several water conservation
measures and other changes were made between 1975 and 1977. The changes showed that
substantial flow reduction could be attained by canneries. The result of the changes at
the Violet cannery was a reduction of the average wastewater flow rate from 650-700 gpm
in 1975 to about 500 gpm in 1977.
As could be expected, it was shown that the flow volume was dependent on
the operating time of the plant and, thus, was dependent on the amount of raw product
processed. During the 1977 shrimp season, it was demonstrated that 4,420 gallons
(s=600) of processing and washdown wastewaters were produced from processing 1,000 Ibs.
of raw shrimp. This rate of flow in, 1976 was 6,150 gallons (s= 1,660) per 1,000 Ibs. shrimp,
and in 1975, the mean was 7,730 gal/1000^. Certain non-contact waters, such as retort
cooling water, are released without treatment since they represent only a slight thermal
discharge. These volumes are not included in wastewater flows and volumes mentioned
above. This is one water consumption where separation is essential and where re-use may
prove worthwhile in some instances. The water conservation measures which were initiated
at the project cannery led to a substantial flow reduction without major problems in the
shrimp processing and canning sequence.
The amount of shrimp processed, expressed as Ibs/hr/peeler, was shown to be
relatively constant with 1976 and 1977 mean and standard deviation values of 817 t 189
and 808 ! 120 Ibs/V/peeler, respectively. The amount of processing per day was directly
dependent on the quantity of available shrimp. During peak periods, all peelers would be
operative for two shifts per day, for as long as 20 hours processing time. During times of
scarce raw product supply, as few as 4 peelers would operate for as short a period as one
and one-half hours per day. A standard washdown took approximately one and a half hours
and was required after every shift, even If the plant did not operate a full shift. When a
continuous operation took place (2 shifts), two cleanups were required. The washdown
wastewater flow rate was about one-third that of process flow, and represented a minimum
of about 6% of the total flow for full operation to a maximum of about 25% for a one and
one half hour processing period.
55
-------
To a certain extent, it was shown that, like flow, the mass of pollutants pro-
duced and introduced into the wastewater system was dependent on the amount of shrimp
processed. The mass rate of discharge of pollutants in the cannery wastewater as related
to shrimp production (Ibs per 1000 Ibs) is given in Table 6. This is a significant ratio since
current effluent limitations are expressed in this form. It is obvious that there is a great
deal of variation in all parameters, from season to season, and from day to day. It should
be noted that ail of these data are based on composite samples. With the large variations
in daily composite samples, it is understandable that the instantaneous concentration of a
pollutant in mg/l can be an even more highly variable figure. Often a visual change was
noted in the wastewater with each new supply of shrimp processed. The variation was not
only observed by the truck load, but was noted within a given truckload. Attempts were
made throughout this investigation to correlate parameters of the wastewater with para-
meters of the shrimp, such as age, type, size, and source. No appreciable conclusions
were possible, however. It appears that a "typical" discharge for even a given shrimp
cannery cannot at this time be precisely and reliably defined. Rather, it appears that
mean and standard deviation values of given parameters are more valid expressions.
Based on Table 6, it is obvious that water use management brought about a
substantial reduction in the discharge of various pollutant parameters including BOD^,
TSS, and oil and grease, as well as flow volumes. The reduction of water volumes,
fluming time and other water contact contributed to a reduced waste load. This is sub-
stantiated by results of samples taken at the start and end of various flumes in the plant.
Table 10 shows the increase in pollutants during water fluming from the peelers, graders
and deveiners. A substantial increase in soluble 600$ and in TKN and O & G was found.
.TABLE 10. WATER FLUMES POLLUTANT INCREASE IN PERCENT (%)
BODc COD TKN O &G
Location Soluble Soluble
Peelers 20.1 31.3 18.3 4.3
Graders 5.9 23.4 - 11.1
Deveiners 1.9 7.3
C. Treatment by Screening
Until recent years, no type of solid-liquid separation was practiced by most
Gulf shrimp processors. Several types of screens have now been installed. At Violet
Packing Co., 10 mesh vibrating screens were located immediately ahead of flow measure-
ment into the DAF system. Table 11 illustrates the results of several analyses conducted on
56
-------
pre-screened wastewarer to evaluate the effect of screening. Although there was some
reduction in most parameters, the greatest reduction was removal of approximately 45%
suspended solids. The principal materials removed by screening were shrimp heads and
shrimp hulls and fragments of shrimp meat. There was a substantial reduction in settleable
solids. Successful pre-screening is essential to the proper operation of a DAF system on
shrimp cannery wastewater.
TABLE 11. WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY SCREENING
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY
Sample
BOD5
Total
COD
Total
TKN Protein O&G
TSS
TVSS
Sett.
Solids
ml/I
Influent
Mean 1830 2920 460 2880 160 673 494 30
(Std. Dev.) ' (217) (141) (7)
Effluent
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
1700
(330)
2250
(650)
261
(59)
1630
(370)
132
(51)
367
(110)
223
(129)
7
(2)
Removal % 7.1 23.1 43.3 43.3 17.5 45.5 54.9 76.7
Data from 1975. All given project protein values calculated as TKN x 6.25.
Data by individual characterizations contained in Appendix C.
Values in mg/l, unless noted otherwise.
Improved screening effectiveness may further reduce the settleable solids,
in particular, from the process wastewaters, helping reduce sedimentation problems in
wastewater treatment and possibly adding protein to the screenings solids.
The screenings produced become a solid waste problem. Many canneries
have no available market for this by-product and even find it very difficult to dispose of
these solids in an acceptable way. The screenings disposal was not a part of this study,
but some information on current practice is given in Section VIII.
D. Bench Scale Results
Bench scale testing was conducted throughout the study, primarily as an
operational aid for the plant scale system. This was also a data collection mechanism that
was supplementary to data obtained on the full scale DAF system. The length of time re-
quired to fully investigate a particular chemical on a plant scale basis was prohibitive in
57
-------
some instances.
COD and other analyses were made during initial jar testing efforts in the
fall of 1974 and during the 1975 season. This testing was to confirm the earlier pilot
study and to evaluate other chemicals. Data are in Appendix C. Routine evaluation of
jar testing during wastewater treatment plant operation consisted of visual comparisons.
This was usually sufficient due to the sensitive treatability of the wastewater. More jar
testing was permitted by performing the evaluation in this matter, although the total sus-
pended solids test was occasionally used as a measure of the relative effect of various che-
mical doses, polymer doses, etc.
The wide variability in the nature of the shrimp processing wastewater made
it difficult to maintain a consistent optimum chemical dose. Similarly, bench scale
studies witnessed a great deal of change between canning seasons and even within a can-
ning season. Generally, however, it was noted that alum dosages in jar tests were shown
to be fairly stable from 1974 to 1977, including the 1977 canning season. Laboratory
optimums (for alum) during these seasons were approximately 100 mg/l, with a polymer
(835A) dosage of about 6 mg/l, at a pH of 4.5 to 5.0. Sometimes the optimum pH was as
low as 4.0. During the 1976 operational season, it was shown that chemical requirements
for optimum bench scale treatment were generally consistent with those necessary for
effective plant scale treatment. During the 1974 Fall season, laboratory investigations
revealed that the optimum alum dose was 50-100 mg/l. This was at a pH similar to that
found as optimum in later years, approximately 5.0.
Initially in the 1977 season, large alum dosages as high as 400 mg/l were con-
sistently shown to be required for maximum removal. With nearly all alum doses, results
were directly proportional to the amount of polymer applied. Later in the season, the
alum optimum was found to decrease to as low as 75 mg/l. However, it was found to
average 200 mg/l. Best removals were attained at higher (above 4 mg/l) polymer levels.
While excellent results were witnessed in the laboratory under these conditions, direct
application to the plant scale system was often unsuccessful. The actual plant use of the
lower alum dosages produced an effluent with much residual color, indicating insufficient
coagulation. This was substantiated by informal on-site jar testing which showed that add-
ingalumto theeffluent caused further clarification. Due to physical differences in the
plant scale system as opposed to bench-scale, it was apparent that direct transfer of jar
test treatment data was not always practicable for good results.
Limited jar testing of shrimp processing effluent using coagulants and coagulant
aids other than aluminum sulfate and 835A polymer was conducted throughout this study
for comparison and treatment optimization purposes. The coagulants lignosulfonate (Am.
Can Co. PRA-I, Protein Reducing Agent) and Magnifloc 507C polymer were shown to be
effective in the laboratory for the removal of turbidity and color, when evaluated on a
visual basis, and used in conjunction with 835A polymer. A dosage of 30-50 mg/l was
generally the optimum for either PRA or 507C when used at pH 5.0 in conjunction with
835A. The degree of clarification produced by either of these chemicals was found to be
58
-------
no better than with alum. Bench scale tests with PRA and polymer showed TSS removals
approaching the 80 to 90% achieved with alum and polymer. Sufficient PRA and cationic
polymer were readily available for plant scale testing, as reported in the following pages.
Chitosan, a derivative from chitinous shellfish, was also jar tested in 1974
and 1975 and was found to produce as much as 80% removal of suspended solids, with pH
control. Up to 90% TSS removals were obtained in jar tests with pH adjusted screened
wastewater using GTS (glucose tri-sulfate), with some residual color problem. Sufficient
quantities of these chemicals were not on hand for plant scale testing. Due to the pro-
blems of supply and limited information on availability, shipping, storing, costs, standard-
ization, etc., and the failure to demonstrate significantly greater treatment results than
with the readily available alum and polymer, these chemicals were not tested further.
During the Summer 1975 season, laboratory flotation bomb studies were con-
ducted to partially simulate the plant scale system. The apparatus used was similar to the
standard Eckenfelder bomb. Direct pressurization was ineffective in the bomb due to
shearing of the floe. The other mode which was investigated, recycle, used tap water as
the pressurized medium and was quite successful. Chemical dosage optimums were very
similar to those found in jar tests; i.e., a relatively high alum dosage with greater than
4 mg/l polymer.
In the latter part of the 1977 shrimp season, the addition of alum with no pH
adjustment and no coagulant aid was investigated. Dosages of alum as high as 1200 mg/l
were considered in jar testing. The results were similar to those observed with pH adjust-
ment alone; i.e. , precipitation of light, fluffy floe. This addition of alum alone appear-
ed to serve as a pH reduction mechanism, more than as a coagulation process.
It was generally noted that the higher the dosage of 835A polymer, the better
the pollutant removals, when at optimum coagulant dosage. On the basis of polymer
dose, a restabilization effect was not observed either in the laboratory or in the plant-
scale system at dosages as high as 14 ppm. In plant scale testing, minimum effective
doses were utilized, as being more cost effective. Based on visual and TSS observations,
when polymer was applied as the primary coagulant, virtually no clarification was
obtained.
Double-layer compression was obviously occurring at lower alum dosages, but
other destabilization mechanisms were apparently active at different ionic and colloidal
strengths of the untreated wastewater. In double-layer compression, a compression of the
diffuse layer of the colloidal particles occurs as a result of the oppositely charged counter
ions (coagulant) introduced into the aqueous system. An overshadowing of the coulombic
effect of the negatively charged colloids is the result,with a lowering of the opposing elec-
trostatic forces. Compression of the outer ionic layer of the colloidal particles causes a
reduction in stability of the particles. Hence, different floe formations were observed
under varying conditions and days. Without a coagulant aid, floe size seldom exceeded
pinpoint. The result was a liquid system very sensitive to alum and requiring (but not sen-
59
-------
sitive to) large dosages of polymer for effective solid-liquid separation.
Some limited gravity dewatering of sludge was investigated in the laboratory.
Also, gravity dewatering of heated sludge at temperatures 30 to 40° F above ambient was
attempted on a bench scale. While a solid-liquid separation did occur, it was irregular
and unpredictable. An increase in temperature of the sludge was shown to hasten the
separation process.
E. DAF Treatment - Shrimp Processing Wastewater
Since the DAF treatment system was not constructed until 1976, data on the
operation of the treatment system was obtained only during the last half of 1976 and in
1977. Prior to the 1977 shrimp season, mechanical and other problems limited the data
collection, and only sketchy information was obtained. All treatment data acquired
throughout the study is tabulated in Appendix C, but the indicated limitations in the data
must be considered when evaluating the results. The 1977 study year could therefore be
considered to be the most important in terms of treatment data production, and thus will
be the focus of discussion.
The methodology for the plant scale treatment system portion of this study has
been explained previously. Operational runs were conducted by varying certain opera-
tional parameters which would allow the effect of a given system variable to be defined.
The 1977 study year, in accordance with the objectives of this study, was divided into
four operational sets of performance runs. The following is a discussion of each set and
the results obtained for each.
1. Operational Set^l: Initial Runs With No Polymer Addition.
The first set of performance runs sought to optimize operating pressure,
and to define system performance under conditions of no coagulant aid
addition. The DAF system was operated under conditions of pure phy-
sical treatment, pH adjustment only, and pH adjustment with alum
addition, in addition to variations in the pressure to which the waste-
water was subjected. Operating conditions were based on past exper-
ience, and alum dosages were based on jar testing conducted during the
1977 summer season. Table 12 indicates the conditions of DAF system
operation for operational set *1.
Since much of the data obtained here was for reference and comparison,
rather than absolute performance, these runs were not as carefully regu-
lated and the results are not as conclusive as will be seen in the later
performance runs. However, this gave a strong indication of the need
for coagulant and coagulant aid addition with proper pH adjustment and
showed the need for extensive monitoring control and operational adjust-
ment.
Table 13 contains the results of operational Set *1 by mean and stand-
60
-------
ard deviation of the removal efficiency for each monitored parameter.
Appendix C contains the influent and effluent data concentration for
each run, by the given parameters. It will be readily noticed in Table
13 that removal efficiencies are generally low. But by referring to
Appendix C, it is seen that there are several parameters, in several runs,
that show an increase rather than a decrease through the treatment pro-
cess. The removal efficiencies for these parameters were considered as
zero in the calculation of mean values. It should be noted that the
highest, most consistent removals were obtained for settleable solids.
The DAF cell may have acted to some degree as a sedimentation basin
since the full flow (FFP) mode was employed and no other appreciable
tankage was involved.
TABLE 12. 1977 OPERATIONAL SET #1
OPERATING CONDITIONS
Run
A
B
C
Number*
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
PH
(units )
Natural**
Natural
Natural
Natural
5
3.8
4.4
5
5
5
5
Air Flow
(cfm)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Pressure
(psi)
40
45
35
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Alum
(mg/l)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
100
140
* All tests made in Full Flow Pressurization mode.
** Natural pH = 7.7 to 8. 1.
2. Operational Set ^2: Alum and Polymer Optimization Runs.
Since it had previously been shown that alum and 835A polymer were
the most effective chemicals for shrimp cannery effluent , this opera-
tional set received the most attention and time. A total of 23 runs was
recorded and sampled during this set as shown in Table 14. The average
flow rate during these runs was 500 gpm. The length of each run was
approximately three hours. All of these runs were seeking highest
removals with the exception of a few which were seeking treatment
61
-------
TABLE 13. OPERATIONAL SET #1: INITIAL RUNS WITH NO POLYMER ADDITION
CTl
ro
Set#lA
Runs 100-103
Influent (mg/l)
Effluent (mg/l)
% Removal
Set#lB
Runs 104-108
Influent (mg/l)
Effluent (mg/l)
% Removal
Set # 1C
Runs 109-110
Influent (mg/l)
Effluent (mg/l)
% Removal
BOD5
(Total)
1,370
1,320
3.5
BOD5
(Soluble)
COD
(Total)
COD
(Soluble)
TKN
PRO-
TEIN
O & G TSS
VSS Settleable
Solids
NO CHEMICAL ADDITION
928
1,130
—
3,240
3,510
—
—
—
—
pH ADJUSTMENT
806
573
28.9
645
547
15.2
2,470
2,110
14.6
1,530
811
47.0
pH ADJUSTMENT
912
639
29.9
602
512
15.0
2,390
2,200
8.1
1,470
1,240
16.0
266
292
—
1,660
1,820
—
152 744
136 21fi
10.5 71.0
575 20
181 0.1
68.5 99.5
ONLY
250
204
18.4
AND
207
199
3.9
1,560
1,280
18.4
89 502
72 614
19.1
436 11
535 14
—
ALUM ADDITION
1,290
1,240
3.9
119 508
75 560
37.0
460 17
474 13.
21.
3
8
Values are averages.
-------
definition at a particular level of chemical addition. Generally, most
runs represent the result of adjustment of the system seeking the best
possible operation for the period. Optimum treatment was reached by
informal on-site jar testing using samples siphoned out of the inlet well
of the flotation cell. By visual observations, chemical dosages were
adjusted until an apparent optimum was reached based on the rise rate
and separation of floated solids and the degree of clarification of the
wastewater. Once the treatment was optimized, sampling began after
allowing for the flow through retention time. All runs numbered in the
400's were conducted by the equipment manufacturer for contract com-
pliance testing and were the best attainable for this particular waste-
water by the manufacturer's experienced personnel.
TABLE 14. 1977 OPERATIONAL SET #2
DAF OPERATING CONDITIONS
Run
No.
Ill
112
113
116
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
133
134
Mode*
F
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
R
P
R
R
F
R
F
F
R
R
R
R
R
P
P
PH
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.8
5
5
5
5
5
Alum
mg/l
150
130
130
175
250
260
279
280
400
366
287
326
296
210
290
290
95
130
300
400
400
400
400
835A
mg/l
2.5
2.5
1.4
4.0
4.2
4.2
5.2
7.6
10
7.4
7.0
6.9
6.7
6.0
5.1
4.1
5.8
6.8
7.3
7.3
10.8
2.5
7.6
Air Flow
cfm
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Pressure
psig
40
40
40
40
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
40
40
* F = Full Flow Pressurization
P= Partial Flow Pressurization, 50% to 60% pressurized.
R = Recycle Pressurization, approximately 60% recycle.
63
-------
The addition of polymer and the resulting improved system performance
is clearly reflected by a comparison of Table 15 (Results of Operational
Set #2) and Table 13 (Results of Operational Set #1). As shown in
Appendix C, good removals were obtained at a variety of levels of alum
addition, further indicating the variation in the treatabi'ity of the
wastewater. Oil and grease removals were fairly consistent, as in-
dicated by the low standard deviation, and were exceptionally good.
Settleable solids which appeared in the effluent were usually of a floc-
culant nature and represented floe carryover. The values for effluent
TKN indicate that much of the protein was dissolved and was unaffect-
ed by coagulating chemicals. Similarly, much of the BODc and COD
was of a dissolved nature, nevertheless, most effluent samples in Opera-
tional Set *2 were low in Turbidity, usually less than 100 NTU, and
often less than 50 NTU. Table 15 summarizes the removal levels att-
ained by alum and polymer addition with DAF treatment of the shrimp
cannery wastewater.
It was proposed to either eliminate or establish the need for all addition-
al tankage and equipment required for DAF operation in the recycle and
partial pressurization modes. The Violet DAF system flexibility allowed
treatment in all three modes of operation. The results of the runs per-
formed in Operational Set ^2 were segregated by modes and the removals
and concentrations of pollutants in the influent and effluent are tabu-
lated in Table 16. These results indicate that slightly higher removal
efficiencies were attained in the recycle mode of operation. Different
modal performances are compared in Table 16 even though chemical
dosages were not always the same. However, in each instance alum
and polymer dosages were adjusted during operation to the apparent
optimums. A substantial difference exists in BOD5 removal between
full flow and recycle with higher removals in the recycle mode. Solu-
ble COD removal efficiency between the two modes was also quite
different, however, the influent soluble COD was higher for recycle
than for the full flow runs. The results from the partial pressurization
mode were generally in between full flow and recycle.
Operational Set ^3: Unattended Nighttime Runs.
It was demonstrated in Operational Set ^2 that certain levels of treat-
ment were attainable by DAF treatment on shrimp cannery wastewater.
These removals were achieved with at least one graduate engineer
(and more often two) giving constant attention to plant control and with
one or more college graduate students assisting in operation and labora-
tory monitoring. The practicable, day-to-day operation could be much
different. To base expected performance on project results would be
unrealistic since such careful control cannot always be maintained.
Also, these performance run analyses do not reflect the pollutants in
the periodically discharged tank drainage. Operational Set *3 was,
64
-------
TABLE 15. WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
OPERATIONAL SET #2: ALUM AND POLYMER OPTIMIZATION RUNS
PARAMETER
BOD5 (Total)
BOD5 (Sol.)
COD (Total)*
COD (Sol.)*
Protein
TKN
Oil & Grease
TSS
VSS
Settleable Solids
(ml/I)
INFLUENT
(Screened)
1070 (210)
687 (170)
3020 (376)
1830(400)
1650(220)
264 ( 35)
128 ( 29)
468 (230)
401 (185)
12.8 (5.0)
EFFLUENT
(DAF Treated)
453 (122)
386 (106)
1370(300)
1110 (250)
875 (194)
140 ( 31)
18 (8.4)
140 ( 72)
99 ( 53)
2.8 (3.9)
REMOVAL
56.5 (13.5)
41.5 (18.4)
54.8 (8.3)
37.1 (17.7)
46.6 (10.6)
46.6 (10.6)
85.0(8.7)
65.6 (19.4)
71.5 (17.9)
77.8 (28.1)
Notes: Values are mean and (standard deviation) in mg/l unless otherwise noted.
Total of 23 runs, all modes, 1977 data, except COD* based on 14 runs.
Average flow rate of 500 gpm, runs of three hours.
65
-------
TABLE 16. TREATMENT RESULTS FOR OPERATIONAL SET "2 (ALUM AND 835A POLYMER)
OPTIMIZATION BY MODE
BOD5
X S
Soluble
BOD5
S s
COO
X S
Soluble
COD
X S
TKN Protein O&G _ TSS _ VSS
X S X S X S X SX S
Solids
X 1
FULL FLOW PRESSURIZATION (9 Runs)
Influent
Effluent
Removal %
PARTIAL
Influent
Effluent
Removal %
RECYCLE
Influent
Effluent
Removal %
1050
522
48.5
FLOW
1050
469
55.0
180
127
17.5
721 173
454 110
33.6 21.7
PRESSURIZATION (5
120
52
6.5
607 178
376 36
34.2 17.7
3080
1530
50.4
Runs)
2690
• 1210
54.4
360
290
7.8
560
220
7.4
1910 370
1260 270
33.3 12.7
1180 -
1050 50
10.0 4.2
284 14 1780 90 134
162 23 100 45 16
42.6 9.2 42.6 9.2 87.3
222 13 1390 80 133
130 26 813 163 21.6
41.8 11.5 41.8 11.5 83.4
26 483
7.2 161
6.2 62.7
21 636
7.4 135
7.6 72.6
211 420
92 89
22.0 75.4
360 511
37 116
17.6 71.6
196
53
16.2
275
32
17.1
16 6
0.7 0.6
94.3 6.0
10.9 1.7
4.3 4.1
62.5 34.8
PRESSURIZATION (9 Runs)
1090
383
64.6
290
115
7.3
701 169
330 99
52.7 9.2
2700
1040
61.4
400
-170
4.7
1980 210
912 67
53.4 7.0
266 39 1660 240 119
124 31 775 194 17
53.3 8.7 53.3 8.7 83.6
37 360
10 122
11.4 64.8
70 322
66 100
18.9 81.1
56
64
54.9
9.9 3.3
4.2 5.0
67.7 32.9
All Results in mg/I Unless Otherwise Noted
x Mean Values
s Standard Deviation
-------
TABLE 17. OPERATIONAL SET #3
SUMMARY OF OPERATING CONDITIONS
Run No*
UI32
UI35
UI37
UI39
PH
5
5
5
5
Alum
(mg/l)
400
400
185
225
835A
(mg/l)
2.5
3.3
3.9
4.9
Air Flow
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Pressure
50
50
50
50
*AII runs in FFP mode.
therefore, planned to exemplify the removal efficiencies typical of a
day-to-day operation of the facility. Although there were only four
runs conducted in this manner, they are a good representation of what
could be expected if time had allowed many more runs. The operation-
al conditions of these "U" runs (unattended runs) are shown in Table 17.
Full flow pressurization mode was in effect. Chemical dosages were
based on the visually determined optimum at the beginning of the opera-
tional run, and were not further adjusted during the run. Because of
the variability of the wastewater character, the amount of chemical
needed for most effective DAF treatment was also a variable factor and
had a direct influence on the treatment levels attained. It should also
be noted that these runs were approximately 10 to 12 hours in length
and included washdown waters, whereas all other (optimization) data
collecting runs were 1 to 3 hours in length and included only process
wastewaters. Washdown and process flows were similar in total para-
meters, except that suspended solids were lower in washdown and, con-
sequently, soluble parameters were higher. Washdown waters would be
more difficult to treat effectively by DAF than process wastewater,
since a larger portion of the pollutants would have to be first precipita-
ted out of solution. An adjustment in alum dosage for washdown waters
would probably be required. Operational Set #3 reflects the treatment
produced when such adjustments were not made.
As illustrated in Table 18, a high degree of treatment was possible even
with no adjustments made to the treatment process as changes occurred.
The calculation of treatment efficiencies was based on average influent
characteristics. As might be anticipated, TSS removals were less than
during optimization runs. Raw water character and, thus, alum and/or
polymer requirements may have varied during the unattended periods.
Without the needed adjustment, suspended solids removal efficiency
67
-------
TABLE 18. WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
OPERATIONAL SET #3: UNATTENDED RUNS
PARAMETER
BOD5 (Total)
BOD5 (Sol.)
COD (Total)
COD (Sol.)
Protein
TKN
Oil & Grease
TSS
VSS
Settleable Solids
(ml/I)
INFLUENT
(Screened)
1100
750
2800
1850
1660
265
125
473
409
13
EFFLUENT
(DAF Treated)
499 ( 70)
380 ( 43)
1380 (207)
926 ( 97)
838 (125)
134 ( 20)
20(8.2)
310(145)
266 (118)
1.5
REMOVAL
%
54.5 ( 6.2)
49 (6.1)
55.5 (4.4)
50 ( 5.6)
49.5 ( 7.4)
49.5 ( 7.4)
84. 0( 6.4)
34.3 (30.6)
35.0(28.7)
88.5
Notes: Values are mean and (Standard deviation) In mg/l unless otherwise noted.
Influent values are average for period.
Total of 4 runs, average of 12 hours each, FFP.
Average flow rate of 500 gpm.
68
-------
changed. Other removals are comparable to the Set #2 optimization
runs. It was noted that there was a relatively small standard deviation
for several of the effluent parameters, which would indicate a stable
effluent quality between the four performance runs evaluated.
4. Operational Set #4: PRA and 835A Runs.
It was found in the pilot study that alum with 835A polymer was the most
effective team of coagulating chemicals. It was also noted that similar
results were not always obtained by the carry-over of conclusions from
the bench scale to the pilot scale. Similarly, a possibility could exist
that the carry-over of results from jar tests or pilot plant to the plant
scale would not produce comparable results. In order to confirm plant
scale performance, the lignosulfonate PRA-1 was tested in conjunction
with 835A Polymer as a coagulant aid. These performance runs were
conducted under the conditions shown in Table 19. During the time of
this testing, the project cannery was running only a few hours per day.
While this allowed time for sampling, it did not allow adequate opera-
ting time for trial and error PRA dosage optimization. It may have been
possible to attain slightly higher treatment levels if time had been avail-
able to fully optimize. As shown by the results in Table 20, removal
efficiencies were comparable to those obtained by the use of alum. It
was found that changes in the point of application of the PRA did not
appreciably affect treatment efficiencies.
TABLE 19. 1977 OPERATIONAL SET #4 - OPERATING CONDITIONS
Run No.
1421
1432
1442
pH
5
5
4.5
PRA
mg/l
60
60
60
835A
mg/l
2.5
2.5
2.5
(cfm)
Air Flow
3.0
3.0
3.0
(psi)
Pressure
40
40
40
PRA applied in flume, 835A @ Pressure Release Valve
PRA applied @ Pressure Release Valve, 835A at last sample point before inlet tube in-
side DAF cell.
All runs in Full Flow Pressurization Mode
Late in the 1977 shrimp season, the DAF system was operated to evaluate
treatment efficiency under the conditions of: (a) alum addition with no
pH adjustment, and (b) utilizing a double polymer system (507-C and
835-A). When alum is introduced into an aqueous system, a pH drop
is observed due to the chemical destruction of alkalinity. As shown by
Figure 25 a linear pH drop was observed with increasing alum addition
69
-------
TABLE 20. WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
OPERATIONAL SET #4: PRA AND 835A RUNS
PARAMETER
BOD5 (Total)
BOD5 (Soluble)
COD (Total)
COD (Soluble)
TKN
Protein
Oil & Grease
TSS
VSS
Settleable Solids
(ml/I)
INFLUENT
(Screened)
853 (183)
556(151)
2100(460)
1390 (140)
184 ( 39)
1150(244)
60 ( 28)
529 ( 86)
457 ( 67)
8.4(0.8)
EFFLUENT
(DAF treated)
385 (208)
303 (145)
939 (252)
728 ( 91)
84 ( 18)
523 (114)
19 ( 13)
135 (113)
126 (106)
4.5
REMOVAL
%
56.7 (18.3)
47.7 (11.2)
55 ( 8.7)
47 ( 9.0)
53.7 (10.4)
53.7 (10.4)
67.7 (15.1)
75.7(18.0)
73.3(20.3)
42
Notes: Values are mean and (standard deviation) in mg/l unless otherwise noted.
FFP, three runs, average of 3 hours each.
Average flow rate of 500 gpm.
70
-------
to shrimp cannery wastewater under laboratory conditions. A similar
condition was expected under plant scale conditions. The fall 1977
runs (#151-153 as tabulated in Appendix C) illustrate that large doses
of alum were not effective as a coagulant, but brought about a PH drop
and the subsequent precipitation of proteinaceous material. The large
Increase in settleable and suspended solids and the poor BOD5 and COD
removals show that floe was formed, but it was not-effectively separated
from the wastewater. This would confirm that the alum alone was effec-
tive as a pH depressant at large doses, but there was not good floccula-
tion and removals were poor.
FIGURE 25
pH RESPONSE TO INCREASED ALUM ADDITION
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
1000
1200
ALUM DOSAGE (mg/l)
A double polymer (cationic-anionic) chemical treatment was also inves-
tigated for the project DAF system, employing Pearl River Chemical
520 C (American Cyanamid 507C) cationic polymer as the destabilizing
agent and Magnifloc 835A as the coagulant aid. Two operational runs
were performed with polymer dosages of 300 mg/l cationic and 5.0 mg/l
anionic at pH 510, with full flow pressurization. There was very limited
operation of the packing plant during this period, and therefore the data
represent the average values of analyses performed on grab samples.
The removals and the performance and operation of the system (including
the extreme chemical sensitivity of the wastewater) were similar to those
with alum as the coagulating agent. Table 21 shows the removals ob~
tai ned.
Many industrial effluent limitation guidelines are based on mass, or pounds of
pollutant per unit pounds of product, either finished or raw. The effluent limitation
71
-------
TABLE 21. DOUBLE POLYMER RUNS
Parameter
BOD5
BOD5 (Soluble)
COD
TKN
Protein
O&G
TSS
VSS
% Removal
69
62
65
55
55
71
57
56
guidelines for the shrimp processing and canning industry are written on the basis of
pounds of pollutant per 1000 pounds of raw shrimp. Table 22 expresses the results of the
1977 DAF treatment data on a mass discharge basis for Operational Set *2, Operational
Set *3, three runs from Operational Set "4, and the two double polymer runs. These lim-
ited data seem to indicate that good removals were achieved with 520C and that PRA-1
may possibly be as effective as alum as a coagulant. However, before a conclusion is
drawn comparing results of three runs to 23 runs, more investigation should be done. The
evaluation of lignosulfonate as a coagulant should include determination of the continued
availability, acquisition and transportation costs, and any special handling requirements
of the material. The degree of uniformity, stability and strength should also be establish-
ed. The ready availability of alum at reasonable cost in the project area made it appear
to be the most suitable coagulant at this time. Due to mechanical and other problems,
reliable treatment data were not obtained on the operation of the DAF unit during 1976.
The results of 17 performance runs that were conducted during the fall canning season of
that year are tabulated in Appendix C. Almost all of these runs were performed in the
full flow mode, none in the partial mode. The optimum point for application of the
alum was investigated, butresults were not conclusive. It was found, however,
that early, upstream addition with pH control gave best coagulation results, in
both recycle (R) and full (FFP) modes. The mean and standard deviation for parameters in
the 1976 treatment series are shown on Table 23. Many of the effluent analyses were on
grab samples, utilizing the same influent sample for treatment evaluation. Although good
data correlation may seem to be the overall conclusion, the sampling and operating con-
72
-------
TABLE 22. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
LB. POLLUTANT/1000 LB. RAW SHRIMP
(After DAF Treatment-1977)
Treatment
Alum & Poly.
(23 Runs)
Unattended
(4 Runs)
PRA & Polymer
(3 Runs)
520C & 835A
(2 Runs)
BOD5
18.7
19.5
18.6
13.4
Sol.
BOD5
16.5
14.4
14.7
10.7
COD
51.1*
50.5
50.9
39.7
Sol.
COD
50.0*
39.8
42.1
-
TKN
5.4
5.2
4.7
4.6
Protein
33.8
32.5
29.4
28.8
O&G
0.7
0.8
1.6
1.4
TSS
6. 1
11.6
4.3
7.6
VSS
4.4
10.1
4.1
6.8
*COD removal based on 14 runs. Values in first line calculated by applying average
removals from Table 15 to average mass influent in Table 6. Other values calculated
similarly.
ditions should be taken into account when evaluating the results. The 1976 data are sim-
ilar in most respects to the values contained in Table 15, results of Operational Set #2
(1977). This could be expected since both are alum and polymer performance runs seek-
ing optimum treatment. The 1977 data are considered more representative, however,
since operating conditions were normalized and composite samples were utilized. The
1976 data were used as reference values since a measure of operational expertise was
being acquired during that time. This report does not contain the results of operational
runs conducted during the 1976 summer shrimp season because an improperly sized center
flocculation-inlet chamber was in the main cell during that time, operational start-up
problems were numerous, and the data were not obtained under representative conditions.
F. Sludge Treatment
As with most wastewater treatment processes, there is a solids byproduct that
is left after the liquid stream has been treated. With DAF shrimp wastewater treatment,
the solids which are precipitated and floated out of the water are in the form of sludge,
or skimmings. The floated material contains much air due to the method by which sepa-
ration occurs. A discussion of the volume and nature of the skimmings sludge may be
helpful in reviewing the problems of handling and disposing of this material.
The amount and percent solids concentration of the DAF floated material was
found to be a function of the treatment which was occurring: the thicker and more volu-
minous the sludge, the better the pollutant removals which could be expected. By
theory, the only exit for any solids which enter the overall DAF treatment system is either
73
-------
TABLE 23. FALL 1976 DAF TREATMENT RESULTS
BOD5 BOD5 COD COD TKN Protein O&G TSS
Tot. Sol. Tot. Sol.
Effluent
mg/l
% Removal
x Mean
X
s
X
s
values
464
84
64
5.4
(17 runs)
416
152
65
5.9
1980
1110
47
21.7
1060
230
59
3.1
126
34
39
27.6
788
212
39
27. 6
19
6.5
88
5.9
352
4.5
58
14.0
s Standard Deviation
through the normal effluent liquid stream, or out the top as floated material. Thus, a mass
balance should always be valid, but this was not the case with the project DAF system.
Mass balance relationships seldom held, probably due to unexpected forces such as sedi-
mentation and the high variability in the wastewater and sludge. It was found that a tot-
ally representative composite skimmings sample was virtually impossible to obtain. Sludge
flow averaged about 10 gal Ions per minute and represented approximately 2% of the in-
fluent by volume. A large quantity of the skimmings volume was air, however, causing
unit weights as low as 14 Ibs/ft in the sludge. The content and volume of the material
were not totally comparable from sample to sample since the quantity of air that was in
the material changed, causing an alteration in the quality and quantity of the sludge.
Generally, samples were acquired as froth was scraped off the flotation unit, and all ana-
lyses were performed immediately in an effort to minimize differences in samples.
Shrimp wastewater treatment by DAF produces skimmings high in TKN and oil
and grease with polymer and alum content. Table 24 shows the average'of the sludge
analyses during the 1977 season. Note here that the flow rate is based only on those runs
which employed alum and polymer. Without any chemical addition, DAF treatment pro-
duced sludge flow rates of less than 0.5 gpm. In addition to this data, a 1976 skimmings
sample showed 7% solids and a content on a dry basis of L47% aluminum and 58.5% pro-
tein.
It was hoped that some data on skimmings handling could be developed during
this project, even though sludge treatment was not one of the basic objectives. Accord-
ingly, methods for volume reduction and treatment of the sludge were investigated to some
degree, as time and funds permitted. The method of volume reduction which received the
most investigation was a pilot scale evaporator-dryer as manufactured by Contherm. The
process was essentially one of heating the sludge in a vacuum to drive away water. The
manufacturer describes the principle of operation, as follows:
74
-------
TABLE 24. DAF SLUDGE DATA SUMMARY
% Solids
6.6
(mg/g dry sludge)
83.2
PROTEIN
(mg/g dry sludge)
520
0 & G
(mg/g dry sludge)
85.4
Flow
(gpm)
7
PH
6.2
All values are averages (1977 data)
"The product (sludge) enters the lower end of the Convap cylinder. As the
feed stream is pumped through the inner cylinder, heat of vaporization is
supplied by the heating media that flows in the annular space between the
heat transfer wall and the outer cylinder. Heat transfer is accomplished by
conduction and aided by convection currents created by the mechanical agita-
tion of the revolving scraping blades. These blades swing out against the pre-
cision finished cylinder wall and continuously remove the thin product film.
The centrifugal action of the rotor spins the heavier liquid droplets towards
the inner cylinder wall. This assures a continuous rewetting of the heat trans-
fer surface and prevents burn-on as the scraping blades literally clean the
heat transfer surface. Typically operating under vacuum conditions, the va-
porization occurs in the scraped surface heat exchange cylinder. The releas-
ed vapor expands, increases in volume, and causes a thin film of product to
move up the cylinder wall. The product (sludge) reaches the tip of the cylin-
der, passes through the vapor head and is channeled into a specially dimen-
sioned and constructed baffle. The sludge then passes through the entrainment
separator where the concentrate and vapor phases are separated. The concen-
trated stream exits at the bottom of the separator while the vapor exits at the
top where it is then condensed by an appropriate shell and tube, spiral, or
barometric (spray) condensor. "
The sludge evaporator-dryer unit was tested by varying operational conditions of tempera-
ture, vacuum, and flow rate. The results of this experimental operation are shown in
Table 25.
It was generally true that at least a 50% decrease in volume occurred, produc-
ing a viscous liquid, or very wet mud. It was still necessary to handle it as a liquid. It
was noted that as much as 22.5% solid material was present on the inside of a portion of
the equipment during cleaning. With experience in operating and adequate investigation
time, better results may have been produced with this unit. A 75% volume reduction to
one-fourth of the original sludge volume may be achievable.
In addition to the problem of skimmings volume, there is a very rapid degra-
dation and odor production from the highly putrescible DAF shrimp sludge. If the excess-
75
-------
TABLE 25. SLUDGE SOLIDS CONTENT
EVAPORATOR-DRYER TREATMENT
Run No. Influent (% Solids) Effluent (% Solids) Increase (% Solids)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4.8
4.8
5.8
5.4
5.4
5.8
-
-
"
10.4
9.8
12.6
13.3
9.7
14.5
14.7
9.2
17.2
5.6
5.0
6.8
7.9
4.3
8.7
-
-
"
sive putrescibility could be at least partially reduced, easier handling, processing, and
storage may be possible. One method of reduction was investigated, a chemical condi-
tioning system employing chlorine as the oxidizing agent. This was a bench scale
PURIFAX system, as manufactured by BIF. It relied upon a complete oxidation of all
organic material which, according to the manufacturer, made the resulting material read-
ily dewaterable on sand drying beds. The manufacturer describes the results of the chlo-
rine application in the unit, on sewage sludges, as follows:
"Within 10 to 30 minutes after discharge from a PURIFAX chemical oxidizer,
liquid-solid separation occurs in the treated sludge. The solids float over
a substantially clear subnatant; they are buoyed-up by carbon dioxide and
nitrogen gas bubbles which are evolved from and attached to the organic
material in the sludge. Within 1 to 2 days the gas bubbles break off the
solids and they sink with a comparatively clear supernatant forming over the
solids. This unique characteristic of initial flotation of the solids can be used
advantageously when dewatering sludge on a sand bed. The clear liquid be-
neath the floating solids quickly filters through the bed, increasing the dewa-
tering rate. When the sludge is discharged into a lagoon or thickening tank
for solids consolidation and the solids subsequently sink, a clear supernatant
can be decanted if baffles are used to restrain surface scum. Another impor-
tant change in the treated sludge is the elimination of foul odors. Immediate-
ly after discharge from a Purifax Chemical Oxidizer, the odor of the treated
sludge has been described as ranging from "fresh-medicinal" to "slightly
chlorinous. " Since the process stabilizes the organics so they will not sub-
sequently putrify, no objectionable odors develop from properly treated
sludge; after long term holding the odor is usually described as 'non-object-
ionable, medicinal'. "
76
-------
During the course of this project, the bench scale chemical oxidizing system
shown in Figure 26 was investigated on one occasion in the laboratory. The results were
similar to above description for sewage sludges.
Figure 26
Chemical Oxidizer for Sludge
G. DAF Treatment-Oyster Processing Wastewaters
Operational performance runs were conducted on the DAF shrimp wastewater
treatment system for four we.eks during February and March, IV!'7, while Violet Packing
Co. was processing oysters. Table 26 is a ; data on DAF treatment of oyster
cannery wastewater. Some runs employing no c lemical addition and iven no air flow
produced BODc and TSS removals compara! with optimum chemical addition
levels. Since a large amount of sertleabie wastewater, even
after the primary grit trap, it is probable that the long detention times in the oversized
treatment unit resulted in removals by -'itatioi i ilieable solids and the
heavier specific gravity of these silty solids contributed to the relatively lov A/S values
attained in DAF system operation.
-------
TABLE 26. DAF WASTEWATER TREATMENT EFFLUENT
OYSTER PROCESSING-1977
Effluent - mg/l
Mean
(Std.Dev.)
% Removal
Mean
(Std.Dev.)
BOD5
Total
224
(52)
43.0
(9.9)
BOD5
Soluble
207
(51)
23.0
(8.5)
COD
(total)
1260
(840)
58.9
(15.1)
TSS
230
(108)
88.8
(5.2)
VSS TKN
164 50
(65) (18)
80.4 58.2
(6.4) (8.5)
O&G
14.3
(4.8)
56.0
(18.6)
Average screened wastewater flow was approximately 100 gpm.
Chemical dosage ranges: Alum, 70-240 mg/l; 835A polymer, 2-8.4 mg/l
Averages: Alum - 142 mg/l; Polymer - 4.4 mg/l
The concentration of solids in the DAF skimmings was generally higher than
noted in shrimp wastewater treatment. The percent solids varied from 7.3% to 15.2%,
while generally being about 12%. This could also be attributed to the high specific gra-
vity solid materials in the oyster wastewater as opposed to the flocculent, voluminous
nature of shrimp wastewater solids. Another observation in DAF treatment of oyster pro-
cessing wastewaters was that pH adjustment had no apparent effect upon treatment. This
was in contrast to the findings with shrimp wastewaters and the theory of protein coagula-
tion, but was clearly observed in the performance runs of oyster processing wastewater.
Based on the results of the performance runs, Table 27 was formulated. This
expresses the average pollutant load in the DAF treated discharge (alum and polymer runs
only) on a pounds/1000 pounds of finished product basis. Due to the lack of complete
data, most of the BOD5 values were calculated based on the COD:BODc ratio of the
known data. All available data are given in Appendix C.
TABLE 27. AVERAGE DISCHARGE FROM DAF TREATMENT
OYSTER PROCESSING - 1977
(Lbs/1000 Ibs Finished Product)
Mean
Range
BOD5-
17.8
1.2- 88.5
TSS
16.2
6.5-39.2
O&G
1.1
0.6- 2.0
* Based on actual BOD^ values, and those calculated from COD values and the
average effluent COD/BOD^ ratios.
78
-------
H. Costs
Contained in Appendix D are the analyses conducted to estimate typical costs
that could be expected for a pollution abatement program at a Gulf shrimp cannery.
Costs are based on actual operating data where possible, although some assumptions had
to be made. In particular, the treatment and disposal of the DAF sludge is an unsolved
problem. Wet hauling was used as the disposal method for cost estimating, although it is
not suggested for use, nor is it known to be feasible.
Data on project equipment costs, chemical costs and power use are factual,
from project records. Land values, salvage values, labor costs, maintenance and repair
costs and sludge disposal costs are best estimates.
Actual cost of the project treatment system, ENR adjusted to the end of 1977,
was $282,900. By estimating land value and future equipment salvage value, and assum-
ing amortization over a 15 year period at 9% interest rate, the annual equivalent fixed
costs are calculated to be $34,900. The annual variable costs include energy, chemicals,
maintenance and repair, and labor. From power consumption records and an assumed pow-
er cost of 2.5 cents per KW hr, an estimated cost of $0. 045 per 1000 gallons of wastewater
flow gives an annual power cost of $1500. Chemical costs were calculated to be $0.257
per 1000 gallons or $8300 per year. Maintenance and repair were estimated to average
about $9300 per year. An adequate labor force is based on one full time technically
trained supervisor-operator, one full-time skilled assistant operator and one part time
operator-helper. The annual labor cost, including fringe benefits, is estimated to be
$46,200. The annual variable cost is then $63,200 and the average equivalent cost is
$100,200 per year. By adjusting these costs for the average 8-peeler cannery, with an
effective water use and wastewater management plan, the average cost is estimated to be
$91,400 per year for the wastewater system. However, the cost of disposal of the sludge
by-product from wastewater treatment must be added. Wet hauling to a processor-owned
land fill by processor-owned tank truck was assumed. The average equivalent cost is
estimated to be $40,100. This gives a total annual average equivalent cost of $131,500
for an 8 peeler processor. By adjusting the annual variable costs to the annual cannery
production rate, the wastewater treatment cost per case of canned shrimp can be calcula-
ted. For a production rate of 300,000 cases per year, it would cost an 8-peeler cannery
$0.433 per case to install and operate a DAF wastewater treatment system. If the annual
production is only 200,000 cases, the cost would be $0.60 per case.
79
-------
SECTION VIII
DISCUSSION
A. General
The results presented in this report address the study objectives. Gulf shrimp
cannery wastewaters and oyster canning wastewaters were characterized, managed, treat-
ed and monitored in this demonstration project. Several effective pollution abatement
procedures are discussed and evaluated. These include the effectiveness of water manage-
ment and process control, screening, chemical treatment, and dissolved air flotation.
B. Water Use and Wastewater Management
A major objective of this investigation was to evaluate various methods of
wastewater volume and pollutant load reduction. The study plant was believed to be typi-
cal of Gulf shrimp canneries, where an abundant water supply is readily available and low
in cost. The tendency was to allow water use to be excessive. Control valves were gene-
rally fully open, hoses were allowed to run continuously and excess system pressures were
relieved by automatic pressure relief valves or by cracking valves. At the beginning of
the study, water use was established to be at the rate of 7730 gallons per 1000 Ibs. of raw
shrimp processed. After the water use and wastewater management plan was developed,
the importance of such a system was thoroughly discussed with cannery managers and super-
visors. Management accepted the recommendations, adopted the plan and set a policy for
all personnel to follow. The installation of hand held, reliable, valved nozzles on hoses;
the use of high pressure-low volume cleanup techniques; and other common water saving
efforts brought about an overall water use reduction. In addition, plant management modi-
fied the water distribution system to include a ground storage pumping reservoir into which
the two water wells now discharge. The system pressure is now maintained automatically
by two service pumps and there are pressure control valves on the plant piping. Pressure is
now maintained within close limits for each water using device, resulting In more constant
production results and less need for adjustment, and in less water use and wastewater flow.
The net result of water use control was the reduction in 1977 to 4420 gal Ions per 1000 Ibs.
of raw shrimp processed, a reduction of 43% from initial water use.
Another project objective was to consider opportunities to revise product hand-
ling procedures in order to reduce pollutant discharge. It had previously been established
by others that pollutant concentration in seafood processing wastewaters is a function of
the contact time. This was confirmed in the study of grader-deveiner process product flurrr
80
-------
ing (Table 10). The pollutant load increase was found to be approximately 10% in this
short flume. The cannery cooperation in substituting dry conveying at this point was there-
fore responsible for a reduction in the pollutant load in the wastewater. Other proposals
for reducing product-water contact time were not possible during the project but may be
feasible under other circumstances or at a later time. Re-use of process waters,re-arrange-
ment of the processing equipment, earlier screening of wastewaters in the process and
treatment schematic, and more dry conveying were considered but were not possible under
the time-funding restrictions of this project. Vacuum cleaning for solids clean up and re-
moval was also considered. It was not found to be feasible, so sweeping and other dry
cleaning procedures were substituted on a continuing and prior to wash-down schedule dur-
ing cannery operation. Automatic brine valves for filling cans, improvement of floor sur-
faces and drainage systems, pumping improvements and other cannery changes during the
project also contributed to the pollutant discharge reduction.
The water use management and conservation and the other project cannery
changes brought about a substantial reduction in total wastewater pollutant discharge. From
1975 to 1977, it was found that through improved techniques, substantial removals in var-
ious pollutional parameters could be brought about. Average reductions on a pounds per
1000 pounds of raw product basis were: 60% of BOD5, 13% of TSS and 40% of O & G.
The curtailment of wasteful water use and the reduction of product-water contact should be
instituted by all shrimp processors at the outset of a pollution abatement program. Both in-
house pollutant reduction and end of pipe treatment will be enhanced from such a program.
This principle is also applicable for oyster processing, but probably not to such a dramatic
extent.
C. Screening
The wastewaters from the raw shrimp processing activities also act as transport
water for all portions of the shrimp body not used in canning. Screening of the wastewaters
is, therefore, quite effective in pollutant removal. Project results demonstrate removals of
7% 8005, 45% TSS, and 17.5% O&G. These achievements are in addition to the remov-
als obtained by water management in the present day operation at the study cannery.
Wastewater treatment by DAF requires effective screening as a pretreatment
step. For example, during the 1977 shrimp canning season, the study cannery encountered
"screening problems. For about a one day period, an undetected hole perhaps 2" in diame-
ter existed in one of the screens. The screening problems were discovered as a result of
the pH probe continually plugging. At that time the DAF system was operating in the re-
cycle mode and all raw flow went through the floe tank immediately after the surge tank.
Several days after the screen hole was discovered, it was found that a great deal of sett-
ling had occurred in the floe tank. Approximately 3 cubic yards of settled material had
accumulated in the tank and was decomposing. The tank and the entire system had to be
drained and bypassed in order to remove this material manually with shovels and hoses
through the bottom drain.
Screening can therefore be seen to be a very critical pretreatment for a dis~
81
-------
solved air flotation system treating shrimp cannery wastewater. Even with good screening
and substantial pollutant reductions there were still settleable solids which escaped the
screens. These entered the DAF system, resulting in subsequent sedimentation accumula-
tions. Screening is also recommended for oyster processing wastewaters prior to DAF
treatment; however, it is not so effective or as critical as with shrimp processing. Screen-
ing installations should be as effective and as reliable as possible.
The material separated from wastewaters by screening becomes a solid waste.
These wet screenings consist of shrimp heads, "whiskers", hulls, waste shrimp meat and
shrimp legs. The study of this solid waste was not a part of the project. However, from
project cannery data it was estimated that the wet screenings developed averaged 250 Ibs.
per 1000 Ibs. of raw product, or about one cu. yd. per 1000 Ibs. Some Gulf canneries
dispose of these by hauling or by first compacting and hauling to landfills, either private
or public. A few large canners (three) dry the screenings in rotary kiln dryers, pulverize
and market the dry shrimp waste as a source of (35-40%) protein. Capital and operating
costs for drying are high and market values are variable and undependable.
D. DAF Treatment of Shrimp Cannery Wastewater
The previous data presentations indicate that the dissolved air flotation waste-
water treatment system at Violet Packing Co. was effective. The degree of attainable
treatment varied with the particular conditions under which the treatment system was oper-
ated and the varying nature of the wastewater. Aside from the removals alone, there
were other observations from this study which are worthy of consideration.
The Violet DAF wastewater treatment system was an extremely demanding sys-
tem in terms of operator attention. The raw wastewater constantly changed and, as it did,
so did its treatability. The required alum dosage varied by 400% within a 6-week period
during 1977. When the correct alum dosage was being applied, it was apparent. There
was distinct solid-liquid separation and it usually occurred quickly. Figure 27 shows
photographs of the flotation process during an effective operation, taken on a time inter-
val basis. The sample was siphoned out of the flotation cell flocculation chamber. At
first, air, water, and floe were mixed together and there was a great deal of turbulence.
When the turbulence decreased (2nd photograph) the air and floe became entrained in a
complex. With time (other photos) the mixture separated into solid and liquid layers,
leaving an airy sludge blanket and clear subnatant. The flotation process in the main cell
occurred in a similar sequence. It should be noted that at this correct alum dosage, there
was clear liquid between the solid particles. This was an indication that an effective
alum dosage had been reached, and this was verified by laboratory analyses. Problems
came about when the nature of the wastewater was altered by some internal or external
mechanism. Often there would be no visual wastewater change, but the current alum
dose would no longer produce clear subnatant. Constant monitoring, adjusting, and eva-
luation were necessary to produce the best quality effluent. The required alum dosage
would change so that large adjustments had to be made to the chemical feed equipment in
order to deliver the different rates required. Polymer was necessary for effective flotation,
82
-------
T= 2 SEC.
"= 10 SEC.
T= 20 SEC.
T= 40 SEC.
T= 1 MIN.
T= 2 Mil
FIGURE 27
DAF SEPARATION PROCESS
83
-------
but as long as the polymer dose was above 4 mg/l, solid-liquid separation would occur if
pH and alum were at the correct levels. During the period of adjustment to an effective
coagulant dosage, a discharge of poorly treated wastewater would occur. Such occur-
rences are not totally reflected in the operational data reported.
It was concluded in the pilot study that the point of application of chemicals
was important. This project DAF system had the operational flexibility to apply chemicals
in at least two places, either separately or together. Sulfuric acid for pH adjustment was
added to the influent flume in order to minimize pH response time. Early acid application
was recommended by the pilot study and was found to be effective in this project since
acid addition at this point had the advantage of both short pH controller response time and
adequate mixing as the wastewater plunged into the surge tank. The earliest possible alum
addition was pointed out in the pilot study as being most effective. Alum addition was,
therefore, at the meter. For evaluation, it was also added at the discharge of the screens,
which provided a 10 second longer retention before entering the flotation cell, but there
was no noted increase in treatment efficiency. One polymer application point was loca-
ted immediately following the pressure release valve, and another was located in the bot-
tom of the floe tank, where the wastewater entered the tank. Various trial runs were con-
ducted with polymer in either and both places. It was observed that polymer was virtually
ineffective when applied anywhere .except at the pressure release valve. This would indi-
cate that the bridging action of the polymer and the surface action of the bridging does
not take effect until the turbulence of the flocculation tube is encountered. Based on
these observations, it was concluded the point of alum addition was not extremely critical,
and polymer application should be between the pressure release valve and the flocculation
chamber.
While alum was the primary coagulant investigated, other coagulants also
showed potential for effective plant scale use. Lignosulfonate (PRA-I) and cationic poly-
mer (520C) both produced good treatment results, but they were not given as thorough an
evaluation (different dosages, application points, modes, etc.) as alum. It is possible
that with further investigation, each of these, and possibly other chemicals, might be
found to be as effective as alum used with a coagulant aid. Economics, availability, ease
of handling, long-term quality of the sludge produced, as well as wastewater treatment
effectiveness, should be evaluated when selecting the most desirable coagulant.
Coagulation was influenced by other operational factors. Most alum dosages
were ineffective unless the pH was at or near 5.0. Although lag time in the pH control
system was minimal, the lag effects were noticed when the flow became unsteady. The
cannery drainage system was arranged so that all wastewater was pumped from a central
collection pit to the screens. Screened wastewater flowed by gravity to the DAF system
influent meter and surge tank. The collection pump had a variable speed control installed
in 1977 and could be manually adjusted to equal the plant flow in order to have steady,
non-intermittent flow at the DAF unit. Prior to this, the rate of pump discharge was
varied by a pulley change. Because of the time required, all needed adjustments could
not be made and unsteady flow resulted. Pump speed adjustment, then, was important
to maintain the steady flow conditions needed for better pH control and for better coagula-
84
-------
tion.
The design of the Violet DAF system was based on the previously conducted
pilot study, which recommended solids loadings of 0.25 Ibs/hr/ft2 and A/S ratio of 0. 125.
However, in the design phase while balancing the cell surface loading rate and retention
time with the anticipated raw wastewater concentration of suspended solids, it was con-
cluded that the flotation cell solids loading could not be kept to the recommended level
with standard manufactured units. Other literature did not indicate such low rates to be
necessary. Therefore, a maximum cell solids loading rate of 0.50 Ibs/hr/sq. ft. was spe-
cified. Actual operating solids loadings, based on screened wastewater concentrations
of TSS prior to chemical addition, were found to range from 0. 17 to 0.76 and to average
about 0.40 Ibs/hr/sq. ft. Higher solids loading rates would result if TSS values were de-
termined after pH adjustment and coagulant and polymer additions. It is concluded that
the pilot study recommended solids loading rate of 0.25 Ibs/hr/sq. ft. was not essential
for good performance.
Similarly, the pilot study conclusion with regard to an air to solids ratio (A/S)
of 0. 125 Ibs/lb was not considered to be achievable or necessary. A minimum ratio of
0. 10 Ibs/lb was specified for the FFP, and 0.05 for the R and P modes. Even so, in
actual operation the average A/S ratios achieved were 0.046 Ibs/lbs (FFP) and 0.037 in
P and R modes during shrimp processing. Values ranged from 0.019 to 0. 108. During
oyster processing the values ranged from 0.0085 to 0.075 and averaged 0.032 in FFP and
0.037 in P and R modes. These values are within the ranges reported by other investiga-
tors 4,5, 6 anc| did n0f appear to limit system performance. Even though the A/S ratio
was almost doubled on one occasion during oyster production, no significant change in
treatment level was observed. From Equation (6) in Section VI, it can be shown that,if
all other parameters remain constant and the saturation factor "f" can be increased from
0.5 to 0.7, then the air calculated to be released from solution nearly doubles. However,
since the characteristics and temperature of the wastewater influence solubility (Cs) in
Equation (6) and these cannot be readily altered, and since pressures were essentially
constant throughout the system operation, it is likely that the earlier established average
value of "f" did not vary significantly. Therefore, since there was not opportunity to
re-evaluate the value of "f", the previously established value of "f" = 0.5 was used in
calculating the A/S ratios reported in Table 28. Although the achievable air saturation
and A/S ratios did not appear to limit treatment, an alternate positive source of compress-
ed air is recommended. Problems encountered with the project ejector and rotameter air
supply system were: (a) stoppages of ejectors and rotameters due to the amount and type of
suspended solids in the wastewater and (b) the injected air affects the performance of the
wastewater pumps. Air in the pump suction was found to reduce pumping rates and to
occasionally cause surging or air binding of the pumps, and it could possibly cause cavi-
tation damage.
It appears that the DAF system for shrimp wastewater treatment was furnished
and operated in accordance within the hydraulic and solids loading rates and air supply
parameters recognized and recommended in the literature. Limitations to DAF performance
on shrimp wastewater treatment seem to be in obtaining optimum chemical dosages at all
85
-------
TABLE 28. SUMMARY OF DESIGN AND OPERATING DATA#
OPERATING MODE
PROCESS DESIGN SUMMARY* FULL FLOW RECYCLE & PARTIAL
Influent flow, GPM
Recycle Rate, %
Recycle Rate, GPM
Total Flow, GPM
Surface loading rate, GPM/ft.
Cell solids loading, lb/hr/ft.2
Cell retention time, minutes
Pressure, psig
Air supply, SCFM
Air/solids ratio, Ib/lb.
700
700
2. 0 maximum
0.5 maximum
60 maximum
40-60
1.8 minimum
0. 10 minimum
700
40-50
350 maximum
1050 maximum
3. 0 maximum
0.5 maximum
30 minimum
40-60
0. 9 minimum
0. 05 minimum
OPERATING SUMMARY
SHRIMP CANNING
OPERATING MODE
FULL FLOW RECYCLE & PARTIAL
Influent Flow, GPM
Recycle Rate, %
Recycle Rate, GPM
Total Flow, GPM
Surface Loading Rate, GPM/ft.2
Cell solids loading, Ib/lir/ft.2
Cell retention time, minutes
Pressure, psig
Air Supply, SCFM
Air/solids ratio, Ib/lb.
500
—
—
500
1.8
0.48
60
40 ±
2.5- 3.0
0.046
500
60
300
800
1.97
0.44
45
40 ±
2.5- 3.0
0.037
OPERATING SUMMARY
OYSTER CANNING
OPERATING MODE
FULL FLOW RECYCLE & PARTIAL
Influent Flow, GPM
Recycle Rate, %
Recycle Rate, GPM
Total Flow, GPM
Surface Loading Rate, GPM/ft.
***Cell solids loading, lb/hr/ft.2
Cell retention time, minutes
Pressure, psig.
Air Supply, SCFM
Air/solids ratio, Ib/lb.
100(200)**
—
—
100(200)**
0.5
0.3
150
40 ±
2.5- 3.0
0.032
100(200)**
500 maximum
500 maximum
700 maximum
1.75
0.4
45
40 ±
2.5- 3.0
0.037
Based on Influent Concentration TSS = 500 mg/l
Total Flow (lOOgpm raw and lOOgpm equalization)
Based on Raw flow of 100 GPM at 2000 mg/l TSS, Equalization flow of 100
GPM at 250 mg/l TSS, and Recycle flow of 500 GPM at 250 mg/l TSS
Average values given unless indicated otherwise.
86
-------
times and in properly maintaining proper physical and chemical conditions of the system.
Shrimp canning wastewater is a very rapidly biodegradable liquid. In the
presence of oxygen, it will degrade aerobically; in the absence of oxygen, anaerobic
conditions prevail and obnoxious odors result. It was found that as long as flow was enter-
ing the treatment system, air injection and minimum retention time resulted in a fairly
fresh wastewater. However, if any of the wastewater was left in the tankage for longer
than 12 hours, severe odor problems resulted. This was a critical factor with intermittent
cannery operation, since a trade-off existed between clean tankage and startup time.
Continuous cleaning of the wastewater treatment system was necessary during operation.
Hosing all components of the system coming in contact with the wastewater was required,
including drain lines, skimmings arms, surge and effluent tanks and the concrete slab. It
was necessary to keep a hose running continuously into the drains to keep them flushed,
and modifications were made to prevent even small accumulations in drain boxes. As
much as two gallons per day of commercial bleach (sodium hypochlorite) were used to con-
trol odor. Insecticide was needed daily for fly control. The skimmings hopper required
almost constant cleaning and sanitizing. When fresh wastewater did not enter the system
and operation was continued in a recirculation status, foam overflowed the skimmings
hopper. As the plant was idling, some of this foam collected in drain pipes. The build-
up of solid material in the floe tank and flotation tank launder ring was also observed to
produce odors. The launder ring had to be manually cleaned with brooms and hoses at
least weekly.
In addition to the normal requirements for operation, the system as first (1976)
installed was very maintenance intense. Much of this was apparently due to debugging
the system, since maintenance was much less in the latter portion of the 1977 season.
Throughout the 1976 shrimp season, the 1977 oyster season, and the first part of the 1977
shrimp season, the system required at least 8 man-hours every operating day for mainte-
nance. During this time, the system would often have to be bypassed or drained and
treatment would be interrupted. Some down time was caused by repairs resulting from
malfunctions in the cannery equipment upstream of the wastewater system. One example
was cleaning of pumps and check valves which had become clogged when plastic rings
from the vibrating screens were discharged into the waste stream. DAF system problems
were related to: (a) the corrosive nature of the wastewater, (b) the extended periods of
downtime as a result of intermittent and varying supplies of raw products, and (c) the
readily putrescible nature of wastewater which made immediate, thorough, and frequent
cleanup mandatory.
The startup and shutdown of the cannery could possibly be a source of pro-
blems for effective DAF system operation. It was noted in the pilot study that during days
when a short plant operation occurred (several hours), much of the operational time was
spent filling the tankage before treatment could begin. This was also noted in plant scale
operation. Some potential difficulties also resulted from draining the system after the
cannery ceased operation. The contents of all tanks were removed; this resulted in a dis-
charge of only partially treated wastewater and septic bottom deposits which had collect-
ed in all tanks. Also, the manufacturer recommended, and it was found to be desirable,
87
-------
the "blow down" of the flotation cell main drain for a short period (at least 30 seconds)
each shift, resulting in a strong discharge. Although pollutants in this drainage were not
included in the treatment data, the totals discharged must be considered in the operation
of a treatment system and are discussed later in this section. For example, on those days
when only a 4-hour processing operation occurs, the amount of partially treated waste-
water dumped would equal about 28% of the total cannery flow for that day, including
washdown. This chemically treated but unseparated wastewater adds to the total cannery
pollutant discharge.
An alternate method of wastewater treatment system cleanup and shut down
which may be advantageous has been suggested. This method would be the continued
operation of the treatment system for two or three, or more, hours beyond the cannery
operations and washdown by pumping clean water (well water, at Violet) through the
system until all wastewater is displaced. This fresh water would be kept in the tanks
until the next run. This procedure was not used during the study, but it has been theo-
rized that it could reduce the volume of partially treated wastewater and the total pollu-
tants discharged. While it is estimated that the pollutant discharge could be as much as
5 to 8% less than by draining the system daily (or less frequently), such a procedure
would require the use of additional pumped water, power, and labor and may not be cost
effective. Since no specific data are available, this alternate shut down procedure is
merely suggested as a possibility and all data presented herein are based on the actual
project operation.
The project results (Table 16, page 68) show that somewhat better removals
were obtained in the recycle mode of operation. However, in evaluating the numerical
data, other factors should be considered. Recycle and partial modes both require a
special flocculation tank and a recycle tank with pump and controls. This added equip-
ment causes additional capital and O & M costs not experienced with the full flow mode.
Also, there is a longer retention time in the flocculation tank. While there are advan-
tages to both the recycle and full flow modes and overall treatment results would probably
be comparable, it has been concluded for this report that the recycle mode is to be pre-
ferred for shrimp wastewater treatment.
Evaluation of the performance of the installed DAF wastewater treatment
system is based on the project data which is tabulated in Appendix C and summarized in
Table 16. Comparing the screened influent and DAF effluent during 1977, the best aver-
age removals achieved in the recycle mode were:
Effluent (lbs/1000 Ibs.
Parameter % Removed raw shrimp)
BOD5 65 15
TSS 65 8.9
O&G 84 0.8
The above listed best numerical achievements are based on several atypical
operating conditions which would not exist in normal installations. Demonstration project
-------
conditions wh.ch contributed to these high removals were: (a) constantly monitored opera-
tion with technically trained project personnel, (b) a system operated at 71% of design
flow rate, and (c) short duration runs maintaining near constant flows and operating con-
ditions. Therefore, in determining the best average levels of treatment achievable in
day-to-day DAF treatment of shrimp cannery wastewater, the atypical, high removal,
project attainments would be reduced somewhat. Special, unattended runs were made to
try to simulate average, day-to-day operations. The data from these runs were weighed
with the data from the short, optimization runs. For calculation purposes, it was assumed
there would be an average nine hour processing period and a one and a half hour clean-
up, and the tankage would be drained and washed down at the end of the day. Calcula-
ted pollutants from blowdown and tank drainage were deducted from averaged performance
values and estimated achievable levels were determined. The average levels of shrimp
wastewater treatment attainable by recycle dissolved air flotation are estimated to be:
Parameter % Removal Average Discharge
(lbs/1000 Ibs raw shrimp)
BOD5 53 20
TSS 44 10
O&G 72 1.4
Although these percentage removals may not seem to be particularly impress-
ive, one should review the characterizations of the raw cannery wastewater to observe
the overall pollution abatement achievement at Violet Packing Company. Using the
1975 unscreened wastewater composite sample characterization (Table 3, page 24), pro-
ject pollutant removals by various abatement procedures are tabulated in Table 29 and are
shown in Figure 28.
TABLE 29. POLLUTION ABATEMENT ACHIEVEMENTS
VIOLET PACKING COMPANY
1975-1977
Abatement REMOVALS - %
Measure BOD5 TSS O&G
Water and Wastewater
Management (1) 60.1 12.9 39.8
Screening (2) 7.1 45.4 17.5
DAF-FFP 14.8 18.4 32.2
DAF-Recycle (3) 18.3 18.3 30.8
DAF-No Chemicals 1.0 28.9 4.5
Accumulative Total
(Sum of 1,2, and 3) 85.5 76.7 88.1
The percent removals tabulated in Table 29 were calculated by starting
89
-------
POLLUTION CONTROL ACHIEVEMENTS
VIOLET PACKING CO., 1975-1977
onn
bUL/5
T C ^
1 o o
Oa (i
O o
(
III 11 III Illllll III! II II Jll 1 III Mill 1 II WATER 8 WW MG^NT.
X////////////A RECYCLE
INIMI 111 (WATER a ww MGM'NT.
i. ":•:•:•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•:•:•.•:•:•:•.•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••••••••• •.-.•.•:•.-:•:-. •:-:! crRPTNINft
V///////////A RECYCLE
HUM 1 IMIIII II II II Illllll III |J WATER a WW MGMNT.
Y////////////////////1 RECYCLE
) IO 20 30 4O 50 6O 70 BO 90 IOO
PERCENT REMOVALS
WASTE
WATER
FLOW
xyyxyyftw&v^^ 1975
:::::Vx:::::::x:::::::::::::::::::x:>>::x:x:>>>x;:i:i:;::x;:::;:::i 1977
O IO 2O 30 40 50 6O 7O 8O 90
GAL./IOOO LBS. RAW SHRIMP PROCESSED
IOO
BOD5
1975
1977
TSS
1975
o a G
1975-RAW WASTEWATER
1977-RECYCLE DAF TREATED
0 10 20 3O 40 5O 60 70 80 90 IOO 110 120 130 WO 150
LBS. POLLUTANT REMAINING/1000 LBS. RAW SHRIMP PROCESSED
FIGURE 28
90
-------
with the analyses of the raw, unscreened wastewater in 1975. Reductions achieved by
water and wastewater management were calculated by comparing the raw, unscreened
wastewater in 1975 to the screened wastewater in 1977 and deducting the demonstrated
removals by screening. Removals by screening are from Table 11, page 59. Percentage
removals by various modes of DAF treatment were calculated by applying the project de-
gree of treatment attained in the particular instance to the remaining percentage of the
original (1975) pollutant load on which this removal comparison is based. It should be
noted that these removals are based on optimized achievements, not adjusted for average
operational conditions.
Using cost data from Appendix D and achievements tabulated in Table 29, an
evaluation of the cost effectiveness of various project pollution abatement procedures was
prepared. This analysis is given in Table 30 based on BOD removal. Table 31 is a simi-
lar comparison for removal of TSS and O & G. It can be seen that the most cost effective
BOD abatement method is water management at about 1.3 cents per pound removed, fol-
lowed by screening at 65 cents per pound and DAF treatment at 83 cents per pound.
TABLE 30. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS
POLLUTION ABATEMENT MEASURES FOR BOD REMOVAL
Treatment Component
Water and Wastewater
Management
Screening*
DAF-FFP**
DAF-Recycle**
DAF - No Chemicals
Approximate
Daily Cost
***
$
$
$1
$1
$
51.70
318.00
,006.00
,096.00
516.00
Removal
60.1
7.1
14.8
18.3
1.1
Approximate Approximate Cost
Ibs. Removed Ibs. Removed per Ib.
/1 000# /Day Removed
70.8
8.4
17.4
21.6
1.3
4130
490
1070
1320
76
$0.013
$0.65
$0.94
$0.83
$7.18
* Based on estimated cost of screening and contract wet hauling of screenings to a
landfill.
** Based on influent concentrations before water management began and on screen
effluent in 1977.
*** Based on 8 peeler cannery operating 9 hrs/day, 130 days/year.
E. DAF Treatment of Oyster Processing Wastewater
The treatment of oyster processing wastewater was conducted using the DAF
91
-------
TABLE 31. COST EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISONS
FOR REMOVAL OF TSS and O&G
TSS REMOVALS O&G REMOVALS
Treatment % Ibs/ Ibs/ Cost/ % Ibs/ Ibs/ Cost/
Component 1000 Ibs Day Ib. 1000 Ibs. Day Ib.
Water & Wastewater
Management
Screening
DAF-FFP
DAF-Recycle
DAF-No
Chemicals
12.9
45.4
18.4
17.4
28.9
5.6
19.7
8.0
7.6
12.5
327
1150
467
443
729
$0. 16
0.28
2.15
2.47
0.75
39.8
17.5
32.2
30.8
4.5
4.1
1.8
3.3
3.2
0.5
239
105
192
187
29
$ 0.22
3.03
5.24
5.86
18.83
Notes: Daily costs same as in Table 30. Calculations similar.
system which was designed, sized, and installed for the treatment of shrimp cannery waste-
water. Oyster processing wastewaters differed from shrimp processing wastewater in sever-
al parameters i.e., flow rate, suspended solids and COD to BOD ratios. The rate of
the oyster wastewater discharge was only about 20% that of shrimp wastewater. The sus-
pended solids level was 4 to 5 times higher than that of shrimp wastewaters and the COD:
BOD5 ratio was 3 to 10 times higher than that of shrimp wastewater.
Since the oyster raw flow rate of lOOgpm was considerably smaller than the
700 gpm design flow rate for the system, detention times in each component of the system
were correspondingly longer. While the wastewater volumes are dependent on the amount
of raw material processed, there was a large difference between the average daily rate of
wastewater flow for oyster processing and that for shrimp processing. This study found
total average daily flows of approximately 70,000 gallons of oyster processing wastewater
and 300,000 gal Ions during average shrimp processing (9 hour day).
Due to the 100 gpm average rate of the oyster wastewater flow in relation to
the system pumping rates, at least 50% of the liquid wastewater which was treated was
composed of clarified equalization flow. Attempts were made to keep return flow to a
minimum by raising the process pump discharge pressure to decrease the rate of pumpage.
Regardless, recirculation flow comprised a major portion of the treated flow. The return-
ed flow was evidenced by the long period of time required for the pH of the effluent to
stabilize when alum addition was discontinued in the influent. The lag time was longer
than the nominal retention period.
92
-------
Wallace and Tiernan Series 44 pumps were employed as chemical feeders in
both the oyster and shrimp wastewater treatment studies. As with the remainder of the
system, these pumps were sized for shrimp wastewater flows, rates much higher than those
encountered in oyster canning. At extremely low rates of flow, the automatic dosage
control on the pumps did not function. For this reason, all chemical pumps were operated
on manual rather than automatic control during oyster operations, providing for no auto-
matic proportioning of chemical dosage with variation in the raw influent flow. Frequent
overdosing was thus probably occurring in the system although efforts were made to con-
trol the effect of this condition. Frequent checks and adjustments were made and dosage
rates are reported as an average value. Similarly, composite influent and effluent sam-
ples were used, rather than grab samples, to produce results representative of the average
treatment.
It can be seen from Table 29 that the treatment system operated during oyster
wastewater treatment at less than design loadings. One exception was the air to solids
ratio. The average A/S ratio for the oyster treatment was approximately 0.032. One
particular run was carried out at an A/S level almost twice the average, however, and
no significant increase in treatment efficiency was noted.
The high settleable solids content of the wastewater and the higher specific
gravity of these silty muds would require a much larger dissolved air content to increase
this ratio. A better solution would be to design for more effective removals of the heavier
suspended (settleable) solids prior to wastewater treatment by DAF. Such pre-treatment
removals would also reduce the observed DAF settled sludge problem. After five days of
DAF operation it was noted that as much as one foot of settled material (mostly mud from
raw oysters) had accumulated in the bottom of the flotation cell.
Skimmings during oyster processing from the DAF cell were generally more
concentrated (higher solids content) than during shrimp canning. The long detention,
high recirculation, and lower surface loading rates probably contributed to this but the
higher specific gravity of coagulated and floated silty materials may also be a factor.
Sludge volumes produced during oyster operations were also about 2% of raw wastewater.
Although project data indicated significant pollutant removals while operating the over-
sized treatment system on a once-through sedimentation only basis, this is not concluded
to be an effective treatment method. Settled sludge handling facilities would have to be
provided, increasing capital costs. DAF operation without chemical addition produced
results comparable to treatment with coagulants. The high recirculation rate, long de-
tention time, continuous air saturation and natural steady pH are conducive to and may
have resulted in some degree of biological treatment. Further investigation of DAF with
the recirculation of a part of the float sludge may indicate whether such an operating
technique would be effective.
It is to be noted that the percent soluble BOD is somewhat lower in process-
ing wastewaters from oysters than from shrimp. Basic processing differences and the sea-
food itself contribute to this. Oysters are steamed and at least partially "cooked" as the
whole animal before it is immersed in water, and the oyster meat is in contact with pro-
93
-------
cessing water for only a short time period. Much of the pollutant load in shrimp process-
ing wastewaters comes from the long contact time of raw shrimp, shrimp peelings and raw
peeled shrimp meat in the processing and transporting waters. Much of the oyster pro-
cessing wastewater pollutant load is contributed in the initial plant cleaning of the raw
oyster shell on the outside. It is very important, therefore, that raw oysters be received
as clean as possible and that the wastewater from the initial operation be effectively
settled to remove grit and silt with as short a water contact time as possible. Re-use of
water in this washing process, possibly on a counter-current flow basis, may be worthy of
investigation.
The same mass balance of effluent pollutants to include the draining and fill-
ing of treatment system tanks is applicable to the oyster wastewater discharge as was app-
lied to the shrimp wastewater treatment. Since settled sludges experienced during oyster
processing were greater, it would be necessary to drain or blow-off these sludges more
frequently, adding to the total pollutant discharge. However, since oysters are processed
at shrimp canneries during the cooler winter months and the wastewaters are not as odor-
ous, it is probable that the DAF system could be operated continuously with recirculation
for several days, perhaps five or six, without draining the tanks and adding to the total
daily pollutant load discharge.
In comparing oil and grease removals of the DAF system operating orv shrimp
and oyster wastewater, it appears that initial concentrations are a factor. The higher the
initial content, the higher the percentage removal. The lower the initial content, the
lower the efficiency and the percentage removal achieved. Establishment of an average
based on a concentration of 25 mg/l of O&G for treated oyster processing wastewater
would therefore appear to be more practicable than using a mass limitation.
Recognizing that the project treatment system was designed for shrimp cann-
ery wastewaters without specific consideration for oyster processing wastewater, it is
believed that the limited project study did establish that a DAF system can be effective
in treating oyster processing wastewater. Based on results obtained in this study, the
overall wastewater treatment by grit removal and screening and DAF system treatment
with effective coagulant and polymer additions may be expected to achieve removals of
pollutants as shown in the following tabulation for oyster processing:
BATEA ACHIEVABLE
Parameter lbs/1000 Ib. lbs/1000 Ibs. % Removal
finished product finished product
BOD5 17 20 55
TSS 39 20 85
O&G 0.42 1.0 60
94
-------
F. Skimmings Sludge
The production of skimmings sludge in the DAF wastewater treatment system is
the result of the coagulation and flotation separation of the removable solids from the
screened cannery wastewater. The volume of skimmings produced amounted to about 2%
of the total wastewater flow. Based on an average 9 hours processing day, the sludge
volume would be about 5,400 gallons, or 28 cu. yds. A large quantity of this volume
was air, so a specific weight much below that of water existed. The dry solids concentra-
tion was found to average about 5% by weight.
The skimmings consist of concentrated odor causing highly putrescible solids
from the wastewater. Collecting and handling this material requires continuous attention
to control odors and flies. Disposal of skimmings is probably the most serious problem to
be solved in installing and operating a DAF system to treat shrimp processing wastewater,
or for that matter, any seafood wastewater. Only limited skimmings sludge handling con-
siderations were included as a part of this project work plan. An effort was made to seek
a practicable method of handling the solids, but there was no attempt to find the satisfac-
tory solution of the ultimate disposal problem. Known sludge handling techniques review-
ed were:
Gravity Thickening * Flotation
Centrifugation * Chemical Conditioning *
Freezing Vacuum Filtration
Filter Pressurization Drying beds*
Lagooning Land Application*
Composting Incineration
Flash Drying * Fludized bed oxidation
Aerobic Digestion Anaerobic Digestion
Ocean Dumpings * Elutriation
Pressure Filtration Heat Drying *
Vibration Wet Oxidation
Dumping * Landfilling *
Those marked by asterisk (*) above were given more consideration in this
study. Ocean dumping, for example, may be feasible from some shrimp processors which
have docks and frequent arrivals and departures of boats. Even then, chemical condition-
ing would probably be required prior to storage for such shipment. The necessity of a
dumping permit must also be considered. In both the pilot study and in this plant scale
investigation, it was shown that gravity dewatering does not appear to be a practical solu-
tion for volume reduction due to the method by which separation occurs. In gravity sett-
ling of the shrimp DAF sludge, there are essentially three distinct layers: a layer of solids
on the top, then a layer of liquid, and then a layer of solids on the bottom. The separa-
tion is not uniform from sample to sample, and thus prediction of this separation is diffi-
cult. It was found that this separation occurred more rapidly if the sludge was heated
slightly, but separation was still in an unorderly 3-layer sequence and offered little prac-
tical potential for establishing an effective system under project conditions.
95
-------
Centrifugation of the DAF skimmings was evaluated for both a perforate and
solid bowl basket centrifuge. Neither showed promise. Bench scale testing showed that
the sludge had properties which might make it treatable by a high speed centrifuge or a
decanter type-conveyor bowl centrifuge. During the pilot study, some intermittent suc-
cess was observed with centrifuging the skimmings in a bench scale test.
In terms of the effect of the evaporation dryer unit, the results were encour-
aging. Principal investigators of this DAF project had the task of operation and evalua-
tion of the scraped surface evaporator dryer, since no trained operator was available.
The unit seemed relatively operation intense and complicated, and most data was obtain-
ed on a trial and error basis. By these methods, an increase of 100% solids content was
obtained. With more expertise in operation, it is believed that better results could be
attained and reduction to one fourth the starting volume is probably achievable.
The chemical oxidation system tested on a bench scale was shown to be capa-
b'? of producing a stable sludge. While this system was not a volume reduction measure,
it rendered the material adaptable to storage and handling as a liquid and, probably, to
subsequent dewatering since the physical nature of the material was altered. Even with
these measures the same volume must be dealt with, although it would then be in a better
condition. The chemical oxidizing system shows promise in that respect.
Concern in recent years over the existence of chlorinated organics has promp-
ted previous investigation into the creation of compounds such as chlorinated phenols,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCB's, etc. A report ^ to BIF indicated the results of testing
performed on sludges treated by the chemical oxidizing process. The report concludes:
"Based qn the analyses of five samples of raw and treated sludge from five plants treating
sludges of widely differing character, we find no significant evidence to indicate that
the amounts of chlorinated phenols, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or PCB's were increased
by the Purifax system of treatment. Rather, the evidence was quite convincing that mark-
ed destruction of such compounds does occur during treatment. Further, there was no
evidence to indicate that new chloro compounds were formed. " It should be noted how-
ever that the sludges investigated were primarily biological in nature (waste activated
sludge, primary sludge, septic tank sludge, and anaerobic digester supernatant), and
thus may not contain the large amounts of long-chain hydrocarbon materials in a physical-
chemical system employing organic polymers.
To a limited extent fine screens were tested to determine whether solids in
the skimmings could be effectively separated from the liquid-air phases, but results were
in no way encouraging. It is believed that the nature of the skimmings is such that screen-
ing is not practical as a dewatering measure.
Gravity belt and pressure belt dewatering systems were explored via manufac-
turers literature and conversations with factory representatives. These devices may hold
promise for properly conditioned sludge (chemically oxidized or coagulated), but the
sizes now offered are much larger than required to handle the sludge generated. These
units are presently operated primarily on industrial wastes, activated sludges, and muni-
96
-------
cipal primary sludges.
Gulf shrimp canneries are now separating hulls, heads and other solids by
screening the wastewater. These solids must be disposed of. Present practice is either
(a) hauling to a landfill with or without prior compaction, or (b) kiln drying and market-
ing as an inexpensive protein source. Volumes of screenings produced are somewhat com-
parable to wet sludge volumes to be expected. Land disposal or kiln drying of skimmings
sludge should, therefore, be considered.
It was hoped that there would be an opportunity to kiln dry DAF skimmings
with the screenings, or separately, at the project cannery. This was not accomplished,
however.
Land application of sludge may be a possibility. Such a method is complica-
ted on the Gulf Coast by the high average annual rainfall and the problems of land appli-
cation under such conditions. Also, land in the immediate area of the Gulf canneries is
just not available for such purposes. Some canneries are located in highly developed
rural marginal wet lands along bayous, bays or estuaries; some are in urban communities;
and all are essentially land starved. Large tracts of land for lagooning or spreading
sludges (and hulls) and subsequently plowing into the soil could only be obtained at some
distance, perhaps 25 to 50 miles. Even then, the odor and insect problems may be in-
surmountable.
Land filling is current practice for hull (screenings) disposal and, therefore,
this may be a possibility for disposing of sludge. Some now haul to public sites and some
to private operations. Canners are finding that present arrangements for land disposal
are very difficult to maintain. None have long term arrangements, and most feel that
their present procedures are temporary at best. This method of disposal has been used for
developing cost data given in Appendix D. However, this is done to give relative cost
comparisons and is not intended to suggest that this is the preferred option.
Skimmings, and screenings, must be handled and disposed of in an effective
way. The problem is complicated by the putrescible, odorous, wet nature of the mater-
ial, its large volume, its present low value (if any) as a by-product, the unavailability
of suitable disposal sites and the ever rising costs of handling. It is important that satis-
factory methods of volume reduction and conditioning be developed.
Based on current information, landfilling is the only available alternative for
disposal of the sludge. However, the most feasible method of ultimate disposal into the
environment has not been determined. If there is no change in the current regulations for
the removal of conventional pollutants from shrimp cannery wastewater prior to discharge
into marine waters, further study will be urgently needed to develop practicable methods
to solve the tremendous problem of sludge treatment and disposal.
97
-------
G. Conclusions
The findings of this study lead to certain conclusions on pollution abatement
procedures for a shrimp and oyster processor. While certain achievements have been
reached at the study site, it is to be recognized that each processing installation, whe-
ther existing or new, will have certain inherent conditions which may make it impracti-
cable or impossible to exactly duplicate the project results. For instance, reduction in
cleanup effort and thus in water use and pollutant discharge which resulted from canning
room floor reconstruction and drainage system improvements at the project cannery would
not be possible or be necessary at a plant which already has these improvements.
The study did show that substantial pollution abatement would be accomplish-
ed by more effective water use and wastewater management. Such techniques are well
established and are comparatively less costly than other abatement measures. The cost
effectiveness of this source reduction pollution control measure is compared inTables30-31
to wastewater treatment costs, including screening and a DAF system.
The variability of the raw product, both shrimp and oysters, and the resulting
variations in processing wastewater characteristics were confirmed during this study. It
is necessary during processing to vary the water supply to the peelers, for example, as
the raw shrimp vary due to species, size, age or other characteristics. Also, water flow
to other processing units varied from time to time. Such variations have an adverse
effect on the wastewater. The variability of the wastewater produced is demonstrated by
the reported wide ranges of values and deviations from mean values. Non-uniform, un-
steady flow causes wastewater treatment to be less effective in most instances. Operation
and control of treatment facilities for shrimp and oyster wastewaters, therefore, is more
difficult and may be expected to require more constant attention and knowledgeable,
trained operators. In addition to the sensitivity of chemical dosages, the sophisticated
control equipment and instrumentation will require careful maintenance. Another condi-
tion which necessitates constant attention, particularly during shrimp processing, is the
highly putrescible and odorous nature of the wastewater and the solids produced.
The DAF method of wastewater treatment can be expected to remove signifi-
cant quantities of conventional pollutants from screened shrimp and oyster processing
wastewaters. The recycle mode of operation was found to give better BODc removals
and to be more cost effective. Changes in design of future treatment facilities from the
project system should include the following considerations:
(1) Provide sloped, hopper bottoms in all vessels for ease of cleaning and
draining, and provide bottom sweeps where practicable,
(2) Pre-screening efficiency and reliability should be maximized,
(3) Provide an alternate, positive source of compressed air in order to
assure an adequate, reliable dissolved air supply,
(4) Provide a more flexible flocculation system with adequate mixing
capabilities and hydraulic controls for the varying rates of flow and
98
-------
chemical requirements to be expected in order to adequately mix and
to prevent sedimentation, and
(5) For systems which will also treat oyster processing wastewater, effec-
tive settleable solids removal by grit and/or settling pre-treatment
should be included and the system design should take into account the
different flow rates between shrimp and oyster wastewaters.
Effective operation of a DAF system will reduce the pollutants in the dis-
charged wastewaters. Cost of the reductions are estimated and should be evaluated to
determine whether the reductions are truly economically achievable. Of several abate-
ment procedures discussed, the cost per pound of BOD5 removed is greatest in the DAF
system, partly due to the cost of handling the sludge produced in the DAF wastewater
treatment process.
Sludge handling, storage and disposal is a new problem created as a result
of the DAF system installation. Because of the volume and putrescible nature of the
sludge, this problem needs to be solved if DAF systems are to be installed and operated
at shrimp processing plants.
99
-------
REFERENCES
1. Mauldin, A.F., and Szabo, A.J., Shrimp Canning Waste Treatment Study, EPA-
660/2-74-061, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., June 1974.
2. Vrablik, E.R., Fundamental Principles of Dissolved Air Flotation of Industrial
Wastewater, 14th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue, Indiana, 1959.
3. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment and
Disposal, McGraw Hill Company, 1972.
4. Adams, C.E., and Eckenfelder, W.W., Process Design Techniques for Industrial
Waste Treatment, Enviro Press, 1974.
5. Gloyna, E.F. and Eckenfelder, W.W., Water Quality Improvement by Physical and
Chemical Processes, University of Texas Press, 1970.
6. Ertz, D.B., Atwell, J.S., and Forsht, E. H., Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of
Seafood Processing Wastes - An Assessment, Proceedings Eighth National Symposium
on Food Processing Wastes, Seattle, Washington, 1977.
7. Snider, I.F., Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Seafood Wastes, EPA Technology
Transfer Seminar on Upgrading Seafood Processing Facilities to Reduce Pollution,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 1974.
8. Claggett, F.G., The Use of Chemical Treatment and Air Flotation for the Clarifica-
tion of Fish Processing Plant Wastewater, Proceedings Third National Symposium on
Food Processing Wastes, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1972.
9. The Swedish National Environmental Protection Board, TR 77-260-1 through TR 77-
260-6, 1974-1976.
10. Perkins, B. E. and Meyers, S. P., Recovery and Application of Organic Wastes from
the Louisiana Shrimp Canning Industry, Proceedings Eighth National Symposium on
Food Processing Wastes, Seattle, Washington, 1977.
11. Toma, R.B. and Meyers, S.P., Isolation and Chemical Evaluation of Protein from
Shrimp Cannery Effluent, J. Agric. FoodChem., 23:4, 1975.
12. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water
Pollution Control Federation, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 14th Edition, 1975.
13. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Effects of Chlorination During Purifax System of Sludge
Treatment, Report to BIF, April 1971.
100
-------
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
A consistent effort was made throughout this project to conduct
all laboratory methods according to accepted procedures. The 14th Edition
of Standard Methods'12 was followed in all cases with the exceptions which
are noted in this section.
All samples were stored on ice while being composited at the treat-
ment site. Upon transportation to the laboratory, BOD5 and pH were immediate-
ly performed, with subsequent acidification with concentrated H2S04 and storage
at approximately 4°C. Neutralization was affected prior to running most
analyses. Acidification was conducted on a portion of each sample since
Suspended .Volatile and Settleable solids were very dependent on the pH in
relation to the precipitation point of the soluble material.
The following are modifications to the Standard Methods procedures
for performing each test and/or additional notes.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Sample measurement for dilution with nutrient water were as specified
in Standard Methods; all samples were diluted, and then this diluted amount
was measured as sample. No samples were neutralized prior to dilution, since
the concentration of sample in a given BOD bottle seldom exceeded 0.5%, and thus
a pH as low as 5.0 would have no effect. Samples were not blended prior to
BOD testing, because it was experimentally found that generally only 5% increase
in BODs was noted with blending.
Initially in the 1977 shrimp season, 5 dilutions were used for all
samples since the range of expected values was quite broad. At all other
times during the study, a minimum of 2, but almost always 3 dilutions were used
for all samples.
Soluble BOD was determined in a manner similar to total BOD except
that filtrate through a 0.45 micron glass fiber filter was used as sample.
No seeding of dilution water was performed due to the high bio-
degradability of the wastewater, and the fact that there was no conditions
in either the shrimp or oyster processing and canning operations which would
have eliminated any microbial growth. Buring the 1975 season, a seeded dilu-
tion water for raw wastewater was used and no significant variations were noted.
101
-------
When PRA was used as a coagulant in the system, all effluent samples employed
dilution water seeded with 2 ml/gallon of an acclimated culture, mis
culture consisted of aerated wastewater that was fed settled influent (approx.
200 ml/day) and PRA (approx. 3 ml/day). A portion of the culture approximately
equal to the volume of feed added was wasted each day. The seed material
was obtained after allowing the mixture to settle. It was experimentally
found that PRA had a COD of 0.74 mg/mg of PRA (S.G. equaled aPP^imately
1.2). It was also found that the material exerted a BOD5 of 0.038 mg/mg PRA.
This represents COD and BOD5 values of 888,000 mg/1 and 45,600 mg/1, respective-
ly. In order to adequately define the chemical, a BOD curve was performed as
shown in Figure A-l. As can be seen, the BODuit is being approached in 12
days, which would indicate a relatively high KK" rate. The PRA acclimated
culture was used as a seeded material for this analysis, and the proper seed
correction was applied to all values.
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
As recommended by Standard Methods, COD determinations were perform-
ed employing Silver Sulfate as a catalyst and 0.4g Mercuric Sulfate as a chemical
agent to complex chlorides. It was experimentally found during the project
that this amount of HgS04 was sufficient. In an effort to allow more analyses,
a 1 1/2 hour reflux time was used, which was shown to give 90% of the COD yield
produced by a 2-hour reflux period. Soluble COD was performed on filtrate of
a 0.45 micron filtered wastewater sample.
CHLORIDES
Chlorides were determined according to Standard Methods, Method
408A (1975 - 15th Edition). This is the Argentometric Method that relies upon
the formation of silver chloride for depletion of the chloride, and the for-
mation of silver chromate for endpoint detection.
TURBIDITY
No turbidity apparatus was available during the course of this pro-
ject, so a spectrophotometer was used to simulate one. For this reason, all
turbidity values in this report should be viewed as reference numbers, and not
as absolute values. The optimum wavelength was determined each time turbidity
was run, by searching for the wavelength exhibiting maximum sensitivity.
Turbidity standards were prepared and used according to Standard Methods 214A ,
which gives turbidity values in NTU. By reading % Transmittance, a linear
response was observed.
OIL AND GREASE
The Soxhlet Extraction Method (502C) was followed for the determina-
tion of Oil and Grease. Prior to mid-May 1975 (Fall shrimp season 1974),
Petroleum ether was used for the solvent, as called for in the llth edition
of Standard Methods. After that time, Freon was used as the solvent as is
specified in the 14th Edition of Standard Methods. The primary difference in
the two solvents is that Petroleum ether is described as leaving less than
0.1 mg residue per 100 ml, upon evaporation while Freon is said to leave no
102
-------
FIGURE A-1
PRA BOD CURVE
60
50H
K)
I
o
oc
Q.
O
ID
a>
E
Acclimated
Seed Used
4
6 8
t, DAYS
10
12
PRA-I (Lignosulfonate) As
Manufactured By American Con Co.
I
2
3
A
5
7
9
II
13
24 x |CT3
30 x | O'3
36 x I O'3
38 x I0'3
44 x | o-3
48 x I0"3
49 x I0"3
60 x |O'3
103
-------
measurable residue upon evaporation. This is an unnoticeable difference, so
no detectable difference in oil and grease values should be produced from the
use of these different solvents. Method 502D of Standard Methods (14th Edition)
was used for the determination of oil and grease in all sludge samples.
% Solids (Sludge Samples)
The solids content of the DAF sludge was determined in a manner similar
to the determination of % moisture in soil samples. The % sol ids was determined
on a weight basis, rather than on a weight per volume basis, to minimize the
variability produced by the quanity of air present, and the fact that the
specific gravity of the sludge was much less than 1.0. Wet weight, dry
weight, and tare measurements yielded a percent solids which was based on dry
weight divided by wet weight multiplied by 100. Note that the percentage
was based on the weight of the liquid-solid complex rather than on the weight
of either liquid or of solid.
Jar Testing Procedures
Jar tests conducted during the early portions of this study employed
rapid mix and slow mix speeds0f 100 rpm and 20 rpm, respectively. The rapid
mix period lasted 3 minutes, while the flocculation period lasted 20 minutes.
pH adjustment was conducted prior to beginning the jar testing procedure, and
prior to any other chemical addition. Polymer was added approximately 10
seconds before the end of the rapid mix period for even distribution. All
analyses were performed on a sample siphoned from 1" below the water surface
of each sample after 15 minutes of settling. Care was taken to obtain only
clarified liquid.
During the 1977 season, jar testing was conducted on a more informal
basis to allow more testing, primarily as an operational aid. Mixing times
ahd speeds were similar for this jar testing, except a shorter flocculation
period was used. Also, settling time was an uncontrolled parameter, since
only visual observations were noted. A Phipps & Bird gang stirrer employing
up to 1 liter samples was used for all jar testing.
104
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
AT A
SHRIMP CANNERY
The use of water and the discharge of wastewater, like any other indus-
trial operation, can become excessive and costly unless properly controlled.
Water is a raw product which has a real cost. Wastewaters can be even more
costly, requiring treatment and monitoring prior to discharge into a water-
way, or into a public sewer with its user charges and other costs. Also,
water and wastewaters are resources which should be conserved. Conservation
and control requires good management. Management must follow a plan.
This is a proposed, preliminary plan for water conservation and water
and waterwater management at a shrimp processing cannery. It is expected
that further refinements, additions and/or deletions can be made as the
management plan is implemented and the individual canner experience is avail-
able.
Water use purposes have been categorized into:
(a) Domestic sanitary (drinking, handwashing, water closets, etc.)
(b) Cooling (non-contact)
(c) Finished product (incorporated into cans)
(d) Washdown (cleaning and sanitizing equipment, etc.)
(e) Conveying (water fluming)
(f) Processing Operations (Raw product washing, peelers, agitators, or
cleaners, graders, deveiners, product blanching and cooling)
(g) Miscellaneous (boiler feed, other)
In a shrimp plant the larger demands are for processing operations,
washdown and conveying. Emphasis on water management should therefore be
directed to these uses, although all water demands must be considered. Each
category of use is discussed below:
A. Domestic Sanitary Uses
Water used for domestic, sanitary purposes must be from a
portable water system. A convenient method of monitoring this
water usage is needed. An easily accessible meter is recommended.
Daily consumption and use rates should be determined, monitored
and recorded. Variations in flow should be noted for investigating
leaking plumbing, piping or other abnormal uses.
105
-------
B. Cooling Water (Non-Contact)
In a shrimp cannery, this water is used to cool cans after retort-
ing. Such water normally does not contain pollutants and does not con-
stitute a thermal pollutant. It may generally be discharged without
treatment. Conservation of this re-useable resource may be accomplished
by recirculating through an atmospheric cooling tower with only evapor-
ation make-up and sufficient displacement to control solids concentra-
tion. An alternative conservation measure is to re-use the once-through
cooling water in some other plant process on a counterflow principal,
such as in the peelers, agitators (cleaners), graders or in the reciev-
ing tank. A storage tank and pressure pump system will facilitate re-
use potential.
C. Finished Product Water
Some water is incorporated into the finished canned product from
a shrimp cannery. This is potable water with salt and citric acid
added. The added chemicals make this a costly material which should
not be wasted. Proper control of chemical additions and control of the
can filling water to prevent spillage or waste should receive proper
attention.
D. Washdown Water
Adequate water use for washdown and cleaning purposes is essential
for general good housekeeping and cleanliness and for sanitation.
Cleaning by washing or flushing with large quantities of water is a
first impulse. Refined techniques of "washdowns" by "dry" solids re-
moval (sweeping, or vacuum), chemical or detergent cleaning and high
pressure - low volume rinsing can appreciably reduce water use if an
optimum program is planned and properly managed. Washdown water use
requires much effort for good conservation and control.
E. Conveying Water
Historically, seafood and other food processord have used water to
transport or convey product through the plant. Not only does such use
increase the water consumption but it adds to the wastewater pollutant
strength, as well. The total weight of shrimp protein dissolved into
water during processing will increase with the time of contact. There-
fore, conveying by other than water flumes will reduce water use and
wastewater volumes and will result in a reduction in the pounds of pro-
duct dissolved in the wastewater. Alternate methods of conveying in-
clude belt or screen conveyors, vibrating conveyors, screw conveyors,
bucket conveyers, and vacuum systems. Possible substitution of water-
less conveying systems should be considered in all plant re-arrangement,
repairs, improvements, etc. This is an important management function.
106
-------
F. Processing Operations
Water is an essential ingredient in the present shrimp picking,
cleaning and processing techniques. However, optimization and control
can be improved with experimental and developmental effort and continued
monitoring and supervision. Processors should call on equipment sup-
pliers to expend the necessary developmental effort. Alert supervision
will be needed to implement optimization on a continuing basis.
G. Miscellaneous Water Uses
Water is used for boiler feed to generate steam for retorting the
canned product and for heating water for blanching and other heated
water uses. This use should be optimized to conserve energy as well as
water. Consideration of heating water for blanching and other uses by
other than steam may be indicated.
Other types of water use should be monitored for elimination or reduc-
tion, or for optimization of use rates. Water use consciousness must be a
prime consideration of management and operating personnel.
The following is an outline for a management program which is recommen-
ded to each cannery for consideration and implementation:
A Proposed Water-Wastewater Management For A Shrimp Cannery
I. Objectives
The objectives of the water and wastewater management program are
to:
1. Acquaint shrimp plant personnel with water and wastewater terminol-
ogy,
2. Relate shrimp product or by-product losses to wastewater character-
istics and the environment,
3. Relate shrimp and by-product waste to financial losses at a shrimp
plant,
4. Relate available data on other plants and compare to the specific
cannery, and
5. Develop and initiate action program to reduce water and waste with-
in the plant.
II. The Educational Program
The water and waste management education program for shrimp pro-
cessing plant personnel follows:
a. Management Phase: Describe federal, state and local regulatory
107
-------
involvement; discuss waste terminology, research, and survey find-
ings; relate cost and product losses; discuss wastewater and the
cost of waste treatment; and describe the duties of supervisors in
the water and waste management program .
b. Supervisors Phase: Instruct supervisors in respect to recent re-
search findings, plan activities that need to be carried out in the
employee phase of the program and other details of a water and
waste management program.
c. Employee Phase: This program should illustrage good and bad waste-
water practices, explain good water and waste management, relate
product losses to cost and familiarize the employees with waste
terminology and current techniques in controlling water and waste
in a shrimp processing plant. The activation and involvement of
the employees is critical for they will often suggest needed solu-
tions within their areas of responsibility in the overall attack on
the plant water-waste program. Special efforts should be made dur-
ing these sessions to relate the effects of a shrimp processing
wastes on "Our Environment."
d. Follow up phase - A tour and evaluation session conducted with man-
agement and the supervisors will help determine progress made with-
in the plant after an initial time period of effort. This should
be repeated periodically.
III. Duties of Supervisors in Water-Wastewater Management
Since a supervisor is management's representative with regard to
the water-waste program, the responsibilities of each supervisor are:
1. Each supervisor should be completely aware of the need for and the
planned activities in the water and waste program. He should have
an attitude of personal interest and involvement in each phase of
the program and should report suggestions for improvement directly
to the plant Manager. He shall see that the established procedures
are followed and shall see that required equipment is available.
2. Using the results of sponsored studies, the major water using and
waste contributing areas in the plant should be attacked. Nozzels
should be installed on all hoses. Level controllers might be used
to control overflow of tanks without positive controls. Leaking
water or product valves should be replaced. The machine mainte-
nance program should be checked to see that it is sufficient to
prevent product and/or water losses.
3. Simultaneously, a water and waste savings educational program should
be instituted. Employees should be informed and involved in the
program or it will not work. The supervisors must be responsible
for the program, but it is the operating personnel who will assure
that the program will be a success.
108
-------
4. Management should remember the program must be emphasized or it
will die. Mention of the program must be frequent. The supervisors
must follow the operations assuring that proper water and waste pro-
cedures are followed each operating day.
IV. Specific Recommendations
The supervisors should be familiar with the process and equipment
changes evaluated and proven technically and economically feasible.
Successful implementation of these and other needed changes are a part
of a broad program of water and waste management. An adequate program
for control of water and waste must including the following:
1. Continual records that will assure knowledge of changes in the
operating procedures of the plant. This should include water use,
wastewater characteristics, and production.
2. The supervisory personnel must see that competent, designated per-
sonnel maintain all operating flow records and wastewater infor-
mation. This includes determining the effectiveness of the day's
cleanup. This should be reviewed with the responsible foreman.
Any divergencies from good practices should be corrected.
3. Employee awareness of the cost of poor water and waste management
should be maintained. Employees should be encouraged to be careful
with water use and product or by-product wasteful practices. They
should also be encouraged to suggest possible conservation/re-use
measures.
4. Eliminate the cause of spillage, rather than just wash it away after
it has occurred. Scoop up or vacuum up foam overflow.
5. Water hoses should be turned off when not in use. Do not use a
constantly running water hose in any room. Hoses equipped with
automatic shut-off valves should be utilized to avoid excessive
usage.
6. Adequate weir, flume or meter and sampling equipment should be
provided at the discharge of the shrimp processing plant for mon-
itoring wastewater strength and volume.
7. Pipes for steam, well water, city water, and wastewater should be
properly identified by color or other suitable marking.
V. Sanitation and the Water-Wastewater Program
A. Large water savings during washdown and clean-up are possible if an
adequate sanitation program is developed and adhered to. An ade-
quate sanitation program is one in which conscientious combined
efforts are made by both management and employees to maintain the
plant in a clean and wholesome atmosphere. However, no sanitation
program should place undue burden on the plant personnel or manage-
109
-------
merit. A well-planned sanitation program should become an integral
part of the operation. Thus will management and employee enjoy an
efficient and smooth operating daily schedule. Sanitation is not
necessarily expensive, but the lack of it may prove very costly.
Personnel training and education are integral parts of a san-
itation program. Education of the employee is best accomplished by
on-the-job training which permits the learning of a practical and
sound sanitation program through experience. Training includes not
only instruction on how to clean equipment properly, but must also
include why it should be done. An employee must understand why it
is important. He should never get the impression that all manage-
ment wants is to get the job done in any manner.
If sanitation is to become a reality, it is necessary that
management and employees work as a team. Because the shrimp pro-
cessor deals primarily with a highly perishable raw product which
can easily become contaminated, it is obvious that training and
sanitation will secure beneficial results for both the industry and
consumer.
B. General Sanitation and Good Housekeeping
In general, sanitation involves a four-step process. When
these four steps are taken, in the proper order, a consistent, safe
sanitation program will result. Attempts to shortcut one or two of
these steps can result in serious shortcomings in any sanitation
program. These steps include:
(1) Pre-rinsing
(2) Washing
(3) Post-rinsing
(4) Sanitizing
1. Step //I - Pre-rinsing
The pre-rinsing or preparation of equipment fcr actual
washing is the one area which is often overlooked in a good san-
itation program. This step eliminates the majority of the soil
before the detergent solutions are used. It is recommended that
methods other than the high volume water hose be used to remove
large scraps from the production area prior to washing. The
following steps are to be taken in pre-rinsing of equipment for
clean-ups:
a. Immediately after production, remove all products from the
processing area into approved storage area.
b. Remove all scraps by using appropriate methods:
(1) Shovel large piles of scraps into disposal area.
(2) Sweep or squeegee remaining scraps into disposal area.
110
-------
c. Disassemble or open all equipment with such provisions for
cleaning.
d. Disconnect or protect any electrical devices so that water
may be used safely.
e. Rinse all equipment with warm water to remove remaining
scraps.
NOTE: High pressure, low volume rinsing techniques are
especially useful in this step.
2. Step #2 - Washing
In any sanitation program the results obtained are based
directly upon the degree with which the detergent fulfills the
requirements of removing the soil encountered and the method of
application. Only after the proper detergent has been selected,
can the true value of a sanitation program be realized. These
detergents are selected for the type of soil conditions found,
and the degree of soil and construction of equipment being
cleaned.
There are many methods of application of detergent to
soiled equipment. The various methods of application of deter-
gent solution to equipment are designed to provide correct com-
bination of time, temperature, concentration and mechanical
force. These four factors, along with the proper detergent, are
the key to a clean piece of equipment.
The particular method of application used in any plant is
dependent upon the plant design, equipment design and construc-
tion, general availability for clean-up. Following are two of
the various methods of application which are available and
should provide an effective sanitation program.
Hand Cleaning
A concentrated cleaning solution is prepared in a plastic
pail using a concentration of approximately 1 ounce of cleaner
to each gallon of hot water. Water temperature here should be
at least 145°F.
The equipment to be cleaned is thoroughly scrubbed, using
a properly designed brush working directly from the pail. This
method may be abandoned in favor of others listed below.
Spray Cleaning
The use of a high pressure, low volume spray cleaning sys-
tem, provides an added benefit in the area of mechanical force.
When using high pressure, low volume cleaning systems, all sur-
111
-------
faces are sprayed from a distance of approximately two feet.
The purpose here is to thoroughly coat all of the surface to
allow the chemicals to react with the soils. After a brief per-
iod, the equipment is thoroughly rinsed using the high pressure
wand at a distance of 6 inches with hot water 140°F to remove
the loosened soil and rinse the detergent solution from the
equipment. Central high pressure, low volume cleaning systems
can be designed with manifolds for the cleaning of conveyor sys-
tems such as inspection line belts.
3. Step #3 - Post-rinsing
After the detergent solutions have been applied and the
equipment thoroughly cleaned, a fresh water rinse, as in spray
cleaning above, is used to remove the loosened soils and deter-
gent residues. In this step a thorough inspection of the re-
sults of the cleaning should be made. Where equipment is not
thoroughly cleaned, appropriate measures are taken to correct
the situation. After equipment has been thoroughly rinsed, it
is drained and allowed to air dry.
4. Step #4 - Sanitize
There are several methods of sanitizing equipment. Flush-
ing the surface of the equipment with hot 180°F water for ap-
proximately five minutes will effectively kill microorganisms.
Steam may also be used. However, total contact with live steam
is difficult because many people mistake water vapor for live
steam. There are several dangers involved when hot water or
steam is employed for sanitizing.
a. The obvious possibility of burns incurred from hot water or
steam.
b. Equipment must be heated to 180°F for five minutes for ef-
fective kill. This requires large volumes of hot water or
steam for just spraying of the hot water or steam on a cold
surface will not effectively kill microorganisms.
Chemical sanitizers, such as chlorine, iodine and quater-
nary ammonium chloride compounds, have the advantage of being
economical to use when one considers the cost of heating water.
They are harmless to the equipment when used properly. They
are easy to apply and very effective in killing microorganisms.
Implementation of an effective sanitation program, utilizing the
above principles, will bring benefits to plant maintenance and op-
eration and should reduce wastewater volumes. The ingenuity and im-
agination of management can investigate, adopt, adapt and operate
the type of sanitation program needed in the cannery.
112
-------
APPENDIX C
PROJECT DATA
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Shrimp Cannery Unit Process Wastewater Characterization p. 119
Characterization of Screened Wastewater 131
Treatment Results by Screening 136
DAF Treatment Results - 1976 138
DAF Treatment Results - 1977 142
DAF Treatment Results - Oysters, 1977 148
Jar Test Data - 1974 150
Jar Test Data - 1975 152
Flow Data 157
113
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
LOCATION - Receiving Tank
Date
12/4/75
5/28/75
6/10/75
6/27/75
11/27/74
12/3/74
12/12/74
.7/11/77
Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
BODg
3,980
6,950
3,780
3,680
3,010
4,280
1,540
5
BOD,-
Sol?
2,460
2,460
1
COD
7,390
6,930
7,600
6,900
7,420
6,560
6,500
7,040
434
7
COD
Sol.
4,930
4,930
1
TKN
968
657
560
728
213
3
0 & G
772
1,020
482
503
820
218
660
719
650
246
8
PH
Units
6.7
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.3
7.2
6.6
7.6
7.0
0.3
8
TS
11,200
7,360
8,200
11,400
12,000
9,100
9,870
1,900
6
TVS
5,180
2,750
3,060
6,070
5,750
3,910
4,450
1,410
6
TSS
2,140
2,030
1,410
1,810
1,420
2,080
1,530
1,280
1,710
341
8
rvss
810
1,280
1,020
1,330
1,070
1,160
1,140
1,120
1,120
159
8
Sett.
Solids
(ml / l)
7.5
14
46
20
18
40
24
15
6
Temp.
°C
6
6
7
6
6
0.5
4
Flow/day
(Gal.)
7,390
15,400
14,800
Protein
6050
4110
3500
4550
1330
3
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
All Protein values are calculated, 6.25 X TKN.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION - All Peelers
Violet Packing Co.
Date
11/13/75
5/28/75
6/10/75
I
J 6/18/75
6/27/75
11/27/74
12/3/74
7/11/77
Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
BOD5
2,990
3,130
1,690
1,690
2,380
793
4
BOD, COD
Sol?
3,450
4,180
6,160
2,580
5,080
1,660 5,250
1,660 3,420
1,660 4,300
1,250
2 7
COD TKN
Sol.
430
610
298
446
157
3
0 & G
146
171
113
176
271
147
208
254
257
148
11
PH
Units
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.2
6.7
7.4
7.8
7.2
0.3
8
TS
8,250
10,500
7,820
8,520
8,350
8,600
8,670
920
6
TVS
2,280
2,620
1,9?0
2,410
2,500
2,790
2,420
300
6
TSS
790
1,050
1,280
1,010
930
1,120
1,040
480
963
241
8
TVSS
670
780
900
860
660
840
815
430
744
153
8
Sett.
175
135
80
no
40
108
52
5
Temp.
°C
22
25
20
20
20
21
2
5
Flow/day
(Gal.)
92,800
239,000
156,000
350,000
Protein
2690
2810
1860
2790
981
3
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION - Peeler #1
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
Violet Packing Co.
Date
5/28/75
6/18/75
Mean
No. of ob
BOD5
2,910
1,730
2,320
2
BOD,- COD
Sal?
7,680
3,190
5,430
2
COD TKN 0 & G
Sol.
298
218
258
2
PH
Units
7.2
6.9
7.1
2
TS
11,400
7,940
9,660
2
TVS
4,210
1,860
3,030
2
TSS
2,090
1,210
1,650
2
TVSS
1,270
994
1,130
2
Sett.
Solids
fmi/n
200
75
138
2
Temp.
°C
25
21
23
2
Flow/day
(Gal.)
Protein
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION - Peeler - Start of Flume
Violet Packing Co.
Date BOD,
12/10/75
12/4/75
, Mean
i No. of ob
12/10/75
12/4/75
Mean
No. of ob
BOD;;
Sol.
530
235
383
2
615
305
460
2
COD COD
Sol.
512
507
510
2
672
436
554
2
TKN 0 &
109
98
104
2
LOCATION
129
137
133
2
G pH TS TVS TSS TVSS Sett.
Units Splicls
23
14
19
2
- Peeler - End of Flume
24
16
20
2
Temp.
°C
24
24
24
2
24
24
24
2
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
681
613
650
2
806
856
831
2
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION - Agitators
Violet Packing Co.
Date
n/10/75
Zl 6/10/75
00 6/18/75
7/2/75
Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
BOD5
375
1,770
1,070
2
BODc COD
soi:
725
9,460
1,440
1,980
3,400
4,070
4
COD TKN
Sol.
129
142
136
2
0 & G
35
36
5
40
29
16
4
PH
Units
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.2
0.1
3
TS
7,310
8,890
5,970
7,390
1,460
3
TVS
1,830
8,380
572
3,590
4,190
3
TSS
214
732
498
390
459
217
4
TVSS
178
628
422
314
386
190
4
Sett.
Solids
(ml/11
1.2
8
1.3
3.5
3.9
3
Temp.
°C
22
21
22
26
23
2
4
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
806
888
850
2
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION- Separators
Violet Packing Co.
Date
11/10/75
6/10/75
— 6/18/75
Co 6/27/75
11/27/74
12/3/74
7/11/77
Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
BOD5
660
1,250
693
994
899
278
4
BOD,
Sol?
1,560
760
2,600
720
1,410
883
4
COD
1,220
825
2,630
1,560
951
3
COO TKN
Sol.
195
292
241
243
49
3
0 & G
59
30
23
37
41
28
17
34
14
7
PH
Units
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.9
7.4
0.3
7
TS
6,300
6,300
6,200
6,910
6,230
6,410
288
5
TVS
1,030
958
776
1,170
850
957
155
5
TSS
478
296
352
320
376
216
768
401
180
7
T\SS
402
246
282
238
362
202
722
351
178
7
Sett.
25
15
14
14
15
17
5
5
Temp.
°C
23
21
21
21
22
1
4
Flow/day
(Gal.)
44,600
32,300
61,300
Protein
1220
1820
1510
1520
306
3
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION - Graders
Violet Packing Co.
Date BODg
11/10/75 174
6/18/75
7/2/75
7/1 T/77 615
Mean 935
St. Dev.
No. of ob 2
ro
o
12/10/75
12/4/75
Mean
No. of ob
BODC
Sol.
574
574
1
COD COD
Sol.
314
1,480
1,520
1,240
1,140
564
4
TKN
72
no
132
105
30
3
0 & G
13
4.4
15
14
12
5
4
LOCATION -
1,050
375
713
2
840
810
825
2
104
157
131
2
27
7
17
2
LOCATION -
12/10/75
12/4/75
Mean
No. of ob
1,130
385
755
2
1,120
915
1,020
2
100
134
117
2
30
8
19
2
pH TS TVS TSS TVSS Sett.
Units Solids
7.3 114 83
7.2 5,700 3,880 264 170 1.2
6.8 5,480 202 138 124 10
7.9 245 221
7.3 5,590 2,040 190 151 6
0.5 75 58
4 22442
Grader - Start of Flume
Grader - End of Flume
Temp.
°C
22
22
26
23
2
3
25
26
26
2
25
26
26
2
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
5,600 450
7,500
688
825
656
183
3
650
981
819
2
625
838
731
2
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION- Deveiner - Start of Flume
Violet Packing Co.
Date BODg
12/10/75
12/ 4/75
6/18/75
6/27/75
11/27/74
12/3/74 240
i\5 7/11/77 492
Mean 366
St. Dev.
No. of ob 2
BOD,-
Sol?
336
90
356
261
148
3
COD
1,220
1,640
834
1,130
1,200
333
4
COD
Sol.
544
328
436
2
TKN
29
21
177
130
89
77
4
0 & G
15
1.0
6
34
22
2.8
15
14
12
7
LOCATION -
12/10/75
12/4/75
Mean
No. of ob
396
135
266
2
672
264
468
2
14
32
23
2
12
0.2
6.1
2
PH
Units
7.2
7.3
7.8
7.6
7.8
7.5
0.3
5
Deveiner
TS TVS
5,580 1,020
6,530 1,010
6,010 830
5,620 386
5,940 810
444 295
4 4
- End of Flume
TSS
180
306
258
130
180
211
70
5
T/SS Sett.
126 7.5
236 6.5
258 7
128 8
168
183 7.3
61 0.6
5 4
Temp.
°C
25
26
23
21
24
2
4
25
26
26
2
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
90,000 181
131
83,100
154,000 1110
813
556
481
4
88
200
144
2
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION - Blanch Tank
Violet Packing Co.
Date
11/13/75
_ 6/12/75
no
rv. 7/2/75
11/27/74
12/3/74
12/12/74
Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
BOD5
9,780
13,900
11,800
2
BOD,-
Sol.
n
23
14
12
28
18
7
COD
,000
,600
,700
,800
,300
,100
,490
5
COD TKN
Sol.
1,690
1,310
1,500
2
0 & G
14
6
7
18
60
26
22
20
6
PH
Units
4.5
6.0
5.9
5.3
5.5
6.6
5.6
0.7
6
TS
113,000
81,500
111,000
96,800
103,000
101,000
12,700
5
TVS TSS
6,730
110,000 6,300
7,740 7,250
19,300 4,200
16,000 3,640
8,740
38,400 6,140
48,300 1,920
4 6
TVSS Sett.
Wtt
4,650
3,920
2,600
4,160
3,640
5,040
4,000
852
6
Temp.
°C
93
98
97
98
0.6
3
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
10,600
8,210
9,390
2
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION - Blanch Cooling Tank
Violet Packing Co.
Date
11/13/75
6/12/75
K 7/2/75
11/27/74
12/3/74
12/12/74
Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
BODg
1,170
204
181
518
564
3
BOD,- COD
Sol.
78
1,480
1,370
768
217
783
642
5
COD TKN
Sol.
47
49
48
2
0 & G
5
5
1
18
9
19
10
7
6
PH
Units
6.5
7.1
7.2
5.9
7.4
6.9
6.8
0.6
6
TS
7,520
9,010
10,100
7,970
8,650
1,150
4
TVS
52
438
736
409
343
3
TSS
58
508
64
78
120
82
152
176
6
TVSS
34
348
22
78
120
40
107
123
6
Sett.
0
0.5
0.1
1.7
0.1
0.5
0.7
5
Temp.
°C
30
45
32
36
8
3
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
294
306
300
2
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION - Canning Room Discharge
Violet Packing Co.
Date
6/4/75
^6/10/75
-^ 6/27/75
12/3/74
11/27/74
12/12/74
Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
BOD5
1,170
904
635
416
781
327
4
BOD,- COD
Sol.
1,710
1,330
4,760
857
752
1,880
1,650
5
COD TKN 0 & G
Sol.
7
11
294 19
32
10
20
294 17
9
1 6
PH
Units
6.5
7.2
6.9
7.1
7.4
7.7
7.1
0.4
6
TS
26,700
17,200
18,900
16,300
9,400
14,100
17,100
5,750
6
TVS
910
866
876
936
496
817
181
5
TSS
378
226
792
186
150
240
329
240
6
1VSS
266
100
448
176
150
158
216
126
6
Sett.
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.5
6
Temp.
°C
36
21
30
29
8
3
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
1,840
1,840
1
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS CHARACTERIZATION
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
LOCATION Retort Cooling Water
Violet Packing Co.
Date
11/10/75
6/4/75
6/10/75
6/27/75
11/27/74
12/3/74
12/12/74
Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
BOD5
5
8
16
20
12
7
4
BOD, COD
Sol.
24
30
2
6.4
32
19
14
5
COD TKN 0 & G
Sol.
5 1.0
2
12
6.6
6.6
4.3
5 5
4
1 6
PH
Units
9.2
9.3
9.3
9.2
10.2
10.2
7.9
9
0.8
7
TS
274
370
340
2,600
2,130
1,140
1,130
5
TVS
12
122
112
220
72
108
76
5-
TSS
14
14
24
6
32
12
20
17
9
7
TVSS
0
10
32
12
20
15
12
5
Sett.
Solids
(ml/1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Temp.
°C
41
42
45
42
43
1
4
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
31
31
1
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise
-------
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF SCREENED WASTEWATER
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY
Violet Packing Co.
Page 1 of 5
Date
FALL 1974
Dec. 12
SUMMER 1975
May 21
May 26
May 28
June 4
June 5
r^ June 10
01
June 18
June 27
July 10
SUMMER 1976
June 1
June 24
June 24
June 30
June 30
July 2
July 3
July 6
BOD,- BOD,.
b Sol.
1,440
1,570
2,170
1,740
1,880
1,900
1,270
950 683
2,040 1,468
1,680
1,460
1,720
1,920
1,440
COD COD
Sol.
2,580
2,400
3,080
2,050
2,890
1,900
2,580
2,050
2,120
2,360
6,160 3,280
3,360
2,720
3,120
2,960
2,800
3,360
3,840
TKN 0 & G
124
34
140
223
127
247
62
236 264
203 107
124
44
126
29
90
82
PH
Units
7.3
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.5
TS TVS
7,160
9,300 1,120
10,800 1,430
10,500 1,000
10,900 1,250
8,280 1,920
8,890
9,720 1,050
5,460 2,060
9,200 810
TSS
456
318
120
518
490
640
340
518
646
476
918
228
310
308
200
232
562
360
T\SS
370
242
48
404
374
525
270
394
535
370
Sett. Temp.
Solids °C
(ml. /] )
5
4
10
12
5.5
4
5
9
8
11
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
1270
1480
1270
554,000
229,000
647,000
545,000
356,000
251 ,000
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF SCREENED WASTEWATER
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY
Violet Packing Co.
Page 2 of 5
Date
July
July
July
July
FALL.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
I Oct.
|
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
*Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
*Nov.
7
12
19
21
1976
11
21
22
22
25
27
28
28
30
3
5
8
9
10
11
17
17
23
29
29
BOD5
1,320
2,240
1,350
1,160
1,330
1,530
1,010
995*
1,130
1,230
378
1,460
1,010
262
BOD,
Sol.
COD
COD TKN 0 & G pH TS TVS TSS TVSS Sett. Temp. Flow/day Protein
Sol. Units Solids °C (Gal.)
__ fmim
2,640
3,600
3,200
2,800
1,150
1,020
1,160
1,240
810
750*
932
1,090
251
1,250
825
150
3
2
4
2
3
4
4
3
3
2
3
4
2
3
2
,800
,280
,340
,840
,720
,400
,000
,160
,600
,740
,230
,500
,500
,060
,380
392
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
190
26
,800 342 196
,150 150
,880 178
,060 151
,190 227 75
,460
,500
,580
,350
,740
,180
,800 216 107
,110 224 138
28 125
254
352
454
292
208
322
264
298
264
356
410
212
256
189
340
350
408
321
490
240
260
268
2140
1420
1350
1400
175
* Not included in Totals or Averages.
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF SCREENED WASTEWATER
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY
Violet Packing Co.
Page 3 of 5
Date
1976
Continued
*Nov. 30
*Nov. 30
*Nov. 30
Nov. 30
Dec. 1
Dec. 1
*Dec. 1
*Dec. 1
— . *Dec. 2
ro
co *Dec. 2
SPRING 1977
(Oysters)
Feb. 8
Feb. 10
Feb. 17
March 2
March 3
March 7
March 9
March 10
BOD5
825
825
150
300*
937
1,240
300
562
1,200
945
743
377
405
BOD,
Sol.
675
675
150
150
600
900
187
262
1,030
798
585
240
293
COD
2,450
712
1,020
2,770
4,110
1,900
3,480
2,930
1,560
662
3,900
1,320
2,580
4,080
4,780
2,120
COD TKN
Sol.
2,020 197
472
1,100 78
632 90
2,060 235
1,900 265
864
59
77
150
128
89
0 5 G pH TS TVS
Units
133
30
134
136
64
42
84
21
121 7.0
26 7.8
3.07.9
TSS TVSS Sett. Temp.
WK °c
262
98
135
552
556
268
456
376
316
4,500 49
902 9.0
1,830 13
704 320 40
3,510 1,030 42
2,960 1,080
2,810 996 40
1,670 556 19
Flow/day
(Gal.)
82,000
78,000
109,000
53,000
48,000
40,000
37,000
Protein
1230
488
563
1470
1660
369
481
938
800
556
*Not Included in Totals or Averages
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF SCREENED WASTEWATER
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY
Violet Packing Co.
Page 4 of 5
Date
1976
Continued
March 11
BOD5
BOD,-
Sol.
COD
3,920
COD
Sol.
TKN
159
0 5 G pH TS
Units
16
TVS TSS
1,610
TVSS
(
726
Sett. Temo. Flow/day
Solids °C (Gal.)
ml /I)
24
132,000
Protein
994
SUMMER 1977
May 17
May 18
May 19
May 20
May 21
- May 22
^ May 23
May 24
May 26
May 27
May 28
May 30
May 31
June 1
June 2
June 3
June 4
June 6
June 7
June 13
June 14
1,370
1,500
1,260
531
733
997
885
912
1,390
783
450
1,190
1,120
1,060
1,280
978
992
863
1,400
885
1,580
1,100
1,100
750
628
645
602
734
615
328
750
750
453
980
778
742
619
921
672
1,120
3,360
3,080
3,150
2,470
2,320
2,470
2,550
2,390
2,950
3,450
2,120
3,250
2,840
2,460
2,630
2,240
2,180
3,050
2,240
3,920
1,920
1,080
1,240
1,830
1,470
1,470
1,860
2,040
1,490
1,920
1,540
1,490
1,510
2,960
241
283
297
213
238
283
258
207
274
272
224
277
283
283
314
221
239
246
321
224
344
150
156
151
88
82
94
91
119
109
130
138
128
109
162
148
162
98
162
131
116
8.1
7.7
8.0
8.1
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.2
7.1
7.8
7.5
758
600
860
492
648
552
408
508
516
432
356
544
580
996
388
312
318
340
436
368
896
592
540
452
COS
"70
,'32
460
436
340
316
508
544
892
352
274
280
298
364
328
764
20
20
15
14
9
17
13
25
30
12
130
15
11
12
15
n
14
554,000
702,000
645,000
678,000
840,000
663,000
618,000
683,000
623,000
574,000
434,000
600,000
700,000
1510
1770
1860
1330
1490
1770
1610
1290
1710
1700
1400
730
1770
1770
1960
1380
1490
1540
2010
1400
2150
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF SCREENED WASTEWATER
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY
Violet Packing Co.
Page 5 of 5
Date
1977
Continued
June 16
June 17
June 18
June 20
June 21
June 22
June 24
June 25
June 27
— ' June 28
CO
0 Aug. 17
Aug. 18
Aug. 19
Aug. 22
FALL 1977
Oct. 26
Oct. 27
Oct. 28
Oct. 31
Nov. 1
Nov. 2
Additional
BOD5
1,290
1,070
1,150
1,060
971
1,620
963
933
1,340
1,180
630
642
972
945
883
1,230
1,380
1,400
1,450
930
Data -
BOD,-
Sol.
971
732
764
667
516
932
623
619
823
416
265
408
550
710
460
585
1,050
965
1,070
689
Summer 1977
COD
3,440
2,880
3,280
3,360
2,920
3,360
2,640
2,360
2,670
3,250
1,390
1,590
2,260
2,460
2,560
3,380
3,140
3,650
3,780
2,600
Conductivity Cuinhos)
Aug. 18
Aug. 19
Aug. 22
All values
7
6
in mg/1
,400
,200
unless noted
COD
Sol.
2,840
2,200
1,800
2,600
2,040
2,320
1,920
1,760
1,880
1,180
1,030
1,270
1,550
1,350
1,760
2,560
2,560
2,330
2,520
2,170
Chlorides
4,000
3,650
3,250
TKN
316
272
286
297
253
325
252
218
280
210
167
228
156
236
298
298
335
304
253
(mg/1)
0 & G
129
98
106
147
168
74
97
92
124
122
28
73
79
67
67
86
120
80
59
pH TS
Units
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
6.9
7.2
6.9
7.4 8,280
7.4 7,970
7.6 7,110
6.8 8,600
6.4 10,200
7.2 9,700
6.8 10,300
7.2 13,300
6.7 10,900
Turbidity (NTU)
385
360
330
TVS TSS
240
292
300
344
450
408
272
272
420
1,020
430
566
590
428
920
332
908
540
412
BODjg (mg/1 '
937
1,480
TVSS
188
260
272
328
412
346
240
268
383
808
380
496
496
324
760
288
792
504
384
)
Sett. Temp. Flow/day
4.5 600,000
15 554,000
12 584,000
11 649,000
440,000
12 401,000
5.5 942,000
6.5 328,000
7.0 452,000
12
226,000
9.0
7.8
31
11
58
26
Protein
1980
1700
1790
I860
1580
2030
1580
1360
1750
1310
1040
1420
975
1480
I860
1860
2090
1900
1580
otherwise.
-------
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY
TREATMENT RESULTS BY SCREENING
Violet Packing Co.
Page 1 of 2
Date BOD,- BODC
b Sol.
12/10/75 I
E 2,100 1,190
12/4/75 I
E 1 ,300 706
11/10/75 I
E
11/13/75 I
E
11/4/75 I
E
11/15/75 I
E
^ 12/5/75 I
E
12/11/75 I
E
5/21/75 I
E
5/28/75 I 1,900
E 1,600
6/4/75 I 1,750
E 1,730
6/18/75 I
E
6/2 7/75 I
E
I Mean 1 ,830
St. Dev.
No. of ob 2
COD COD TKN 0 & G pH TS TVS TSS
Sol. Units
2,920 2,280 292 168 7.0 414
1,620 1,160 193 73 7.2 254
348
294
594
308
704
430
802
7.3 10,500 5,130 302
2,920 460 160 7.2 9,420 1,380 916
2,200 299 154 7.2 9,300 1,100 568
2,920 460 160 7.2 9,420 1,380 673
217
1 111 115
TVSS
76
60
286
258
448
205
522
340
544
212
670
412
494
141
5
Sett. Temp.
fcV/K °c
45
7.5 23
30
6.0 22
30
3.5
24
8
20
7.5
22
9
27
5.5
33
8.5
23
5.5
32
7
40
6
30
10 22
33 23
10 23
30 23
7
13 1
Flow/day Protein
(Gal.)
1830
1210
2880
1870
2830
1
-------
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY
TREATMENT RESULTS BY SCREENING Vio1et Pack1n9 Co.
Page 2 of 2
Date BODC
E Mean
St. Dev.
No. of ob
a
1,700
328
4
BOD. COD COD
Sol? Sol.
948 2,250 1,720
652
232
TKN 0 & G
261
59
3
132
51
3
PH
Units
7.2
0.1
3
TS TVS TSS TV5S
Sett.
Solids
9,890 3,110 367
no
227
223
129
7
7
2
13
Temp. Flow/day Protein
°C (Gal.)
23
1
4
1630
369
3
All values in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1976 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Run No.
& Date
#c
Octln
#1
Oct. 21
#1
Oct. 22
#2
Oct. 22
#3
Oct. 22
#1
Oct. 25
#1
Oct. 27
#1
Oct. 28
#2
Oct. 28
#1
Oct. 30
#2
Nov. 3
#3
Nov. 3
01
XI
:
•
-
-
F
F
R
R
R
R
F
R
Alum
(mg/1)
58
0
0
0
0
75
78
187
223
217
198
198
Polymer
(mg/1)
2.2
0
0
0
0
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.1
6.6
5.2
5.2
PH
5.2
7.3
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.8
4.8
5.0
4.8
4.8
BODj-
Totb
1,350
1,360
1,160
367
11330 70%
403 70%
1,530 ,M
470 DSA
1 ,530 m
BODr
Sol
1,140
1,320
1 '°32°7 68%
1'1364°570%
1.240 w
466 62»
T'240 64%
439
COD
Tot,
2,240 ,„„
1,280 43%
3,800 .,„
2,120 *n
2,280
4,340 ,cw
2,830 %
4,340 5%
2,840 ,n400 66%
4'000 66%
3*160<;fi*
1,32058%
3,600
1 ,408 bl*
3,600 56%
COD
Sol
2,800 ,,„
960 ot)*
705
338
3,150 ,n*
1 ,320 °°"
2,880 ,.,„
1 ,240 b/%
3.060
1,330 57%
3,060 65<£
1,060
TKN
342
347
„ _.„. ^ . .
Oil &
Grease
196 ,„
184 M
™89%
178 95%
10 *
]2J 86%
151
TSS
208
266
322 ,„,,,
166 w%
264
412
298
356
298
1,130
96
264
474
356 .,„
210 ^I7°
410 8oy
84
212
218
256
122
256 6r/
101
Protein
2140
2170
CjO
OJ
Coagulant - aluminum sulfate, unless otherwise noted.
Coagulant Acid - polymer 835 A, unless otherwise noted.
*Values shown are Influent/Effluent and Removal Percent (%).
Influent and Effluent values are in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1976 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Sun No.
S Date
#1
Nov. 5
#1
Nov. 8
#2
Nov. 8
#3
iNov. 8
#4
Nov. 8
Nov. 8
#1
Nov. 9
#3
Nov. 10
Nov. 11
#C
Nov. 17
#5 VV
Nov. 17
V
o
5:
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Al -n
(mg/1)
0
75
100
150V
200V
75V
200
300
150
92
92
(mg/1 )
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.1
7.0
4.0
2.3
2.3
PH
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
BCD,
Tor
1,010
569
1,080 65%
375
995 57*
432 b/%
1,130 5g%
567
U230 fil«
478 Ol*
378
666 "
EOD5
Sol
813
382 53%
952 ,,4
320 °07°
750 ,,«
347 S^°
932 --,,
282 UX
1,090 64%
392 M*
251
521 ""
COD
Tot,
2,740 ,,„
2,030 "/0
4,460 m
3,640
4,460 ,0,,
3,920 '"
4,460 m
3,680
4'460 30%
3,140
4.460 ,,,„,
3,170 ^%
3.230
4,500
1 ,800 tm
2,500 62
COD
Sol
2,1904r/
l,2904l/°
1,360
2,500 _.
2,580 fin
1,020
2,350 dftr
1,210
2,740 ,q«
1,130 *
1,180
1,960 "~
TKN
227 .,
151 33*
Paqe
Oil &
Grease
75
99
2 of 4
TSS
189
536 "
_-
1,360 ""
--
1,010 ""
--
1,040
612 "
340 ,,„
216 36%
350 ,,„
118 DD%
408
490 "
321 CQW
133 Dy7b
490 ,.„
324 *
Protein
1420 ,,„,
944 ^3^
y.,Alum added @ Screen Discharge.
Problems: pH or washdown intrusion, etc.
Influent and Effluent values are in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
OAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1976 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Page 3 of 4
Run No.
& Date
#1
Nov. 23
#1
Nov. 29
. #2 VV
Nov. 29
i»l VV
Nov. 30
n vv
Nov. 30
#3
Nov. 30
#4
Nov. 30
#5 V
Nov. 3
#1 V
Dec. 1
#2
Dec. 1
OJ
•o
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Alum
(mg/1)
95
118
199
142
142
142
142
199
113V
113V
Polymer
(mg/1)
2.1
2.6
4.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.8
2.3
2.3
pK
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
BOD5
1 =460 5
655 bb%
1,010 ,.
187 8Z%
262
300 ""
125 86%
825 a,-,
150 B^
825 •,,,,
187 73%
150
262 ""
300 50%
150 bUX
937 „»
450 D"
1,240 c™
412 b/"
So*?5
1,250
560 5b%
825
75 9U
150
262 "
67[i 89%
575 78%
150 78*
675 7D1V
T C f\ • vfO
150
150
225 ""
153? ™
337 4W
900 ,,„
262 n%
COD
Tot,
3,060
1..250 59%
2,380 7Q,,
504 m
392
624 ""
2,450 ,R-
544 78%
712
552 22%
712
864 ""
1,020
1,420 "
1,260
2'770 60%
1,100 60%
i!snn 63X
COD
Sol
1 ,800 ,£„/
784 "
2,110 _,„
1,330 il%
192 "
2,020- 705;
432 /yX>
472
712 ""
1,100
1,260
632
864 "
2,060 -_„
1,020 bu/4
1,900 , y
712 6M
TKN
216 iqr
176 Iy7°
224 67,
28
97 ""
197 „„
26 87X
70 "
160 ""
11 ™
90 esr
on u .? /o
iO
?23i «*
265 587
Oil &
Grease
^ 79%
38 72%
IOC
1 &*•* QOo/
rt <-i OO/a
20
138 75%
g 20%
134 co./
43 68/°
136 q „
14 90%
TSS
240 RW
112 bjx
260 ,w
174 JlJ7
268 .yr
142 477
262 ,qo/
82 69/
164 ""
172
98
124 "
135 say
64 b3/°
552 ...
328 *'*
556
162 71%
Protein
1350 19%
1100 y/°
1400 fi7«
469 D/7°
175
606"
1230 072
87 87%
438 ""
1000
488 ,7V
163 67%
563 fiQy
1 T 1 D-* rt>
173
1470
800 46%
1660 rav
700 ba%
V
vvAlura added @ Screen Discharge.
Problems: pH or washdown intrusion, etc.
Influent and Effluent values are in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1975 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Page 4 of 4
Run No.
5 Date
#3
Dec. 1
#4
Dec. 1
#5
Dec. 1
#6 VV
Dec. 1
#1 VV
Dec. 2
#2 VV
Dec. 2
OJ
•o
o
F
F
F
F
Alum
(rag/1)
V
113V
113V
v
190V
532V
\t
86V
t /
86V
Polymer
(mg/1)
2.3
2.3
3.8
10.6
1.7
1.7
PH
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.2
5.2
BOD,.
Tot5
--
487 "
—
412 "
300
487
562 ,,,
375 JJ
15?1060 65X
945 ,-,„
A T /- Do To
416
BODr
Sol
--
375 ""
—
450 ""
187
525 ""
262
375 ""
1 '3°637° 6W
798 „,,
382 5"
COD
Tot,
__
1,100 "
..
1,100 "
1 S9QQ .,„
1,'020
3,480 ,„
864 /s:*
2,930 51V
1,420 "
COD
Sol
__
792
944 "
864 ,,„
712 1/7°
TKN
_-
112
104
Oil S
Grease
18
Yo "
64 8Q%
13
11 74%
?J79%
TSS
134 "
162 "
268 ,5%
148
456 ,,„
no 76'°
376 ,,.,
130 65%
316 w
178 W°
Protein
700"
65"o""
CO
C31
VV
Alum added @ Screen Discharge
Problems: pH or washdown intrusion, etc.
Influent and Effluent values are in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1977 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Page 1 of 5
Run No.
& Date
#100
May 17
#101
May 17
#102
May 18
#103
May 19
_, #104
GJ May 20
--j
#105
May 21
#106
May 22
#107
May 23
#108
May 23
#109
May 24
t/i
•S Alum Polymer ^.^ BOD,-
i (mg/1). (mg/1) °-£ Tot5
F none none N 1,360*
1,420* ""
F none none N 1 ,360
1,260 l%
F none none N 1 ,500
1,550 ""
F none none N 1,260 ,,,
1,060 16%
F none none 5 531
552 ""
F none none 3.8 733 -_„
367 W%
F none none 4.4 997 ._„
564 43%
F none none 5 885 ,,„
682 i6%
F 100 none 5 885 ,,,,
699 '*
F 100 none 5 912 ,n,,
566 ^^
BOD.
Sol
1,110
1,370 ""
1,100
750
900 ""
628
645 .„
547 15%
645
602
COD
Tot
3,360
3,900 "
3'36° 10%
3,010 w%
3,080*
4,110 "
3,150
2,010 "
2,470 ,,
2,130 '"
2,320
1,780 "%
2,470 ..,
2,080 lb-
2,500
2,010 m
2,550 fir
2,550 m
2,390 ,„„
1,930 ^%
COD
Sol
1,920
1,080
T.ZW44.
695 44'
1,830 g
926 4y'
1,470
1,470
1,470
TKN
241*
297* "
241
278 ""
283*
297 ""
297 M
297 0%
213 7%
199 n°
t 238 ^1*
{ 165 31%
r 233 «.„
218 "*
258 . „
224 13%
258 lfir
216 16%
207 ,,„,
185 1U
Oil
150
149
150
123
156
178
151
94
88
68
82
58
94
62
91
85
91
85
119
74
& Grease TSS
Ofot /DO OfW
•'* 149 °u"
18% ]f8 53%
600 7fw
178 70%
38% f7D6 80%
23% 492* -
"* 496*
9o« 648
29% 688 "
34? 552 ..
Jn 596
7* 408
'* 508 ""
7* 408
* 784 "
OQflf 3UO Aof
38% 488 4%
vss
592 „,„
112 8U
308 48%
540 770/
122 '"°
452
608 ,._,
576 b;s
470
540 ""
332
448 ""
332
576 ""
460 ,,,,
384 17X
Settleable
Soilds (ml/1.)
2 o.o m%
20
o.o lm
cU nnw
0.1 9OT
15
9 22%
9
30
17
24 "
*Values shown are Influent/Effluent and Removal Percent (%}
Influent and Effluent values are in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
Coagulant - aluminum sulfate, unless otherwise noted.
Coagulant Acid - polymer 835 A, unless otherwise noted.
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1977 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Page 2 of 5
Run No.
& Date
#110
May 24
#111
May 26
#112
May 27
#113
May 27
#114
— May 28
CO
00
#115
May 30
#116
May 31
#401
June 1
#402
June 2
#403
June 3
#404
June 4
-g Alum Polymer =£ BOD,-
€ (mg/1) (mg/1) °-£ Tot
F 140 none 5 912 ,,
712 "
F 150 2.5 5 1,390
F 130 2.5 5 783 ,,
522 •"
F 130 1.4 5 783 „
613 "
— 450
— 1,190
F 175 4.0 5 1,120 ,,
756 w
F 250 4.2 5 1,060 ,R
550
F 260 4.2 5 1,280 ,-
430 67
P 279 5.2 5 978 44
545
P 280 7.6 5 992 r7
422 b/
BOD,
sor
<, 602 ,„
% 512 ISS
734*
* 61 5 , „„
b 497 \-i-h
v 615 ,,„
% 545 '"»
328
750
% If, 13%
453
% 395 13%
% 390 60%
% 2f 44%
74?
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1977 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY' WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Page 3 of 5
Run No. -S Alum Polymer
& Date i (mg/1) (mg/1)
#405
June 6 R 400 10
#406
June 6 P 366 7.4
#407
June 6 R 287 7.0
#408
June 7 R 326 6.9
! #409
1 June 7 F 296 6.7
#410
June 7 R 210 6.0
#122
June 13 -- --
#121
June 14 -- --
#123
June 16 -- --
#124
June 17 -- --
#125
June 18 F 290 5.1
= £ BOD,
°-§ Tor
5 863 „*
368
5 931 ,„
422 "
•M7 C W J A>
355
5 ]'S^
5 1f4?54%
5 731 69%
230
885
— 1,580
-- 1,290
-- 1,070
5 1,150 ,fl,
368 °°*
BOD,
sor
619 ,,,
325
682 47%
363
784
298 62%
921 .„,
530 ""
925 Aa*
475 '^
^73 ,,„
212 ""
672
1,120
971
732
764 „,
311 59%
COD COD
Tot Sol
2>752 6M
2,070 ,sr
865 bB;°
2,930 ,„„
1,130 °"
3,050 ,.*
1 ,090 D4S
2,860 ,,-
1,330 bjx
2,200 ,
811 ^
2,240 1,500
3,920 2,960
3,440 2,840
2,880 2,200
3,280 ,,„ 1,800 ,.„
1,260 ^% 1,100 jyx
TKN
246
143
231
123
283
139
321
188
277
160
217
90
224
344
316
272
286
137
Oil & Grease TSS
42% 98 73%
1:0
« 'U ™!
C1* '"" Q^fi/
sJ ) A> Q r O»J fl
«. '« »<
IS?
»oiy lot qTo,
4
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1977 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Page 4 of 5
Run No. -S Alum
& Date f (mg/1)
#126
June 20 F 290
#127
June 21 R 95
#128
June 22 R 130
#129
June 24 R 300
— i #130
gJune 25 R 400
#131
June 27 R 400
#11132
June 28 F 400
#133
June 28 P 400
#134
June 28 P 400
#11135
June 29 F 400
Polymer :n£ BODj-
(mg/1 ) °"-E Tot
4.1 5 1,060 ,,„
395 63%
5.8 5 971 „„,
272 '"
6.8 4.8 1,620 7,,y
475 nh
7.3 5 963 ,,,,
316 bl%
7.3 5 933 ,w
438 SJ7°
10.8 5 1,340 -,,„
382 "*
2.5 5 1,100
580 4//0
2.5 5 1,180 „„,
494 5S"
7.6 5 1,180 ,,„
461 61%
3.3 5 1,100 ,,„
484 a %
sSf5
S 45%
516 „„
222 57%
932 ,o
COD
Sol
2,600 ,8.
1 ,600 J
2,040
880 57
2-!S •"
'•S8 5"
1,760 ..
1,020 ^'
1 ,880 „.
902 ^
1,850
1,180 ,,
1,090
1,180 ,
1,070 IJ'
1,850
823
TKN
297
; igo 36%
253
% 95 62%
i 325 5g%
132
> 252 ,RV
106 5B"
218
i A t%°/
° 119 A
, 280 ,,„
I 1Q4 63%
265 .-.,
160 ^°"
210
« H6 3
y 210 ,qo/
* 87 3a"
v 265
s 112 bB'°
Oil & Grease
147
12 97%
168
2.4 99%
16 78%
Q7
J ' Q"7°f
3rt 3 1 ID
.2
92 74°'
24 /IU
124 „„
18 85%
125
OT OO /3
122
15
122 gQ,,
14
125 „„„
23 "
TSS
344 77%
78
450
28*94%
408 85%
62
272 ,,,,
103 b^%
272 46?/
420 .,„
225 4&/°
473
466 ' *
1,020 86%
1 ,020 p,c-
164 m'J
473
398 '^°4
VSS Settleable
Soilds (ml/1)
328 ,,.,
76 *
412*94%
346 „,„
53 85%
240 ,,„
93 61%
268
46
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1977 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Page 5 of._5.
Run No.
& Date
#136
June 30
#U137
July 6
#U139
^July 11
#142
Aug. 18
#143
Aug. 19
#144
Aug 22
-o Alum Polymer
s: (mg/1 ) (mg/1 )
F 240 12.7
F 185 3.9
F 225 4.9
PRA
F 60 2.5
PRA1
F 60 2.5
PRA1
F 60 2.5
CO
xZ BOD,
°-=5 Tot
5 1,100
618
5 1,100 62%
413
5 1,100 ,
518 "*
5 642 ,,„
189 n%
5 972 ,-.,
363 63%
4.5 945 „„
603 °*
BOD,
sor
750
382
750 49%
381 49%
I!? '«
408 ,,,,
180 bb%
550 ,,.,
267 bl%
710 35%
463 •"*
COD
Tot
2,800 „
1,764 37%
2,800 „*
1,215 "
2,800 .-„
1,429 49%
1,590 ,n*
794 Du:4
2,260 ,„
794 oa*
2,460 -
1,230 *
COD
Sol
1,850
1,058 ^
1,850 aqr
941 4 *
1,850 ,
1,015 45%
1,270 .„
675 47%
1,550 ,,.,
675 56%
833
TKN
265
196 ^D7°
265 ,,„
129
265 „„
134 49%
167 ,,,,
63 bd%
228 „«
98 s/*
156
90 ^*
Oil & Grease
125 ,
3076%
125 7Ry
28 /BX
128.893%
28 61%
73 85%
79
34 57%
TSS
473 o«
432 ys
473 6,?
164 °
473 55%
212 5b*
430 Q..,
70 84%
566 ..„„
"7n otSfe
/U
590
266 bb%
VSS
392
409
150
409
184
380
65
496
65
496
248
Settleable
Soilds (ml/1.)
« 11-
13
63
56% 13 5I
83%
87% 9'°
,n, 7.8
5U% 4_5
-
38%
42%
1 Applied Polymer @ pressure release valve.
* Duplicate Analyses
Influent and Effluent values are in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - FALL 1977 SHRIMP SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Run No.
& Date
#151
Oct. 26
#152
Oct. 27
7" #153
?30ct. 28
#154
Oct. 31
#155
Nov. 1
#156
Nov. 2
•S Alum
5 (mg/1)
F Alum
F Alum
F Alum
450
F
F 520C
300
F 520C
300
-------
OAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1977 OYSTER SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
— —
Run No -g Alum Polymer = 2 BODR BODR
& Date £ (mg/1 ). (mg/1 ) °-§ Tot5 Sol5
#9 A
Mar. 3 R -- -- -- 377 ,n,» 2'960 fifl« ^O^fta*
47 bs% 19 wt, 348 a»s 174 B^S
4,510 .„
208
150 i7. 121 a,- 2,960 „,-«, 1,0807A-
7g 4/X 23 818 444 8b% 284 74%
902 37%
116 37%
902 gn
84
77 605, 3,510 „,„ 1,080 „„
33 b0^ 316 91% 154 86%
1,830
376 79/°
59 69% 21 41% 704 80% 32° 69%
3,900 ggy
150 96/°
15
0.1
49
0.1
9
0.1
42
0.1
13
0.2
40
0.3
39
0.2
99+%
99+%
99+%
99+%
98?
99+%
99%
Influent and Effluent values are in mg/1 unless noted otherwise.
-------
DAF TREATMENT RESULTS - 1977 OYSTER SEASON
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
Violet Packing Co.
Page 2 of 2
t/1
Run No. -S Alum Polymer ^i BODr
& Date € (mg/1) (mg/1) °-5 Tots
#16
Mar. 11 R 165** 5.511
#12
Mar. 9 R 194** 6.411 —
#15 .,
Mar. 10 R 200** 4.6 — 405 ,,„
260 3b*
#13
Mar. 9 R 240 6 "
#14
Mar. 9 R 240 6111 —
BOD, COD COD TKN Oil & Grease TSS VSS Settleable
Sol Tot Sol Soilds (ml/1)
3,920 ,..-,
1,410 6W
4,780 5.%
2,200 *n
293 m 2.120 ,
243 ]7% 940 55%
4,780 .„„
2,430 "*
4,780 ««<
2,120 bb%
159 .,„ 16 ,, 24
54 66% 945% 2^
128 56% 26 54% 2'810 92% "6 8??: 40
56 Sb% 12 &4X 22Q 9
-------
American Shrimp Canneri Association pal) lg?4
JAR TEST SUMMARY
Coagulant
(mq/1 )
Alum
50 mg/1
Alum
75 mg/1
Alum
75 mg/1
Alum
50 niq/1
509 C
150 mg/1
509 C
500 mg/1
Alum
100 mg/1
509 C
200 mg/1
PRA
50 ng/1
PRA
50 mg/1
Jar Test Not
Polymer & Dose
(mg/1)
845 A
3 mg/1
845 A
3 ng/1
845 A
4 mg/1
845 A
4 mg/1
845 A
2 mg/1
845 A
3 ng/1
845 A
2 mg/1
845 A
3 ng/1
es: 1. All pH
' 1 Pcmo
sample
PH
(adjusted)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.5
valuesjiven ar
als are based c
on which jar t
-
Remaining Concentration (ng/1) f. Percent
Removal
con
1,630
37%
1,710
34. 37,
1,670
36%
1,630
37.3%
1,440
45%
1,360
48%
1,440
45%
1,320
49.2%
1,360
47.7%
> as adjusted bj
i analyses of ur
ists were run.
TSS
66
86.6%
52
89.4%
40
91. 9«
100
79.7%
42
91.5?;
56
83.6%
76
85%
22
95.5%
52
89%
chemical dosaq
treated waste w
Turbidity
(JTU)
350
65%
23
98%
37.5
96%
220
78%
76
92.4%
60
94%
48
95%
40
96%
370
66%
ter
145
-------
American Shrinn Canners Association
Fall 1974
JAR TEST
Coagulant
GTS Solution
6 ml
GTS Solution
8 ml
GTS Solution
10 nil
Ac id -only
Acid-oaly
Alum
75 mg/1
Alum
75 mg/1
Chitosan
18 mg/1
Polymer & Dose
(ny/1 )
pH
(adjusted)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
SUMMARY
Remaining Concentration (rig/1 8, Percent
Removal
COD
1,400
35%
1,940
9%
2,100
2%
1,630
24%
1 ,440
33%
1,670
22%
1,750
18%
1,470
31%
TSS
224
57%
78
85%
40
92%
86
83%
158
70%
254
51%
322
38%
44
91.5%
Turbidity
(JTU)
240
78%
17.5
98%
20
98%
260
76%
370
66%
370
66%
350
68%
50
95.5%
146
-------
AMLRICAN SHRIMP CANNERS AS
SHRIMP CANNLRY WASTEWATER
Coagulant
and Dose
mg/l
Alum
27rrg/l
Alum
72mg/l
Alum
108 mg/l
Alum
180 mg/l
Alum
2~7n - . t\
. V l..y/ 1
Alum
30 mg/l
Alum
80 mg/l
Alum
120 mg/l
Alum
200 mg/l
Alum
300 mg/l
Alum
30 mg/l
Alum
30rng/l
Alum
30 mg/l
Alum
30 mg/l
Alum
30 mg/l
Polymer
and Dose
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
835A
2 mg/l
835A
4 mg/l
835A
6 mg/l
835A
8 mg/l
83SA
10 mg/l
SOCIATION
TREATMENT SUMMER 1975
SUMMARY
JAR TEST
TREATABILITY STUDY
pH"
(adfusfcd)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Remaining Concentration (mg/l)
And Porcont Removal
COD
1040
56%
1050
56%
1070
55%
1150
52%
1050
56%
-
-
-
1520
36%
1430
40%
1740
49%
1880
45%
1880
45%
1840
46%
1780
48%
TSS
lofl
86%
82
90%
52
95%
92
88%
72
91%
-
-
-
504
36%
272
65%
104
81%
132
75%
64
88%
110
80%
124
77%
Turbidity
JTU
175 ' -
65%
175
65%
50
90%
250
50%
220
56%
-
-
-
500
0
200
60%
350
49%
300
57%
200
71%
170
75%
150
78%
147
-------
AMERICAN SHRIMP CANNCRS ASSOCIATION
SHRIMP CANNLRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SUMMER 1975
SUMMARY
JAR TEST
TREATABILITY STUDY
Coagulant
and Dose
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
Alum
200 mg/l
Alum
200 mg/l
Alum
200 mg/l
Alum
200 mg/l
Alum
200 mg/l
Alum
200 mg/l
Chitosan
135 mg/l
Chitosan
135 mg/l
Chitosan
135 mg/l
Chitosan
135 mg/l
Chitosan
135 mg/l
Chitosan
135 mg/l
Polymer
and Dose
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PH
(adjusted)
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
-
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Remaining Concentration (mg/l)
And Percent Removal
COD
-
1170
41%
1330
33%
-
-
-
-
1140
42%
1190
40%
1120
44%
1250
37%
1220
38%
1410
29%
1370
31%
1050
47%
1260
37%
1360
32%
-
TSS
-
170
71%
256
56%
-
-
-
268
54%
132
77%
240
59%
192
67%
248
57%
216
63%
266
54%
82
86%
218
63%
276
53%
308
47%
398
32%
Turbidity
JTU
-
175
80%
220
74%
-
-
-
500
41%
300
65%
200
76%
175
80%
160
81%
200
77%
400
53%
250
71%
375
56%
350
59%
425
50%
375
56°/c
148
-------
AMERICAN SIIRIMI' CANNtRS ASSOCIATION
SHRIMP CANNFRY WASIEWATER TREATMENT SUMMER 1975
SUMMARY
JAR TEST
TREATABILITY STUDY
Coagulant
and Doso
mg/l
Alum
80 mg/l
Alum
300 mg/l
Alum
300 mg/l
Alum
300 mg/l
Alum
300 mg/l
Alum
300 mg/l
Chifosan
5 mg/l
Chifoson
15 mg/l
Chitosan
30mq/l
Chitosan
60 mg/l
Chifoson
120 mg/l
Chitosan
200 mg/l
Chifosan
5 mg/l
Cliltosan
15 mg/l
Chitosan
30 mg/l
Chifosan
60 mg/l
Chitosan
120 mg/l
Chitosan
200 mg/l
Polymer
and Dose
mg/l
835A
6 mg/l
835A
2mg/I
835A
4 mg/l
835A
6 mg/l
835A
8 mg/l
835A
10 mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
pH'
(adjusted)
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
kcmaininy ConcL-iitmtioii (my/1)
And Percent Ri-movnl
COD
-
1450
18%
1540
12%
1480
16%
1500
15%
1660
6%
1480
39%
1270
48%
1330
45%
1520
37%
1520
35%
1700
30%
-
-
1190
51%
1210
50%
1530
37%
1270
48%
TSS
186
76%
76
91%
166
79%
60
93%
112
86%
120
85%
84
80%
80
81%
78
81%
85
80%
90
78%
75
82%
-
-
63
63%
60
86%
300
28%
92
78%
Turbidity
JTU
600
30%
375
57%
350
59%
400
53%
370
57%
-
100
85%
100
85%
120
83%
70
90%
125
82%
100
85%
-
-
400
41%
370
45%
370
45%
370
45%
149
-------
AMCKICAN SIIUIMI' CAMIMLi-'.S ASSOCIATION
SHRIMI' CANNLRY WAS1EWATER TREATMENT SUMMER 1975
SUMMARY
JAR TEST
1REATABILITY STUDY
Coogulant
and Dose
mg/l
PRA-1
5 ml of .1%
by Vol.
PRA-1
10ml of .1%
by Vol.
PRA-1
30 ml of .1%
by Vol.
PRA-1
5 ml of 1%
by Vol.
PRA-1
6 ml of 1%
by Vol.
PRA-1
10 ml of 1%
by Vol.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Polymer
and Doso
mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
835A
3 mg/l
835A
3 mg/l
835A
3 mg/l
835A
3 mg/l
835A
3 mg/l
835A
3 mg/l
pH
(adjusted)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Rumoininij Concentration (iny/i)
And Pnrcnnt Rcniovol
COD
-
-
1290
11%
-
1390
4%
1430
1%
1410
40%
1640
30%
1680
28%
1920
11%
2020
13%
1980
15%
TSS
105
68%
95
71%
22
93%
134
58%
100
69%
124
61%
178
72%
220
66%
316
51%
382
41%
394
39%
436
32%
Turbidify
JTU
125
50%
75
70%
170
32%
170
32%
-
-
70
92%
250
71%
425
50%
600
30%
625
27%
600
30%
150
-------
AMERICAN SHRIMP CANNLP.S ASSOC.
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEVVATER TREATMENT SUMMfcK 1975
SUMMARY
PRESSURIZED FLOTATION
TREATABILITY STUDY
Coagu font
&
3ose,
mg/l
Chitosan
15 mg/l
Chitosan
15 mg/l
Chitosan
15 mg/l
Chitosan
30 mg/l
Chitosan
30 mg/1
PRA 1
5 ml of .1%
PRA 1
10 ml of 1%
Alum
55 mg/l
Alum
30 mg/l
(Added in
Cylinder)
Alum
30 mg/l
Alum
30 mg/l
Alum
30 mg/l
Alum
30 mg/l
(Added in
Alum
30 mg/l
(Added in
Bomb)
Polymer
&
Dose,
mg/l
_
835A
3 mg/l
-
-
-
-
-
835A
3 mg/l
835A
6 mg/l
(Added in
Cylinder)
835A
6 mg/l
835A
2 mg/l
835A
10 mg/l
835A
10 mg/l
(Added in
Cylinder)
835A
10 mg/l
(Added in
Cylinder)
PH
(adjusted)
Units
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
PSI
42
45
43
45
45
45
44
45
45
42
45
45
44
45
I
Mode
of
Operation
50:50
recycle
50:50
recycle
Direct
50:50
recycle
Direct
50:50
recycle
50:50
recycle
50:50
recycle
Direct
50:50
re.cycle
50:50
Recycle
50:50
recycle
Direct
Direct
REMAINING CONCENTRATION (mg/l
AND PERCENT REMOVAL
COD
1010
55%
644
71%
1600
28%
772
65%
1740
22%
1200
46%
871
61%
1110
68%
2360
31%
990
71%
1070
69%
1050
70%
2340
32%
1950
43°
TSS
208
68%
190
70%
358
45%
90
86%
370
46%
234
65%
-
200
62%
414
21%
48
91%
110
80°/
82
85%
366
31%
78
85%
Turbidity
JTU
300
63%
100
87%
440
45%
120
85%
550
31%
270
66%
250
69%
170
75%
500
26%
70
90%
125
82%
125
82%
500
26%
240
65%
151
-------
Gallons Per Day
(Gallons Per Thousand Lbs.)
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
FLOW DATA
Date
Rec. Tank
Peelers
Separators
Graders
Deveiners
VIOLET PACKING CO,
Pg 1 of 4
Total Screen
6/2/75
6/3/75
6/4/75
6/5/75
6/6/75
6/7/75
6/9/75
6/10/75
6/11/75
6/12/75
6/13/75
6,250
(135)
4,300
(192)
8,120
(121)
12,300
(127)
13,200
(137)
10,100
(124)
16,200
(139)
15,400
(174)
10,500
(134)
7,060
(170)
9,340
(126)
99,500
(2,140)
82,770
(3,680)
156,000
(2,330)
237,000
(2,450)
253,000
(2,640)
195,000
(2,380)
312,000
(2,670)
239,000
(2,710)
160,000
(2,060)
108,000
(2,610)
198,000
(2,530)
27,330
(589)
16,200
(720)
30,500
(456)
46,300
(479)
49,500
(516)
38,200
(464)
61,100
(522)
44,600
(505)
29,810
(383)
20,100
(486)
44,200
(565)
18,700
(403)
9,220
(410)
17,400
(260)
26,400
(273)
28,200
(294)
21,700
(265)
34,800
(297)
19,200
(217)
12,500
(160)
8,430
(203)
19,300
(246)
18,600
(401)
36,800
(1,640)
69,400
(1,040)
105,000
(1,090)
113,000
(1,170)
86,700
(1,060)
139,000
(1,190)
172,000
(1,940)
118,000
(1,520)
79,800
(1,930)
49,300
(631)
284,000
(6,120)
429,000
(6,400)
647,000
(6,690)
739,000
(7,700)
614,000
(7,480)
782,000
(6,680)
724,000
(8,210)
724,000
(9,320)
-------
en
to
Gallons Per Day
(Gallons Per Thousand Lbs,
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
FLOW DATA
VIOLET PACKING CO.
Pg 2 of 4
Date
6/14/75
6/16/75
6/17/75
6/18/75
6/19/75
6/20/75
6/23/75
6/24/75
6/25/75
6/26/75
6/27/75
Rec. Tank
10,800
(165)
15,800
(172)
3,670
(161)
7,180
(3,240)
5,500
(187)
5,880
14,500
13,500
(110)
11,900
(133)
6,780
( 107)
14,770
(122)
Peelers
226,000
(3,450)
276,000
(3,020)
62,600
(1,760)
156,000
(3,240)
111,000
(3,750)
118,000
322,000
309,000
(2,530)
280,000
(3,140)
169,000
(2,660)
350,000
(2,900)
Separators
59,000
(901)
66,300
(724)
13,700
(604)
32,300
(669)
20,400
(687)
21,600
70,200
70,400
(576)
59,300
(666)
33,700
(530)
61,300
(507)
Graders
13,300
(202)
10,700
(116)
1,810
( 79)
7,510
(155)
7,750
(261)
8,220
13,300
13,510
(110)
12,100
(135)
7,260
(114)
23,300
(192)
Deveiners
66,200
(1,010)
102,000
(1,120)
28,700
(1,260)
83,100
(1,720)
56,900
(1,920)
60,300
180,000
107,000
(877)
95,800
(1,080)
81,700
(1,280)
154,000
(1,280)
Total Sc
479,000
(7,310)
574,000
(6,270)
272,000
(5,630)
229,100
(7,740)
208,000
724,000
705,000
(5,780)
822,000
(9,230)
556,000
(8,740)
845,000
(8,230)
-------
Ol
Gallons per day
(Gallons per Thousand Ibs.
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
FLOW DATA
VIOLET PACKING CO.
Pg 3 of 4
Date
6/28/75
6/30/75
7/2/75
7/3/75
7/5/75
7/7/75
7/8/75
7/10/78
11/10/75
11/13/75
Rec. Tank
13,700
(123)
10,300
(109)
24,100
(191)
8,840
(127)
6,970
(146)
6,700
(155)
3,424
(103)
6,680
164
2,620
92,800
Peelers
372,000
(3,350)
247,000
(2,640)
335,000
(2,660)
194,000
(2,790)
153,000
(3,200)
147,000
(3,390)
73,700
(2,220)
131,000
3,220
75,500
92,800
Separators
63,300
(570)
43,600
(465)
61,600
(490)
34,300
(494)
27,000
(566)
26,000
(600)
15,700
(472)
29,000
716
Graders
15,200
(136)
14,000
(149)
16,800
(133) -
11,600
(166)
9,110
(191)
8,750
(202)
34,760
(1,050)
9,380
230
5,600
5,300
Deveiners
171,000
(1,540)
145,000
(1,540)
191,000
(1,520)
70,500
(1,020)
63,500
(1,330)
61,100
(1,410)
6,120
(184)
97,800
2,400
2,890
42,200
Total Scr
847,000
(7,630)
771,000
(8,230)
884,000
(7,030)
451,000
(6,520)
35,600
(7,470)
342,000
(7,910)
238,000
(7,160)
369,000
9,060
221,000
243,000
-------
Gallons Per Day
(Gallons Per Thousand Lbs.)
SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
FLOW DATA
Date
11/14/75
11/15/75
12/4/75
12/5/75
12/10/75
Avg Gallons
Per 1000#
Rec. Tank
6,030
7,390
7,050
21 ,700
(143)
Peelers Separators
164,000
186,000
221,000
181,000
234,000
(2,830) (572)
Graders
11,500
3,710
1 1 ,400
12,400
(237)
Deveiners
61 ,400
34,900
162,000
433,000
90,000
(1,290)
VIOLET PACKING CO.
Pg 4 of 4
Total Screen
327,000
371,000
553,000
424,000
263,000
(7,440)
-------
APPENDIX D
COST DATA
General
Cost study data include estimated cost (December 1977) of the following:
1. Basic DAF wastewater treatment plant
2. Solid Waste disposal alternatives
3. Operation and Maintenance Costs.
The cost estimates given herein reflect costs applicable to the waste-
water treatment system after a water conservation program has been implemented.
Cost estimates reported here assume 15 years service life and 9% interest.
Cost are reported in 1977 dollars. As discussed earlier, the water conser-
vation program at the project plant has reduced the wastewater flow from an
average of 700 gpm in 1975 to an average of 500 gpm in 1977. It is estimated
that a similar water conservation program would cost almost $50,000 in 1977
dollars.
Table D-l .Estimated Annual Costs,shows DAF system costs in Columns A,
B, and C, while Columns D and E show the total cost of wastewater treatment,
including sludge disposal. The capital cost of the DAF plant shown in
Column A reflects the actual cost of the project plant, Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index adjusted to December 1977. The estimated total
cost of equipment for an 8 peeler plant (Column B) reflects 85% of the capital
cost in Column A to allow for size reduction due to water management.Sizing
of DAF system tankage for a particular flow rate is not always feasible since
a non-standard size could be required. Therefore, the DAF systems used for
analysis are taken to be 500 gpm and 250 gpm sizes for the 8 peeler and 4 peeler
plants, respectively. The project study plant now has nine peelers, therefore,
a 6% further reduction is used to calculate the eight peeler variable costs
based on flow. Column C, 4 peeler plant costs, reflect 75% of the capital
cost in Column B.(8 peelers). A straight line interpolation for shrimp
processing plants of intermediate sizes will give a reasonable estimate of
costs.
An attempt has been made to analyze sludge or skimmings disposal costs.
This developed cost-disposal relationship is summarized in Table D-2,
Estimated Solid Waste Handling and Disposal Costs for DAF Skimmings Disposal.
The costs are based on hauling of the sludge, with no conditioning or treat-
ment, to disposal on the owners approved landfill site. Due to the restrictions
on land fill operations and the nature of the DAF sludge, it is doubtful that
landfilling of the material at a public or private site would be reliable,or a
156
-------
permanent arrangement. Even though these alternatives,Columns N and 0 in
Table D-2, are shown to be lower in cost than hauling to the owner operated
land fill, these alternatives are by no means a certainty. If disposal to
a landfill not operated by the shrimp processor is available, any savings
advantage could be taken. The only controlled disposal alternative is to the
shrimp processors land. Suitable land near these plants probably is not avail-
able regardless of monetary considerations. The'Gulf shrimp processors land
disposal is further complicated by being in a high annual rainfall area.
Frequent rains and wet soil conditions are not conducive to successful land
applications operations. Therefore, it has been assumed suitable land would be
acquired 25 to 50 miles from the cannery.
Annual Wastewater Treatment and Sludge Disposal Costs in terms of Canned
Shrimp Production, Table D-3, reflects the cost of treatment and disposal per
case of canned product , based on average production rates and 9 hours per day,
120 days of production. Costs are taken from Table D-l, Columns D and E.
Table D-4 shows typical costs for different production ranges. Calculations,
data and assumptions used in computing tables D-l and D-2 are given on pages
D-6 through D-29.
157
-------
TABLE D-l
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS
DAF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
GULF SHRIMP CANNERY WASTEWATER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A
Project DAF
System Cost
B C_
DAF Treatment Costs
D E_
-Treatment and
Land Disposal Costs
(B)+(P) (C)+(R)
Fixed Costs 8-Peeler 4-Peeler 8-Peeler 4-Peeler
Capital Costs $282,900
Salvage (PW) - 6,900
Land Cost 5,000
Present Worth 281 ,000
Annual Equivalent
Costs Total 34,900
$227,500
- 5,500
5,000
227,000
28,200
$172,400
- 4,100
5,000
173,300
21,500
Variable Costs
Energy 1,500
Chemicals 8,300
Maintenance &
Repairs 9,300
Labor 46,200
Total annual
Variable Costs 65,300
Total Annual
Average Equiva- $ 100,200
lent Costs
1,400
7,800
7,800
46,200
63,200
$ 91,400
700
3,900
6,300
38,800
49,700
$ 71,200
-
-
-
45,100 32,300
-
-
_ _
-
86,400 71,800
$131,500 $104,100
DAF Capital Costs are based on Recycle mode system.
For Full Flow Pressurization Mode, reduce capital costs by 11%.
Costs presented are end of year 1977 dollars, 15 year amortization and 9% in-
terest.
Capital and variable costs must be adjusted to reflect estimated costs at a
specific time.
158
-------
TABLE 0-2
ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL COSTS
FOR DAF SKIMMINGS SLUDGE DISPOSAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
OLUMN
reatment or
Disposal
L
Chemical Condition
(1) '
H
Evaporator-Dryer
(2)
N
ontract HauKng-Wet
13)
0
Wet Disposal to
Private Landfill
(3)
P
Wet Disposal to
Owner's Landfill
(4) (5)
Q
Haul to Owners Fill
After M (5)
R
Wet Disposal to
Owner's Fill (5)
1XED COST 8 Peelers 8 Peelers 8 Peelers 8 Peelers B Peelers 8 Peelers 4 Peelers
apltal Cost
resent worth Salvage
Value
.and Cost
resent Worth
iquivalent Annual
Costs
quivalent Annual
chicle Purchases and
Salvage
Annual Cost
$130,800
5,400
0
125,400
15,600
0
15,600
$167.300
9,200
0
158,100
19,600
0
19,600
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(6)
(6)
0
-
0
5.900
5.900
(6)
(6)
60,000
60,000
7,400
9,500
16,900
(6)
(6)
15,000
15,000
1,900
7.100
9,000
(6)
(6)
30.000
30.000
3,700
7,100
10,800
ANNUAL VARIABLE COST
inerqy
Chemicals
Maintenance or Vehicle
Costs
Labor
Jumping Fees
Total Annual Variable
Costs
Total Annual Average
Equivalent Cost
500
1,400
1.300
0
0
3.200
18,800
6,400
0
1,700
0
0
8,100
27,700
-
-
-
-
$ 24,000
24,000
24,000
2,400
100
3.500
10,400
7,500
23,900
29.800
2,300
100
5.000
15,800
0
23,200
40.100
600
100
5,000
15,800
0
21,500
30,500
1.200
100
5,000
15,800
0
22,100
32,900
en
10
(1) Bif Purifax Unit
(2) De Laval Convap Unit
(3) Assumes Contractor Accepts Sludges
(4) Assumes Land is Available
(5) Processor owned land to assure continued availability.
(6) Multiple Vehicles involved, See Hne item.
-------
TABLE D-3
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
IN TERMS OF
CANNED SHRIMP PRODUCTION
(1) Total Average Annual Cost
(2) Cost/day/peeler (120 Days)
(3) Cost/peel er/hr. (9-hour day)
(4) Raw shrimp processed/hour/
peeler
(5) Finished Product/hr./
peeler (32% yield)
(6) Cases/hour/peeler
(7) Total Annual Cases
(8) Avg. Cost/case
8-Peeler
$131,500
$ 136.98
$ 15.22
810 Ibs
259.2 Ibs
38.4 cases
331,776
$ 0.396
4-Peeler
$ 104,100
$ 216.88
$ 24-10
810 Ibs
259.2 Ibs
38.4 cases
165,888
$ 0.628
TABLE D-4
TYPICAL COST RANGES*
Production
Annual Cost
Cost Per Case
Four Peeler Cannery
100,000 cases
150,000 cases
200,000 cases
Eight Peeler Cannery
200,000 cases
300,000 cases
350,000 cases
$.101,800
103,500
104,900
$ 119,500
130,400
132,100
$ 1'.023
0.687
0.523
0.600
0.433
0.376
* NOTE: Considers cost variation due to variable energy,
chemical, fuel and other costs with varying processing
and wastewater flows.
160
-------
TABLE D-l; DAF Wastewater Treatment Costs
COLUMN A: Project DAF System Cost
Al) Capital Cost of Project DAF System -
Equipment Costs:
a) November 1975 Bid Price = $165,872 (ENR
Index = 2293.6) December, 1977 ENR Index= 2672.4
% increase = 16.52%
ENR Corrected Capital Cost = ($165,872)(1.1652) = $193,300
b) Erection Cost (March 1976) = $50,141 (ENR Index =
2327.4) December 1977 ENR Index = 2672.4
% increase = 14.82%
ENR Corrected Erection Cost = ($50,141)(1.1482) = $57,600
c) Other Capital Costs
Engineering and Inspection =
(193,300 + 57600) X (0.10) $25,000
Soil Data = $ 2,000
Laboratory Equipment $ 5.000
$32,000
Total Capital Cost = $ 282.900
A2) Salvage Value
Salvage Value = (10%) ($193,300 + $57,600) = $25,090
PW = $25,090 (P/F, 15 yrs, 9%)= ($25,090) (0.2745)= $6900
Total Salvage Value $ 6,900
A3) Land Cost - Assume 1 acre required at $5000/acre
Land Cost- $5,000
A4) Present Worth = Capital Cost - Salvage Value + Land Cost
- $282,900 - 6900 + 5000
= $ 281,000
PW = $ 281,000
A5) Annual Equivalent Cost
($281,000) (A/P, 15yrs, 9%) = (281,100)(0.12406)
= $34,900
Annual Equivalent Cost= $ 34,900
161
-------
A6) Energy Costs - Energy Costs for the DAF system are based on KWH and
flow meter readings. Electrical cost is assumed to be 2.5<£/KWH including
demand charges. Due to variations in use of pumps, etc., costs were
3
-------
A10) Total Annual Variable Cost
AID = A6 + A7 + A8 + A9
= $1500 + $8300 + $9300 + $46,200
= $65,300
Total Annual Variable Cost=$ 65,300
All) Total Annual Average Equivalent Costs
All = A5 + AID
= $34,900 + $65,300 = $100,200
Total Annual Average
Equivalent Cost = $ 100,200
163
-------
COLUMN B: 8-Peeler DAF Treatment Costs
Bl) Capital Cost of Al are reduced 15% to allow for water
conservation and 6% to allow for an 8-peeler operation.
This 6% reduction also allows for one of the 8 peelers
to have a partial down time.
a) Equipment Costs:
($193,300) (0.85) (0.94) - $ 154.447
b) Erection Costs:
($57,600) (0.85) (0.94) = $ 46,022
c) Other Capital Costs
Engineering & Inspection =
($154,447 + $46,022)(0.10) $ 20,046
Soils data - $ 2,000
Laboratory Equipment = $ 5,000
Total Capital Cost = $ 227,500
B2) Salvage Value
(10%) (Bla + Bib)
(10%) ($154,447 + $46,022) = $20,047
PW = $20,047 (P/F, 15 yrs 9%)
= $20,047 (0.2745) = $5500
PW Salvage Value = $ 5500
B3) Land Cost based on 1 acre @ $5000/acre
Land Cost = $ 5000
B4) Present Worth
- Bl - B2 + B3
= $227,500 - $5500 +$5000
= $227,000
PW = $227.000
B5) Annual Equivalent Cost
= (B4) (A/P, 15 yrs, 9%)
= $227,000 (0.12406) = $28,200
Annual Equivalent Cost= $ 28,200
164
-------
B6) Energy Cost:
Reduce A6 by 6% for 8-peeler operation
($1500) (0.94) = $1400
Energy Cost =
B7) Chemical Cost:
Reduce A7 by 6% for 8-peeler operation
($8300) (0.94) = $7800/yr
Chemical Cost =
B8) Maintenance and Repairs
3% of Capital Cost for equipment and installation
(0.03) ($154,447 + $46,022) = $6014
Add also contract costs shown in A8, $1800
Maintenance & Repairs=
B9) Labor
Same as A9
BIO) Total Annual Variable Costs
Labor =
BIO = B6 + B7 + B8 + B9
= $1400 + $7800 + $7800 + $46,200
= $63,200
Total Annual Variable
Costs =
Bll) Total Annual Average Equivalent Cost
Bll = B5 + BIO
= $28,200 + $63,200
= $ 91,400
Total Annual Average
Equivalent Cost =
$ 1400/yr
$ 7800/yr
$ 7800/yr
$ 46,200/yr
$ 63,200
$ 91,400
165
-------
Column C: 4-Peeler DAF Treatment Costs
Cl) Capital Cost of Bl are reduced by 25% due to flow decrease
a) Equipment Costs
($154,447) (0.75) $115,835
b) Erection Costs
($46,022) (0.75) $ 34,517
c) Other Capital Costs
Engineering & Inspection = 10% ($115,835 + $34,517)= $ 15,035
Soils data 2,000
Laboratory Equipment 5,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COST = $172,400
C2) Salvage Value
(10%) (Cla + Clb)
(10%) ($115,835 + $34,517) = 15,035
PW Salvage Value = $ 15,035 (P/F, 15 yrs, 9%)
= $ 15,035 (0.2745)
- $ 4,100
PW SALVAGE VALUE = $ 4,100
C3) Land Cost
1 acre @ $5,000/acre
LAND COST $ 5,000
C4) Present Worth
C4 = Cl - C2 + C3
= $172,400 - $4,100 + $5,000
= $173,300
PW - $173,300
C5) Annual Equivalent Cost
$ 173,300 (A/P, 15 yrs, 9%)
$ 173,300 (0.12406) = $21,500
ANNUAL EQ. COST = $21,500
C6) Energy Cost
Based on 50% of B6
($1400) (0.5) = $700 $ 7QO/yr
166
-------
C7) Chemical Cost
Based on 50% of B7
($7800) (0.5) = $3900
CHEMICAL COST- $ 3900/yr
C8) Maintenance and Repairs
Based on 3% of Capital Cost
(0.03) ($115,835 + $34,517) = $4500
Add Contract Services Cost = $1800
MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS= $6300/yr
C9) Labor - Allow elimination of Part time Assistance
from A9
46,200 - 7425 = 38,800
LABOR $38,800/yr
CIO) Total Annual Average Equivalent Costs
CIO = C6 + C7 + C8 + C9
= $700 + $3900 + $6300 + 38,800
= $ 49,700
TOTAL ANNUAL VARIABLE COST - $49.700/yr
Cll) Total Annual Average Equivalent Costs
Cll = C5 + CIO
= $21,500 + $49,700
= $ 71,200
TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE EQ. COST- $71,200/yr
167
-------
COLUMN D: Treatment and Land Disposal Costs (8-peeler Plant)
D5)
B5 = B5 + P7
= $28,200 + 16,900
= $45,100
D10)
Dll)
D10 = BIO + P13
= $63,200 + 23,200
= $86,400
Dll = D5 + D10
= $131,500
168
-------
COLUMN E: Treatment and Land Disposal Costs
E5)
E5 = C5 + R7
= $21,500 + $10,800
- $32,300
E10)
EH)
E10 = CIO + R13
= $49,700 + $22,100
- $71,800
Ell = E5 + E10
- $104,100
169
-------
TABLE D-2; Solid Wastes Handling and Disposal Costs
COLUMN L: Sludge Conditioning by Chlorine Oxidation
LI) Capital Cost - estimated by supplier
Capital Cost = $130,800
Capital Cost - $ 130,800
L2) Salvage Value - estimate at 15% of Capital Cost
($130,800) (0.15) (P/F, 15 yrs, 9%)
= $19,620 (0.2745)
= $ 5,400
PW Salvage Value = $ 5,400
L3) Land Cost
There is no land cost for the oxidizing equipment
Land Cost - $ -0-
L7) Fixed Annual Cost
L4) Present Worth
L4 = LI - L2 + L3
= $130,800 - $5,400 + 0
= $125,400
PW = $ 125,400
L5) Equivalent Annual Cost
PW (A/P, 9%, 15yrs) = ($125,400) (0.12406)
= $15,600
Eq. Annual Cost $ 15,600
L6) Equivalent Annual Vehicle Purchases and Salvage
There are no vehicle costs associated with the
chemical oxidizer other than the disposal costs
which are addressed in the disposal alternatives.
Vehicle Purchases and
Salvage $ -0-
L7= L5 + L6 $ 15,600/yr
- $15,600 + 0 = $15,600 --
170
-------
L8) Energy Costs for the Chemical Oxidizing system are
based on the power requirements estimated for the
system by the manufacturer.
($0.48/hr) (9hrs/day) (120 days/yr.) = $500/yr.
Energy Cost = $ 500
L9) Chemical Costs are estimated in the same fashion
as L8.
($1.31/hr) (9 hrs/day) (120 days/yr) - $HOO/yr.
Chemical Cost = $ 1400
L10) Maintenance or Vehicle Costs -
No Vehicle is required for this sludge treatment
method;
Maintenance estimated at 1% of Capital Cost per year.
($130,800) (0.01) = $1300/yr
Maintenance or Vehicle Costs=$ 1300/yr
111) Labor - It is assumed that the DAF operator will also take
care of the chemical oxidizing system.
Labor = $ -0-
L12) Dumping Fees - No dumping is required for chemical
oxidation: These costs appear in the wet hauling columns.
Dumping Fees = $ -0-
L13) Total Annual Variable Costs
L13= L8 + L9 + L10 + Lll + L12
= $500 + $1400 + $1300 + 0 + 0
= $3200/yr
Total Annual Variable
Cost = $3200/yr
LI4) Total Annual Average Equivalent Cost
L14= L7 + 113= $15,600 +$3200 = $18,800/yr.
Total Annual Average Equivalent
Cost = $18,800/yr
171
-------
COLUMN M: Sludge Volume Reduction by Evaporator - Dryer (convap)
Ml) Capital Cost estimated by manufacturer
Capital Cost = $ 167,300
M2) Present Worth Salvage Value - 20% of Capital
M2 = (Ml) (0.2) (P/F, 9%, 15 yrs.)
= ($167,300) (0.2) (0.2745)
- $9200
PW Salvage Value $ 9.200
M3) Land Cost - No additional land requirement for
the evaporator-dryer
Land Cost = $ -0-
M4) Present Worth
M4= Ml --M2 + M3
= $167,300 - $9,200 + 0
- $158,100
Present Worth = $ 158,100
M5) Equivalent Annual Cost
M5 = M4 (A/P, 9%, 15yrs)
= $158,100 (0.12406) = $19,600
Equivalent Annual Cost= $19,600/yr
M6) Equivalent Annual Vehicle Purchases and Salvage
No vehicles required for the Evaporator-Dryer
itself.
Equivalent Annual Vehicle
Purchases and Salvage = $ -0-
M7) Fixed Annual Cost
M7 = M5 +M6
= $19,600 + 0 = $19,600
Fixed Annual Cost = $ 19.600/yr
172
-------
M8)
Energy - Energy costs for the scraped surface evaporator are based
on the power requirements for the 68 hp total required fortheunit
at 2.5 t per KWH and steam costs associated with evaporating 75% of
the moisture in the sludge .at 0.4 cents per pound of steam.
M9)
Energy Cost = Power Cost + Energy Cost
= $1787 + 4633
= $6400
Energy Costs =
Chemical Costs - There is no chemical cost
associated with the scraped surface evaporator.
Chemical Cost =
M10) Maintenance or Vehicle Costs -
No Vehicle Costs
Maintenance Costs = 1% of Capital Cost
- (0.01) (Ml)
= (0.01) ($167,300) - $1700
Maintenance or Vehicle
Costs =
Mil) Labor - The DAF operator will also take care
of the scraped surface evaporator, so no additional
labor costs will be incurred.
Labor Costs =
Ml2) Dumping Fees - Dumping is not included in
operation of the sludge dryer.
Dumping Fees=
Ml3) Total Annual Variable Costs
M13 = M8 + M9 +M10 + Mil + Ml 2
= $6400 + 0 + $1700 + 0 + 0
= $8100/yr
Total Annual Variable
Costs =
M14) Total Annual Average Equivalent Cost
M14 = M7 + M13
= $19,600 + $8,100 = $27,700/yr
6400/yr
$ -0-
$1700/yr
$ -0-
$ -0-
$8100/yr
$ 27,700/yr
173
-------
COLUMN N: Contract Wet Hauling
Past experience with wet hauling of screenings and conversations with
ASCA members indicate that when contract hauling is available to contractors
landfill, a charge of up to $200/day is assessed for a volume similar to the
volume of sludge. Discussions with contract haulers indicate that some land-
fills do not accept liquid sludges.
The Contract hauler,if he accepts liquid sludges, is assumed to provide
all containers, vehicles, labor, etc., for collecting and disposing of the
waste; therefore, there are no Capital Costs involved with contract hauling.
The only variable costs that could be associated with contract hauling
might be tied to the actual volume of material to be handled. Since it is
assumed that a typical 9-hour processing day exists 120 days/year, daily costs
can be extrapolated to yearly costs. The $200/day figure includes container
rental, dumping fees, insecticide, chemicals, hauling charges, etc., borne by
the contractor.
Cost will be $200/day, 1977 figures. Assume no increase due to inflation.
Annual Cost = ($200) (120) = $24,000
C-12) Avg. Annual Equivalent Dumping Fee = $24,000
C-13) = C12
C-14) = $24,000
174
-------
COLUMN 0 : Wet Disposal to Private Landfill
Wet disposal to private landfill assuming shrimp processor owns, operates,
and maintains truck and two tank trailers and dumps at a private landfill on a
fee basis. Costs could be expected to be at some level which would pay the
landfill operator enough to give the waste the special, immediate attention
it requires in order to keep vectors under control .
01) through 05) - Only vehicles are involved, so these costs will come
under vehicle columns.
06) Equivalent Annual Vehicle Purchases & Salvage
Two Trucks; year 1 (Truck and 2 trailers)
year 8 (Truck only)
Truck 1 ( Truck and Trailer)
Capital Cost = $30,000
Salvage Value of Truck = 15% of Truck cost of $20,000 @ year 8
Salvage Value of Trailer = 0 @ year 15
PW Salvage Value = ($20,000) (0.15) (P/F, 9%, 7yrs)
= ($3000) (0.54703)
- $ 1641
Total PW Truck 1 = $30,000 - $1641 = $28,359
Additional Trailer:
Capital Cost = $10,000
PW Salvage = 0
Total PW = $10,000
Truck 2 (Truck Only)
Capital Cost @ year 8 = $20,000
PW = $20,000 (P/F, 9%, 8yrs)
= $20,000 (0.50186)
- $10,037
Salvaae Value @ year 15 = 10%
PW Salvage = ($20,000) (0.10) (P/F.9*. 15yrs)
= $2000 (0.274538)
= $ 549
Total PW Truck 2 = $10,037 - $549 = $9,488
Total PW = $28,359 + $10,000 + $9,488 = $47,849
Equivalent Annual Cost = ($47,849) (0.12406) - $5900
175
-------
07) Fixed Annual Cost
07 = 05 + 06
= 0 + $5900 = $5900
Fixed Annual Cost=
08) Energy Costs - include gasoline for trucks only
120 days x 5 trips x 40 miles x1 gallon x^O-60
yr day3ay6 miles 1 gall.
Energy Costs =
09) Chemical Cost - Assume that approximately $100/yr will be
needed-cleaning, etc.
Chemical Costs =
010) Maintenance or Vehicle Costs-
Assume the following costs for each truck, with each
truck having about a 7 1/2 year life.
Brakes, hydraulic system, etc. $ 2,500
2 sets of tires @ $200/tire @
8 tires/set $ 3,200
Tire repairs $ 350
Batteries (2 @ $75 per) $ 150
Insurance, fees @ $2500/yr $ 18,750
Tune ups (4 @ $100 per) $ 400
Water Pump, msc. repairs $ 1,000
$ 26,350
$26,350/ 7 1/2 years = $3500/yr
$ 5900/yr
= $2400/yr
$ 2400/yr
$ 100/yr
Maintenance or Vehicle
Costs =
$ 3500/yr
Oil) Labor
One full time truck driver is required.
($4/hr) (1.25) (2080 hrs/yr) = $10,400
Labor =
012) Dumping Fees
Assume $10/Ton Fee
$ 10,400/yr
27 n x 7.48 gall, x 2.5 1b
yd3 ft. •* gallon
176
=$2.50/yd'
-------
012) continued
( $2.50/yd3) (25 yd3/day) (120 days/yr) = $7500/yr
Dumping Fees =
013) Total Annual Variable Cost
013 = 08 + 09 +010 +012
= $2400 + $100 + $3500 + $10,400 + $7500
- $23,900
Total Annual Variable
Cost =
014) Total Annual Average Equivalent Cost
014 = 07 + 013 = $5900 + $23,900 = $29,800
Total Annual Average
Equivalent Cost =
$ 7500/yr
$ 23,900/yr
177
-------
COLUMN P: Wet Disposal to Owner's Landfill
PI, P2) Vehicles are included in Line 6
P3) Land Cost
o 9
Based on disposal of all sludge at 0.5 ft /Ft-. It is generally
agreed that no land is available for any purpose at any cost in the
vicinity of the shrimp plants, much less, land for disposal of shrimp
solids.
Assume that land can be purchased 50 miles away at $1000/acre in
sufficient quantity to serve as a landfill to be operated by the owner.
500 gpm X 60 min. X 9 hrs. X 120 days X 1 ft3 X 2% Sludge Flow
hr day year 7.48 gal.
- 88631 ft3/year
- 27.4 yd3/day (738 ft3/day)
86631 ft3 X 1 ft2_ x 1 acre = 4 acres/year
year 0.5 ft3 4T5615
4 acres/year X 15 years X 1000/acre =$60,000
Land Cost = $ 60,000
P4) Present Worth
P4 = PI - P2 + P3 = $60,000
Present Worth $ $60,000
P5) Equivalent Annual Cost
PW (A/P, 9%, 15 yrs) = $60,000 (0.12406)
= $7400/yr
Equivalent Annual Cost = $ 7400/yr
P6) Equivalent Annual Vehicle Purchases & Salvage -
Costs are the same as 06 except 2-70hp farm tractors, implements
are required. Assume the tractors are at year 1 and 8, 15% Salvage of
1st tractor, 10% Salvage of 2nd tractor with no salvage for implements.
Tractor 1
Capital Cost = $18,000
PW Salvage Value @ yr 8 = ($18,000) (0.15) (0.54703) = $1477
PW = $18,000 - 1477 = $16,523
178
-------
P6) Continued
Implements
2 @ $2000 each - $4,000
Salvage = 0
Tractor 2
Capital Cost @ yr 8 = $18,000
PW = $18,000 (P/F, 9%, 8 yrs)
= $18,000 (0.50186) = $9,034
Salvage Value
-------
240 ft0 fuel X 7 49 gal = 1800 gal/year X$0.6/gal = $1080/year
year ft 3
Round to $1100/yr.
Energy Cost = $1200 (truck) + $1100 (tractor) = $2300/year
Energy Cost = $ 2300/yr
P9) Chemical Cost - Same as 09
P10) Maintenance or Vehicle Costs
Chemical Cost =
Truck Cost (from 010) = $3500/yr
Tractor Cost (estimated) = $150Q/yr
$ 5000
Maintenance or Vehicle
Cost =
Pll) Labor
Tractor driver:
($4.00)(1.25) (9hrs) (120 days)
on
= $ 5400/yr
- $10,400/yr
PI2) Dumping Fees - None
P13) Total Annual Variable Cost
Labor Costs =
Dumping Fees =
$100/yr
$ 5,000/yr
$l-5,800/yr
$ -0-
P-13 = P8 + P9 + P10 + Pll + P12
= $2300 + $100 + $5000 + $15,800 + 0
= $23,200/yr
Total Annual Variable Cost = $23.200/yr
P14) Total Annual Average Equivalent Cost
P7 + P13 = $16,900 + 23,200 = $40,100/yr
Total Annual Average
Equivalent Cost =
$ 40.100/yr
180
-------
COLUMN Q: Haul to Owner's Landfill after M (Evaporator-Dryer) Treatment
Ql) Capital Cost - Covered in Vehicle Costs
Q2) Slavage Value - Covered in Vehicle Costs
Q3) Land Cost - Since the evaporator - dryer is assumed to reduce sludge
volume by a factor of 4, only 25% of the land area with wet hauling
would be required.
Land Cost = ($60,000) (0.25) =
Land Cost = $ 15,000
Q4) Present worth
PW = Ql - Q2 + Q3
= 0 - 0 + $15,000
= $15,000
Present Worth = $15,000
Q5) Equivalent Annual Cost
($15,000) (0.12406) = $1900
Equivalent Annual Cost= $190Q/yr
Q6) Equivalent Annual Vehicle Purchases & Salvage
Assume Q6 - 75% of P6
= (0.75) (9500) = $7100
Equivalent Annual Vehicle
Purchases and Salvages = $ 7100/yr
Q7) Fixed Annual Cost
07 = Q5 + Q6 = $1900 + $1700
= $9000
Fixed Annual Cost = $ 9000/yr
Q8) Energy - Assume 1/4 of P8
(0.25) ($2300) = $600
Energy = $ 600/yr
181
-------
Q9) Chemicals - Same as P9
Chemical Cost =
Q10) Maintenance or Vehicle Costs
Same as P10
Mainentance or Vehicle
Costs =
Qll) Labor - Use Full Cost of Truck driver and full cost
of tractor driver
Truck = $10,400
Tractor =$ 5.400
$15,800
Q12) Dumping Fees - None
Q13) Total Annual Variable Cost
Labor =
Dumping Fees =
Q13 = Q8 + Q9 + Q10 + Qll + Q12
= $600 + $100 + $5,000 + 0 + $15,800
= $21,500
Total Annual Variable
Cost
Q14) Total Annual Average Equivalent Cost
Q14 = Q7 + Q13
= $9,000 + $21,500
= $30,500
Total Annual Average
Equivalent Cost =
$ 100/yr
$5000/yr
$15,800/yr
$ -0-
$21,500/yr
$ 30,500/yr
182
-------
COLUMN R: Wet Disposal to Owner's Landfill (4 peelers)
Rl) Capital Cost - Covered in Vehicle Cost
R2) Salvage Value - Covered in Vehicle Cost
R3) Land Cost - same as P3 but reduced by 1/2
Land Cost = ($60,000) (0.5) = $30,000
Land Cost =
R4) Present Worth
PW = Rl - R2 + R3 =$30,000
Present Worth =
R5) Equivalent Annual Cost
R5 = ($30,000) ( 0.12406) - $3700
Equivalent Annual Cost
R6) Equivalent Annual Vehicle Purchases and Salvage
Reduce P6 by 25% :
($9500) (0.75) = $7100
R9)
$ 30,000
$30,000
$ 3700
Equivalent Annual Vehicle
Purchases and Salvage = $ 7100/yr
R7) Fixed Annual Cost
R7 = R5 + R6
= $3700 + $7100 = $10,800
Fixed Annual Cost =
$ 10,800/yr
R8) Energy
It is assumed that a 4-peeler plant will incurre
1/2 the sludge energy costs of an 8-peeler plant.
1/2 (P8) = 1/2 (2300) = $1200
Energy Cost =
Chemicals Same as 09, $100 Chemical Cost =
$ 1200/yr
SlOO/yr
183
-------
RIO) Maintenance or Vehicle Costs
Same as Q10
Maintenance or Vehicle Costs = $5,000
Rll) Labor
Same as Ql 1
Labor - $ 15,800/yr
R12) Dumping Fees-
None
Dumping Fees = $ -0-/yr
R13) Total Annual Variable Costs
R13 = R8 + R9 + RIO + Rll + R12
= $1200 + 100 + $5000 + 15,800 + 0
- $22,100
Total Annual Variable
Costs = $ 22,100/yr
R14) Total Annual Average Equivalent Cost
R14= R7 + R13
= $10,800 + $22,100
= $25,100
Total Annual Average
Equivalent Cost = $ 25,100/yr
184
-------
Sponsor of this Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment study of shrimp cannery wastewater was
the American Shrimp Canners Association, P.O. Box 50774, New Orleans, Louisiana
70150. Member canners are listed below:
Authement Packing Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 380
Dulac, Louisiana 70353
Buquet Canning Company
P. O. Box 909
Houma, Louisiana 70360
Chauvin Fishing & Packing Company
302 Magazine Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Cutcher Canning Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 8
Westwego, Louisiana 70094
Dejean Packing Company
P. O. Box 509
Biloxi, Mississippi 30533
Deepsouth Packing Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 13145
New Orleans, Louisiana 70125
Grand Caillou Packing Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 430
Houma, Louisiana 70360
Gulf Coast Packing Company, Inc.
Grand Caillou Route
Houma, Louisiana 70360
Indian Ridge Shrimp Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 550
Houma, Louisiana 70360
185
Mr. Huey Authement
Mr. A. J. Buquet
Mr. John Crabb
Mr. A. J. Cuccia, Jr.
Mr. R. H. Sewell
Mr. Ray Skrmetta
Mr. Emile Lapeyre, Jr.
Mr. Richard B. Samanie
Mr. Richard Fakier
-------
Mayor Shrimp & Oyster Co. , Ltd.
P. O. Drawer 208
Biloxi, Mississippi 39533
Reuther's Seafood Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 50773
New Orleans, Louisiana 70150
Robinson Canning Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 10
Westwego, Louisiana 70094
Southern Shell Fish Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 97
Harvey, Louisiana 70058
Southland Canning & Pkg. Co., Inc.
P. O. Box 23220
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123
Terrebonne Packing Company, Inc.
Route 4, Box 311
Houma, Louisiana 70360
Roland J. Trosclair Canning Company
P. O. Box 67
Cameron, Louisiana 70631
Weems Brothers Seafood Company
1 124 East Bay View
Biloxi, Mississippi 39530
Mr. Vic Mavar
Mr. C. G. Reuther, Jr.
Mr. Alan J. Robinson
Mr. Quentin Skrmetta
Mr. Paul P. Selley
Mr. Larry Authement
Mr. Roland J. Trosclair, Jr.
Mr. Charles Weems
186
-------
List of Project Equipment and Manufacturers or Suppliers
SUPPLIER EQUIPMENT
1. Acco Bristol-Division strip chart Recorder
Waterbury, Connecticut 06720
2. Allen Bradley Automatic Float Switches
1201 South 2nd Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204
3. Badger Meter, Inc. Flow Meter-Controller
6116 East 15th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115
4. Beach Precision Parts Company Acid Tank Breather
R D#l
Glen Rock, Pennsylvania 17327
5. BIF BIF Purifax Sludge Conditioner
1600 Division Road
W. Warwick, Rhode Island 02893
6. Carborundum Environmental Systems, Inc. Dissolved Air Flotation System
Pollution Control Division
P.O. Box 1269
Knoxville, Tennessee 37901
7. Contherm Corporation Con-Vap Dryer
Route #1
Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950
8. Crane Company, Deming Division Process Pumps
884 South Broadway
Salem, Ohio 44460
9. Eagle Signal Automatic Pump Timers
736 Federal
Davenport, Iowa 52803
187
-------
Supplier
10. ITT-Marlow
Fluid Handling Division
ITT Corporation
Midland Park, New Jersey
11. Kenics Corporation
One Southside Road
Danvers, Massachusetts 01923
12. Lightnin Mixing Equipment Co., Inc.
Rochester, New York
13. The Metraflex Company
2323 W. Hubbard Street
Chicago, Illinois 60612
14. Rotex, Inc.
1230 Knowlton Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45223
15. Uni-Loc, Inc.
17401 Armstrong Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92705
16. Wallace & Tiernan Division
Pennwalt Corporation
25 Main Street
Belleville, New Jersey 07109
17. N-Con Systems Company
308 Main Street
New Rochelle, N.Y. 10801
18. DeLaval Corporation
1415 Hyde Park Avenue
Hyde Park, Massassuchetts 02136
Equipment
Sludge Pump
Static Mixer
Mixers-Stirrers
Rate-of-Flow Meters
Liquatex-Rotex Screens
pH Controllers & Meters
Chemical Feed Pumps
Automatic Sampler
Bench Centrifuge
188
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on itie reverse before completing]
REPORT NO.
:pA-6QO/2-79-06l
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
ITLE AND SUBTITLE
issolved Air Flotation Treatment of Gulf Shrimp Cannery
Wastewater
5. REPORT DATE
March 1979
i ssu inq date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
.J. Szabo, Larry F. Lafleur, Felon R. Wilson
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
'omingue, Szabo •& Associates, Inc.
.0. Box 52115
afayette, Louisiana 70505
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S-803338
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
ndustrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Aaency
incinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Co-sponsor was the American Shrimp Canners Association (ASCA)
New Orleans, Louisiana
16. ABSTRACT .
This study reports on the operation of a plant scale dissolved air flotation
.ystem installed to define and evaluate attainable shrimp cannery wastewater treatment
evels. The system was operated in all three modes of DAF press'urization. Destabilizing
:oagulants investigation included alum, lignosulfonate(PRA-l)and cationic polymer(507-C).
Jsing alum and anionic polymer 835A as a coagulant aid, significant removals of BOD, TSS
ind Oil and Grease were achieved. Operating data are presented which characterize the
iulf shrimp cannery wastewaters and show the removals attained. Data on oyster proces-
ing wastewaters are also presented.
In conjunction with the project, water use reduction and wastewater management
practices were instituted at the study cannery resulting in large overall reductions of
>ollutants. Costs of the wastewater treatment system installation, opreation and main-
tenance are presented. Average annual wastewater treatment equivalent costs and costs
>er case of finished product are estimated.
Oyster canning wastewater can be treated and pollutant discharge can be reduced
Jsing the DAF shrimp wastewater treatment system. The problem of the handling and dispos-
Jl of the DAF skimmings sludge (and screenings solids) has not been solved. Preliminary
lewatering investigations are reported in this study.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATl Field/Group
Capitalized costs, Cost effectiveness,
Dewatering, Effluents, Management, Operat-
ing costs, pH, Selection, Skimming, Sludge,
Sludge drying
Dissolved air flotation,
pressurization modes,
chemical optimization,
water management, plant
scale reduction and treat
ment of Gulf shrimp and
oyster cannery wastewater
13/B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
M. NO. OF P>
199
2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-T (Rev. 4-77)
189
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-657-060/1616
------- |