EPA-600/2-77-102
June 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
            WINERY  WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                           AND  TREATMENT
                                    Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                                          Office of Research and Development
                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                 Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

-------
                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 development 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 new 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-600/2-77-102
                                         June 1977
      WINERY WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

                AND TREATMENT
                     by

               K. Lynn Sirrine
          The R. T. French Company
            Shelley, Idaho  83274

            Paul H. Russell, Jr.
         Harnish § Lookup Associates
           Newark, New York  14513

               Jake Makepeace
         Widmer's Wine Cellars,  Inc.
           Naples, New York,  14512
            Project No. 12060 EUZ
              Project Officers

               Max W. Cochrane
                Larry Dempsey
    Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
           Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
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—Ci, 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 the mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                              ii

-------
                          FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, 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 is a product of the above efforts.  It evaluates
the characteristics of winery wastewaters and a method of
wastewater treatment, a difficult problem facing the Wine
Industry.  The report explains a long-term activated sludge
treatment system followed by a tertiary sand filter for use
in treatment of wastewater from a winery.  It describes this
treatment system, which proved to be a viable means to treat
winery wastewaters, and characterizes the waste flows..  The
study demonstrates the use of activated sludge type
treatment systems for treating variable waste loadings of
wine'ry wastewaters.

For further information regarding this report contact the
Food and Wood Products Branch, Industrial Pollution Control
Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory—Ci,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
                      David G. Stephan
                          Director
      Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory—Ci
                      Cincinnati. Ohio
                             iii

-------
                          ABSTRACT
This report has been prepared to fulfill a Research,
Development and Demonstration Grant #12060 EUZ.  The grant
was awarded to investigate the characteristics of winery
wastewaters and a method of wastewater treatment, a
difficult problem facing the Wine Industry.  In brief -
grapes are harvested in the fall and are immediately pressed
to release their juice.  The juice is placed in bulk storage
and the solid residue is spread out in the vineyards and
tilled into the soil.

Fermentation of the juice is completed during and shortly
after the pressing period.  During the remainder of the year
the wine is carefully aged, blended and packaged for
shipment.  Wastewater is generated from the washing of the
processing equipment, tanks, floors, etc.  The wastewater is
low in pH and high in carbohydrates (sugars).  More
wastewater is produced daily during the short pressing
season than during processing.  Due to these variations a
winery wastewater treatment facility needs to have
flexibility in treating varying sizes of waste loads.
Temperature is also a factor, as there is no heating of the
water during pressing or processing.  Consequently, the
wastewater exits the plant at about the same temperature as
it was obtained which is usually quite low.  Winters in this
area of New York State are very cold.

With these variables in mind, Harnish & Lookup Associates of
Newark, New York, proposed a long-term activated sludge
treatment system followed by a tertiary sand filter.
Influent BOD5 and solids concentration of 1370 and 182 mg/1
resprecively, are reduced 96/&, which are impressive
reductions at temperatures of 1 to 2°C.  Treatment costs of
$0.964/lb of 5005 removed were established.  This paper
describes this treatment system, which proved to be a viable
means to treat winery wastewaters, and characterizes the
waste flows.  The study demonstrates the use of activated
sludge type treatment systems for treating variable waste
loadings of winery wastewaters.
                              iv

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract	iv
List of Figures	vi
List of Tables	•	vii

    1.  Introduction 	    1
   II.  Conclusions	    7
  III.  Recommendations	10
   IV.  Results and Discussion	13
            Facilities Description .  .'	13
            Experimental Plan	16
            Project Objectives 	  19
            Plant Performance	20
    V.  Operating Problems 	  49
   VI.  Construction Cost	52
  VII.  References	f	55
 VIII.  Appendix	56

-------
                           LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE                                                            PAGE
  1.   Photograph of Waste Treatment Facility 	     2
  2.   Wine Processing Schematic	     3
  3.   Wastewater Process Schematic 	    12
  4.   Tertiary Sand Filter Schematic 	    15
  5.   Probability of Wastewater Flow (Pressing)	    22
  6.   Probability of 8605 Concentration During Pressing	    24
  7.   Probability of BODs Discharged During Pressing 	    25
  8.   Probability of Wastewater Flow, Processing 	    26
  9.   Probability of BOD5 Concentration, Processing	    27
 10.   Aeration Basin Operating Guide (F/M) 	    28
 11.   Average Effluent BODs vs. Average BOD5 Loading	    30
 12.   Clarifier Effluent Solids vs. SVI (1972) 	    31
 13.   Influent COD mg/1 vs. Influent BOD5 mg/1	    32
 14.   Effluent COD mg/1 vs. Effluent BOD5 mg/1	    33
 15.   Average Basin MLSS vs. Average EFfluent TSS	    35
 16.   Average Clarifier Loading vs. Average TSS	    36
 17.   Average BODg Removal vs. Average BOD5 Loading	    38
 18.   Average BOD5. Removal vs. N/BOD5	    39
 19.   Average BOD5 Removal vs. P/BOD5	    40
 20.   Substrate Removal (Cone.) vs. Temperature (Pressing) ...    43
 21.   Substrate Removal (Cone.) vs. Temperature (Processing) .  .    44
 22.   Sand Filter Performance; Influent TSS vs. Effluent TSS .  .    45
 23.   Sand Filter Performance; Influent BOD5 vs. Effluent BODs .    47
 24.   Average Soluble 6005, Effluent vs. Average Effluent TSS.  .    48
                                 vi

-------
                          LIST OF TABLES




TABLE                                                            PAGE


  1.  Wastewater Characteristics (1971 Season)                    4
  2.  Pressing & Processing Season Wastewater Characteristics     5
          (1975)
  3.  Effluent Limitations Set by New York State DEC              6
  4.  Monthly Average Volumes and Strengths of the               20
           Wastewater Being Treated
  5.  Average Daily Water Useage in 1973, 74 and 75              21


  6.  EPA Permit Requirements                                    34


  7.  Average BOD^ Removals/Month of Operation                   41


  8.  Construction, Equipment & Operation Costs                  52
                                Vll

-------
                               SECTION I
INTRODUCTION:

The finger lakes region of New York State is a beautiful  area of steep hills
separated by five long narrow lakes oriented in a north-south direction.
The land is fertile and the climate of temperate summers  and cold winters
favors the growth of hardy grapes giving them a very select flavor.   Grapes
grown in this area include the favorites, Concord, Catawba, Niagara,
Delaware, Elvira and Ives.

Naples is located about three miles south of Lake Canandaigua.  Widmer's
Wine Cellars, nestled in the gentle slopes of the hills and surrounded by
vineyards in this picturesque village, has been producing fine wines since
1888.  Figure 1 - Photograph of Waste Treatment Facility.

Design Factors - Wine Making
During the fall, beginning about the middle of September and continuing
for about six weeks, the grapes are harvested and brought to the winery.
The grapes are placed in a crusher/stemmer where the stems are removed
and the skins are broken, releasing the juice.  The juice and skins  are
pumped to a storage tank that acts as a surge tank for the pressing  opera-
tion.  The pressing operation is a batch process, but they do operate as
continuously as possible.  Sometimes for color control the crushed grape
and juice is heated prior to pressing.  After pressing the semi-dry cake
is conveyed with the stems from the stemming operation to a storage  hopper
for subsequent disposal.  The juice from the press is screened and then
pumped to fermenters where it will remain until processed to wine.  Small
bits and pieces of skins and pomace removed by the screen are added  to the
stems and semi-dry cakes for disposal.  All cleanup water used in the
crushing/stemming and pressing operation is also screened prior to dis-
charge to the waste treatment plant.  The solids from this screening opera-
tion are also added to the stems, pomace, etc. for land disposal.

-------
U  i
 I
  -•
 n
 a
 s
U  i
  1
 ft
 -  i

 ft


 01

 '  t-
 fB
  -.
 (D
 (U
 rt

 ft'
  ->
 <  i

-------
                             HOLDING TANKS
 HEAT
EXCHANGED
 COLD |        HEAT
STORAGH* IXCHANGEf
                                  FERMENTATION
                                     TANKS
           SEALER
          BOTTLER
                                    mir
 UDl
STORAGI
LENDING
                                              HOLDING TANKS
                                                                    ,
            =   Pump

      |     =   waste^ate,  Dlsc.a.ge

            -   Son,  DUcharge
                                                        AGING  TANKS
                                           DIAGR«

-------
As various fermenters are placed into operation the juice is fermented for
about a month dependent upon the type grape juice it is and the particular
wine being produced and the temperature.  When the fermentation is finished,
the wine is removed from tfie fermentation tanks and filtered.  It is then
placed into aging tanks.  These tanks may be the traditional wooden casks
used in solera aging or other various large casks and steel tanks.  Follow-
ing the aging process the wines are blended to produce the variety desired.
The blended wine may go directly to bottling or returned to storage in pre-
paration for bottling at a future date.  The bottled wine is sealed, cased
and shipped to markets.  A schematic diagram of the wine-making process is
shown in Figure 2.

As mentioned previously the pressing period is from the start of harvesting
and runs for about six weeks (September 15th through October 31st).  The
processing season runs from October 31st to September 15th of the following
year.

The wastewater characteristics vary somewhat between the pressing and pro-
cessing periods.  During the 1971 season the winery wastewater characteris-
tics are as shown in Table 1, while Table 2 shows the characteristics of
the wastewater in 1975.  (1972 data is similar to 1971, while 1973-74 data
is similar to 1975.)
    Table 1 - Pressing and Processing Season Wastewater Characteristics
                          (1971 Average Data)
    8005 Concentration
    BOD5 Discharge

    Suspended Solids
    Daily Flow
1971  Pressing Period
 1010 mg/1
 611.7 Kg/day
 (1348 Ib/day)
 150 mg/1
 0.38 x 106 I/day
 (0.10 mgd)
1971 Processing Period
 1370 mg/1
 414.6 Kg/day
 (914 Ib/day)
 182 mg/1
 0.3 x 106 I/day
 (0.08 mgd)
    PH
 7.4 to 7.9
 6.5 to 6.8

-------
          Discharge             4.8 Kg/1000 Kg        .26 Kg/case of wine
                                (10.6 Ib/ton          (0.57 Ib/case of wine)
                              of grapes pressed)
     Daily Flow/Ton             4769 1/1000 Kg        499.6 I/case of wine
                                (1260 gal/ton of      (132 gal/case of wine)
                              of grapes pressed)
     Table 2 - Pressing and Processing Season Wastewater Characteristics
                            (1975 Average Data)

                                Pressing Season       Processing Season
     BOD5 Concentration         1821 mg/1             1526 mg/1
     BOD5 Kg/day                424 (192.7 Ib/day)    133 (60.5  Ib/day)
     Suspended Solids           362 mg/1              522 mg/1
     Daily Flow                 121,133 I/day         87,064 I/day
                                (32,000 gal/day)      (23,000 gal/day)
     pH                         5.8 to 6.7            6.3 to 7.4

Design Factors - Effluent Requirements
In New York State, treatment plant efficiencies required are based upon the
ability of the receiving stream to assimilate the pollutants discharged.
Since the stream and lakes are classified according to the "best use" the
water quality of various streams will differ.  Therefore, the treatment
plant would have to be designed to treat the wastewater to a sufficient
degree to maintain a specific water quality standard in the receiving stream.

The receiving stream at the winery is an un-named tributary to Naples Creek,
a well-known trout stream.  Oxygen levels in Naples Creek must be maintained
at 4.0 mg/1 to support the trout.  Since this tributary is a small inter-
mittent stream (a dry stream channel part of the time), the effluent dis-
charged from the treatment plant is often the only flow in the channel.
The operating permit conditions established for the plant by the State are
shown in Table 3.

-------
       Table 3 -  Effluent Limitations Set by New York State DEC

                   Average 8005 Concentration      60 mg/1
                   Average Suspended Solids        20 mg/1
                    Concentration

In addition to the effluent requirements, the winery operation has to be
looked at for design purposes.  It has already been shown that the waste-
water during the pressing season differs from the wastewater during the
processing season.  To further complicate the design, the winery only operates
five days/week, eight hour/day.  Consequently, the wastewater treatment system
would need to be able to sustain periods of starvation.  Very little heat is
used in the winery process operations.  The water exits the plant at about
the same temperature that it is received.  The raw water supply comes from
the Village of Naples, the Village receives it from springs, chlorinates and
distributes it to the residents, businesses and the winery.  The raw water
supply is usually quite cool; during the winter it reaches the winery with
a temperature near freezing.

-------
                                SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS:
The activated sludge process, using long term aeration, is a viable treat-
ment system for the treatment of winery waste.

6005 and suspended solids reduction of 96% were experienced during the
pressing and processing season.  Low water temperatures greatly affected
the oxygen transfer and mixing capabilities of the aerators.  Ice was a
major problem with the operation of the mechanical aerators.

Due to the aerator icing problems during the winter, it was impossible to
vary the F/M ratios under the projected outline for the demonstration grant.
However, while operating at  F/M ratios ranging from 0.05 to 0.1 excellent
     reductions (96+%) were  experienced.
Nutrient additions of nitrogen and phosphorous were necessary for proper
sludge formation, treatment and settling.  A BOD5:N:P ratio of approximately
100:5:1 produced good BODs reductions  (96+%).  A BOD5:N:P ratio of 100:3:3
is indicated by the data  to perhaps be more beneficial than the customary
100:5:1 ratio of nutrients.  Raising the phosphorous content while main-
taining sufficient amounts of nitrogen seemed to increase the BOD5 reduc-
tions up to 98 to 99%.

The winery only operated  on day shift  (8 hrs) five days/week.  The waste
system therefore only received a flow about a third of the day and none on
weekends.  Considerable cooling of the aeration basins was experienced on
weekends and during the evenings and nights when flow to the basins was
stopped.

The system was able to handle the intermittent flow well.  Treatment effi-
ciencies remained good (96% BOD5 removals), although at times exceptionally

-------
high (98 to 99% 6005 removals) treatment efficiencies were experienced but
unfortunately they were not maintained.

Surface aerators were probably not the proper mode of aeration for the
size of the facility from the winter operating standpoint.

The principle project objectives were fairly well completed, as the waste-
water characteristics are defined.  Nutrient requirements were evaluated and
the need for neutralization investigated.  The reaction rate k was found
(0.0066 @ 20°C for the pressing season; 0.022 @ 20°C for the processing
season).  The only principle project objective not covered as well as
planned was the variable F/M ratios previously discussed.

Designing extra flexibility into the system to provide study alternates for
the demonstration grant resulted in operational problems, with low flows and
icing during the winter.  The system operated odor free.  Sludge settling
was a problem at times.  When the aeration basin temperature dropped to 0
to 2° a pinpoint floe developed that passed through the clarification equip-
ment and raised the TSS level of the effluent above the permit conditions.
Modifications to the plant to improve the operating temperature will be
required.

Even though the aerobic digester experienced severe winter icing problems
and solids stabilization was not as complete during the winter months as
desired, the digestion of the sludge was still successful.  The digester
only needed cleaning twice during the year.  This was done during warm
weather.  The solids are pumped out of the digester into a tank truck and
hauled to farmland where it is spread on the land and tilled into the soil.
This method of sludge disposal appears to be a dependable method for a
small plant where small quantities of sludge are generated.

Sand filter operation was associated with problems during the backwash
cycle.   Modifications of the under drain system has corrected the problem
                                      8

-------
and made the filter a valuable piece of operating equipment to  help control
solids in the effluent.  Only minor 8005 reductions through the filter were
noticed.  Aeration of the filter clear well with diffused air produced an
effluent containing 10 to 12 mg/1 of D.O.

-------
                               SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Winery wastewater can effectively be treated using the activated sludge
treatment system.  Some precautions should be taken in a new design.  Some
different construction materials are now available and should be considered.

At the time the facility was built clay sewer pipe seemed to be the best
alternate for the collection pipeline.  The clay tile joints are not as
tight as desired.  At the present one of the PVC pipe systems would be used.

The general construction of the project should be handled by a contractor
with adequate experience in waste treatment plant construction and in size
and scope commensurate with his capabilities.

The system should be kept as simple as possible.  The flexibility designed
into the Widmer's facility to meet grant objectives proved to be a hindrance.
It would have been better to operate the system longer to fill the objectives
than to have had parallel flows, because when the system was operated in the
parallel flow mode the water flow was reduced to the point that freezing
problems became more of a hindrance.  The small basins, clarifier and flow
diverters experienced a greater number of cold weather icing problems than
we believe would have been experienced on a larger scale.

Earthen basins seem to be satisfactory.  A means of weather protection
should be considered over the aeration basins and clarifier or alternate
measures for winter operation.  Also adequate insulation should be provided
in all shallow underground piping.  Pump suction lines should be kept as
short as possible.  Diffused aeration should be considered for a small
facility such as this.

Nutrient additions should be done in an isolated and separate room from
the process control room.  Ammonia fumes make the area difficult to work in.
                                    10

-------
Where high ground water conditions exist, precautions should be made to stop
infiltration and seepage through concrete structure (floor and wall  joints).

A more positive means of sludge recirculation control and measurement should
be provided.  Tachometers will indicate if the pump is running but not what
the actual flow is.  Also the tachometers were found to be faulty.

A single clarifier, and two aeration basins would be preferred.  For tertiary
treatment the single media sand filters proved to be very effective.  The
air blower for tertiary aeration should be properly muffled to prevent ex-
cessive noise, especially if the blower is housed in the filter building.

The aerobic digester did not operate satisfactorily due to inexperienced
operators, lack of attention and very low temperatures (0 to 1°C) of the
liquid during the cold winter weather.  The intermittent flow to the diges-
ter due to the operating schedule of the winery and surface aerators con-
tributes to the low operating temperature of the digester.

A moderate amount of aerobic stabilization and solids concentration may be
provided by an aerobic digester if protected from the weather and operated
under a systematic outline for detention time and periodic sludge removal.

Digested sludge removal via tank truck for land spreading appears to be a
viable means of sludge disposal for a small plant if land is available.
                                     11

-------
                                                           CLARIFIER
          FILTER
          HOUSE
RECEIVING
STREAM
                                AERATION UNIT N« 3
                AERATION UNIT N*'2
ro
      AEROBIC
      DIGESTER
                           CLARIFIER

                FLOW DIVERSION  STRUCTURE

              AERATION  UNIT N« 4
 FLOW  DIVERSION STRUCTURE

AERATION UNIT N« I
                                                      ENTRANCE STRUCTURE
                                      Figure  3  WASTEWATER PROCESS SCHEMATIC

-------
                                 SECTION IV
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Facilities Description
The water pollution control project included construction of an interceptor
sewer and a water pollution control plant.  The interceptor sewer was cons-
tructed parallel to the drainage ditch to intercept all the existing waste-
water discharges.  The interceptor sewer conveys the winery wastewaters to
the water pollution control plant located near the processing plant.  All
domestic wastes at Widmers were disposed of utilizing septic tank and leach
field facilities.  (They have since been added [1973] to the winery waste-
water for treatment at the waste plant.  Effluent chlorination was also
added at that time.)

The water pollution control plant includes an entrance structure, aeration
units, final clarifier, tertiary sand filter, and an aerobic digester, as
shown in the photograph (Figure 1) and schematically (Figure 3).

The entrance structure includes a Parshall flume with a flowmeter recorder,
a sludge transfer pump, and wastewater conditioning facilities.  The Parshall
flume and flowmeter recorder allows the operator to determine the pattern of
wastewater flow as well as the total flow into the plant.  The sludge trans-
fer pump is a plunger type pump used to transfer digested sludge from the
digester to a tank truck for disposal in the vineyards.  The wastewater con-
ditioning facilities include three chemical feed pumps.  pH control is
accomplished using a pH probe which monitors the pH of the wastewater
leaving the entrance structure.  The probe signals a controller which com-
bines it with the flowmeter signal and automatically adjusts the feed rate
of the caustic soda.  Caustic soda is metered into the wastewater flow as
required to maintain a pH of the raw wastewater above 7.0.  Nutrients re-
quired for the biological treatment system are provided by the addition
of ammonia water and phosphoric acid.  Chemical feed pumps are used to pump
these chemicals into the wastewater stream at a rate directly proportional
                                     13

-------
to the influent wastewater flow.   A flow signal  is received from the record-
ing flowmeter and used to control  the proportion of the nutrient materials
fed by the pump.  By manually adjusting the proportioner control, the flow
signal can be amplified or reduced to control  the nutrient feed rate.

There are four aeration units which can be operated in parallel or in series.
Aeration units 1 and 2 are 19.5 meters (64 ft) in diameter with a 3 meter
(10 ft) liquid depth, each providing a volume  of 454,249 liters (120,000 gal).
Aeration units 3 and 4 are 23.2 meters (76 ft) in diameter and 3 meters
(10 ft) deep, each providing a total volume of 726,799 liters (192,000 gal).
All aeration units are constructed as earthen  lagoons and equipped with two-
speed 7.46 Kw (10 hp) mechanical  surface aerators.  The detention time in
the aeration units can be varied from approximately two to eight days at
454, 249 liters (0.12 mgd) wastewater flow.

Clarification is accomplished using two 4 meters  (16 ft) diameter clarifiers
with a 2.1 meters (7 ft) side water depth.  These units provide 2.81 hour's
detention of the design flow during pressing season (454,249 liters [0.12
mgd]).  Each clarifier is equipped with rapid  sludge removal (sludge draw-
off tubes along the rakes) equipment in an effort to minimize the detention
time of the sludge in the clarifier.

The tertiary filter includes two sand beds, each with an area of 6.27 sq
meters (67.5 sq ft).  Figure 4 shows a schematic diagram of the tertiary
sand filter.  The sand filter beds are very similar to rapid sand filters
used in water treatment plants.  The filters are located in the filter
building (11.0 x 5.2 meters [39 ft x 17 ft]) along with sludge recycle
pumps that are used to return the settled sludge to the entrance structure
where it combines with the influent wastewater flow.

The aerobic digester is 18.3 meters (60 ft) in diameter with a 3 meter
(10 ft) liquid depth constructed as an earthen pond.  One two-speed 7.46 Kw
(10 hp) mechanical surface aerator is installed to provide the required
oxygen for the digestion process.  The digested sludge is hauled off via
tank truck and spread on nearby farmland.
                                     14

-------
                               	   Back Wash Probe
   Diffuser Probe  -


 Inlet Channel
Inlet
                                 Proportioning Weir
Splash
Plate  -
Diffusers

   Sand Bed
                                                                            Mudwell
                                                                            Discharge
                                                                                Backwash
                                                                                 nlet


                                                                                 Clear Well
                                                                                 Discharge
                                                           Under Drain
                                                           Sys tern
                    Mesh Bed  Support
                        Figure 4  TERTIARY SAND FILTER SCHEMATIC

-------
 New laboratory equipment was purchased and a laboratory constructed adjacent
 to the existing wine laboratory to provide facilities to monitor the perfor-
 mance of the water pollution control plant.  Lab equipment purchased con-
 sisted of:
    1.  Elconap Incubator, Model AH-1
    2.  Ohaus Triple Beam Balance
    3.  Corning pH Meter, Model 7
    4.  Corning Stirrer Hot Plate, Model P.C.-351
    5.  Corning Glass Still, Model AG-3
    6.  Lab Con Co. Fume Hood
    7.  Thelco Drying Oven, Model 16
    8.  Blue M. Lab Heat-Muffle Furnace, Model M30A-1C
    9.  Mettler Balance, Model H-10
   10.  Baush & Lomb Spectronic 20
   11.  N-Con BOD-cubator Temperature Control
   12.  YSI Dissolved 02 Meter, Model 51a
   13.  Miscellaneous Glassware and Chemical Reagents.

Screenhouse - This structure is 5.4 x 4.6 meters (18 ft x 15 ft) masonry
building which houses the screen.  The solids that are removed are conveyed
to an adjacent solids storage hopper for disposal in the vineyards, where
it is spread and tilled into the soil.  The screens are stainless steel
units manufactured by Sweco, Inc. - 1.22 meter (48 in.) diameter.  The
crushing/stemming pressing and screening operations are located some dis-
tance from the waste plant.  Wastewater is conveyed to the waste plant by
the interceptor sewer that was constructed as part of this project.

Entrance Structure - This structure is a masonry building 9.9 x 4.6 meters
(32 ft 6 inc. x 15 ft) and houses the flow measuring equipment, samplers,
chemical conditioning equipment and sludge transfer pump.

Experimental Plan
For years the wastes generated by man have been assimilated by Mother Nature.
As the population increased and man's needs and life style changed he became
more wasteful and the assimilative capacity of nature was exceeded.  Even

                                      16

-------
though these events have taken place the biological process of nature still
offers some of the best methods of treatment.

By increasing the number of organisms utilizing the wastes and placing them
in a more ideal or protected environment, nature's treatment system can be
extended and given a greater capacity to utilize the wastes of man.

The activated sludge process accomplishes this, utilizing the capabilities
of bacteria and other biological organisms to stabilize organic wastes.  The
system briefly consists of a container to contain the waste and biological
organisms, a means of mixing the contents and aerating it.  It also includes
a means of separating the organisms from the wastewater and returning some
of them back to maintain a specific concentration suitable for more rapid
treatment.

We sometimes think of waste treatment as the purification of the water and
hence all the pollutants are gone.  But we merely change their form or con-
centrate them and then discharge them.  Because we still discharge them,
nature's processes are still utilized and we must keep in mind this fact or
environmental degradation could still be accomplished.

The metabolism which occurs in  the activated sludge process may be divided
into three phases:   (1) Oxidation,  (2) synthesis, and (3) endogenous res-
piration.  These phase reactions can be illustrated by the general equations,
                                                          T21
simplified from those formulated by Weston and Eckenfeldert J

     (1) Organic matter oxidation
         CxHy02 + a02	*-xC02 + bH20 energy
     (2) Cell synthesis
         CxHy02 + NH3 + c02 + energy	*-C5H7N02 + dC02 + eH20
     (3) Cell oxidation
         C5H7N02 + 502	»-5C02 + 2H20 + NH3 + energy.
The Michaelis-Mention*- J relationship can be used to define the microbial
growth rate and steady state substrate removal in the system.  A simplified

                                     17

-------
equation for substrate removal is;

        kSe   =    So-Se
        kbe         Xvt

where
        k     =   Removal rate coefficient
        Se    =   Soluble effluent BOD5, mg/1
        So    =   Influent BOD5, mg/1
        Xv    =   Average mixed liquor volatile suspended solids, mg/1
        t     =   Aeration time, days

Excess solids are generated in the activated sludge process.  These solids
result from the non-biodegradable suspended solids in the influent and the
biological cells synthesized in the system during BOD^ removal.  Some of the
cell mass is broken down (oxidized) by endogenous respiration.  In the
system about one-third of the organic matter removed is oxidized to carbon
dioxide and water to provide energy for the synthesis of the other two-
                        Mi
thirds to cell material.  J  Some cell material is also oxidized to carbon
dioxide and water by endogenous respiration.  The excess sludge production
                                             [31
can be expressed with the following equation.1- J
      AX     =   fXi +  -    -   -    Xe

where
      AX     =   Total excess sludge production, Ib SS/day
        f     =   Non-biodegradable fraction of the influent suspended solids
        Xi    =   influent suspended solids. Ib SS/day
        fv    =   volatile fraction of MLSS in the aeration basin, MLVSS/MLSS
        Se    =   effluent suspended solids, Ib SS/day
      AXv    =   excess biological volatile sludge production, Ib VSS/day

Oxygen used to provide energy for synthesis of cells and for endogenous res-
piration can be determined with the following equation.  -*
        Rr    =   a'Sr-b'xXv + Re + Rn

                                     18

-------
where

        Rr =  total oxygen utilization, Ib 02/day
        a1 =  oxygen utilization coefficient for synthesis, Ib 02
              utilized/1b of organics removed
        b1 =  oxygen utilization coefficient for endogenous respiration,
              Ib 02 utilized/day - Ib MLVSS
        Sr =  organics  (BOD) removed, Ib/day
        x  =  biodegradable fraction of MLVSS
        Xv =  average MLVSS in the aeration basin, Ib/day
        Re =  chemical  oxygen demand, Ib Og/day
        Rn =  oxygen utilized in oxidation of ammonia to nitrate, Ib 02/day.

There are many variations of the activated sludge process that all operate
basically the same.  However, some variations tend to lend themselves to be
more compatible with certain circumstances.  Most generally the variations
are the result of  unit  arrangements, methods of  introducing the air, load-
ing (F/M), mixing  methods, and aeration time.

The activated sludge process using the "complete mix" approach seems to
have gained favor  recently.  Using the complete mixed system with long
aeration times offers benefits in the  treatment  of high strength food
processing wastes  by giving a high degree of treatment and a slightly re-
duced and more stable waste activated  sludge to  dispose of.  The systems
may or may not be  preceded by primary  treatment.  Most plants with substan-
tial solids in the wastewater incorporate primary treatment.

In the facility discussed only screening preceded the activated sludge
process.

Project Objectives
The principle objectives of the  study were to establish the wastewater
characteristics during  the pressing  season (September 15th through October
31st) and the processing season  (November 1st to September 15th of the
following year).   To study the effect of variable F/M ratios, establish
                                    19

-------
the reaction rate for winery wastewater and to evaluate the need for neut-
ralization and nutrient additions.

The common parameters used to describe the pollutants in wastewaters are
used for the winery wastes and are defined in the glossary which is included
in the appendix.

Plant Performance
In general the wastewater contains inorganic solids from dust and silt
washed off the grapes from harvest and from some filter aid used in clari-
fication of the wine after fermentation, although these pollutants are
quite minor.

The wastewater contains organic solids that includes bits and pieces of the
grape that are not completely removed by the screening operation.  The
liquid fraction of the wastewater results from washing, cooling and general
cleanup of the pressing and processing operations.  From the fermentation
of the grape juice some yeasts, potassium tartrate and alcohol are included
in the wastewaters.  The wastewater characteristics relate directly to the
process in operation and during the pressing season the wastewater can also
be related to the amount of grapes pressed.

Table 4 shows the average monthly volumes and strengths of the wastewater
being treated during grant period (1972).

                      Table 4 - Monthly Average Data
           Listing the Quantity and Concentration of Pollutants
Flow
Month
Jan 72
Feb 72
March 72
April 72
May 72
June 72
BOD5 mq/1
1,160
1,131
1,126
922
884
833
COD mq/1
1,553
1,517
2,972
1,402
1,311
1,032
TSS mg/1
412
458
289
92
178
117
Ipd
141,196
128,230
243,591
208,955
337,185
286,556
(321)
(37,300)
(33,875)
(64,350)
(55,200)
(89,075)
(75,700)
                                     20

-------
July 72
Aug 72
Sept 72
Oct 72
Nov 72
Dec 72
446
812
615
581
1,876
2,078
645
1,034
1,247
888
1,580
2,168
112
97
168
225
303
380
330,466
271 ,861
326,302
343,241
163,246
204,867
(87,300)
(71,818)
(86,200)
(90,855)
(43,125)
(54,120)
The average daily flow for the 1972 pressing season was 338,049 liters
(89,303 gal) while the average daily flow during the processing season was
231,652 liters (61,195 gal).  However, this water flow includes storm water
as several roof and parking drains tie into the system.  The 1973, 1974 and
1975 seasons reflect a considerable reduction in water flow as most of the
storm drains were taken out of the system.  In 1973 the sanitary sewage was
added along with chlorination of the final effluent.  Table 5 reflects these
changes in water flow.

                       Table 5 - Average Daily Water
        Consumption During Pressing and Processing for 1973, 74 & 75

                              Pressing           Processing
        1973                226,746 liters/day   196,084 liters/day
                            (59,900 gal/day)     (51,800 gal/day)
        1974                203,655 liters/day   105,234 liters/day
                            (53,800 gal/day)     (27,800 gal/day)
        1975                74,886 liters/day    88,957 liters/day
                            (46,200 gal/day)     (23,500 gal/day)
Numerous mechanical and cold weather operating problems hindered plant
operation during the study.  Good sludge wasting data was not obtained due
to freezing problems and sludge pump operation difficulties.  Sludge wasting
data since the grant period is also lacking.

Figure 5 illustrates the probability of the wastewater (liters/1000 Kg of
grapes pressed) plotted on arithmetic - probability paper.   The probability
shown on this and following similar figures is the percentage measurement

                                     21

-------
ro
      (O
      c
      (D
      101
      o>
      CO
      (D
      o
      n>
      to
      ua
      oo
      n>
      o>
      to
      o
  Q>
  CO
Tiff
1 S
(D 0)
co n>
fD -5
a.
             o
             ro
             -s
             CO
             o
             o
             o
            •a
             fD
             CO
CO
CO
      U3     *-»
      ->l     CD
      _i     at
             rt-
             o
             0>
             •o
             fD
             CO
(1800)
(1700)
(1600)
(1500)
(1400)
(1300)
(1200)
(1100)
(1000)
 (900)
 (800)
 (7000
 (600}
 (500}
 (400')
 (300}
 (200.)
 (100}
             7493.4
             7077.1
             6660.8
             6244.5
             5828.2
             5411.9
             4995.6
             4579.3
             4163.0
              832.6
              416.3
                                                           ro  w -c»
                                                           o  o o
                                                         en en  •><
                                                         ooo
                                                              oo
                                                              o
                                                                          UD
                                                                          O
ID
cn
10
10
VD
UD
                                                                                                                   UD
                                                      Probability (% Equal  to or Less  Than)

-------
equal to or less than the stated class mean of the measured item.   Figure
6 shows that 50% of the time the 6005 concentration was 900 mg/1  or less
during pressing.  Figure 7 indicates that 50% of the time about 31.8 Kg
(70 Ib) of BODs was discharged per ton of grapes pressed (1971  pressing
season).

Figure 8 illustrates the probability of water flow in GPM (based on an 8
hour day) during the processing season.  Figure 9 shows that the BODs
concentration in the waste plant effluent is about 30 mg/1  50% of the time.
This concentration of BODs with the corresponding water flow would yield
about 14 Ib of BODs being discharged.

The effect of varying the food to micro-organism ratio (F/M) was accomplished
by controlling the amount of sludge returned to the aeration basins.  Although
data in this area is limited due to cold weather operating problems, it is
generally felt by the engineer (Harm'sh & Lookup Associates) that efficient
plant operation was achieved at F/M ratios of 0.1 to 0.05.   Figure 10 out-
lines what the concentration of MLVSS  is required in Basins 1 and 4 (opera-
ted in series) to be in a good F/M operating range.  F/M ratios of 0.03
yield excellent BOD^ removals but care must be taken when operating in this
range because solids settling problems may develop.

The aeration basins experienced a great deal of winter operating problems.
During cold days and nights the basins would freeze partially over.  When
this happened the mixing ability of the aerators was affected to the point
that solids would settle to the bottom of the basin.  Also the aerators
themselves would freeze up.  A splash deflector was installed on the aerators
which helped the freezing problem.  During poor aerator operation it was
difficult to keep the solids in suspension.  Also when the solids did settle
the aerators were not capable of resuspending them.  Some type of weather
protection should be considered for the aeration basins and clarifier.
Maintaining adequate D.O. in the basins was not a problem.  D.O. concentra-
tions of 4 to 5 are not uncommon.  D.O. concentrations of less than 0.8 are
non-existent.
                                      23

-------
ro
               n
               o
               n
        1800'


        1700*

        1600.


        1500
            *


        1400.


        1300.
               o  1200.
          en  tn

          S   3
         ui   CQ
o

n
fD

rt

CU
rt
«j.

O
3
          -s
          n>
          in

          CO
          re
          o>
          to
          o
1100'


1000'


 900'

 800.


 700.


 600.


 500.


 400.


 300.


 200-

 100.


   0.
                       O


                       O
                                           —'   ro   co -P»  en  en  -vjoo    in
                                           o   o   oooo  oo    o
                                                 Probability (% Equal  to  or Less Than)
                                                                                                       VD
                                                                                                                 ID

-------
                    (100)   50.0
IN3
cn
        ca
        c
        fD
        DO
        o
        a
        cn
        to
        o
ca
ro
a.
        TI


        fD
        CO

        CO
        CQ


        00
        fD
        a>
        CO
        O
        10
        ro
      cr
        o
      o -h
-t o
o  o
3  O

o  ;*:
•~h C^

£D CT5
-5  -5
QJ  0>
T3 -a
      -a -a
      -s -s
      ID ro
      i/> i/i
      to 01

      S.S.
            (90).
                    (80)'
        00

      §8

      5?01   (70)
        o       »
      a -<.
      -J. CO
      CO O
      03-       •
      3- o>

      ^c2   (60).
      tQ fD
      fD a.
                    (50)
            (40)'
       (30)'
                    (20).
                    (10).
                            45.0
40.0
                            35.0
                            30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
                    10.0
                             5.0
                          o       o

                          O       —'
                                                           co  -Cs>  en CT>
                                                           o  o  o o
                                                     ^j  ca
                                                     o  o
                                                                                                        10
                                                                                                                          10
                                                                                                                          ID

-------
ro
       in
       c
       n>
       |oo
        Q)
        W
        rf
        O
•o
o
o
n>
to
       ua
       CO
       fD
       OJ
       (O
       o
       vo
       •^1
        I
       •vl
       ro
            O)
            en
            -a
(270).
(255)
(240)
(225)
(210).
(195).
(180).
(165)'
(150)'
(135)'
(120)*
(105)'
 (90)'
 (75)-
 (60).
 (45)«
 (30)-
 (15)'
   0 .
 1022
  965.2
  908.4
  851.6'
  795
  738.1
  681.3
  624.5
  568
  511
  454.2
  397.4
  340.7
  283.9
. 227.2
  170.4
  113.6
   56.8
                       o
                       •
                       o
                                 no  u>  •£» in cr>  -^J  00
                                 ooooooo
                                                                          VD
                                                                          o
                                                                                     in
                                                                              ID
                                                                              10
                                                                                                        vo
                                                  Probability  (% Equal to or Less  Than)
ID
ID
                                                                                                               10
                                                                                                               IO

-------
  IQ
  C
  -5
  0)

  Ivo
   o
   o
-s  ft)
O  3
O  rt-
(0  t
(/>  QJ
U)  rt-

3' o
U3  3

OO O
n>  -+j
OJ
i/>  co
o  o
3  a
  en
•-J 3

 I  r+
"**^ "T~
r\j ro

   -u

   Oi
   3


   m
   c
   ro
   3
 CO
 o
 o
en

 3
 95.


 90.


 85.


 80.


 75-

 70.


'65.


 60.

 55.


 50.


 45.


 40.

 35
   »

 30
   •

 25.


 20.


 15.


 10-


  5-
                  p
                  o
                                        [>O  CO  -Fa CJl  CTl  ^J  00
                                        o  o  o o  o  o  o
                                                                         o
                                                                                                 IO
                                                                                                 IO
                                              Probability  (%  Equal  to  or Less  Than)

-------
  in
  (D
  -5
  O
  3
  00
  O>
ro -i.
oo o
  CT5
  c
  —I.
  Q.
  ro
oo
CO
      Id
  3   —•

  o
  T3
  n>

  0)
2500.



2250-



2000.



1750
     *



1500.



1250.



1000.



 750.



 500.



 250.
              0
                                  F/M  0.05
F/M  0.1
                                                Recommended Operating
                                                Range (For Best Settling)
                (0)  (50) (100) (150)  (200) (250) (300) (350) (400) (450) (500) (550) (600) (650) (700) (750)
                    22.7 45.4  68.2   90.9  113.6 136.4 159.1 181.8 204.5 227.3 250.0 272.7 295.5 318.2 340.9


                                                 Influent BOD Load kg/day
                                                                   (Lb/Day)
                                    (Basins 1  & 4 Operated in Series)

-------
The average BODg concentration (mg/1) in the clarified effluent changed very
little with changes in F/M ratios, Figure 11.  However, by operator observa-
tion the system seemed most stable when operated within the range of 0.1  to
0.05.  Sludge settling was affected when operating out of the suggested
range although SVI data is limited.  SVI's of under 100 are most generally
seen.  Figure 12 plots the effluent TSS as a function of the SVI.  Some
scattering of the data is seen.  The SVI data indicates that most generally
a good settling sludge is formed.  On occasion filamentous organisms caused
poor sludge settling.  Most of the problems associated with solids in the
effluent developed during the cold weather operation when the temperature
of the basins was below 4°C.  At this time, even though the SVI data indi-
cated good sludge settling, a pinpoint floe would pass through the clari-
fication equipment and raise the solids level of the effluent.

Figures 13 and 14 illustrate the BODs/COD ratio during pressing and proces-
sing season on the influent and effluent.  A BODs/COD ratio of 0.42 and
0.51 respectively was found in the clarified effluent during the pressing
and processing seasons.  A BODs/COD ratio of 0.66 and 0.75 respectively was
found on the influent during the pressing and processing season.

The influent pH averaged 7.4 while the effluent pH averaged 7.6.  Preli-
minary data indicated a need for pH control due to low pH values found on
the wastewater.  Consequently, caustic metering equipment was installed.
The equipment was seldom used as the influent pH was in a suitable range
for treatment.  A good explanation for this change in influent pH cannot
be given but it is, most likely because of the caustic cleaners used in
the cleanup of winery equipment.

Through the cold winter months, temperatures of 1° and 2°C were encountered
in the aeration basins and on the final plant effluent.  The effects of the
low temperature can best be noted in the color of the aeration basin solids
(MLSS).  As winter comes on the color changes from a brown to a grey and  as
the weather breaks the color returns to brown.  During the grey state the
solids become dispersed and removal is difficult.  Also problems are en-
countered in meeting the effluent solids requirements established by the
                                    29

-------
100
90
80
             70    60     50     40    30

            BOD5 Cone.  Effluent mg/1

Figure 1J_    Effluent  BOD5 vs.  BOD5 Loading
20
10
                                                                .1.0
                                                                •0.9
                                                                •0.8
                                                                .0.7

                                                                •0.6

                                                                •0.5


                                                                •0.4


                                                                •0.3



                                                                 0.2
                                                                ,0.10
                                                                 0.09
                                                                 0.08

                                                                •0.07
                                                                 0.06

                                                                • 0.05


                                                                 0.04


                                                                .0.03



                                                                 0.02
                                                                •0.01
0
                                                                         oo
                                                                         oo
                                                                          in
                                                                         Q
                                                                         O
                                                                         CO
                                                                  T3
                                                                  eo
                                                                  O
                                                                  
-------
• •    »
                                                               .320



                                                               .300



                                                               •280



                                                               •260



                                                               •240



                                                               .220



                                                               •200



                                                               •180



                                                               •160



                                                               •140



                                                               •120



                                                               •100



                                                               • 80



                                                               • 60



                                                               • 40


                                                                 20
220    200  180   160    140    120    100    80    60    40    20


                           SVI


    Figure J2.      Clarifier Effluent  TSS  vs.  SVI (1972)


                                   31
                 CM
                 r^
                 CT>
                 GO
                  to

-------
                                                              .1500



                                                              .1400



                                                              .1300



                                                              • 1200



                                                              • 1100



                                                              • 1000



                                                              . 900



                                                              • 800



                                                              . 700



                                                              . 600



                                                              . 500



                                                              . 400



                                                              . 300



                                                              . 200



                                                              . 100
  0   100   200    300   400    500    600   700   800    900   1000
                                     nressing 	
         BOD5 Cone,  mg/1  Influent   Processing	


Figure J3.    Influent COD mg/1  vs.  Influent BOD5 mg/1


                                   32
O)
en
O
O
0
O

-------
                    Processing

                    Pressing
. 150


. 140


. 130


. 120


. 110


. 100


.   90


.   80


.   70


.   60


.   50


.   40


.   30


.   20


.   10
                                                             .   0
0*     10    20    30    40    50    60    70    80    90   100


       BOD5 Cone.  Mg/1 Effluent


   Figure J4.   Effluent COD Mg/1  vs.  Effluent  BOD5 Mg/1 (1971)

                                  33
                                                                      c:
                                                                      O)
                                                                      O
                                                                      c
                                                                      O
                                                                     Q
                                                                     O

-------
Daily
Ave.Kg/Day
(Lb/Day)
27 (60)
7 (15)
Daily Max.
Kg/Day
(Lb/Day)
55 (120)
14 (30)
Ave.
60 mg/1
60 mg/1
Max.
120 mg/1
120 mg/1
EPA permit shown in TAble 6.   Most generally you would expect color of the
MLSS to be affected by the F/M ratio or aeration.  In this case the F/M was
stable and temperature seemed to be the only significant variable other than
the poor mixing ability of the aerators during the cold weather which may
have caused poor sludge aeration, although basin D.O. measurements are
satisfactory.
                     Table 6 - EPA Permit Requirements
                         EPA Permit No. NY0001147
  Parameter
BOD5
 Press. Season
 Proc. Season
Total Suspended Solids
 Press. Season         9.1 (20)    18.2 (40)     20 mg/1         40 mg/1
 Proc. Season          4.6 (10)     9.2 (20)     20 mg/1         40 mg/1

Figure 15 compares the average concentration of MLSS going to the clarifier
with the clarifier effluent.   The line is a regression line computed from
all data at design flow 454,249 liters/day (0.12 M6D).  The effluent sus-
pended solids would have to be under 10 mg/1 to meet the EPA permit require-
ments.  Excellent control and operation of the plant is needed to achieve
this goal.  However, now that the plant water useage has been drastically
reduced, us shown in Table 5 of 175,000 liters/day (46,200 gal/day) during
pressing and 89,000 liters/day (23,500 gal/day) during operation, effluent
solids levels of 26 mg/1 and 51 mg/1 respectively could be discharged and
be in compliance with respect to the Ib of solids/day discharged, but the
concentration limitation of the solids in the effluent controls the allow-
able discharge of solids/day and makes efficient operation of the plant
mandatory.
Figure 16 compares the solids loading on the clarifier with clarifier eff-
luent quality.  This data is comparable to other activated sludge facilities
treating food type wastes, loadings of over 25 to 35 Ib/sq ft/day tend to
yield high effluent solids.

                                     34

-------
CO
en
     us
     c

     CD
2500  .
           2250  .
           2000  .
     rt>

     $     1750  .


     3  (V

     ^  ^1500
     <  <
     GO  GO
     GO  GO


     ?  € 1250
     OJ
     in
     ro
     fD
     GO
     GO
1000



 750



 500



 250
              0 •,
                               no
                               o
                          GJ
                          o
                                                  tn
--J
O
00
O
VO
O
o
o
GO
O
cn
O
                                           Ave.  Effluent Suspended Solids  (mg/1)

-------
                                                              .150



                                                              .140



                                                              .130



                                                              .120



                                                              .110



                                                              .100




                                                              . 90



                                                              . 80




                                                              . 70



                                                              . 60



                                                                50



                                                                40



                                                                30
CJ)
oo
oo
Q)



£
(U
en
fO
s_
O)
                                                                20
                                                                10
50    45    40    35    30     25   20    15     10    5     0



        Average Clarifier Loading (Lb TSS/Sq Ft/Day)


  Figure 16   Average Clarifier Loading vs.  Average Effluent TSS


                                   36

-------
Figure 17 illustrates the average BOD5 removal (%) with aeration basin load-
ing in lb/1000 ft3/day.  The line is linear over the area investigated while
operating with F/M ratios of 0.1 to 0.05.  Other variables such as MLSS con-
centration and F/M ratios need to be considered to give this data real value.

Since the wastewater was deficient in both nitrogen and phosphorous an eva-
luation of N/BOD5 ratio was made.  The data in this investigation is limited
and the analysis is based on selected data.  Poor nutrient feed pump opera-
tion and control is responsible for the limited data.  Figure 18 illustrates
the improvement in BOD5 removal with increases in the amount of nitrogen
present.  The graph indicates that a BOD5/N ratio of 100/2+ is needed for
high 8005 removal rates.

With respect to P/BOD5 ratios it appears that the lack of phosphorous
hinders the BODs removal more than does the nitrogen, Figure 19.  This
figure indicates that a BOD5/P ratio of 100/3+ is needed for good BOD5
(98+%) removal.  These investigations would then tend to indicate that for
winery wastewater treatment a BODs/N/P ratio of around 100/3/3 would yield
higher BODs removals than the usually considered ratio of 100/5/1.  For
short periods the facility was able to achieve very good BODs removals.
The BOD5/N/P ratios at these times may have been in the range suggested
above although conclusive data is not available.

Table 7 illustrates, by bar graph and comment, the average BODg removal/
month with associated problems during the grant (1972).  Many of these
problems have been corrected.

In general low settleable solids concentrations and high dissolved solids
are typical for grape processing and pressing wastewaters.  Grape juice
normally contains about 10 to 16% sugar.  The percentage of volatile solids
in the activated sludge produced by the treatment system is lower than
expected from sludge produced in a system treating a food type wastewater.
This may be attributed to filter aid in suspension from the clarification of
wine.
                                     37

-------
•
•
•
.
>
*

*.
:.

*****
•








•

•
,


..


•



.
•

. 15
. 14
. 13
. 12
. 11
. 10 £
•o
oo
4->
9 **"
* o
o
0
• 8 1
en
(0
O
i
.6 Lf)
Q
O
CQ
5QJ
cn
i-
OJ
4 ^
3
. 2
. 1
100   99     98    97   96     95     94     93     92     91     90

                                                      Loading
                    Average BOD5 Removal  (%)
Figure ]]_    Average 6005 Removal vs. Average
                                 38

-------
                                                                .08
                                                                .07

                                                                .06

                                                                .05

                                                                .04

                                                                .03



                                                                .02
                                                                 .01
                                                                 .009
                                                                 .008
                                                              .   .007

                                                                 .006

                                                                 .005

                                                                 .004


                                                              •   .003
                                                                 .002
                                                                 .001
TOO   98    96    94    92    90    88    86     84     82    80


                  % BOD5 Removal

      Figure 1_8    Average BOD5 Removal  vs. N/BOD
Q
O
CO
                                    39

-------
100
 »

99
98
97
96
                     % BOD5 Removal

        Figure 19 - Average BODs  Removal  vs.  P/BOD
                                                              0.1
                                                               .09
                                                               .08

                                                               .07
                                                               .06

                                                               .05

                                                               .04


                                                             . .03


                                                               .02
                                                               .010
                                                             .0.009
                                                             .0.008
                                                             .0.007
                                                             .0.006

                                                             .0.005

                                                             .0.004
                                                             .0.003
                                                             .0.002
                                                              .0.001
95
                                                                        Q
                                                                        O
                                                                        CD
                                   40

-------
100
99.
98.
97
96.
* 95.
00
o
° 94.
70
o 93.
0>
92.
91
*
90.




























































Problem
Jan - Aeration basins frozen over, poor solids suspension
March - Spring breakup, color changed from grey to brown,
gradual improvement.
April) High water level in receiving stream, water backed
May ) - up into filter clear well.
June )
July - Sand filter problems
Sept - Basins upset, losing solids
Oct ) - Back in control, improvement expected
Nov )
Dec - Cold weather causing poor settling sludge, good
BOD removal but decreases expected
                                     Table 7.

                                     Average BOD^ Removals by Month During the Grant Study Period
                                     with Comments on Problems

-------
The reaction rate established from field data was calculated using the equa-
tion presented in Section IV and is shown below:

                   ..      _      So - Se
                                  Xvt Se
Reaction rates were established at 0.0066 at 20°C, Figure 20, for the pres-
sing season and 0.022 at 20°C, Figure 21, for the processing season,  k in
these calculations is equivalent to mg/1 of BOD5 removed/day - mg/1 of
MLVSS - mg/1 BOD5

The operating temperature during the pressing season did not vary enough to
make the reaction rate coefficient k valid outside of the 15 to 25°C area.
This is due to the very short time (about 6 weeks) period for the pressing
season and the beautiful weather usually experienced this time of year.  The
line is a straight line of regression using all data from the period.  Values
outside of the 15 to 25°C area are off the line.  Interpolations outside
this area would be in error.  The regression line for the processing season
covers the operation for the remainder of the year.  Sufficient data was
obtained to cover a wide temperature range (about 2°C to 25°C).
For design purposes a reaction coefficient of 0.003 was assumed.  The re-
action coefficient dev<
Eckenfelder and Adams.'
action coefficient developed using units of concentration is discussed by
                      [3]
The sand filter being used as the tertiary treatment step in the wastewater
treatment plant was divided into two cells.  As the filter was first placed
into operation a backwash cycle of five minutes was employed about every
other day, alternating the cells.  Poor backwash was experienced,'- -" and
modification of the filter under drain system corrected this problem.
Presently, backwash cycles of three minutes duration are completed as needed
(reduced filter rates indicate when a backwash is necessary).  The cycles
are about every two days alternating the cells.  During the summer a back-
wash is only needed once every two weeks.  Figure 22 is a regression line
through the scattering of points plotting filter influent (clarifier eff-
luent) TSS vs. filter effluent. TSS.  The filter significantly (20 to 252)

                                    42

-------
                                                            .0.10
                                                               .09
                                                               .08
                                                               .07
                                                               .06
                                                               .05

                                                               .04

                                                               .03
                                                               .02
                                                             .0.010
                                                               .009
                                                               .008
                                                               .007
                                                               .006

                                                               .005

                                                               .004


                                                               .003
                                                             .  .002
                                                             .0.001
                                               sz
                                               o
                                               fO
                                               O)
                                               o;
0
10
15
20
25
                    Temperature °C

  Figure 2£   Substrate Removal Coefficient vs. Temperature
                   Pressing Season 1971
                                    43

-------
                                                           .003
                                                          . .002
                                                          . .001
                                                                    fO
                                                                    cc
                                                                    o
                                                                    fO
                                                                    OJ
                                                                    o:
                    10
15
20
25
                  Temperature °C


Figure 21      Substrate Removal Coefficient vs. Temperature
                      Processing Season 1971-72
                                44

-------
     to
     c
    Iro
     ro
   200.



   180.
         a*
     S?   ^160.
         ro
     ff    '
     -$   c
     -h   fD
     O   3
2 120 .



   100.
     ZJ   00
ji    n   oo
tn    n>
             80.



             60.



             40.



             20.



              0.
                  O     01     O
                                          ro
                                          o
                                       ro
                                       tn
co
O
•
CO
tn
                                                                         tn
tn
o
tn
tn
en
O
                                                                                                   tn
                                                                                                                tn
                                       TSS  -  Effluent mg/1

-------
reduces the solids concentration in the filter influent, the amount of reduc-
tion dependent upon the feed concentration.  Figure 23 plots the influent
BODg against the effluent BODs-   Very small reductions in BODs are seen
through the filter indicating that the light, fine solids escaping is mostly
inert matter.  Figure 24 illustrates the concentration of the average eff-
luent soluble BOD5 as a function of effluent TSS.  Referring back to Figure
23 and noting the considerable scattering of the data in Figure 24, a reli-
able correlation between effluent TSS and effluent soluble 6005 concentra-
tions probably cannot be done.  A regression line was calculated and perhaps
could be used for estimations of one variable based on the concentration of
the other.

Mode of Operation
During the grant period basins 1, 2, 3 & 4 were all used.  The major part
of the work was completed using basin 1 and 4 in series.  Because of start-
up problems and cold weather operation it was impossible to operate parallel
flows for a significant period of time.  All data reported on was taken from
operating the facility using basin 1 and 4 in series with the south clari-
fier and following the clarifier is the sand filter.  The filter was out of
service during the summer of 1972.

Analytical Data
All analytical data was obtained using good laboratory techniques and
following the analytical test procedures outlined in the 13th Edition of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
                                   46

-------
c
-5
fD

IPO
co
oo   —•
O>   rt
3   fD
Q.   -5
     fD
     3
 fD
 -S
     CO
     O
 O   <^
 g   01

 tu   3
 3   in
 o   ^
 n>   — •
200.



180.



160.



140.



120.



100.



 80.



 60.



 40.



 20,



  0.
               •

               o
                  •

                  o
ro
o
ro
en
CO
o
CO
en
-P.
o
-p.
en
cn
o
cn
cn
cn
cn
                                           Filter  Effluent BOD5 mg/1

-------
  150


  140


.  130


,  120


.110


.  100


   90


   80


   70


   60


   50


   40



•  30


•   20


•   10


•    0
                                                                      CD
                                                                      £


                                                                      c
                                                                      O)
                                                                      3

                                                                      £
                                                                      CO
                                                                      CO
                                                                      O
                                                                      CJ
50    45    40    35    30     25     20     15    10     5     0

                 Soluble BOD5  Effluent  (mg/1)


  Figure 24    Average  Soluble  BOD5 Effluent vs. Average Effluent TSS

                                  48

-------
                                 SECTION V
                            OPERATING PROBLEMS

The system has proven to be reliable and quite stable when given the proper
operator attention even though it is operated intermittently (no flow at
night or on the weekends).  EPA permit conditions can generally be met when
the water temperature is above 4 to 6°C.  During the cold months the water
temperature drops to 0 to 2°C and solids in the effluent become a problem.
Modifications will be required to increase the operating temperature in
order to meet the permit conditions during the cold weather operation.

During the initial startup and operation, problems developed in several
areas:

Aerators
The aerator drive motors would kick out on the slightest overload.  They
also seemed to run quite hot.  Work by the aerator and motor manufacturer
gave little improvement in operation. fApparently, the motors and aerators
are designed right at the optimum hp leaving no variance for electrical
surges or imbalances and momentary overload conditions.

The mixing ability of the aerators is poor under icing conditions.  If the
motors overload and kick out allowing the basin solids to settle, the aera-
tors will not resuspend the solids upon starting.  This condition may be
the reason that during the cold months the color of the sludge changes
while the basin D.O. is high and a dispersed floe forms.

Also, if the surface of the basin shows signs of freezing during winter
weather conditions the aerators would accumulate ice around the drive shaft
and paddles.  Ice accumulation would cause aerator motor overload.  Spray
deflectors were installed above the paddles to prevent the freezing problem.
The deflectors were quite successful.
Diverter Boxes
The diverter boxes experienced freezing problem.  Better insulation should

                                    49

-------
provided to prevent stoppage of the water during icing conditions.

Pipe Line Plugging
Various problems developed with pipe line plugging and debris.  The pH probe
was continually being fouled with debris.  The sludge return lines were also
plugged often.  Clean out access needs to be provided and the lines should be
kept as short as possible.  The sludge pump suction line was quite long and
experienced considerable plugging.

Nutrient Feed Pumps
The nutrient feed pumps were troublesome and unreliable.  Also ammonia fumes
in the control building was a nuisance, at times causing severe irritation
to the operator.  The nutrient feed area should be well ventilated and sepa-
rated from the control room.

Sludge Metering
Sludge metering was based on the pumping rate of the sludge pumps at various
RPM's.  A tachometer was provided to measure the RPM of the pump for cali-
bration and control.  The tachometers were unreliable as was the variable
drive on the pump.

Aerobic Digester
The aerobic digester never operated as expected partially due to the cold
weather and inexperienced operators.  Due to the physical size of the
facility and the organic loading, the sludge being generated was relatively
quite small and accumulations of the sludge in the digester was such that
if the digester was cleaned out about twice a year it could handle the
sludge produced.  Cleaning was during the warm weather months (spring and
fall).  If the digester was protected from the cold weather, it would have
been more efficient and would have required cleaning only once.  Even though
these problems were experienced this method of sludge digestion and disposal
appears to be a good method for a small plant.

Sample Pumps
The sample pumps were plugged quite often.  In view of the numerous plugging

                                    50

-------
problems with debris, perhaps some thought should be given to improved rough
screening of the wastewater prior to the secondary treatment system.

Winter Operation
The major problem was because of the freezing weather conditions during
winter operation.  The aeration basins, clarifier and diverter boxes and
lines need to be protected from the weather or in the case of the aeration
basins perhaps diffused aeration would be sufficient.

Sand Filter
The sand filter had a poorly designed underflow system.  The filter expe-
riences considerable problems with plugging and poor backwash.  The manu-
facturer revised this system and the filter now seems to work well. [5]

Infiltration
Some problems were encountered with infiltration to the filter clear well
by high water in the receiving stream.  Better sealing of the concrete joints
needs to be done, also check valves on the effluent line from the filter
clear well should be installed (has now been done).

In summary it is evident that the cold weather and low water temperatures
were and still are the major operating problems.  The mechanical problems
can be corrected and/or prevented through modifications and good preventa-
tive maintenance program.

Improving the operating conditions with respect to temperature is not an
easy matter.  A small plant such as this could be built more compactly or
even a packaged plant used that could be enclosed from the weather.  Diffus-
ed air system could be used in place of the surface aerators and a 5 to 7°C
increase in water temperature realized.  It is advisable to design a facility
with operating temperature in mind realizing that temperature of at least
4°C or above should be maintained.
                                    51

-------
                                SECTION VI
                 CONSTRUCTION,  EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING COSTS

Bids for the construction of the facility were  opened  July 24,  1970.   The
construction contract was awarded to Creekside  Construction Company,  Inc.,
Main Street, Honeoye, New York.   The electrical  contract was  awarded  to
Bruce Mansfield Electric, Inc.,  10 Jones Terrace,  Holcomb, New  York.
Table 8_ lists the construction,  equipment and operating costs.

                                 Table 8
                            Construction Costs

    1.  3279 ft of 8" wastewater sewer line        $32,790,00
    2.  16 - 4'0" dia. manholes                      8,000.00
    3.  Additional work for casing of wastewater     5,000.00
        line under railroad
    4.  Connections of wastewater sewer to            2,000.00
        existing wastewater outlets
    5.  Screen house structure                        8,000.00
    6.  Screen house equipment                       14,000.00
    7.  Solid waste storage bin                      6,000.00
    8.  Entrance structure                          14,000.00
    9.  Entrance structure equipment                17,000.00
   10.  Aeration units 1-2-3-4  & aerobic            48,000.00
        digester
   11.  Final clarifier structures                  14,000.00
   12.  Final clarifier equipment                    6,000.00
   13.  Filter house structure                       22,000.00
   14.  Filter house equipment                       17,000.00
   15.  Site work                                   20,000.00
   16.  Yard piping                                 36,000.00
   17.  R.O.B. sand & gravel (763 yd)                4,416.00
        Change Order 1                               3,500.00
        Change Order 3                               2,087.50
        Change Order 4                               4,737.62
                                    52

-------
     Change Order 5                               1,055.80
     Change Order 6                               3.468.74
                Sub-Total Construction Costs               $284,455.66

18.  Electrical Work                            $32,000.00
     Change Order 1                                  70.80
     Change Order 2                               2,047.72
     Change Order 3                               3,191.95
                Sub-Total Electrical                        $37,310.47

                Total Construction                         $321,766.13

19.  Laboratory                                               5,000.00
20.  Engineering                                             25,202.40
                                                           $351,968.53

21.  Equipment
     Wastewater screen                           $3,532.00
     Solid waste conveyor                         4,504.21
     Aerators                                    16,853.00
     Sludge return pump                           3,250.00
     Flow metering equipment                      2,580.00
     Nutrient feed equipment                     11,240.00
     Sludge transfer pump                         2,269.00
     Final clarifier equipment                   13,889.00
     Tertiary filter                             37,200.00
     Portable pump                                  145.00
                 Total Equipment                            $95,462.21

                 TOTAL PROJECT COST                        $447,430.74
                                 53

-------
22.  Operation
           Item
     Labor
     Utilities (Electrical)
     Supplies
     Maintenance
       Total  Operating Cost
1971
$5,094.77
3,850.00
2,072.87
5,047.72
$16,065.36
1975
$7,946.90
5,650.00
3,223.77
3,994.74
$20,815.41
23.  Tons of Grapes Pressed
24.  Volume of Wine Bottled

25.  Operating Cost/Gal of Wine
     Bottled
26.  Operating Cost/Ton of
     Grapes Pressed
27.  Operating Cost/Lb of BOD
     Removed
28.  Amortization
      Buildings - 20 years
      Machinery & Equipment
         15 years
   5,650               4,488
   3.544 x 106.liters  3.576 x 106 liters
   (936,353 gal)       (944,787 gal)

   $.017               $0.022

   $2.92               $4.26

   $0.064              $0.49

$200,043 Total
 $10,002 Annual

$128,963 Total
  $8,596 Annual
                                    54

-------
                               SECTION VII
REFERENCES:

1.  Letter to Mr. Edwin R. Haynes, Widmer's Wine Cellars from Dr. Yong
    D. Hang, Research Associates, Cornell University, Geneva, New York

2.  Weston, R. F., and Eckenfelder, W. W., "Application of Biological
    Treatment to  Industrial Wastes, I. Kinetics of Equilibria of Oxida-
    tive Treatment."  Sewage and Industrial Wastes 27, 802 (1955).

3.  Adams, Carl E. Jr., and Eckenfelder,  W. W., "Process Design Techniques
    for Industrial Waste Treatment" associated Water & Air Resources
    Engineers, Inc., p 53, 5-2

4.  McKinney, R.  F. "Biological Design of Waste Treatment Plants".
    Presented at  Kansas City, Section of ASCE Seminar, Kansas City, Mo.
    (1961)

5.  Letter to K. L.  Sirrine from Jake Makepeace, Widmer's Wine Cellars
    concerning performance and modification of the hydro-clear sand filter
    Appendix.
                                     55

-------
SECTION VIII





  APPENDIX
      56

-------
                             CORNEL) UNIVERSITY

                     NEW YORK STATE AGRK ULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

                              GENEVA, NEW YORK 14456

                    A DIVISION Ot THE NtW YOUK ITATf c:oi I ICl OF ACmCl'l Tl R7. ITHACA, MW YOUK
                           A SfATI.'TOHr COM I 1,1 111 Till SIA1E I NIVI HSITY
                             CHARLES £. PALM, DEAN or Till COLLBC.S
                           DONALD W. BARTON, oiHECroK or THI STATION

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SOHNCE
    AND TECHNOLOGY                                January  11,  1971
      Mr. Edwin R. Haynes,  Vice President
      Widmer's V7ine  Cellars,  Inc.
      Naples, New York 14512

      Dear Mr. Haynes:

           Enclosed  please  find the results of waste treatment
      experiments.

           Table 1 shows the  characteristics of waste waters from
      the pressing of  different varieties of grapes.   Only Concord
      grape pressing waste  water  (10/28/70) was  used throughout this
      work because the concentrations of other grape pressing waste
      •waters  (COD) were extremely low.

           The data  presented in Figures 1 and 2  clearly show that
      the activated  sludge  treatment reduced the  effluent concentration
      from 994 mg/'l  COD or  636 mg/1 BOD to 82 mg/1 COD or 42 rag/1 BOD.
      The removal rates of  COD and BOD were 91.2  and 93.4%,  respectively.

           During the  period  of treatment, the pH values of the
      influent, the  mixed liquor and the effluent showed only little
      variation (Figure 3) .

           Both the  mixed liquor volatile suspended  solids (MLVSS) and
      the sludge volume index (SVI)  increased during the first 5 days
      that the aeration chamber was operated (Figure 4-) .  On the 5th
      day the maximum  was reached, indicating that the system had been
      stabilized.

           It is concluded  from the results obtained in this work that
      the activated  sludge  process can be used in the removal of. over
      90'/0 BOD from Winery waste water.

           If I can  be of further help, please let me know.

                                         Sincerely yours,

                                               ri
                                         Yong D. Hang,  Ph.D.
                                         Research Associate
                                    57

-------
       TABLE 1 .   Characteristics of Wastew Waters from
           Pressing Different Varieties of Grapes


                        COD    BOD     SS    VSS
Varieties of grapes     mg/1	mg/.l	m£/l	IS/1	EH

Concord (10/20/70)      560                         6.35

Concord (10/23/70)      nil                         7-5

Concord (10/28/70)      994    636    80     64     5.7

Niagara (10/20/70)       20                         7.45

Ives (10/20/70)          82                         6.8

S-1000 (10/20/70)       nil                         7-9
                           58

-------
en
10
O)
E
 *>
Q
O
         1000
          800
          600
400  -
          200
                         COD REMOVAL
                                               -a
                      EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
                       	O—	
                                               -o
                                                  700
                                                   80
                                             60
40
                                                   20
O

LU
a;
Q
O
O
               Figure 1.
                        TIME (DAYS)

-------
 D)

 E

 >.
Q

O
CQ
     1000
     800
600
400
     200
                      % BOD REMOVAL

                          "D"
                     EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION

                    ~	o	_o	*v_
                                             100
                                             80
60
40
                                             20
                                                   O

                                                   UJ
Q

O
CQ
          Figure 2.
                  TIME (DAYSj

-------
      8.0
      7.0
X
 a
      6.0
      5.0
      4.0
      3.0
8 INFLUENT
© EFFLUENT
A M/XEO LIQUOR
          Figure 3.
     TIME (DAYS)

-------
   .s?
    D)
    E
    X
   CO
ro
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
 100
                  I
                                     MLVSS
                                                 600
                                                 500
400
300
                                                 200
                                                 100

             Figure 4.
                 TIME (DAYS'

-------
TELEPHONE 315-374-6311
                             WIDMER'S  WINE   CELLARS,  INC
                                     NAPLES,  NEW  YORK  14512
                                                     March 19,  1976
       Mr. Lynn Sirrlne
       The R. T. French Company
       434 South Bnerson Avenue
       Shelly, Idaho 83274
                                      Re: Widmer's Water Pollution Control Project
                                          Performance and Edification of
                                          Hydro-clear Sand Filter
       Dear Lynn:
       It is my understanding  that soon after the Hydro-clear sand filter was
       put into operation, problems with the backwash cycle were encountered.
       When I came to Widmer's in tfey of 1972 these problems  were still affec-
       ting the operation of the filter.

       The problem was most  evident when the same filter had  accumulated a
       large amount of suspended solids on the surface of the sand.  When the
       unit would backwash,  either automatically or manually,  the backwash
       rinse would be very inconsistent.  Usually all the backwash water would
       come through and break  the surface of the sand in only two or three
       areas.  As all the backwash pressure was concentrated  in a comparatively
       small area,  the sand  from those areas would be thrown  into the air with
       considerable force.   In fact, at times the sand would  be thrown com-
       pletely out of the filter cell.  Then after the backwash had ended and
       the cell drained,  there would be areas of sand only twD to three inches
       deep and other areas  with sand 10 to 15 inches deep.

       Upon removing the  sand  from the filter and examining the stainless
       steel screen beneath  it, we found large areas of the screen which were
       blinded by an accumulation of solids, grease,  sand,  etc.  We replaced
       the stainless screen  and sand, which by this time was  filthy, and put
       the filter back into  operation.  Within two months we  experienced the
       same problems again.  During this entire time since initial start-up,
       Hydro-clear Corporation was made aware of the problems.
                                                VINTNERS OF FINE WINES SINCE 1888
                                            63

-------
                            WIDMER'S  WINE  CELLARS, INC.
                                    NAPLES.  NEW  YORK  14512
TELEPHONE 315-374-6311
       Mr. Lynn Sirrine
       The R. T.  French Company
         March 19,
         Page 2
1976
       Evidently we were not the only people who were experiencing similar
       problems with this particular type filter.  Eventually, Hydro-clear
       developed a new, improved underdrain/backwash system.  After an im-
       pressive demonstration, we elected to make the modification in our
       unit.   This modification required a complete tear-down of the filter
       cells.

       We made these modifications with the aid of a Hydro-clear representa-
       tive (hopefully the photos from Hydro-clear will be a helpful aid).
       Since the modification, the. filter backwash performance has been ex-
       cellent.  Periodically we do clean the sand with laundry bleach,  but
       other filter maintenance is minimal.  Several times since the modifi-
       cation  I have dug into the sand and observed the stainless screen.
       There is only limited evidence of blinding.  In all, I think the modi-
       fication is quite satisfactory.

       Hopefully this letter will shed some light on this particular problem
       we have experienced.

                                                Yours truly,
       JM/jh

       cc: P.  Russell
           C.  Strayhall
           P.  Carp
'James Makepeace
                                                ^$m>
       ^w  y y ''-^^.'^^ ^JUL
VINTNERS OF FINE  WINES SINCE 1888
                                          64

-------
                          GLOSSARY

Some of the various terras frequently used in conjunction
with wastewater systems and referred to in this report are
defined as follows:

ACCLIMATION - Period during which the microorganisms become
accustomed to their new environment and substrate.

ACTIVATED SLUDGE - A biological mass produced in wastewater
by the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms in the
presence of dissolved oxygen, and accumulated in sufficient
concentration by returning floe previously formed.

ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS - A method of secondary wastewater
treatment in which a mixutre of wastewater and activated
sludge is agitated and aerated.  The activated sludge is
subsequently separated from the treated wastewater (mixed
liquor) by sedimentation, and wasted or returned to the
process as needed.

AERATION - The bringing about of intimate contact between
air and liquid by one of the following methods:  Spraying
the liquid in the air, bubbling air through the liquid, or
agitation of the liquid to promote surface absorption of
air.

AERATOR - A device which agitates the liquid and brings
fresh surfaces of liquid into contact with the atmosphere,
thereby introducing atmospheric oxygen into the liquid by
mechanical means .

AEROBIC TREATMENT - A biological treatment process in which
bacteria stabilize organic matter in the presence of
dissolved oxygen .

ANEROBIC TREATMENT - A biological treatment process in which
bacteria stabilize organic matter in the absence of
dissolved oxygen .

AVERAGE DAILY FLOW - The average quantity of wastewater
reaching a given point in a 24-hour period.

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) - A measure of the oxygen
necessary to satisfy the requirements for the aerobic
decomposition of the docomposable organic matter in a liquid
by bacteria.  The standard (BODtj) is five days at 20 degrees
C.
                             65

-------
BUFFER - The action of certain solutions in opposing a
change in composition, especially of pH.

CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) - A measure of the oxygen
required to approach total oxidation of the organic matter
in the waste.

CLARIFIER - A tank or basin, in which wastewater is retained
for a sufficient time, and in which the velocity of flow is
sufficiently low to remove by gravity a part of the
suspended matter.

COMPLETELY MIXED ACTIVATED SLUDGE - Treatment system in
which the untreated wastewater is instantly mixed throughout
the entire aeration basin.

COMPOSITE SAMPLE - Integrated sample collected by taking a
portion at regular time intervals, with sample size varying
with flow; or taking uniform portions on a time schedule
varying with the total flow.

DETENTION TIME - Period of time required for a liquid to
flow through a tank or unit.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) - Free or uncombined oxygen in liquid.

EFFLUENT - Liquid flowing out of a basin or treatment plant.

FLOG - Small gelatinous masses, formed in water or
wastewater by the addition of coagulants, through
biochemical processes, or by agglomeration.

FLOCCULATION - The bringing together of.flocculating
particles by hydraulic or mechnical means.

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER - Flow of waste liquids from
industries using large volumes of water from processing
industrial products, such as food processing plants.

INFLUENT - Liquid flowing into a basin or treatment plant.

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER (mg/1)  - The weight of material in one
liter of liquid.

MIXED LIQUOR (ML) - A mixture of sludge and wastewater in a
biological reaction tank undergoing biological degradation
in an activated  sludge system.
                            66

-------
NITRIFICATION - A biological process in which certain groups
of bacteria, when in the presence of dissolved oxygen,
convert ammonia nitrogen first to nitrites and then to
nitrates.

NUTRIENT - Any substance absorbed by organisms which
promotes growth and replacement of cellular parts.

OXYGEN UPTAKE RATE - Oxygen utilization rate or rate at
which oxygen is used by bacteria in the decomposition of
organic matter.

PEAK FLOW - The highest average daily flow occurring
throughout a period of time.

pH - The logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion
concentration.  It is used to express the intensity of the
acid or alkaline condition of a solution.

PRIMARY TREATMENT - A wastewater treatment process that
utilizes sedimentation and/or flotation to remove a
substantial portion of the settleable or flotable solids and
accompanying BOD of untreated wastewater.
                             67

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/2-77-102
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Winery Wastewater Characteristics and Treatment
           5. REPORT DATE
             June 1977 issuing date
           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
?.AUTHOR(s) K.L. Sirrine  (The R.T.  French Company)
  Paul H. Russell, Jr.  (Harnish & Lookup Associates)
  James Makepeace, Widmer's Wine Cellars, Inc.	
           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Widmer's Wine Cellars,  Inc.
  Naples, New York  14512
           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
            1BB610
           11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                             12060  EUZ
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Gin.,OH
  Office of  Research and Development
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  Cincinnati,  Ohio  45268                          	
           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
            Final
           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
              EPA/600/12
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
   This report has been prepared to fulfill a Research,  Development and
   Demonstration Grant.   The grant was awarded to investigate a method of treatment
   for winery wastewaters.   In brief - the grapes are harvested in the fall and are
   immediately pressed of their juice.  The juice is fermented, aged and blended to
   wines.  The solid residue is tilled into the soil for disposal and  fertilization.
   Wastewater is generated from washing of the equipment, cleaning tanks, spills, etc.
   The wastewater is low in pH and high in sugars.  More waste is generated during
   the short pressing  season than during the  processing season.

   A long term activated sludge treatment system followed by a tertiary sand filter
   is studied.  BOD  and solids renovals are Impressive.   This paper describes this
   treatment system  and characterizes the winery wastes.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                         c. COSATI Field/Group
    Industrial wastes
    Acclimatization
    Biochemical oxygen demand
    Buffers (chemistry)
Winery  treatment
Aerobic treatment
Anerobic treatment
                                                                              13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
   Release to Public
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
                                               UNCLASSIFIED
                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                             76
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                               UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73}
                                             68
                                                              £ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977—757-056/6424

-------