Prepared By
Kearney: Management Consultants
in association with
W.James Harper, Ph.D., Consultant
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Under Contract Number 68-01-1502
-------
NOTICE
The attached document is a DRAFT CONTRACTOR'S REPORT. It
includes technical information and recommendations submitted by
the Contractor to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") regarding the subject industry. It is being
distributed for review and comment only. The report is not an
official EPA publication and it has not been reviewed by the
Agency .
The report, including the recommendations, will be undergoing
extensive review by EPA, Federal and State agencies, public in-
terest organizations and other interested groups and persons dur-
ing the coming weeks. The report and in particular the contractor's
recommended effluent limitations guidelines and standards of per-
formance is subject to change in any and all respects.
The regulations to be published by EPA under Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
will be based to a large extent on the report and the comments
received on it. However, pursuant to Sections 304(b) and 306
of the Act, EPA will also consider additional pertinent technical
and economic information which is developed in the course of re-
view of this report by the public and within EPA. EPA is currently
performing an economic impact analysis regarding the subject
industry, which will be taken into account as part of the review
of the report. Upon completion of the review process, and prior to
final promulgation of regulations, an EPA report will be issued
setting forth EPA's conclusions concerning the subject industry,
effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance appli-
cable to such industry. Judgments necessary to promulgation of
regulations under Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act, of course,
remain the responsibility of EPA. Subject to these limitations,
EPA is making this draft contractor's report available in order
to encourage the widest possible participation of interested persons
in the decision making process at the earliest possible time.
The report shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or court
proceeding only to the extent that it represents the views of the
Contractor who studied the subject industry and prepared the in-
formation and recommendations. It cannot be cited, referenced,
or represented in any respect in any such proceedings as a state-
ment of EPA's views regarding the subject industry.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Water Programs
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
Kearney: MArw^ement Consultants
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of an extensive study of the
dairy products industry by the Kearney: Management Consultants
for the purpose of developing effluent limitations guidelines,
and standards of performance for the industry, to implement
Sections 304, 306 and 307 of the "Act"
Effluent limitations guidelines contained herein set forth'the
degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application
of the best practicable control technology currently available
and the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the appli-
cation of the best available technology economically achievable
which must be achieved by existing point sources by July 1, 1977
and July 1, 1983 respectively. The standards of performance for
new sources contained herein set forth the degree of effluent
reduction which is achievable through the application of the
best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operat-
ing methods, or other alternatives.
Supportive data and rationale for development of the proposed
effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
are contained in this report, including its attachments Supple-
ment A and Supplement B.
Notice: Those arc. tentative recommendations based upon
infermat Ion in this report and arc subject to change based
upon comments received and further internal review by EPA.
iii
Kearney: Management Consulwnts
-------
CONTRACTOR'S NOTICE
Because of an extremely tight schedule for production of this
draft report, the text was not proofread before printing. Readers
are respectfully asked to excuse typing errors or omissions that
may exist; these will be corrected in the final version of the
report.
Kearney: Management Consultants
iv
Kearney:
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I Conclusions 1
Size and Nature of the Industry 1
Industry Categorization 1
Pollutional Parameters 2
Control and Treatment of Waste Water 2
II Recommendations 3
BOD5 3
Suspended Solids 3
Method of Application 4
Time Factor for Enforcement 8
III Introduction 9
Purpose and Authority 9
Summary of Methods 10
Basic Sources of Waste Load Data 11
General Description of the Industry 14
IV Industry Categorization 23
Introduction 23
Nature of Dairy Plant Wastes 23
Polluting Effects 24
Sources of Waste 27
Variability of Dairy Wastes 28
Principal Factors Determining
Waste Loads 28
Products Handled 31
Processing Methods and Equipment
Utilized 33
Conclusion 36
V Waste Characterization 48
General 48
Waste Load Units 48
BOD5 52
COD 54
Suspended Solids 55
Other Parameters 58
Wastewater 61
VI Selection of Pollutant Parameters 64
BOD5 64
COD 64
Suspended Solids 64
v
Management Consultants
-------
gH 65
Temperature • 65
Phosphorus 55
Chloride 66
Nitrogen 66
VII In-Plant Control Technology 69
General 69
In-Plant Control Concepts 69
Plant Management Improvement 69
Educational Program 71
Waste Control Supervisor 73
Job Descriptions 74
Waste Monitoring 74
Plant Maintenance 76
Production Scheduling 78
Quality Control 79
Alternate Use of Wasted Products 79
Daily Operational Waste Control
Procedures 82
Engineering Improvements 86
Waste Management Through Equipment
Improvements 86
Waste Management Through Process
Improvements 90
Waste Management Through Systems
Improvements 97
Waste Management Through Plant
Layout and Equipment Selection 114
Waste Reduction Possible Through
Improvement of Plant Management
and Plant Engineering 117
VIII End-of-Pipe Control Technology 127
Introduction 127
Current Practice 127
Design Characteristics 129
Problems, Limitations and
Reliability 129
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Various Systems 133
Management of Dairy Waste
Treatment Systems 133
IX Cost, Energy, and Non-Water Quality
Aspects 148
Cost of In-Plant Control 148
Cost of End-of-Pipe Treatment 155
Cost and Reduction Benefits 162
. Non-Water Quality Aspects 163
vi
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
X Effluent Reduction Attainable Through
the Application of the Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available 168
Introduction 168
Effluent Reduction Attainable 169
Identification of Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently
Available 171
Rationale for Selection 172
Comparison of Level I Raw Waste
Loads with Calculated SMP Values 173
XI Effluent Reduction Attainable Through
The Application of the Best Available
Control Technology Economically
Achievable 175
Introduction 175
Effluent Reduction Attainable 177
Identification of Best Available
Technology Economically
Achievable 177
Rationale for Selection 179
XII New Source Performance Standards 180
Introduction 180
Effluent Reduction Attainable 181
XIII Acknowledgements 182
XIV References 183
XV Glossary 195
vii
Kearney; M<\rvi\3ement Consultants
-------
TABLES
Number Title Page
2 Standard Industrial Classification
of the Dairy Industry 3
3 Utilization of Milk by Processing
Plants 18
4 Number of Dairy Plants and Average
Production 19
5 Production of Major Dairy Products,
1963 and 1970 20
6 Employment in the Dairy Industry 21
7 Estimated Contribution of Wasted
Materials to the BODs Load of
Dairy Wastewater 25
8 Average Composition of Milk and
Milk Products 26
9 Approximate Composition of Milk and
Milk Products 32
10 BODr Loads from Processis Performed by
Alternate Methods 34
11 Proposed Subcategorization for the
Dairy Products Industry 35
12 BOD5 and Milk Equivalent of Selected
Dairy Raw Materials 51
13 Summary of Calculated, Identified and
Unidentified Plant Source BOD5 Data 54
14 Summary of Unidentified and Identified
Plant Source BODcrCOD Ratios for
Raw Dairy Effluents 57
15 Summary of Identified Plant Source
Suspended Solids Data 58
16 Summary of pH, Temperature and Concen-
trations of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Chloride Ions-Unidentified and Iden-
tified Plant Sources 60
ix
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Number Title Page
17 Summary of Unidentified and Identified
Plant Source Raw Wastewater Volume
Data (metric units) 63
17A Summary of Unidentified and Identified
Plant Source Raw Wastewater Volume
Data (British units) 64
18 Effect of Engineering Improvements on
Waste Reduction 123
19 Recommended Design Parameters for
Biological Treatment 131
20 Advantages and Disadvantages of Treat-
ment Systems Utilized in the Dairy
Industry 134
21 Typical BODr and Suspended Solids
Concentrations in Dairy Influents 138
22 Effect of Milk Lipids on the Efficiency
of Biological Oxidation of Milk Wastes 143
23 Performance of Dairy Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants 145
24 General Comparison of Tertiary Treatment
Systems Efficiency 146
25 Plant Performance Data for Tertiary Treat-
ment Plant at South Tahoe, California 147
26 Estimated Cost of Implementing a Waste
Management Improvement Program 151
27 : Estimated Cost of Engineering Improve-
ments of Equipment and Systems 152
28 Tertiary Treatment Systems Cost 162
29 Biological System Cost Comparison 163
30 Cost vs. BOD,. Removal-50,000 Lbs/day
Milk Plant^ • 165
31 Cost vs. BODs Removal-250,000 Lbs/day
Milk Plant 166
x
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Number Title
32 Cost vs. BOD5 Removal-500,000 Lbs/day
Milk Plant 16?
33 BOD^ Reduction Attainable Through
Application of Best Practicable
Control Techniology Currently
Available 171
34 Comparison of Level I Raw Waste Loads
with SMP-Based Waste Loads 174
35 BOD5 Reduction Attainable Through
Application of Best Available
Control Technology Econimically
Achievable 180
xi
KcArney: Management Consultants
-------
FIGURES
Number Title
1 Hourly Variations in ppm
COD and Wastewater for a Dairy
Plant 29
2 Variation in Waste Strength of Frozen
Products Drain for Consecutive Sam-
pling Days in One Month 30
3 Receiving Station-Basic Process 37
4 Fluid Milk-Basic Process 38
5 Cultured Products-Basic Process 39
6 Butter-Basic Process 40
7 Natural and Processed Cheese-Basic
Process 41
8 Cottage Cheese-Basic Process 42
9 Ice Cream-Basic Process 43
10 Condensed Milk-Basic Process 44
11 Dry Milk-Basic Process 45
12 Condensed Whey-Basic Process 46
13 Dry Whey-Basic Process 47
14 Schematic Diagram of Water Meter
Locations 75
15 Possible Way in Which Waste Monitoring
Might be used in a Large Corporation 80
16 Damaged Container Product Recovery Cart 89
17 Recovery System for Filler Supply Tanks 91
18 Milk Tank Recovery Process 93
19 Integrated HTST Pasteurizer System 95
20 Typical Approaches to CIP Automated
System for Minimizing Milk Losses in
HTST System 101
xiii
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Number Title Page
22 Air Blow Down System 103
23 Rinse Recovery System for Tank
Truck Receiving (1) 104
24 Rinse Recovery System for Tank
Truck Receiving (2) 104
25 Tank and Line Rinse Recovery System 105
26 Product Recycle System for Ice
Cream Operations 106
27 CIP Rinse Recovery System 107
28 Continuous-Blend System 109
29 Continuous. Ice Cream Make-Up System 110
30 Floor Drain System for Waste Segregation 111
31 Plant Layout Concepts 116
32 Percentage Reduction in BODr through
In-Plant Management Control 119
33 Percentage Reduction in Water Volume
Through In-Plant Management Control 119
34 Waste Coefficients for Milk Plant-
Normal Operation 120
35 Waste Coefficients after Installation
of Engineering Advances 121
36 Fat Losses of an HTST Pasteurizer 128
37 Recommended Treatment Systems 130
38 Tertiary Treatment System for Complete
Recycle 141
39 Capital Cost-Activated Sludge Systems 157
40 Capital Cost-Trickling Filter Systems 158
41 Capital Cost-Aeratied Lagoons Systems 159
42 Operating Costs-All Systems 160
xiv
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Size and Nature
of the Industry
The basic characteristic of the dairy products industry is the
manufacture of foods based on milk or milk products. However, a
number of nonmilk products such as fruit juices are manufactured
in some plants.
There are over 5,000 plants in the dairy products industry locat-
ed all over the United States. Plants range in size from a few
thousand kilograms to over 1 million kilograms of milk received
per day.
There are about 20 different basic types of products manufactured
by the industry. A substantial number of plants in the industry
engage in multi-product manufacturing, and product mix varies
broadly among such plants.
Industry Categorization
For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations guidelines
and standards of performance the dairy products industry can be
logically subcategorized in relation to type o.f product manufac-
tured. Available information permits a meaningful segmentation
into the following categories at this time:
Receiving stations
Fluid products
Cultured products
Butter
Cottage cheese
Natural cheese
Ice cream
Ice cream mix
Condensed milk
Dry milk
Condensed whey
Dry whey
Plant size and process employed also have an effect on plant waste
loads but to a lesser extent than products manufactured. A mea-
surable distinction between receiving stations operating with cans
and those receiving in bulk can be made at this time, and this is
reflected in the suggested guidelines.
Notice; These arc tentative recommendations based upon
Information In this report and arc subject to change based
upon comments received and further internal review by EPA.
1
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
PollutionaJl^jParameters
The most significant pollutional parameters of dairy food plant
wastes are BODs (five-day biochemical oxygen demand) and sus-
pended solids. Raw waste water from all plants in the industry
contain quantities of those parameters that are excessive to be
discharged without some degree of reduction.
Parameters which are less significant in dairy wastes include pH,
chlorides, nitrogen, phosphorus, and temperature. In some plants
those parameters can reach, occasionally, undesirable levels in
the raw waste waters.
Control and Treatment
of Waste Water
In-plant controls, including management and engineering-type
improvements are very important in achieving substantial reduc-
tion of waste loads in the dairy industry. In many cases, im-
plementing this type of control will produce a net economic
return in the operation.
End-of-pipe treatment technology is available to reduce the waste
loads to some further degree. Complete recycling of dairy wastes
may be a technical possibility but is probably beyond economic
feasibility for most if not all plants in the industry.
Notice: Those are tentative recommendations based upon
information in this report ami arc subject to change based
upon comments received and further internal review by EPA.
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that effluent limitation guidelines and stan-
dards of performance for new sources in the dairy products in-
dustry be established for BOD^ and suspended solids.
BOD5
Recommended effluent limitations guidelines and standards of
performance for 6005 are set forth in Table 1.
Table 1
Effluent Limitation Guidelines for BOD5
Subcategory
(1)
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
(Kg BODs .per 100 Kg BOD5 Received)
Level it?)Level IlTJ) Level III
Receiving Station
Cans
Bulk
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
(Cottage Cheese
0.020
0.012
0.060
0.080
0.081
Ice Cream
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.006
0.003
0.008
0.011
0.013
0.006
0.107
0.035
0.008
0.008
0.011
0.008
0.011
0.006
0.003
0.008
0.011
0.013
0.006
0.107
0.035
0.008
0.008
0.011
0.008
0.011
Notes: (1) See Table 11 for definition of products included
in each subcategory.
(2) Best practicable control technology currently
available
Best available technology economically achievable
Standards of performance for new sources
(3)
(4)
Suspended Solids
Recommended effluent limitations guidelines and standards of
performance for suspended solids are, for corresponding subcate-
gories and levels of technology, numerically the same as for
BODij but expressed in kilograms suspended solids per 100 kilo-
grams 6005 received.
Notice; Those are tent .it iv.; recommendations based upon
information in this report and are subject to change bascJ
upon comments rcci-ivetl and further intonial roview by El'A.
Keainey: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Method of
Application
Calculation of BOD5 Received
In applying the recommended guidelines and standards it will be
necessary to determine the waste load of a particular plant and
compare it with the guideline or standard. In doing so, it is
imperative that consistency be maintained with the standards in
regard to the basis on which the waste loads are developed.
To maintain consistency, the calculation of the BOD^ received
(or going into a process in the case of multi-product process
plants) must be done on the following basis;
1. Only dairy raw materials (milk and/or milk products
must be considered.
2. The BODc input of the dairy raw materials must be
computed using the values for BODc content shown in Table 12,
Section V of this report.
Multi-Product Plants
The guidelines and standards set forth in Table 1 apply only to
single-product plants. A guideline or standard for any multi-
product plant can be derived from Table 1 on the basis of a
weighted average, weighting the single-product guideline by the
BOD5 processed into the manufacturing line of each product manu-
factured. In this case, the single-product standard must be
regarded as a "process" standard instead of a "subcategory"
guideline, and the denominator of the standard considered as
BODs "processed" instead of "received", that is:
Multi-product Std. (Kg/lOOKg) =
SI Single-product Std. (Kg/100Kg) x BODs processed (Kg)
Total BOD5 processed (Kg)
An application of the guidelines and the standards in a multi-
product situation is illustrated in the following examples (to
facilitate understanding, examples are set forth in British
units in line with current industry practice);
Notice; These arc tentative recommendations based upon
rnform.itIon In this report and are subject to change bused
upon comments received and further internal review by EPA,
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Example #1
A. Type of Plant; Fluid Products - Cottage Cheese - Ice Cream -
Receiving Station
B. Dairy Raw Materials Processed (Avg. per Day)
Purchases Ibs. Ibs. BODs
1. Whole Milk 500,000 50,000
2. 40% Cream 20,000 7,760
3. 30% Condensed Skim 16,000 3,888
4. Nonfat Dry Milk 2,000 1,572
Intra-Plant Transfers (for
further processing)
1. Skim Milk 50,000 3,650
2. 36% Cream 3,000 1.068
Total BOD5 Into Process 67,938
C. Determination of BOD5 Multiproduct Guideline
Ibs.
Level I BOD5
Process Ibs. Guideline Processed
Receiving Station (Bulk) " 0.3
1. Whole Milk 100,000 - 10.000
Total BOD5 Processed 10,000
Fluid Products ~ '1.5 "
1. Whole Milk 400,000 - 40,000
Total BOD5 Processed 40,000
Cottage Cheese - 11.4 "
1. Skim Milk 50,000 - 3,650
2. 36% Cream 3,000 - 1-068
Total BODs Processed 4,718
Ice Cream - 6.0
1. 30% Condensed Skim 16,000 - 3,888
2. Nonfat Dry Milk 2,000 - 1,572
3. 40% Cream 20,000 - 7,760
Total BOD^ Processed 13,220
Grand Total BOD5 Processed 67,938
Notice; ^These are tent r"-" '••• this report and aiv .subject to cliiim-o based
up.... cuinments received and further Jnturnal review hy EPA.
5
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
BOD5 Guideline (% Loss) -
«= _ (BOD5 Guideline for Process A x BOD5 Into Process A)
Total BODs Processed
- (0.3 x 10,000) + (1.5 x 40,000) + (11.4 x 4,718) + (6.0 x 13.220)
67,938
= 196,105 = 2 . 89% = 2.89 BODs loss
67,938 100 BOD5 Processed
Allowable BOD5 loss per Day
Maximum BOD5 loss (kg. per day) = 2.89 x 67,938 = 1,963.4 kg
100 per day
D. Wastewater Sampling Data:
Avg. BODs loss per. Day 1,479 mg/1
Avg. Wastewater flow (Sampling 150,000
Volume)
loss (Ibs. per Day) = BODs loss (mg/1) x 8.34 x MGPD
- 1,479 x 8.34 x .15
- 1,850 Ibs. /day
E. Variance Analysis:
1,850 Ibs. (actual) •< 1,936.4 Ibs. (Guideline)
So, within guideline
Hot lee; These are tentative recommendations based upon
Information in this report anil are subject to change based
upon comments received and further internal review by El1 A.
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Example #2
A. Type of Plant: Natural Cheese - Dry Whev
B. Dairy Raw Materials Processed (Avg. per Day)
Purchases Ibs. Ibs. BODs
1. Whole Milk 500,000 50,000
Intra-Plant Transfers
1. Sweet Whey (7% Solids) 455,000 20,475
Total BOD5 Into Process 70,475
C. Determination of BOD5 Multiproduct Guideline
Ibs.
Level I BODs
Process Ibs. Guideline Processed
Natural Cheese _ Q 7
1. Whole Milk 500,000 - 50,000
Total BODs Processed 50,000
Dry Whey « -15
efcWhfy , 455,000 ^ 20.475
/0 Solids) —
Total BODs Processed 20,475
Grand Total BOD5 Processed 70.475
BOD Guideline(7o Loss) =
= ^.(BOD5 Guideline for Process A x BODs Into Process A)
Total BODs Processed
= (0.7 x 50,000) + (1.5 x 20,475)
70,475
= 65,712.5 = .93% = .93 Ibs. BODs loss ,
70,475 100 Ibs. BODs Processed
Allowable BODs loss per Day
Maximum BODs loss (Ibs./day) = 0.93 x 70,475 » 656.8 Ibs.
i r\r\ n^-~. n
100 per Day
i!iLU££.: Theie ar<> Tentative rccotr.nifnciati..ns r>asea upon
jniormation in this ivport and arc- subject to chaituc basod
upon connnt'ncs roccivocl and further internal review by F.i'A.
7
Kearney: Msrvvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
D. Wastewater Sampling Data:
Ave. BOD5 loss per Day 1,523 mg/1
Ave. Wastewater flow (Sampling 50,000 GPD
Volume)
BODs loss (Ibs. per Day) = BODs loss (mg/1) x 8.34 x
MGPD
= 1,523 x 8.34 x 0.050
= 635 Ibs./day
E. Variance Analysis:
635 Ibs. (actual)<. 656.8 Ibs. (Guideline)
So, within guideline.
Time Factor For
Enforcement of the Guidelines
It is recommended that the effluent limitation guidelines and
standards of performance for new sources be enforced as monthly
averages with weekly averages not to exceed 1.5 times the
monthly guideline.
Because of the wide hourly and daily fluctuations of the waste
concentration and waste water flow, waste loads should be
measured on the basis of daily proportional composite sampling.
Notice; These are tentative recr>mnvnelntinns based upon
informal:inn in this report, ami nre sxilvjrci'. to change based
upon comments received ami further inter mil review hy El'A.
8
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Authority
Section 301(b) of the Act requires the achievement by not later
than July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations for point sources,
other than publicly owned treatment works, which are based on
the application of the best practicable control technology
currently available as defined by the Administrator pursuant
to Section 304(b) of the Act. Section 301 (b) also requires
the achievement by not later than July 1, 1983, of effluent
limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned treat-
ment works, which are based on the application of the best
available technology economically achievable which will result
in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as determined in
accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant
to Section 304(b) to the Act. Section 306 of the Act requires
the achievement by new sources of a Federal standard of per-
formance providing for the control of the discharge of pollutants
which reflects the greatest degree of effluent reduction which
the Administrator determines to be achievable through the
application of the best available demonstrated control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, including,
where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of
pollutants.
Section 304 (b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish
within one year of enactment of the Act, regulations providing
guidelines for effluent limitations setting tor the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available and the
degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application
of the best control measures and practices achievable including
treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations, opera-
tion methods and other alternatives. The regulations proposed
herein set forth effluent limitations guidelines pursuant to
Section 304(b) of the Act for the dairy products industry.
9
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within one
year after a category of sources is included in a list published
pursuant to Section 306(b) (1) (A) of the Act, to propose
regulations establishing Federal standards of performances for
new sources within such categories. The Administrator published
in the Federal Register of January 16, 1973 (38 F.R. 1624), a
list of 27 source categories. Publication of the list consti-
tuted announcement of the Administrator's intention of estab-
lishing, under Section 306, standards of performance applicable
to new sources within the dairy industry which was included with-
in the list published January 16, 1973.
Summary of Methods Used for Development of the Effluent Limita-
tions Guidelines and Standards of Performance "~
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
proposed herein were developed in the following manner. The
dairy products industry was first analyzed for the purpose of
determining whether separate limitations and standards are ap-
propriate for different segments within the industry. Such
analysis was based upon raw material used, product produced,
manufacturing process employed, and other factors. The raw waste
characteristics for each subcategory were then identified. This
included an analyses of (1) the source and volume of water used
in the process employed and the sources of waste and waste waters
in the plant; and (2; the constituents (including thermal) of
all waste waters including toxic constituents and other constitu-
ents which result in taste, odor, and color in water or aquatic
organisms. The constituents of wastewaters which should be sub-
ject to effluent limitations guidelines and standards of perfor-
mance were identified.
The full range of control and treatment technologies existing
within each subcategory was identified. This included an
identification of each distinct control and treatment technol-
ogy, including both in-plant and end-of-process technologies,
which are existent or capable of being designed for each sub-
category. It also included an identification in terms of the
amount of constituents (including thermal) and the chemical,
physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, of
the effluent level resulting from the application of each of
the treatment and control technologies. The problems, limita-
tions and reliability of each treatment and control technology
and the required implementation time were also identified. In
addition, the non-water quality environmental impact, such as
the effects of the application of such technologies upon other
10
Kearney: M
-------
DRAFT
pollution problems, including air, solid waste, noise and
radiation were also identified. The energy requirements of
each of the control and treatment technologies were identified
as well as the cost of the application of such technologies.
The information, as outlined above, was then evaluated in order
to determine what levels of technology constituted the "best
practicable control technology currently available," "best
available technology economically achievable" and the "best
available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives." In identifying such technol-
ogies, various factors were considered. These included the
total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application,
the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process em-
ployed, the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements) and other
factors.
The data for identification and analyses were derived from a
number of sources. These sources included EPA research inform-
ation, published literature, a voluntary questionnaire issued
through the Dairy Industry Committee, qualified technical con-
sultation, and on-site waste sampling, visits, and interviews
at dairy food processing plants throughout the United States.
All-references used in developing the guidelines for effluent
limitations and standards of performance for new sources re-
ported herein are included in Section XIV of this document.
Basic Sources Of Waste Load Data
Prior Research
At the outset of this study, it was recognized that most of
the information on dairy food plant wastes available as of
1971 had been collected and reviewed in two studies prepared
for EPA:
1. "Study of Wastes and Effluent Requirements of the
Dairy Industry," July 1971, by A. T. Kearney, Inc., for the
Water Quality Office, EPA.
2. "Dairy Food Plant Wastes and Waste Treatment
Practices, "March 1971, by Department of Dairy Technology,
The Ohio State University, for the Office of Research and
Monitoring, EPA.
11
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
The purpose of the 1971 Kearney study was to establish the
background and recommend preliminary effluent limitation
guidelines for the dairy industry. In this context, it should
be considered as an integral part of this report. The Ohio
State University study was a state-of-the-art" report that
set forth in great detail practically all available technical
knowledge on the subject. It is highly recommended for detailed
study of the waste disposal problem of the industry.
Dr. W. James Harper, the leading investigator that produced
the Ohio State University report was a consultant to A. T.
Kearney for the preparation of its report for the Water
Quality Office, and essentially the same data base was utilized
in both studies.
Copies of the 1971 Kearney and Ohio State reports have been
included in Supplement B, under separate cover, as Exhibit 1
and Exhibit 2, respectively.
On the basis of the information contained in those two reports
it was recognized that, although the sources and key factors
affecting the raw waste levels of dairy plants had been ident-
ified and were understood, additional quantitative data were
necessary to refine the effluent limitation guidelines proposed
in 1971. Furthermore, for this study it was a requirement of
EPA that all quantitative data used as basis for the guidelines
be of a "verifiable" nature, i.e., the result of tests in ident-
ified dairy plants that could be available for verification if
necessary. A concentrated effort was therefore necessary to de-
velop new data that would support the "non-verifiable" data
available in the technical literature that does not specifically
indicate the plant source. Among such information are waste
load data developed on a unit operation or "standard manufactur-
ing process" (SMP) basis which were the foundation for the guide-
lines suggested in Kearney's 1971 report for the Water Quality
Office.
Sources of Data for This Study
The thrust of this study was aimed at broadening the data base
on raw and treated wastes from industry by in-plant sampling,
so as to be able to base the effluent limitation guidelines as
much as possible on measurement and not solely on technical
judgment.
To accomplish this, Kearney subcontracted with independent lab-
oratories to conduct waste sampling programs at selected plants.
12
Kearney. Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
These programs were undertaken with the cooperation and support
of the owner companies and plant management. Furthermore,
companies in the industry were encouraged to conduct waste sampl-
ing programs of their own, and to submit useful data available
in their files. Specially-designed "Information Sheets" were
provided to those sources who were in a position to supply use-
ful data. A copy of those 'Information Sheets" is included in
Supplement B, Exhibit 3.
In addition to securing data directly from the industry, other
indirect sources were pursued, including state and local pol-
lution control agencies, municipal sanitary districts and
research institutions.
In the end, the body of quantitative data available to develop
effluent limitation guidelines in this study, was an aggregate
of the following sources:
1. In-plant sampling of waste streams at selected
dairy plants undertaken by independent laboratories under the
direction of A. T. Kearney, with the assistance of the dairy
plant management.
2. In-plant sampling at selected plants performed by
dairy company personnel under the direction and observation
of A. T. Kearney or EPA.
3. Data obtained from State and Municipal agencies
(significantly the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago) which have sampled the wastes of selected dairy plants
for control purposes.
4. Data supplied by dairy companies which are the re-
sult of sampling tests conducted by those companies since the
time of Kearney's 1971 study.
5. Plant waste survey data developed by independent
research organizations (significantly the North Carolina State
University) at selected dairy operations in the last two years.
6. Data furnished by the dairy industry to Kearney
and the Ohio State University during the 1971 studies for EPA,
which were published in coded form at that time, but are herein
identified specifically as to plant source.
13
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
7. Literature and industry data collected in the
1971 Kearney study that do not provide identification of plant
source.
Quality of the Data
It is important to note that the basic data utilized for de-
veloping the guidelines are not of uniform quality. While it
was ascertained that the most reliable sampling techniques
permitted by each particular situation and standard laboratory
testing methods were utilized in developing the data, there
were differences among the individual sources as to the pre-
cision that could be expected. Specifically:
1. Proportional composite sampling was used in all
but very few cases; frequency of sampling ranged from 2 to
60 minutes.
2. Constant volume sampling was accepted in some cases
where flow did not appear to vary excessively.
3. The number of days of sampling ranged from 1 to
10.
4. In a few cases where direct measurement of flow
was not possible, daily flow was estimated on the basis of
annual water usage divided by the number of operating days
during the year.
Because of the high variability of dairy plant wastes in
hydraulic load and strength during the day and from day to
day, it is recognized that a composite made up of samples
taken at hourly intervals and/or over a few days may yield values
that depart considerably from true average loads. However, the
variance that may exist because of low frequency of sampling or
insufficient number of days in the sampling period is reduced
as the number of data points (one day composites) included in the
data base increases. The need for revision of the recommended
guidelines as more data becomes available is therefore stressed.
General Description of the Industry
Production Classification
The industrial category covered by this document comprises all
manufacturing establishments included in Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Group No. 202 ("Dairy Products"), and
"milk receiving stations primarily engaged in the assembly
14
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
and reshipment of bulk milk for 'the use of manufacturing or
processing plants" (included in SIC Industry No. 5043).
The common characteristic of all plants covered by this defini-
tion is that milk or milk by-products, including whey and butter-
milk, are the sole or principal raw materials employed in the
production processes. A comprehensive list of the types of
products manufactured by the industry, as classified by the
Office of Statistical Standards, appears in Table 2.
TABLE 2
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION
OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY
(AS DEFINED BY THE OFFICE OF STATISTICAL STANDARDS)
Group
Number
202
Industry
Number
2021
Type of Establishment
DAIRY PRODUCTS
This group includes establishments primarily
engaged in: (1) manufacturing creamery but-
ter; natural cheese; condensed and evaporated
milk; ice cream and frozen desserts; and
special dairy products, such as processed
cheese and malted milk; and (2) processing
(pasteurizing, homogenizing, vitaminizing,
bottling) fluid milk and cream for whole-
sale or retail distribution. Independently
operated milk receiving stations primarily
engaged in the assembly and reshipment of
bulk milk for the use of manufacturing or
processing plants are included in Industry
5043.*
Creamery Butter
Establishments primarily engaged in manufac-
turing creamery butter.
Andhydrous milkfat
Butter, creamery and whey
Butter oil
Note:
*Group 504
No. 5043
Groceries and Related Products; Industry
Dairy Products.
15
Kearney: Marwymeni Consultants
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 2 (cont.)
Group Industry
Number Number Type of Establishment
202 2022 Cheese, Natural and Processed
Establishments primarily engaged in manu-
facturing all types of natural cheese
(except cottage cheese—Industry 2026),
processed cheese, cheese foods, and cheese
spreads.
Cheese, all types and varieties except
cottage cheese
Cheese, natural
Cheese, processed
Cheese spreads, pastes, and cheese-
like preparations
Processed cheese
Sandwich spreads
2023 Condensed and Evaporated Milk
Establishments primarily engaged in manu-
facturing condensed and evaporated milk
and related products, including ice cream
mix and ice milk mix made for sale as such
and dry milk products.
Baby formulae, fresh, processed and
bottled
Buttermilk: concentrated, condensed,
dried, evaporated, and powdered
Casein, dry and wet
Cream: dried, powdered, and canned
Dry milk products: whole milk; non-
fat milk; buttermilk; whey and cream
Ice milk mix, unfrozen: made in con-
densed and evaporated milk plants
Lactose, edible
Malted milk
Milk: concentrated, condensed, dried,
evaporated and powdered
Milk, whole: canned
Skim milk: concentrated, dried, and
powdered
Sugar of milk
Whey: concentrated, condensed, dried,
evaporated, and powdered
16
Kearney; MArwgpmc'ni Consulwnts
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 2 (cent.)
Group Industry
Number Number Type of Establishment
202 2024 Ice Cream and Frozen Desserts
Establishments primarily engaged in manu-
facturing ice cream and other frozen desserts
Custard, frozen
Ice cream: bulk, packaged, molded,
on sticks, etc.
Ice milk: bulk, packaged, molded,
on sticks, etc.
Ices and sherberts
Mellorine
Mellorine-type products
Parfait
Sherberts and ices
Spumoni
2026 Fluid Milk
Establishments primarily engaged in proces-
sing (pasteurizing, homogenizing, vitamin-
izing, bottling) and distributing fluid
milk and cream, and related products.
Buttermilk, cultured
Cheese, cottage
Chocolate milk
Cottage cheese, including pot, bakers',
and farmers' cheese
Cream, aerated
Cream, bottled
Cream, plastic
Cream, sour
Kumyss
Milk, acidophilus
Milk, bottled
Milk processing (pasteurizing, homogen-
izing, vitaminizing, bottling) and
distribution: with or without manu-
facture of dairy products
Milk products, made from fresh milk
Route salesmen for dairies
Whipped cream
Yoghurt
Zoolak
Source: Standard Industrial classification Directory.
17
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
In recent years, many establishments classified within the dairy
industry have also engaged in manufacturing other than products
based on milk or milk by-products. Such is the case of fluid
milk plants in which filling lines are also utilized for produc-
tion of fruit juices, fruit drinks and other flavored beverages.
The guidelines developed in this study are not intended to cover
plants where other than milk-based products constitute a signi-
ficant part of production.
Number of Plants and Volume Processed
In 1970, there existed approximately 5,350 dairy plants in the
United States, which processed about 51 billion kilograms of
milk, or 9670 of the milk produced at the farmc The utilization
of milk to manufacture major types of products was as given in
Table 3.
TABLE 3
Utilization of Milk by Processing Plants (1970)
Percent of
' Use Total Milk Produced
Fluid Products 45.1
Butter 22.2
Natural Cheese 17.0
Ice Cream and other Frozen Products .11.4
Evaporated Milk ' 2.8
Cottage Cheese 1.0
Dry Milk ._5_
100.0
The dairy industry comprises plants that receive anywhere from
a few thousand to over 1,000,000 kilograms of milk and milk by-
products per day. The plants are located throughout the country,
with regional concentrations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York,
Iowa and California.
18
Kearney. Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Processing Operations
A characteristic of the dairy industry is that a large per-
portion of plants engage in multi-product processing. Although
the manufacturing processes used by the industry (with the
exception of whey condensing and drying) are well known and
fairly standardized, there exists among dairy plants a broad
variety of process combinations and products manufactured.
Trends
Significant trends in the U. S. dairy industry which bear on
the waste disposal problem include: (a) a marked decrease in
the number of plants and increased production per plant (b)
changes in the relative production of various types of dairy
foods, (c) increasing automation of processing and handling
facilities, and (d) changes in location of the plants.
Plants and Production
Over the past 25 years, dairy food processing plants in the
United States have been decreasing in number and increasing
in size. The main reasons for this trend are economic and
technological including unit cost reductions attainable by pro-
cessing larger volumes, and improvements in transportation,
storage facilities and product shelf-life, which allow the pro-
ducts to be handled over longer distances and longer periods.
The change in number of plants and processing capacity in the
past decade is reflected in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
Number of Dairy Plants and Average Production
Average Annual Production
per Plant
Type of Product Number of Plants (Million Kg. of Product)
1963 1970 1963 1970
Fluid Products &
Cottage cheese 4,619 2,824 5.6 9.7
Butter 1,320 619 0.5 0.7
Cheese 1,283 963 0.5 1.0
Evaporated &
dry milk 281 257 18.0 19.1
Ice cream &
Frozen desserts 1,081 689
8,584 5,352
19
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 5 reflects the trends in production of dairy products.
While production of butter and condensed products has been on
the decline, the production of natural cheese, cottage cheese,
ice cream, and fluid products has been increasing:
TABLE 5
Production of Major Dairy Products, 1963 and 1970
Total Production
Type of Product (Millions of Kilograms)
Percent
1963 1970 Change
Butter 636 500 (21%)
Condensed & Dry Products 5,050 4,910 ( 3%)
Cheese 730 1,000 377.
Ice Cream & Frozen Desserts 4,050 4,590 13%
Cottage Cheese 410 450 11%
Fluid Products 25,550 27.050 6%
36,416 38,500
It is important to note that those sectors of the dairy products
industry that are experiencing the highest rates of growth are
also those which have been shown to produce proportionally the
largest .waste.
In 1970, the production of cheese generated approximately 9.5
billion kilograms of whey, including 2.7 billion kilograms of
acid whey from cottage cheese manufacturing.
Because it is produced in such large volumes and is relatively
low in solids content, whey has long posed a utilization prob-
lem for the industry. The problem has increased as plants
have become larger and more distant from farming areas where
whey can be used directly as feed. Cottage cheese whey repre-
sents the more serious problem because its acid nature limits
its utilization as feed or food.
It is estimated that between 30% to 50% of the whey produced
is currently discarded as waste, most of which goes to mun-
icipal treatment plants. Because it is high in BOD, unless
the whey is diluted with other wastes (such as sanitary sew-
age) or metered into the waste stream, it can potentially
shock load the receiving treatment system with disastrous re-
sults.
20
Kearney: Marwspment Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Plant Automation
As plants have increased in size there has been the trend to
mechanize and automate many processing and handling operations.
This is reflected by the decreasing employment in the industry
as shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6
Employment in the Dairy Industry
Employment
(Thousands) per million Kg.
Type of Plant Total Employment Produced Annually
1963 1970 1963 1970
Butter 12.0 7.2 18.7 14.3
Cheese 17.9 21.1 24.6 20.9
Condensed & Dry
Products 12.2 10.7 2.4 2.2
Ice Cream & Frozen
Desserts 29.1 22.4 7.3 4.8
Fluid Products &
Cottage Cheese 185.0 140.7 7.0 25.1
The principal technological developments that one being widely
applied throughout the industry and which have significance in
relation to waste loads include:
1. Receiving milk in tank trucks, with automated
rinsing and cleaning of the tanks at the plant.
2. Remote-controlled, continous-flow processing of
milk at rates up to 45,000 kilograms per hour, with automatic
standardizing of fat content.
3. Use of cleaned-in-place (CIP) systems that do not
require daily dismantling of the equipment and utilize con-
trolled amounts of detergents and sanitizing chemicals.
4. High speed, automatic filling and packaging op-
erations.
5. Automated materials handling by means of conveyors,
casers and stackers.
21
Kearney: MAn.vjemtni Consulwnti
-------
DRAFT
Although automation can theoretically provide for lower waste
loads through in-plant waste control engineering, at the pre-
sent time other factors have greater influence in the waste
loads, as discussed later in this report.
Plant Location
As dairy plants have increased in size, the trend has been to
receive milk from and distribute products to larger areas.
As a result, the location of a plant has become independent
of the immediate market place. Quite often, the prevailing
factor has been to select a site with convenient access to a
major highway system covering the area serviced, usually at
some distance from the larger urban centers.
The problem of waste disposal has frequently been given little
attention in selecting the location of large new plants. A
number of facilities with waste loads up to 3,500 kilograms BOD5
per day have been constructed in suburban areas or cities of
under 50,000 population. Where such plants utilize the mun-
icipal sewage treatment facility they may become the largest
contributor to the municipal system, imposing on it the pro-
blems that are typically associated with dairy wastes, such as
highly variable hydraulic and BOD5 loads and the risk of shock-
loads when whey is discharged.
22
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
Introduction
In developing the effluent limitation guidelines and standards
of performance a judgement must be made as to whether the
dairy industry should be divided into subcategories for the
application of ,those guidelines and standards.
An answer to this question can be found through an analysis
of the nature of dairy plant wastes and of the factors deter-
mining the waste loads.
Nature of
Dairy Plant Wastes
Materials Wasted
Materials that are discharged to the waste streams in practi-
cally all dairy plants include:
1. Milk and milk products received as raw materials.
2. Milk products handled in the process and end products
manufactured.
3. Lubricants (primarily soap-and silicone-based) used
in certain handling equipment.
4. Sanitary and domestic sewage from toilets, washrooms
and kitchens.
Other products that may be wasted include:
1. Non-dairy ingredients (such as sugar, fruits, flavors,
nuts, and fruit juices) utilized in certain manufac-
tured products (including ice cream, flavored milk,
frozen desserts, yogurt, and others).
2. Milk by-products that are deliberately wasted, sig-
nificantly whey, and sometimes, buttermilk.
3. Returned products that are deliberately wasted.
Uncontaminated water from coolers, refrigeration systems, evap-
orators and other equipment which does not come in contact with
the product is not considered waste. Such water is recycled in
many plants. If wasted, it increases the volume of the effluent
and has an effect on the size of the piping and treatment
system needed for disposal. Roof drainage will have the same
effect unless discharged through separate drains.
23
Kearney:
-------
DRAFT
Sanitary sewage from plant employees and domestic sewage from
washrooms and kitchens is usually disposed of separately from
the process wastes, and represents a very minor part of the
load.
The effect on the waste load of the raw water used by the
plant has often been overlooked. Raw water can be drawn
;from wells or a municipal system and may be contributing
substantially to the waste load unless periodic control
of its quality indicates otherwise. BOD5 values of up to
300 mg/1 have been obtained in tests of municipal water
utilized in dairy plants at certain times.
Polluting Effects
It has been generally recognized that the most serious pol-
;lutional problem caused by dairy wastes is the depletion of
ioxygen of the receiving water. This comes about as a result
of the decomposition of the organic substances contained in
'the wastes. Organic substances are decomposed naturally by
jbacteria and other organisms which consume dissolved oxygen
;in the process. When the water does not contain sufficient
dissolved oxygen, the life of aquatic flora and fauna in
the water body is endangered.
The organic substances in dairy waste waters are contributed
primarily by the milk and milk products wasted, and to a much
lesser degree, by cleaning products, sanitizing compounds,
lubricants, and domestic sewage that are discharged to the
waste stream. The importance of each source of organic matter
in dairy wastewaters is illustrated in Table 7.
24
Ke.u ney: Marwvjemcni Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 7
Estimated contribution of wasted materials to the BOD5 load of
dairy wastewater. (Fluid milk plant).
Kilograms BOD5 per
per 1,000 Kilograms
Milk Equivalent
Processed Percent
Milk, milk products, and
other edible materials 3.0 94%
Cleaning products 0.1 3
Sanitizers Undetermined, but
probably very small
Lubricants Undetermined, but
probably small
Employee wastes (Sani-
tary and domestic) 0.1 3
100%
The principle organic constituents in the milk products are
the natural milk solids, namely fat, lactose and protein.
Sugar is added in significant quantities to ice cream and has
an important effect in the waste loads of plants producing
that product. The average composition of selected milk and
milk products is shown in Table 8.
Cleaning products used in dairy plants include alkalis (caustic
soda, soda ash) and acids (muriatic, sulfuric, phosphoric,
acetic, and others) in combination with surfactants, phosphates,
and calcium sequestering compounds. BOD^ is contributed by
acids and surfactants in the cleaning product. However, the
amounts of cleaning products used are relatively small and
highly diluted.
Sanitizers utilized in dairy facilities include chlorine com-
pounds, iodine compounds, quaternary ammonium compounds, and in
some cases acids. Their significance in relation to dairy wastes
has not been fully evaluated, but it is believed that their con-
tribution to the BOD«j load is quite small.
Most lubricants used in the dairy industry are soaps or sili-
cones. They are employed principally in casers, stackers and
conveyors. Soap lubricants contain 800$ and are more widely
used than silicone-based lubricants.
25
Ke.uney MAn.vjpnK.Mti Consull.tnts
-------
Average Composition of "Milk and Mi Ik Products (IQOg)
Product
Skim Milk
2% Milk
Whole Milk
Half & Half
Coffee Cream
Heavy Cream
Choc. Milk
Churned
Buttermilk
Cultured
Buttermilk
Sour Cream
Yoghurt
Evanorated
Milk
Ice Cream
Whey (sweet)
Cottage Cheese
Whey (acid)
Fat
(g)
0.08
2.0
3.0
11.7
19.0
40 0
3.5
0.3
0.1
18
3.0
8.0
10.0
0.3
0.08
Protein
(g)
3.5
4.2
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.2
3.4
3.0
3.6
3.0
3.5
7.0
4.5
0.9
0.9
Lactose
(g)
5.0
6.0
4.9
4.9
4.3
3.1
5.0
4.6
4.3
3.7
4.0
9.7
6.8
4.9
4.4
Lactic
(g)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.1
0.8
0.75
1.1
--
—
0.2
0.7
Added
Organic
Ingred.
Surcose, 6%
Choc. Solids, 17o
Fruits,
Flavors
Sugar, 157o
Total
Organic
Solids
8.56
12.2
13.1
19.5
25.3
45.3
18.5
8.0
10
24.6
10.5
27
41.3
6.3
6.1
Ca
(mg)
121
143
118
108
102
75
111
121
121
102
143
757
146
51
96
P
(mg)
95
112
93
85
80
59
94
95
95
80
112
205
115
53
76
Cl
(mg)
100
115
102
90
73
38
100
103
105
73
105
210
104
95
95
S
(mg)
17
20
19
16
12
9
19
15
17
12
19
39
20
8
8
Total
Ash
(s)
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.6
0.9
0.6
0.8
-------
DRAFT
The inorganic constituents of dairy wastewaters have been
given much less attention as sources of pollution than the
organic wastes simply because the products manufactured are
edible materials which do not contain hazardous quantities
of inorganic substances. However, the nonedible materials
used in the process, do not contain inorganic substances which,
by themselves or added to those of milk products and raw
water, potentially pose a pollution problem. Such inorganic
constituents include phosphates (used as deflocculants and
emulsifiers in cleaning compounds), chlorine (used in deter-
gents and sanitizing products) and nitrogen (contained in wet-
ting agents and sanitizers).
Sources of Waste
The main sources of waste indairy plants are the following:
1. The washing and cleaning out of product remaining
in tank trucks, cans, piping, tanks, and other equipment, per-
formed routinely after every processing cycle.
2. Spillage, produced by leaks, overflow, freezing-
on, boiling-over, equipment malfunction, or careless handling.
3. Processing losses, including:
(a) Sludge discharges from CIP clarifiers;
(b) Product wasted during HTST pasteurizer start-
up, shut-down, and product change-over;
Evaporator entrainment;
Discharges from bottle and case washers;
(e) Splashing and container breakage in automatic
packaging equipment, and;
(f) Product change-over in filling machines.
is)
4. Deliberate wastage of spoiled products, returned
products, or by-products such as whey.
5. Detergents and other compounds used in the washing
and sanitizing solutions that are discharged as waste.
6. Entrainment of lubricants from conveyors, stackers
and other equipment in the wastewater from cleaning operations.
7. Routine operation of tiolets, washrooms, and res-
taurant facilities at the plant.
8. Waste constituents that may be contained in the
raw water which ultimately goes to waste.
27
Kearnev: Marwrement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
The first five sources listed relate to the product handled and
contribute the greatest amount of waste.
Variability of Dairy Wastes
A significant characteristic of the waste streams of practically
all dairy plants is the marked fluctuations in flow, strength,
temperature and other characteristics. Wide variations of such
parameters frequently occur within minutes during the day, de-
pending on the processing and cleaning operations that are taking
place in the plant. Furthermore, there are usually substantial
daily and seasonal fluctuations depending on the types of pro-
ducts manufactured, production schedules, maintenance operations,
and other factors. Typical hourly variations in flow, BOD5 and
COD of a plant manufacturing cottage cheese is illustrated in
Figure 1. Figure 2 illustrates daily variations in BOD5 strength
of the waste from the frozen products drain of another dairy
plant.
It is important to recognize the highly variable nature of the
wastes when a sampling program is undertaken in a dairy plant.
Unless the daily samples are a composite of subsamples taken at
frequent intervals and proportioned in accordance with flow,
results could depart considerably from the true average values.
Furthermore, the sampling period should ideally cover enough
days at various times of the year to reduce the effect of the
daily and seasonal variations.
Principal Factors Determining Dairy Waste Loads
Prior research has shown that the controlling factor of the waste
loads of dairy plants is the degree of knowledge, attitude, and
effort displayed by management towards implementing waste control
measures in the plant (3,133). This conclusion was reaffirmed
by the investigations carried out in this study.
Good waste management is manifested in such things as adequate
training of employees, well-defined job descriptions, close plant
supervision, good housekeeping, proper maintenance, careful
production scheduling, finding suitable uses or disposal methods
for whey and returned products other than discharge to drain,
salvaging products that can be reused in the process or sold as
feed, and establishing explicit waste reduction programs with
defined targets and responsibilities. Improvement in those
areas generally will not require inordinate sums of money nor
complex technologies to be implemented. In fact, most waste
control measures of the type indicated will have an economic re-
turn as a result of saving product that is otherwise wasted.
(Good management practices are discussed in detail in
VIII, "In-Plant Control Technology".)
28
Kearney Mana^pnient Consultants
-------
DRAFT
FIGURE I
12 2 4
MIDNIGHT
12 2
NOON
TIME
8
10 12
Hourly variations in ppm BOD5, COD and waste water
fora dairy plant
29
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
FIGURE 2
n
5
f
15000—^
_
10000—<
r
D
o
ea
5000—1
1000-
r
-i
ll
! 3
8 8
1
> . h
I n U yJJjJ_slill_
^^^
TWTHF MTTHF MTTHFM TWTHg
Variation in waste strength of frozen products drain for consecutive sampling KTJ
days in one month.
-------
DRAFT
"Quality of Management" obviously cannot constitute a basis for
industry subcategories. More tangible factors that have an effect
on the magnitude of waste loads include:
1. Product handled.
2. Processing methods and equipment utilized.
Plant size, and degree of automation, (CIP, automated handling,
automated packaging, automatic controls) are factors which in
theory should provide for reduction of the unit waste loads.
However, no conclusive evidence to that effect can be derived
from available data. In fact, tests in several of the larger,
highly-automated plants yielded higher-than-average waste loads
for their categories. (See Exhibit 4 in Supplement B).
Products Handled
Products handled in dairy plants include:
1. Raw materials received.
2. Milk products resulting during the manufacturing
process (make-up materials and by-products).
3. End-products manufactured.
Although milk and milk products have the same essential charac-
teristics, i.e., a combination of milk solids in water, they
have a distinct effect on the waste load because they are dif-
ferent in BOD5 content and viscosity. The composition of select-
ed dairy products is shown in Table 8. Viscosity is significant
because it affects the amount remaining in piping and equipment
that must be washed out after each processing cycle. The effect
of viscosity on the waste load is accentuated by the fact that
the more viscous dairy products are also those with the highest
BOD5 content, as shown in Table 9.
The end-products manufactured provide a better basis for sub-
categorizing the industry than raw materials because of the
reasons that follow. The principal raw materials received and
make-up materials handled in the dairy industry include:
1. Raw milk (as produced in the farm).
2. Skim milk.
3. Cream.
4. Evaporated milk
31
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
5. Dry milk.
6. Processed milk (such as ice cream mix).
7. Milk by-products (churned buttermilk and whey).
8. Sugar, fruits, flavors and other nondairy ingredients,
TABLE 9
APPROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF MILK AND
MILK PRODUCTS
Whey
Skim Milk
Churned But
Whole Milk
"Half and Half"
Cream (18% fat)
Evaporated Milk
Ice Cream Mix
Cream (40% fat)
Sweetened Condensed
Skim Milk
Viscosity
(C.P. at 20* c)
1.4
1.4
rmilk 1.5
2.2
f" 7.5
t) 15.0
Ik 30.0
N.A.
^ 25.2
Solids
6.3
8.4
8.8
11.8
18.2
23.7
24.7
36.9
45.2
BOD5
N.A.
88.7
3.5
6.9
7.2
10.0
14.6
20.6
20.8
29.2
39.9
50.2
Note: *Average from various sources
32
Kearney Marvvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Although there is flexibility in the types of raw and make-up
materials that can be used to manufacture a given product or
a number of products in a given facility, plants manufacturing
given products generally receive the same types or combinations
of raw materials. Illustratively, fluid milk plants univer-
sally receive raw milk, and ice cream plants typically utilize
nonfat dry milk, cream (367°-4070 fat) and condensed skim milk
(30% solids) as basic ingredients. Furthermore, some products
can be made with only one type of raw material, for example,
condensed whey.
In short, raw and make-up materials are dependent to a large
extent on the products manufactured. Strengthening the
argument that product manufactured is a better basis for
subcategorization of the industry than raw materials is the fact
that, in general, the highest waste-producing departments in
any plant are the processing and packaging operations, the
nature of which are dependent on the product manufactured
rather than the raw materials received.
The effect of the product manufactured is reflected in the avail-
able waste load data. For example, the average BOD5 waste loads
of plants manufacturing ice cream or cottage cheese, two high-
BOD, viscous products, are on the upper end of the unit waste
load scale for the industry; on the other hand, plants engaged
in condensing and drying whey, a low-BOD, low-viscosity material,
show the lowest BOD5 waste loads in the industry. (See Table 13,
Section V).
Processing Methods and Equipment Utilized
Alternate methods of performing certain processes or operaticus
produce different waste loads under comparable degrees of effort
to control losses (133). Such operations are indicated in Table
10.
33
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Table 10
BOD5 Loads from Processes
i?
2 Cll - Process Older Method
I "^
z
| .
D
n
3
Receiving milk (including
cooling and storage in
tanks
Milk pasteurizing, storage,
and packaging
Drying skim milk packaging
In cans
In bottles
Roller drying
Performed
BOD'S Load
0.32
0.82
1.24
by Alternate Methods.
Newer Method BODs Load (1)
In tank
trucks
In paper
cartons
Spray drying
0.18
0.60
0.27
Note: (1) Expressed in kilos BOD^ per 1,000 kilograms milk equivalent processed,
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 11
Proposed Subcategorization for the Dairy Products Industry.
Name of Subcategory
Receiving Station
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Natural and Processed Cheese
Cottage Cheese
Ice Cream, Frozen Desserts,
Novelties and other Dairy
Desserts
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
Products Included
Raw Milk
Market milk (ranging from 3.5%
to fat-free), flavored milk (choc-
olate and other) and cream (of
various fat concentrations, plain
and whipped).
Cultured skim milk ("cultured
buttermilk"), yoghurt, sour cream,
cultured cream cheese and dips of
various types.
Churned and continuous-process
butter.
All types of chees and cheese foods
except cottage cheese.
Cottage cheese.
Ice cream, ice milk, sherbert,
water ices, stick confections,
frozen novelty products, frozen
desserts, mellorine, puddings,
and other dairy-based desserts.
Fluid mix for ice cream and othej,
frozen products.
Condensed whole milk, condensed
skim milk, sweetened condensed
milk and condensed buttermilk.
Dry whole milk, dry skim milk,
and dry buttermilk.
Condensed sweet whey and condensed
acid whey.
Dry sweet whey and dry acid whey.
35
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
A difference in waste effect can also be expected between altern-
ate methods for many other operations, although no comparative
data are available to prove the point. Such is the case, for
example with the following processes:
1. Batch versus HTST pasteurizing.
2. Clarifier-separator combination versus standardizer.
3. Churning versus continuous buttermaking.
4. Batch versus continuous ice cream freezing.
5. Manual cleaning versus GIF.
Although an effect on the waste loads of the method employed to
perform certain processes is recognized, current knowledge pre-
cludes consideration, of this factor as a basis for industry sub-
categorization at the present time.
Conclusion
On the basis of the preceeding discussion it can be concluded
that, for the purpose of establishing effluent limitation guide-
lines and standards of performance for new sources, the dairy
industry can logically be subcategorized on the basis of the type
of products manufactured.
Subcategorization can be meaningful only to the extent that a
valid basis (such as quantitative data or clearly identifiable
technical considerations) exist for developing a sound guideline
or standard for each category defined. On the basis of existing
knowledge, it is proposed that the dairy industry be subcategor-
ized as indicated in Table 11.
The typical manufacturing processes of the products that charac-
terize the proposed subcategories are illustrated in Figures
3 through 13.
The proposed subcategories represent single-product plants. Be-
cause of the large number of product combinations manufactured
by individual plants in the industry in varying proportions in
relation to total plant production, further subcategorization for
multi-product plants is impractical. Rather, it is proposed
that guidelines and standards for multi-product plants be applied
on the basis of a weighted average of the guidelines for the corre-
sponding single product processes (plants), using the total BOD5
input to each manufacturing process as the weighting factors.
The method of calculation for applying this concept is described,
with examples, in Section II, Recommendations.
36
Kearney: MArMgcnx-ru ConsulMnis
-------
DRAFT
FIGURE 3
RECEIVING STATION
Basle Process
(Alternate
Recycling)
r
i
i
i
i
i
-i
i
H
1
1
1
1
L
I —
1
—1
1_
1. Receiving
~l
1
1
1
t^
1
r i-
2. Cooling
i
3. Storage Tanks
_ >
4. Shipping
1
k-
1
I
1
J
1
1
h—
_l
Legend
©
CS - Cleaning and Sanitizing Solutions
W * W«sh Uat«r (cold or hot)
CU - Cooling Water
EF - Effluent to drain
37
-------
DRAFT
FIGURE 4
FLUID MILK
.Basle Process
L
i —
l_
I
(Alternative
Recycle)
r- •- • -•
L-/CLV. _1
\^s ^
i
t
1. Receiving
1
1 -i /fiT^
2. Storage Tanks
1
1
'_..
3. Clarification/
Standardization
j "~ \^S
1
4. Pasteurization
1
1
1
1
1
5. Homogentzation
i
6. Deodorlzatlon
1
L*
7. Storage Tanks
I
1
j
1
1
~1
1 ' 1
j | Bottle Washing |
8. Packaging
'
L
*_••.. ,
-, 1
L_ i
Case Washing |
9. Storage
— ' 1
1
1
10. Shipping
CS " Cleaning and San
WU * Wash Water (cold
ST - Steam
EF - Effluent tn drain
38
Kearney: MarMgemenl Consultants
-------
FIGURE 5
CULTURED PRODUCTS
Basic Process
DRAFT
1
1
1. Receiving
1
1
2 . Storage
L
' r i
1
i
— -1
I
r ~L f
3. Separation
_L
i
1 i
i
Recycling |
1
Legend: 1
CS " Cleaning and Sanitizing Solution
WU - Wash Water (cold or hot)
CW - Cooling Water
ST - Steam
4. Milk
^ Cream
^ Storage x
, i
eurlzst Ion
5. Cream (
I , „ <
7. Cult
urlng
I . ,
8 . Cool ing
'
9. Packaging
r j.
~ t
10. Shipping
0
39
Kearney: Management Consulwnts
-------
FIGURE 6
BUTTER
DRAFT
Baste Process
1
1
1
HD — i
i
i_
1. Receiving
?. Storage Tanks
Skim Milk *
— i
1
1
1
1
J
3. Clarification
i
4. Separation
1
Alternate
5. Cooling
Recyci in(5
r-— — — — •»•
1
I
6. Storage Tanks
r
1 V
1
1
1
|
1
|
|
i^ fifjij i
i
i
i
i
i
_i
7. Pasteurization
,
8. Storage Tanks
BuCternuik *
Uutterirllk *
CS - Cleaning and Sanitizing Solution
WW - Wash Water (cold or hoc)
CW • Coullng Uater
ST " Steam
EF - Effluent to drain
9. Churr
L — 0
\— ©
Arternative
i
J
ing
nn
n
1
I r
i 1 13. Continuous
1 i Buttermaklng
i
11. Keim.val from
Churn
12. I'ackaglnt;
w (uvA
1
1
1
_j
14. Cold
Storage
15. Shipping
_l
40
-------
FIGURE 7
NATURAL AND PROCESSED CHEESE
DRAFT
By-Products
Excess
Cream
L.
rm
1
1
L.
Alternate •
Recycling .
Sweet Whey
Basic Process
I. Receiving
2. Storage Tanks
3. Clarification/
Separation
U—fa
Pasteurization
5. Cheese
Manufacture
6. Pressing in
Hoops
7. Drying
8. Curing
9. Process Chees
Preparation
10. Blending
11. Pasteurlzatior
and Cooling
12. Packaging
H. Cold Storage
Legend
14. Shipping
CS - Cleaning and Sanitizing Solution
WW . Wash Water ( cold or hot)
CW - Cooling Water
ST - Steam
EF • Effluent to drain
41
Kearney: Marwvjement Consultants
-------
FIGURE 8
COTTAGE CHEESE
DRAFT
By-Products
Acid Whey
Alternate
Recycling
I
I &
Basic Process
r
1. Receiving
2. Storage
\ !
•=d I
3. Separating
i
!_j
"1
It. Pasteurization
5. Cottage Cheese
Manufacture
6. Cheese
Dressing
7 . Packaging
8. Storage
9. Shipping
.J
CS - Cleaning and Sanitlriig Solution
WW - Wash Water (cold or hot)
CW • (.ooling Water
ST - Steam
EF - E££lueiit to drain
42
Kearney: MArwvjemeni Consuluvws
-------
FIGURE 9
DRAFT
r—O
.terrwt* j—— *~ 1 *~
Sh Cr».p Sto
1 !—<=>
r-""" 1 ! I
Ilb Fruit .
«<="«•
L*»nd
CW • Cwltn*
ST • *(••»
....
'"
Mr.-n
1
C-x-d'-n
1
.*
s-«l«'l"n
i
^"1
C^r i
±.-i»
G) — '
O — '
1
i
i
If y.iihinR •
Mtiln<
I
|
1J. Hi,
)
1 ) Hnrnaenil
J
<
11. P*itrurll
Hi* M,-r»
•
IK Fl»«.>rtn«
1
» ' -
I"
1» ..,..,,1,
jjl. pippin*
a
'
tl..n
,lcn
^
'
•~
[~
1
1
1
1
<
-i 1
•
.
N ©
43
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
FIGURE 10
CONDENSEIl MILK
DRAFT
Basic Process
"\
L.
r
1. Clartficirlo
A. Separation
L '
6. Storat;e Tanks
Kecyclint;
I
I
1
fl. Sweetenin
Corl i 0.5
L_
Shipping
~i
r—0
r-©
i»—0
i
C> flca;iin< and 'janitiztng Solution
UU - ' *fih W*t*r (cold or hot)
CU «, < n| in.5 W
-------
(Alternate
FIGURE 11
DRY MII.K
Basic Process
•~l
1. Receiving
2. Storage Tanks
3. Clarification
Separation
5. Pasteurization
._J.
•~l
h—0
I
.J
n
ft. Storage Tanks
i. Condens i i
J.
i
^Il-jlTi L-jr-O
i
9. Instantizini;
[STl
£s^i
10. "ackaiilnc
'"I
I
._).
11 . Storage
DRAFT
I?. Shippini;
CS • Cleaning Jiu1 Sanitizing
WW . Wash Write r 'cold or hoi)
CW - Coo linn Water
!'T ' rteara
EF • Effluent to drain
45
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
FIGURE 12
CONDENSED UHEY
Basic Process
r
i
1. Receiving
-v_ ©
I
2. Storage
r
Alternate
Recycling
I
l____/cw\-— -*
1
Condensate
1 *•
|
1 ^S?) 1
L
J.
3. Pasteurization
i
4. Condensing
!
5. Cooling and
Storage
i
6. Packaging
1
I
1
1
1
1
M (WW)
1
1
1
_J
7. Storage
8. Shipping
Legend
CS • Cleaning and Sanitizing Solution
WW - Wash Water (cold or hot)
CW - Cooling Water
ST " Steam
EF - Effluent to drain
46
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
FIGURE 13
DRY WHEY
Basle Process
r
i
i
i
i _
i
i
Allexnale *•— •
Recyc_ling_ ^_ I
1 /TI\ 1
vPv '
I — (sr) 1
'
I,, .
1
1
•* (^)
\
ece ving
\
2. Storage
i
3. Pasteurization
1
4 . Condensing
, ,
I '
7. Final Drying
1
*
8. Packaging
1 F
9. Storage
. r
10. Shipping
1
.
U (cs)
1
L (O
I V^V
1
1
* VEJ
L
-------
DRAFT
SECTION V
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
General
The characteristics of dairy wastes, in relation to materials
wasted, sources of waste in the manufacturing process, and
key factors affecting the waste loads of dairy plants, were
discussed in Section IV„
The magnitude of the raw waste loads of plants in each of the
industry subcategories defined in Section IV are discussed in
this section.
Waste Load Units
Waste loads have frequently been reported in terms of concen-
tration or "strength of a given parameter in the waste stream,
such as parts per million (ppm) or milligrams per liter (mg/1).
Although a unit of concentration can be significant as a load-
ing factor for waste treatment systems and for water quality
analysis, it is not meaningful for control purposes because
any amount of water added to the waste stream will result in
a lower concentration, while the volume of polluting material
discharged remains unchanged. For pollution control purposes,
the total weight of pollutant discharged in a unit of time is
a more meaningful factor.
Researchers have long recognized a direct relationship in the
dairy industry between the total weight of pollutant discharged
and the weight or volume of material processed. Waste loads
of different plants can be meaningfully compared on the basis
of a unit load, such as kilos (or pounds) of a given waste
parameter per 1,000 kilos (or pounds) of raw material or pro-
duct.
Up until this time, it has been the accepted practice to char-
acterize the raw wastes of dairy plants in relation to the
number of pounds of milk or "milk equivalent" received or
processed. During this study it was found that the "milk
equivalent" concept has been defined differently by various
sources, has often been applied inconsistently, and has at
least been confusing to many people that have used waste load
data for research, management, or control purposes.
49
Kearney; Managerrent Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Some of the inconsistencies between definitions or applications
of the milk equivalent concept are a result of arbitrary decisions
that must be made in its definition, including the following:
10 The milk equivalent of a milk product can be
referred either to raw milk as received from the farms, or to
"whole milk" as standardized for sale in the market,,
2. Raw milk varies in composition, and therefore
a conventional solids content must be agreed upon if the
definition is to be consistent,,
3. The milk equivalent can be defined in terms of
the fat solids, the non-fat solids, or the total solids of
the -whole milk and of the product in question.
A. Milk products to which other than milk solids
have been added (such as ice cream or sweetened condensed
milk) further complicate the definition of a milk equivalent
based on total solids as opposed to fat or non-fat milk solids.
Because of this situation, it is proposed that the unit waste
loads defining the effluent limitation guidelines (significantly
BOD5) be expressed in terms of the total BOD5 input contained
in the dairy raw materials utilized in the production processes.
This approach has the following advantages:
lo The many arbitrary decisions involved in estab-
lishing a definition of the "milk equivalent" concept are
eliminated.
2. The BOD5 content (in pounds BOD5 per pound of
raw material) of any given dairy raw material can be determined
by standard laboratory analysis. Values for most of the typ-
ical dairy raw materials have been published and are reasonably
consistent.
Accordingly, the waste load data presented in the report have
been expressed in. or converted to, units relating to the
quantity of BOD5 in the dairy raw materials received or pro-
cessed. The milk equivalent and BOD5 values of dairy raw
materials used as a basis are contained in Table 12.
To maintain consistency in the application the waste load data
and guidelines set forth in this report it is essential that
the data shown in Table 12 be adopted as standards to calculate
the waste load of any particular plant. For simplicity, only
the dairy raw materials are considered in the computations;
50
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 12
BOD5 CONTENT & MILK EQUIVALENT OF SELECTED DAIRY RAW MATERIALS
Raw Material
Whole Milk
Evaporated Milk
2% Milk
Skim Milk
Condensed Skim Milk
Churned Buttermilk
Cream
Sweet Whey
Acid Whey O.I6 6.66 4.24 1,1767
Ice Cream Mix 10.O1 21.0} 26.88 2,0303
(157o Sugar) 12.0} 22.0| 27.78 2,3983
14.0} 23. Oj- 28.68 2,8443
16.01 24.01 29.58 3,3583
Cheddar Cheese 3.4 65.0 58.59 8,703!
(To determine BODs (or M.E.) for a product with a fat or solids
content other than that indicated, extrapolate or interpolate as
necessary using the values in the Table.)
Notes: U.S.D.A. Statistical Bulletin No. 362.
2BODs (ppm) = (7o Nonfat Solids x 8100) + (% Fat Solids x 8600).
3M.E. = % fat (Mat'l.)
7o fat (Milk) x /0 tat
Fat Total Solids
(7.)
3.51
7.91
2.01
O.I1
0.21
0.2n
0.81
0.5l
5.31
36. 01
40. Ql
44.0,
w i
0.4!
0.3
2.3
5.5
(%)
12. 11
25. 91
12. 01
9.01
30. Ql
35.0.
97. 01
9.31
97.2}
41. 71
45. 41
50.0
6*.0
40.0
96.0
BODc
ar
10. 02
21. 42
9.82
7.32
24. 32
28.42
78. 62
7.62
79.02
35.6?
38. 82
42. 72
4.5?
3.84
25. 74
61. 74
Whole Milk
Equivalent
kg. or (Ibs)
1,0003
2,1433
1,0643
1,0463
3,4423
4,0253
11,094J
l,02ll
10,6603
8,9703
10,1443
11,1463
1,1055
945f
6,314°
15,1406
7o Total Milk Solids (Mat'l.)
nonfat (Mat'l.)
X /a n°nfat (Mat
nonfat (Milk
% Total Milk Solids (Mat'l.)
4BOD5 (ppm) = (7o nonfat x 6300) + (% fat x 8600)
51
Kearney: Man.vjen->ent Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 12 (con't)
(con't):
A. T. Kearney (Harper): Assumes Product Yield of 9.5 Ibs./lOO Ibs
So M.E. = 100.0/90.5 = 1.105.
A. T. Kearney (Harper)
A. T. Kearney (Harper): Assumes Product Yield of 8.5 Ibs./lOO Ibs
So M.E. = 100.0/85.0 = 1.176.
8BOD5 (ppm) =(% Milk nonfat x 8105) + (% Milkfat x 8600) +
(% Sweetener x 6200).
a
BOD5 (ppm) = % Total Solids x 9000.
52
Kearney: MAtvvjement Consultants
-------
Table 13
Summary of Calculated, Identified and Unidentified Plant
Source Raw BODj Data
A.
n
3
£
3
tf
Type of Plant
Single Product
Receiving Station (Cans)
Receiving Station (Bulk)
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
— Ice Cream Mix
g Condensed Milk
S Dry Milk
>2 Condensed Whey
^ Dry Whey
? B. Multi-Products
(3 Fluid-Cottage
3 Fluid-Cultured
3 Fluid-Butter
Fluid-Natural Cheese
U^ Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cottage-Cultured
t>j Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cond.
Milk-Cultured
Fluid-Cultured-Juice
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured
Fluid-Cottage-Ice Cream
Fluid-Butter-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Cottage-Dry Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Dry Whey ,,»
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Ice Cream* '
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Cond. Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Butter-Ice Cream-
Dry Milk(2)
Butter-Dry Milk
Butter-Cond. Milk
Butter-Dry Milk-Dry Whey
Butter-Natural Cheese
Butter-Dry Milk-Ice Cream
Cottage-Cond. Milk
Cottage-Cultured-Dry Milk-Dry
Whey-Fluid
Cottage-Natural Cheese
Natural Cheese-Dry Whey
Natural Cheese-Cultured-Rec. Sta.
Natural Cheese-Cond. Whey
Notes: (1) Using SMP standard loads
(2) Excludes Whey dumping.
Unidentified
Calculated kg BOD5
per 1,000 kg Milk /
Equivalent Received
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.47
0.33
96-1.32
1.11
8.69
1.77
1.81
67-1.26
94-1.91
22-1.35
12-1.85
2.14
1.66
1.40
-
2.17
1.79
1.11
~
1.59
1.32
2.11
1.30
1.46
-
3.49
Plant Sources
Kg BODs
Number per 1,000 kg Milk
•7) of Plants Equivalent Received
Report ing Range M«««
7 0.02-1.13
1
16 0.14-17.06
11
5
21
7
5
9
3
3
10
8
1
10
9
1
6
19
1
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
19-1.91
30-42.00
30-4.04
90-21.04
18-13.30
40-13.50
27-0.31
40-57.20
66-7.87
30-3.26
-
90-12.90
07-2.22
-
30-320
30-3.88
_
-
iic an
0.28
0.10
3.60
0.86
14.64
2.00
5.54
' 3.67
6.06
0.29
22.33
2.90
1.21
2.14
6.79
0.81
2.46
2.54
1.32
2.21
3.00
Identified Plant Sources
Kg BOD5
Number .per 1,000 kg Milk
of Plants Eauivalent Received
Reporting Range
5 0.30-0.70
6 0.30-7.16
]
5
10
1
2
3
7
5
5
5
_
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
-
0.24-0.93
0.68-19.60
0.63
0.41-4.00
0.41-2.44
0.24-0.88
0.02-1.16
2.26-6.94
0.35-7.84
._
-
0.95-10.10
-
2.09-4.78
-
0.39-1.14
-
—
-
-
1-28-20.10
-
1.06-4.20
nean
0.46
0.17
3.21
0.80
0.54
6.75
0.63
2.20
1.18
0.43
0.60
4.54
3.00
1.80
7.21
3.80
6.24
2.21
3.44
1.70
0.93
0.68
0.85
5.41
3.61
0.28
6.43
8.62
2.15
2.12
Kg BOD5
per 100 kg
BOD-; Received
Kange
0.30-0.70
0.30-7.16
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
2.
0.
-
35-9.33
33-40.50
41-4.00
60-3.52
58-2.19
05-2.88
26-6.94
80-7.84
_
95-10.10
_
80-4.78
-
39-1.24
-
-
-
_
1.28-20.10
1.
-
10-4.20
Mean
0.46
0.17
3.21
0.80
0.60
13.45
0.99
2,20
1.62
1.05
1.44
4.54
3.10
1.80
16.70
3.80
6.24
2.21
3.72
1.70
0.98
0.83
1.04
8.29
3.61
0.31
6.43
8.62
2.15
2.29
as developed in the "Study of Wastes and Effluent Requirements of the Dairy Industry, Section III, July 1971.'
-------
DRAFT
it must be remembered, however, that BOD5 can also be con-
tributed by non-dairy raw materials, lubricants, detergents,
sanitizers, and in some cases, sanitary sewage.
Available data indicate that the daily average BOD5 strength
of dairy plant wastes varies over a broad'range, from as low
as 40 mg/1 to higher than 10,000 mg/1, with the great majority
of plants falling within 1,000 and 4,000 mg/1.
A summary of available unit raw waste BOD5 data appears in
Table 13. Three sets of data are compared: (a) data corres-
ponding to plants which are identified (see Supplement B,
Exhibit 4, for plant identification); (b) data from literature
and industry sources providing no identification of plants
to which they correspond (Supplement B, Exhibit 1, Tables G-6
and G-9); and (c) calculated data for complete plants developed
on the basis of waste loads for standard manufacturing processes,
as recommended in the 1971 Kearney report (see Supplement B,
Exhibit 1, Table 5) . .
In expressing BOD5 loss per BOD5 received, it is convenient and
useful to express the unit load as kg, (or pounds) BOD5 waste
per 100 kg. (or pounds) received (processed) for two reasons.
1. Kg. BOD5 per 100 kg. BOD5 can be read directly
as percent BOD5 loss, i.e0, for ice cream plants the mean
loss is 14.8 kg/11 kg0 or, directly, 14.8 percent.
20 Kg« BOD5 per 100 kg. BOD5 is equal to kg, BOD5
per 100 milk equivalent when the raw material is whole milk
since BOD5 of whole milk approximately 10 percent.
Mean unit BOD5 loads for identifiable plants (cottage cheese
and cultured products not available) vary from 0.41 kg./lOO
kg. BOD5 (or 0041 kg./I,000 kg. M0E0) for receiving stations
to 14080 kg./lOO kg. BOD5 (or 7.42 kg./I,000 kg, M0E0) for
ice cream plants. Unidentified plants provide a mean unit
801)5 of 1406K kg./1,000 kg. M0E0 for cottage cheese plants,
the highest value for all subcategories0 In general, the
relative magnitudes of the mean unit BOD5 loads for the various
subcategories are as would be expected, considering the vis-
cosity and BOD5 content of the product, and the nature of the
process (e. g., major losses in categories involving substantial
packaging operations). The BODs loads for natural cheese and
cottage cheese are from plants which exclude the whey from the
waste stream.
54
Kearney Marwvjemem Consultants
-------
DRAFT
It should be noted that a relationship between size of plant and
unit BOD5 load was observed in the data for one category, Re-
ceiving Station. (As shown in Supplement B, Exhibit 4). This
is what would be expected in any plant if all avoidable losses
(controllable by management) were eliminated. The reason for
this relationship being borned out only in the Receiving Station
category is that the process is relatively simple and the im-
pact of management on the waste load is comparatively small.
Other types of plants, on the other hand, involve processes
which allow for much greater variance of the waste load de-
pending on the quality of management control at the plant, and
no relationships between size and unit waste load is evident.
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is the amount of equivalent oxygen
required for oxidation of the organic solids in an effluent,
measured by using chemical oxidizing agents under certain
specified conditions instead of using microorganisms as in the
BOD5 test. It can be used alternatively to BOD5 as a measure of
the strength of the wastewater. The advantages of the COD test
over the BODs is that it can be completed in a relatively short
time and there is generally a lesser chance for error in per-
forming the test.
There is disagreement, however, on the accuracy and relative
merits of each test in determining the oxygen demand of a
dairy effluent. In spite of being more cumbersome, and inher-
ently providing a greater chance of error, the BOD5 test has
been much more widely used in the past. The results of the
BOD5 test have been regarded as more significant, because it
was considered to more nearly parallel what is actually taking
place in natural waters^7. Many dairy companies in the United
States have reportedly attempted to use the COD test but have
discontinued the practice because of the wide variation in
BOD5 :COD ratios measured.-3
Some disadvantages.of the COD test that have been pointed out
in the literature^0 include the following:
1. In the COD test (test tube method, without reflux)
alcohols, aldehydes, and other volatile fermentation products
may and frequently do, evaporate before reacting entirely with
the oxidizing agent. The COD test may greatly underestimate
the polluting effect of such wastes high in these volatile or-
ganic materials. (It should be noted, however, that the stan-
dard COD test calls for refluxing).
55
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
2. Suspended particles are completely dissolved and
biologically oxidized materials may show further oxygen demand
by this test.
3. High chlorides also exert COD.
4. Some types of organic compounds are only par-
tially oxidized by the COD test.
More recently, the need for the COD test as a supplement the
BOD5 test has been recognized, and many investigations consider
it a better-method for assessing the strengths of dairy ef-
fluents. ^>ao
A summary of BOD5:COD data appears in Table 14. Significant
variations of the ratio are evident; the overall range of the
BOD:COD ratio for raw effluents reported from all sources is
0.07 to 1.03. The mean for identified plants is 0.57. This
figure can be used as a factor to convert to COD a waste load
expressed in BOD5.
Limited data have also been obtained for treated effluents,
which indicate average BOD5:COD ratios of 0.48 after primary
treatment and 0.25 after secondary treatment (3). The reasons
for the sliding BOD5:COD relationship are not fully understood.
It has been suggested that the efficiency of biological oxi-
dation is affected by concentration and toxicity" (pressure
of non-milk constituents).
Suspended Solids
The concentration of suspended solids in raw dairy plant wastes
vary widely among the different dairy operations. The greatest
number of plants have suspended solids concentrations in the
400 mg./l to 2000 mg./I range.
The data on the suspended solids content of raw wastes of iden-
tified plant sources are summarized in Table 15. The mean
suspended solids loads range from a low of 0.03 kg. per 100 kg.
BOD5 (or 0.03 per 1,000 kg. M0E.) for milk receiving stations
to a high of 3.50 kg. per 100 kg. BOD5 (or 1.78 kg. per 1,000
kg. M.E.) for ice cream plants. Data were not available for
dry milk, cultured products, cottage cheese, and can receiving
station operations as single product categories. The suspen-
ded solids would be composed primarily of coagulated milk, fine
particles of cheese curd and pieces of fruits and nuts from ice
cream operations.
In all but two cases the suspended solids content of raw wastes
was lower than the BODs value. Further, there did seem to be a
56
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
Table 14
Summary of Unidentified and Identified Plant Source
BOD5:COD Ratios for- Raw Dairy Effluents
I
Unidentified Plant Sources
Number
: pe of Plant
A. Single Product
Receiving Station (Cans}
Receiving Station (Bulk)
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
B. Multi-Products
of Plants
Reporting
COD Ratios
for Raw Effluent
Identified Plant Sources
Range
0.31-0.66
Mean
0.66
0.45
Fluid-Cottage Cheese
Fluid-Cultured Products
Fluid-Butter
Fluid-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cottage- Cultured
Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cond.
Milk-Cultured
Fluid-Cul tured-Juice
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured
Fluid-Cottage-Ice Cream
Fluid-Butter-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Cottage-Dry Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Dry Whey
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured- Ice Cream
Fluid-Co ttage-Cultured-Cond. Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Butter-Ice Cream-
Dry Milk
Butter-Dry Milk
Butter-Cond. Milk
Butter-Dry Milk-Dry Whey
Butter-Natural Cheese
Butter-Dry Milk-Ice Cream
Cottage-Cond. Milk
Cottage-Cultured-Dry Milk-Dry
Whey-Fluid
Cottage-Natural Cheese
Natural Cheese-Dry Whey
Natural Cheese-Cultured-Rec. Sta.
Natural Cheese-Cond. Whey
0.44-0.97
0.70
Number
of Plants
Reporting
0.40-0.51
0.44
BOD5: COD Ratios
for Raw Effluent
Range
0.55-0.59
0.50-0.79
0.63-0.72
Mean
0.55
0.57
0.53
0.57
0.66
1.03
0.67
0.50
0.49-0.56
0.07
0.60
0.51
0.53
C. Not Available
0.11-0.80
-------
CO
Summary of Identified Plant Source Raw
Suspended Solids Data
Type of Plant
A. Single Product
Receiving Station (Cans}
Receiving Station (Bulk)
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
B. Multi-Products
Fluid-Cottage
Fluid-Cultured
Fluid-Butter
Fluid-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cottage-Cultured
Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cond.
Milk-Cultured
Fluid-Cultured-Juice
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured
Fluid-Cottage-Ice Cream
Fluid-Butter-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Cottage-Dry Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Dry Whey
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Ice Cream
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Cond. Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Butter-Ice Cream-
Dry Milk
Butter-Dry Milk
Butter-Cond. Milk
Butter-Dry Milk-Dry Whey
Butter-Natural Cheese
Butter-Dry Milk-Ice Cream
Cottage-Cond. Milk
Cottage-Cultured-Dry Milk-Dry
Whey-Fluid
Cottage-Natural Cheese
Natural Cheese-Dry Whey
Natural Cheese-Cultured-Rec. Sta.
Natural Cheese-Cond. Whey
Identified Plant Sources
Kg Suspended Solids
Number per 1,000 kg Milk
of Plants Equivalent Received
Reporting Range Mean
1
5
5
10
1
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
0.13-3.36
0.20-11.60
0.21-1.08
0.33-6.90
0.80-2.01
0.22-1.34
Suspended Solids
per 100 kg
BOD 3 Received
Range Mean
0.03
1.50
0.40
1.36-3.36
2.88
1.10
1.80
0.65
1.64
0.46-11.6
65
90
0.21-1.08
0.44-7.16
0.70
.52
.00
2.56
57
20
45
70
0.68
0.80-2.01
0.33-1.34
0.03
1.50
0.40
0.10-0.27
0.23-2.76
0.17-1.48
0.13-0.70
0.19-0.56
0.17
1.62
0.19
0.82
0.34
0.38
0.14-0.27
0.46-5.86
0.17-1.48
0.33-1.74
0.47-1.40
0.19
3.20
0.30
0.82
0.86
0.94
2.94
1.10
4.17
0.65
1.64
.65
,02
0.70
61
,56
3.92
0.64
20
45
70
o
H
0.72
-------
DRAFT
significant correlation between the suspended solids content
of raw wastes and the type of plant operation. This fact is
supported by an analysis of suspended solids--BOD5 ratios for
identified plant source data. The values of the suspended solids-
BOD5 ratio were found to be distributed about a mean of .415
with a standard deviation of .32. This yields a coefficient
of variance of 77 percent. With 3 highest and lowest values
eliminated from the sample, the mean and standard deviation
become .'368 and. 155, respectively, giving a correlation of
variance of 42 percent. Further, a regression analysis of the
data the suspended solids and BOD5 data pairs resulted in the
following relationship with a correlation coefficient of .92.
Suspended solids = .529 BOD5 - 152.2.
This relationship between suspended solids and BOD5 seems to
hold over the range of BOD5 normally found in raw dairy plant
wastes, i.e., 1,000 mg./l to 4,000 mg./l. Using the above
equation and the lower and upper limits of range of 1,000
mg./l, suspended solids--BOD5 ratios of .38 and .49, respec-
tively, are found.
Despite the relatively constant ratio of suspended solids to
BOD5 of about .40 for the dairy industry as an aggregate,
there is some evidence that the ratio may be somewhat higher
for cottage cheese, ice cream, and drying operations where
large amounts of fines could potentially be wasted. Substan-
tiation of this hypothesis must await further data and analysis.
Other Parameters
Insufficient data are available for pH, temperature, phos-
phorus, chloride and nitrogen to draw conclusions on a sub-
category basis, but they do provide insight to the industry as
a whole.
A summary of the waste characteristics for those parameters of
a number of different types of plants in the industry appears
in Table 16. The detailed data by subcategory is contained in
Supplement B, Exhibit 5 through 10.
59
Kearney; Man«\3pment Consultants
-------
Table 16
I
SUMMARY OF pH, TEMPERATURE, AND CONCENTRATIONS OF NITROGEN,
PHOSPHORUS, AND CHLORIDE IONS -- UNIDENTIFIED AND IDENTIFIED
PLANT SOURCES.
Parameter
Ammonia
Nitrogen (mg/1)
Total Nitrogen (mg/1)
Phosphorus
as P04 (mg/1)
Chlorides (mg/1)
Temperature (° C)
(CF)
pH
UNIDENTIFIED
PLANT SOURCE:
No. of
Plants
11
12
8
13
33
Range
15-180
Mean
73
12-205 53
48-559 297
18-42 33
65-108 92
4.4-12.0 7.2
IDENTIFIED
PLANT SOURCE:
No. of
Plants
Range
Mean
9 10-13.4 5.5
10 1-115 64
29 9-210 48
6 46-1930 483
12 8-38 24
46-100 76
33 40-10.8 7.8
-------
DRAFT
pH
The pH of dairy wastes of a total of 33 identified plants vary
from 4.0 to 10.8 with an authentic mean of 7.8. The main factor
affecting the pH of dairy plant wastes is the types and amount
of cleaning and sanitizing compounds going to waste at the plant.
Temperature
Values reported by 12 identified plants for temperatures of
raw dairy wastes vary from 8° to 38C C (46° F to 100* F) with a
mean of 24"C (76"F). In geaeral the temperature of the waste-
water will be affected primarily by the degree of hot water
coaservation, the temperature of the cleaning solutions, the
relative volume of cleaning solution in the wastewater. Higher
temperatures can be expected in plants with condensing operations,
when the condensate is wasted.
Phosphorus
Phosphorus concentrations (as P04) of dairy wastewaters re-
ported by 29 identified plants range from 9 mg/1 to 210 mg/1,
with a mean of 48 mg/1.
Part of the phosphorus contained in dairy wastewater comes from
the milk or milk products that are wasted. Wastewater containing
1% milk would contain about 12 mg/1 of phosphorus (3). The
bulk of the phosphorus, however, is contributed by the wasted
detergents, which typically contain significiant amounts of
phosphorus. The wide range of concentrations reported reflect
varying practices in detergent usage and recycling of cleaning
solutions.
Nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen in the wastewater of 9 identified plants varied
between 1.0 mg/1 and 13.4 mg/1, with a mean of 5.5 mg/1. Total
nitrogen in 10 plants ranged from 1.0 mg/1 to 115 mg/1, with a
mean of 64 mg/1.
Milk alone would contribute about 55 mg/1 of nitrogen at a 170
(or 10,000 mg/1) concentration in the wastewater. Quaternary
ammonium compounds used for sanitizing and certain detergents
can be another source of nitrogen in the wastewater.
Chloride
Six identified plants reported chloride concentrations ranging
from 46 mg/1 to 1,930 mg/1; the mean was 483 mg/1.
61 •
KeAiney: Marwgenienl Consultants
-------
DRAFT
The principal sources of chloride in the waste stream may in-
clude brine used in refrigerator systems and chlorine-based
sanitizers. Milk and milk products are responsible for part of
the load; at a 1% concentration in the wastewater, milk would
contribute 10 mg/1 of chloride.
Wastewater
Wastewater volume data are shown in Tables 17 (in metric units)
and 17A (in British units).
Wastewater flow for identified plants covers a very broad range
from a mear of 542 liters per 1,000 kg milk equivalent (65 gal-
longs per 1,000 pounds, M.E.) for recovery stations to a mean of
over 9,000 liters per 1,000 kg milk equivalent (over 1,000 gal-
lons per 1,000 pounds M.E.) for certain multiproduct plants. It
should be noted that wastewater flow does not necessarily represent
total water consumed, because many plants recycle condenser and
cooling water and/or use water as a necessary ingredient in the
product.
62
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Table 17
Summary of Unidentified and Identified Plant Source
Raw Waste Water Volume Data
U>
Type of Plant •
A. Single Product
Receiving Station (Cans}
Receiving Station (Bulk)
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
B. Multi-Products
Fluid-Cottage
Fluid-Cultured
Fluid-Butter
Fluid-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cottage-Cultured
Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cond.
Milk-Cultured
Fluid-Cultured-Juice
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured
Fluid-Cottage-Ice Cream
Fluid-Butter-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Cottage-Dry Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Dry Whey
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Ice Cream
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Cond. Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Butter-Ice Cream-
Dry Milk
Butter-Dry Milk
Butter-Cond. Milk
Butter-Dry Milk-Dry Whey
Butter-Natural Cheese
Butter-Dry Milk-Ice Cream
Cottage-Cond. Milk
Cottage-Cultured-Dry Milk-Dry
Whey-Fluid
Cottage-Natural Cheese
Natural Clu-oso-Dry Whey
Natural Clu>csf-('.iillured-Rec. Sta.
Natural Cheese-Cond. Whey
Unidentified Plant Sources
Liters Waste Water
Number per 1,000 kg Milk
of Plants Equivalent Received
Reporting Range Mean
Identified Plant Sources
6
1
16
10
5
20
7
4
8
3
3
10
8
1
12
9
1
19
1
525-1,251
108-9,091
1,334-6,547
834-12,543
200-5,846
776-5,563
1,000-3,336
984-12,835
909-1,026
5,079-7,081
575-2,135
751-3,336
676
83
3,077
2,602
7,740
2,135
2,977
1,985
4,720
967
5,396
1,193
1,676
7,106
801-11,518 3,545
500-4,253 2,002
1,618
834-2,519 1,735
417-6,505 2,777
1,526
2,085
Liters Waste Water
Number
of Plants
Reporting
5
1
11
1
5
12
1
2
3
7
5
6
7
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
per 1,000 kg
Milk
Equivalent Received
Range
317-1,868
_
434-8,507
-
275-959
525-7,039
-
801-7,289
751-3,836
917-1,151
509-2,152
234-4,645
459-7,948
-
617-2,819
:
:
1,134-3,753
-
_
542-1,126
_
—
-
^
_
1,401-20,333
_
3,786-8,040
Mean
826
542
3,870
801
567
4,053
1,251
4,045
1,810
992
1,076
2,177
3,453
3,678
5,980
2,002
2,319
2,210
2,783
5,921
2,619
851
2,685
2,802
1,084
1,368
6,297
9,207
6,572
5,271
Liters Waste
Water per 100
kg
BCD'; Received
Range
317-1,868
_
434-8,507
-
275-1,384
767-13,144
-
801-7,289
917-5,529
2,285-2,852
1,259-5,534
234-4,645
709-7,948
Mean
826
542
3,886
2,093
676
7,427
1,968
4,045
2,502
2,444
2,669
2,177
3,536
3,678
13,861
617-2,819
:
-
1,518-3,886
-
_
709-1,126
_
:
-
.
_
1,401-20,333
-
3,987-8,040
2,002
2,319
2,210
2,955
5,921
2,769
984
3,286
4,287
1,084
1,535
6,297
9,207
6,572
5,880
-------
Summary of Unidentified and Identified Plant Source
I
n
I
Type of Plant
A. Single Product
Receiving Station (Cans)
Receiving Station (Bulk)
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
B. Multi-Products
Fluid-Cottage
Fluid-Cultured
Fluid-Butter
Fluid-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cottage- Cultured
Fluid-Ice Cream Mix-Cond.
Milk-Cultured
Fluid-Cultured-Juice
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured
Fluid-Cottage-Ice Cream
Fluid-Butter-Natural Cheese
Fluid-Cottage-Dry Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Dry Whey
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Ice Cream
Fluid-Cottage-Cultured-Cond. Milk
Fluid-Cottage-Butter-Ice Cream-
Dry Milk
Butter-Dry Milk
Butter-Cond. Milk
Butter-Dry Milk-Dry Whey
Butter-Natural Cheese
Butter-Dry Milk-Ice Cream
Cottage-Cond. Milk
Cottage-Cultured-Dry Milk-Dry
Whey-Fluid
Cottage-Natural Cheese
Natural Cheese-Dry Whey
Natural Cheese-Cultured-Rec. Sta.
Natural Cheese-Cond. Whey
Raw Waste Water Volume Data (FPS Units)
Unidentified Plant Sources
Gallons
Waste Water per
Number
of Plants
Reporting
6
1
16
10
5
20
7
_
4
8
3
3
10
-
8
1
_
-
-
12
9
1
-
-
-
_
6
-
_
19
1
-
_
-
1
-
-
1,000 Pounds Milk
Equivalent
Ranee
63-150
-
13-1,090
160-785
100-1,504
24-701
93-667
_
120-400
118-1,539
109-123
609-849
69-256
-
90-400
:
_
.
_
96-1,381
60-510
_
-
_
-
_
100-302
_
_
50-780
_
-
—
-
-
_
-
Received
Mean
81
10
369
312
928
256
357
_
238
566
116
647
143
_"
201
852
_
_
425
240
194
_
_
-
_
208
_
_
333
183
-
_
-
250
_
-
Number
of Plants
Reporting
5
1
11
1
-
5
12
1
2
3
' 7
5
6
7
_
-
1
1
6
1
_
_
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
_
-
1
1
1
3
1
3
Identified
Gallons
Waste Water
1,000 Pounds
Plant Sources
Per
Milk
Equivalent Received
Range
30-224
_
52-1,020
_
-
33-115
63-844
_
96-874
90-460
110-138
61-258
28-557
55-953
_
:
_
-
74-338
-
_
_
-
136-450
-
_
65-135
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
168-2,438
_
454-964
Mean
99
65
464
96
-
68
486
150
485
217
119
129
261
414
_
-
441
717
240
278
_
_
265
334
710
314
102
322
336
_
_
130
164
755
1,104
788
632
Gallons Waste Water
per 100 Pounds
BODi; Received
Range
38-224
-
52-1,020
_
-
33-166
92-1.576
_
96-874
110-663
274-342
151-642
28-557
85-953
_
-
-
74-338
_
_
_
_
182-466
-
_
85-135
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
168-2,438
_
478-964
Mean
99
65
466
251
-
81
890
236
485
300
293
320
261
424
_
-
441
1,662
240
278
_
_
265
354
710
332
118
394
514
_
_
130
184
755
1,KK
788
705
Note: *Including whey dumping.
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Wastewater Parameters of
Pollutional Significance
On the basis of all evidence reviewed, it has been concluded
that the most important dairy wastewater parameters of po.llu-
tional significance include 600$, COD (chemical oxygen demand)
and suspended solids. Waste parameters of pollutional signifi-
cance which are less important in dairy wastes include pH, tem-
perature, and inorganic substances, including phosphates,
chlorides, and nitrogen.
The significance of the above parameters and the rationale for
selection or rejection of each in establishing efficient guide-
lines are discussed below.
BOD5
The majority of true waste material in dairy plant wastewaters
is milk solids and other organic compounds, whose major pollut-
ing effect is depretion of the dissolved oxygen in the receiving
waters. The polluting effect is commonly measured in the dairy
industry by the BOD5 index. The BOD5 strength of raw dairy
wastewaters typically ranges from 1,000 mg/1 to 4,000 mg/1; the
total daily BOD5 load has been observed to range from 8.2 to
3,045 kg per day. Such levels of BOD5 are considered to pose a
hazard to aquatic wildlife if the raw wastes are discharged
directly to lakes or streams. The BOD5 level can be reduced by
in-plant control and/or treatment or disposal on land; there-
fore an efficient limitation guideline for this parameter is
justified.
COD
The COD test is another means of measuring the pollutional
effect of dairy wastes and approximates the ultimate BOD or
BOD2Q. Although it has certain advantages over the BOD5 test
(as discussed in Section V) the COD test has been used less fre-
quently than the BOD5 test in the dairy industry. Because of
the variations in the BOD5:COD ratio in dairy wastewater due to
factors not fully understood at this time, it is not recommend-
ed as a parameter to be included in the efficient limitation
guidelines until further research reveals the causes and signi-
ficance of those variations.
65
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Suspended Solids
Suspended solids in wastewaters have an effect on the turbidity
of the receiving water and can build-up deposits on the water
bed.
Dairy wastewaters typically contain up to 2,000 mg/1 of suspend-
ed solids, most of which are organic particulates contained in
the milk and other materials processed. The amount of suspended
solids can be reduced through in-plaiit control, and/or treatment
before discharge to a water body, and should be included in the
guidelines.
DH
pH measures the acidity or basicity of the waste stream. Un-
usually high or low pH values of the wastewater indicates a
potentially toxic effect on living matter in the receiving water
or may render that water unsxiitable for drinking or industrial
purposes.
Available data (Table 16) shows that raw dairy wastewaters in a
few cases exceed the 6.0 to 9.0 pH range considered acceptable
in most water quality standards. It is relatively simple and
inexpensive to measure pH of wastewater, the establishment of a
guideline is not suggested at this time, but frequent monitoring
of this parameter is recommended.
Temperature
Available data (Table 16) indicates that temperatures of raw dairy
wastwater ranges between 8°C (46°F) and 38°C nOO°F), with 90% of
the plants ranging between 15dC (59°F) and 29dC (856F). These
values do not represent a serious problem; furthermore the raw
effluent will cool off during treatment before disposal to a lake
or stream. Temperature, therefore, appears to be a parameter of
little concern.
Phosphorus
Phosphorus concentrations in dairy wastewater range from 12 mg/1
to 210 mg/1 with a mean of 49 mg/1 (see Table 16). The bulk of
the phosphorus is from using phosphorus based detergents for
cleaning of equipment. TheP threshold eutrophication level in
waterbodies is 0.01 mg/1. Phosphorus standards for point dis-
charge have been set at 1 mg/1 maximxim by such states as Illinois.
Dairies employing biological systems will reduce phosphorus at a
rate approximately 1 part per 100 parts BOD5 removed However,
biological systems will not be capable of removing substantial
66
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
amounts of phosphorus considering the rather high BOD5 concen-
trations of dairy wastewater. Since the presence of phosphorus
is mainly due to the employment of phosphorus based detergents
rather than due to the processing of a product, it will be more
economical and practical to switch to nonphosphorus detergents
than to remove phosphorus by means of tertiary methods. Dairies
switching to nonphosphorus detergents and employing biological
systems should be able to reduce present phosphorus concentra-
tions substantially.
Chloride
Chloride adds a salty taste to water and can interfere with cer-
tain industrial processes.
Very limited data (Table 16) shows that chloride concentrations
of raw dairy plant wastes can range between 46 mg/1 and 1,930
mg/1; the mean value of six sources is 482 mg/1. One explanation
for some of the higher chloride concentrations is possible leak-
age of brine from refrigeration lines. Chloride is an "Incompa-
tible pollutant", i.e., it is not susceptible to treatment in a
typical biological treatment system.
Drinking water standards set a limit of 500 mg/1 for chloride;
on this basis, the high concentrations observed in a few efflu-
ents indicate the need for monitoring of that parameter and
development of additional information to determine its real sig-
nificance .
Nitrogen
Nitrogen is present in dairy wastewaters purposely as protein
and ammonia nitrogen. Ammonia nitrogen is of concern as poten-
tial source of toxicity to fish.
Based on very limited information (Table 16) ammonia nitrogen
concentrations in dairy wastewaters have been found to vary from
1.0 mg/1 to 13.2 mg/1, with an average of 5.4 mg/1. Ammonia
nitrogen is consumed in biological treatment systems at a rate
of 5 parts per 100 parts of BOD5 removed; therefore the concen-
tration of the parameter in the final effluent should be negli-
gible. A guideline for ammonia nitrogen does not appear neces-
sary.
67
Kearney Management Consuliants
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VII
IN-PLANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
General
Techniques for reducing the waste loads of plants can be cate-
gorized into two groups: (a) those that can be applied within
the plant to reduce the raw waste load ("in-plant" controls)
and (b) those that can be applied at the end of the process
to treat the effluent before discharge ("end-of-pipe" controls).
Because they are so important for industry to meet the proposed
guidelines, waste control and treatment technologies are dis-
cussed in this report in considerable detail. The discussion
covers two sections: Section VII is a discussion of in-plant
control techniques; end-of-pipe (treatment) technologies are
discussed in Section VIII.
The first part of this section covers discussions of the tech-
niques that can be used for in-plant control of dairy wastes;
the second part is a discussion of the waste reductions possible
through implementation of those techniques.
In-Plant Control Concepts
The in-plant control of water resources and waste discharges in
all types of dairy food plants involve two separate but inter-
related concepts:
1. Improving management of water resources and waste
materials.
2. Engineering improvements to plant, equipment, pro-
cesses, and ancillary systems.
Plant Management Improvement
Management is the key to the control of water resources and
wastes within any given dairy plant. Management must be dedi-
cated to the task, develop positive action programs, and follow
through in all cases; it must clearly understand the relative
role of engineering and management supervision in plant losses.
The best modern engineering design and equipment cannot alone
provide for the control of water resources and waste within a
dairy plant. This fact was clearly evident again during this
study. A new (six-month old), high-capacity, highly automated
multi-product dairy plant, incorporating many advanced waste
69
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
reduction systems, was found to have a BOD level in its waste
waste of more than 10 kg./I,000 kg. of milk equivalent processed,
This unexpected and excessive waste could be related directly
to lack of management control of the situation and poor opera-
ting practices. Because of labor union difficulties associated
with the start-up of the plant, training procedures had not been
initiated at the time of this study.
Management control of water resources and waste discharges in-
volves all of the following :
- Development by management of an understanding of the need
for waste control, the economic benefits to be accrued, and a
complete understanding of the factors involved in water and
waste control.
- Utilization of a continuing educational program for super-
visors and plant personnel.
- Assignment of waste management control to a specific in-
dividual in the management system, and establishment of a "Waste
Control Committee."
- Development of job descriptions for all personnel to
clearly delineate individual responsibilities.
- Installation and use of a waste monitoring system to
evaluate progress.
- Utilization of an equipment maintenance program to mini-
mize all product losses.
- Utilization of a product and process scheduling system
to optimize equipment utilization, minimize distractions of per-
sonnel, and assist in making supervision of the operation pos-
sible.
- Utilization of a planned quality control program to mini-
mize waste.
- Development of alternative uses for wasted products.
- Improvement of processes, equipment and systems as rapid-
ly as economically feasible.
- Provide an environment to permit supervisors to effect-
ively supervise waste management.
A discussion of the key aspects of the above waste control
measures follows.
70
Kearney: Marvvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Educational Program
Central to in-plant control of wastes is the absolute necessity
for an educational program for both management and plant workers
to provide for a basis upon which to implement effectively waste
control measures.
In developing an education program for dairy plants, all manage-
ment, supervisors and employees should endorse two key concepts:
- Water is a real product with a real cost and should be
carefully managed.
- Wastes going into a sewer are product losses that cost
money, and recovery of these losses contribute to "profit." At
the same time, surcharges paid to municipalities for wastes go-
ing to sewers represent a double loss" and should be considered
as a special tax for the privilege of wasting resources.
The objectives of a Dairy Waste-Water Management Educational
Program should be:
1. To acquaint dairy plant personnel with water and
waste terminology.
2. To acquaint dairy plant personnel with local, state,
and federal regulations in respect to waste discharges.
3. To characterize dairy plant water usage and waste
water characteristics, and to show the relationship of these
factors to the environment.
4. To acquaint plant personnel with all significant
sources of wastes in the diary plant and the steps that can be
taken to reduce water use and waste discharges.
5. To develop action programs for water and waste
reduction in the plant.
6 To thoroughly train plant personnel with the prin-
ciples and'practice of operation of all equipment systems under
their direct control, and to provide a full understanding of the
role of these systems in water and waste control.
Carawan et al (1972) developed a model dairy plant educational
system for a dairy plant, which can serve as a model program for
the industry. (146) A typical program might include the follow-
ing :
71
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
(a) Management Indoctrination (two hours)
This segment would focus on the economic aspects of water and
waste conservation practices as a recoverable resource; the
specific role of management in waste control; waste terminology,
research and survey findings in the industry as a whole; major
sources of economics losses and the opportunity for improving
the plant profit picture; surcharges and regulations; develop-
ment of action programs and the role of the waste control super-
visor and employees.
(b) Waste Control Committee or Supervisor/Instruction: (two hours)
Instruction of the Waste Control Committee and/or Supervisor
(appointed by management) in respect to waste control concepts
and plant activities to be conducted during the employee phase
of the program.
(c) Employee Indoctrination: (All employees - three hours)
"Washing Profits - and your salary - Down the Drain." Illustrate
good and bad waste practices; explain good and bad water and
waste management; the relationship of product losses to costs;
Wastf terminology; current methods of in-plant waste control;
significance of the employee in the protection of our environ-
ment.
(d) Employee - Phase 2: (Employees by Department - three hours)
Identification of possible trouble spots relating to water con-
servation and waste control in the specific department; complete
familiarization with all equipment, equipment operation to mini-
mize waste and water usage; essentials of maintenance; necessity
for "team: effort in the control process; elicit suggestions and
involve the employees in developing a Departmental waste control
program; encourage the employees to suggest solutions to prob-
lems in their own areas of responsibility; develop a feeling of
the importance of the job and the relationship of the department
to the plant as a whole.
(e) Program Evaluation: (two hours on a monthly basis)
Combination session between management of waste control super-
visor to evaluate progress and plan new courses of action (one
hour.
Meeting of management with employees to review programs in each
area of the plant, highlighting major achievements, outline
future needs and encouraging new suggestions and ideas (one hour).
72
Kearney: Man.vjemcnt Consultants
-------
DRAFT
This phase of the instructional program should be repeated on a
regular basis; during the early phases of the program this prob-
ably would be every month. Where possible, some scheme should
be devised to share with employees any profits realized from
the waste control program.
Waste Control Supervisor
The responsibility and authority for the plant waste control
program in the dairy plant should be assigned by top management
to a single individual, who becomes the "Waste Control Program
Supervisor.11 In many situations, it may be desirable to form
a 'Waste Control Committee," chaired by the Waste Program
Supervisor and including the various department heads in the
dairy plant. For small plants, the Supervisor would probably
be the only person involved.
The Supervisor must be provided by management with the latitude
to develop the program for the plant and the authority to imple-
ment all the aspects of the program.
He should report directly to the general manager of the operation
and be given adequate time to carry out his assigned duties.
The Waste Control Supervisor should:
1. Develop the waste control program for the plant and
be the direct contact between the plant and the public, press
and government agencies relating to environmental matters.
2. -Develop baseline data concerning water utilization,
waste volume and concentration data..
3. Survey the plant to develop sketches and maps that
indicate the size, capacity, and location of water lines, meters,
sewer lines, junctions, manholes, and other parts of the system.
4. Compile data relating to water used, and waste loads
generated for significant parameters including BOD's and sus-
pended solids. These data should indicate the production rate
per hour, per operating shift, or per batch, and it should be
readily available for management studies.
5. With a management team develop and implement a plan
to reduce water wastes.
6. Replace leaking valves.
7. Supervise the employee phases of the plant's water
and waste savings educational program.
8. Follow through all phases of the control program;
make frequent plant surveys to evaluate performance and develop
updated control programs.
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Job Descriptions
All management and employee jobs should be defined specifically
in terms of the dairy plants waste control program. Specific
responsibilities must be defined and delineated. Employees
must be kept informed and involved in the program. In many
situations this will require revision of Union Contracts and the
inclusion of specific environmental task descriptions in the over-
all job description of each employee. The supervisor that is
responsible for the program will be successful only if coopera-
tion is gained from the operating personnel. Installation of
new control systems or equipment modification may require a
restatement of the employees job description. In addition, the
effect of new control systems of procedures need to be discussed
with plant personnel to enlist their whole-hearted support. If
an employee feels a new device is unnecessary or makes his job
more difficult, he may "sabotage" the entire control program.
Waste Monitoring
The collection of continuous information concerning water usage
and waste water discharge is essential to the development of any
water and waste control program in a dairy plant. Much of the
excess water use and high solids waste discharges to sewer result
from lack of information to plant personnel supervisors and
management. In many instances, large quantities of potentially
recoverable milk solids are discharged to the drain without the
knowledge of management. Accounting systems utilized to account
for fat and solids within a dairy plant are frequently inaccurate
because of many inherent errors in sampling, analysis, measurement
of product, and package filling. The installation of water meters
and of a waste monitoring system has generally resulted in econ-
omic recovery of lost milk solids. Recovery is usually sufficient
to pay for costs of the monitoring equipment within a short time.
Water meters should be installed on water lines going to all
major operating departments in order to provide water use data
for the different major operations in the plant. Such knowledge
can be used to develop specific water conservation programs in
a more intelligent manner. Some plants have found it advantage-
ous to put in water meters to each major process to provide even
more information and to fix responsibility for excessive water
use. An example of water meter locations used in la dairy plant
producing fluid milk products, cottage cheese and ice cream is
shown in Figure 14.
Waste monitoring equipment should be installed at each outfall
from the plant. Wherever possible in older plants, multiple
outfalls should be combined to a common discharge point and a
sampling manhole installed in this location. Where sampling
manholes are being installed for the first time in old or new
74
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
-G
-*• IOCKMS
•CASi WASNIR
COlO STOKAGI
PROCISSING
C I P .IICIIVING
• OILII
-0-
MIKIOMA1 IICIIVINO:
(lOV—»• MIKKOMAT I»OMIII
(U) *• CHIIL WATf*
[I2>—»• SWIII WATI*
VIIALINI MACMINI
MIKtOMAT
S I » C I f illllUNC
COOIINC
towia
C I f
14) »" C I P OI«NCI mien
17V—*-CHHSI ROOM
-*» OtANGI JUICI , ItC.
RAW MILK TANKS
Figure 14. Schematic Diagram of Water Meter Locations
75
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
locations, attention should be given to insuring that there is
easy and convenient access to the sampling point.
Monitoring equipment should include, as a minimum, a weir to
measure flow volume and a continuous sampling device. Two types
of samplers may be utilized: (a) a proportional flow, composite
sampler such as the Trebler, or (b) a time-activated sampler
that can provide hourly individual samples. For plant control
purposes the latter can provide the waste control supervisor and
and employees with a visual daily picture of the wastes from the
plant even without sampling the turbidity, color, presence of
free fat, or sediment, can be interpreted on the basis of the
previous day's production program. Such a daily evaluation can
readily point out problem areas. In the case of the time sampler
it is necessary to utilize flow data to maKe up a flow propor-
tional composite sample for analysis.
Most operations, expecially those of medium to large size, find
that they can obtain valuable information by continuously re-
cording:
1. Flow
2. Temperature
3. pH
4. Conductivity
The latter two probably would not be justifiable in most instal-
lations except those that are discharging to sewer with a speci-
fied prohibition of waste water flow outside of the given pH
range or total salt concentration.
Based on current trands, plants discharging to municipal systems
would need to analyze for BOD's, COD, suspended solids, pH, hex-
ane solubles, and chlorine demand. For point discharge or in-
plant control, analysis on a daily basis for BOD's and suspended
solids would generally be sufficient. Weekly or monthly analysis
on a more complete basis could provide valuable information for
in-plant control.
Plant Maintenance
Every dairy plant should have a preventive maintenance program
to maintain all equipment in good operational form so as to
avoid excessive water usage and waste discharges. In many mod-
ern automated plants, poor maintenance is a major reason for
excessive wastes and also excessive x^ater usage.
76
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Daily inspections by the personnel responsible for maintenance
should be m ade to identify improperly operating equipment.
Faulty equipment should be repaired as rapidly as possible.
Where equipment fails repeatedly, attention should be given to
the possibility of obtaining replacement equipment of design
that would minimize maintenance requirements.
The Waste Control Program Supervisor in each dairy plant should
develop a list of equipment whose maintenance is essential to
the waste control program. In most operations such a -list would
include the following:
1. Water hose stations. To insure no leakage of shut-
off valves or supply lines valves and fittings.
2. All manual and GIF fittings. Fittings should be of
a design to minimize leakage. Gaskets should be inspected and
replaced on a regular basis as needed.
3. Al hand-operated valves. Valves should be in good
condition and reground whenever necessary.
4. Storage tank outlet valves. Such valves should be
in good condition and reground as required.
5. Pump seals; they should be checked regularly to
insure that they are not leaking and be repaired and/or replaced
whenever leaks are noted.
6. All pipe connections; connections should be checked
regularly to insure that they are not leaking product out or
permitting the incorporation ,of air into product which would
cause foam. Foam contains a high amount of milk solids and its
loss to the drain should be avoided.
7. All cases, conveyors, and stackers. These items
should be maintained in proper operating conditions to avoid
jamming and subsequent loss of product from spillage or broken
packages.
8. Plastic and glass bottle fillers and cappers. This
equipment should be maintained in excellent condition to avoid
breakage and product loss. Filler valves should be checked to
see that they are not leaking product and are filling product
to the correct capacity. In glass or plastic bottles, filling
to the cap seat may create spillage when the milk warms up. A
regular maintenance program should be adopted to maintain these.
machines in top operating condition to avoid jams and product
spillage.
77
Kearney: Marvvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
9. Centrifugal machines; they should be checked to in-
sure that seals are maintained in good condition to prevent
leakage of product.
10. High level controls; they should be checked to make
sure that they are in continuous operating condition.
11. Pipelines; should be inspected to make sure that
they are properly pitched to drain and as free as possible from
vibration. Line vibration can create leaking joints and gaskets.
12. 'All worn and obsolete equipment; regularly repair
and replace.
Production Scheduling
Production scheduling is another important factor in the control
of wastes in food plants. In respect to in-plant waste control,
proper production scheduling can:
1. Eliminate over-production and resultant excessive
product return.
2. Minimize the number of start-ups and shut-downs
required on waste generating operations such as pasteurization.
3. Minimize stoppage of operations due to insufficient
supply of product or similar stoppages due to improper produc-
tion planning. Almost all equipment stoppages, especially in
filling operations, cause an increase in waste discharges. In
some instances, as with high temperature heat exchanges, equip-
ment stoppages require complete shut-down clean-up before the
equipment may be restarted. Shut-down of heat exchanges also
may cause burn-on and increase waste loads through additional
solids and the requisite for utilization of higher concentrations
of cleaning compounds to remove burned-on product.
4. Optimize sequence of processing that will avoid un-
necessary clean-up between products.
5. Optimize the utilization of equipment so that un-
necessary vats, lines and processing units do not have to be
utilized.
6. Even out waste water volume and concentration flows.
Proper staggering of process operations in clean-up may be able
to minimize shock hydraulic and organic loading.
78
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Quality Control
Indirect control of product quality is an asset in waste manage-
ment. The waste program supervisor should be aware of the role
of product quality and to review records in relationship to
quality control results for better waste management control.
Good quality control practices reduce wastes by:
1. Reducing the quantity of returned products that have
to be dumped or disposed of in some manner.
2. Reducing fouling of some specialized equipment such
as membrane processors, thus reducing wastes associated with
excessive cleaning of the equipment.
3. Reducing the frequency of manufacture of low-volume
products, thus providing for more efficient processing and less
waste discharge per unit quantity of product processed.
4. Helping to optimize production scheduling.
In addition, the quality control laboratory will generally be
the unit responsible for analysis and collection of waste moni-
toring data. In this respect quality control becomes directly
involved in waste control. The records generated from the
water and monitoring programs need to be utilized in day-to-day
control by the waste program supervisor and also need to be com-
municated throughout the organization. This becomes more com-
plex in large organizations operating more than one plant. A
suggested communication scheme for waste monitoring results is
shown in Figure 15.
It should be emphasized that data that are not utilized are use-
elss and a non-recoverable cost in terms of plant operations.
Intelligent interpretation and utilization of waste monitoring
results can be economically beneficial to the operation.
Alternate Use of Wasted Products
Wasted products usually include some or all of the following:
1. Returned products.
2. Products resulting from overflows, leaks, and
accidental spills.
3. Whey.
4. Buttermilk.
5. Residual products left in tanks, lines, etc.
79
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Plant Waste
Control Supervisor
Assistant
Plant Manager
1
In-Plant Use
Plant Manager
General Manager
or
Area Superintendent
Vice President
Regional Use
Accounting
To assign a
dollar value
to generated
waste
Research Director
1
To make recommend-
ations to improve
waste picture
I
Legal Department
To advise on
waste compliance
with existing
pollution laws
Executive Vice President
Main Office
Use
Corporate President
Figure 15. Possible Way in Which Waste Monitoring Information
Might Be Used in a Large Corporation
80
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
None of the above products should be discharged to sewer. Re-
turned products, recoverable rinses, cheese curd, nuts and fruits
from ice cream operations, spilled frozen novelties and frozen
desserts, material from drip tanks filling operations, and drips
collected from major leaks should all be combined and disposed
of as animal feed.
If handled in a sanitary manner with acceptable equipment, rinses
from product lines, products water mixes from pasteurizers, col-
lected spillage from fillers, partially frozen ice cream mix
collected during packaging equipment failures, all may be placed
in a storage vessel and reutilized for food product use. The
most common utilization is for in-plant use in ice cream mix
or sale to a local ice cream company if the plant does not manu-
facture the product.
Buttermilk from churning operations generally can be utilized
for animal feed or food use. It is readily dried in the high
phospho-lipid content, and can be used in a number of prepared
packaged foods.
Whey continues to provide a major challenge to the industry.
Over the years a multitude of uses have been developed for whey.
The major problem remains primarily a marketing problem.
At the present time the following constitute the most attractive
uses of whey:
- Animal feed. Dried whey or condensed whey on bran makes
good animal feed. In times of grain shortage there is a good
demand for whey as a feedstuff. Lactose modification may pro-
vide a means for increasing the utility of whey as an animal
feed since high concentrations of lactose are undesirable.
- Utilization as a supplement in pet foods. The high
nutritional quality of whey proteins make whey a good supplement
for many cat and dog foods that utilize low-quality proteins.
- Use in frozen desserts. At the present time approximately
25% of the milk solids in most frozen desserts are derived from
sweet whey. Because of its higher salt content, acid whey has
found only limited utilization in frozen desserts up to the
present time.
- Bakery products.
- Candy.
- Processed cheese food.
81
Kearney: MArwvjfmcnt Consultants
-------
DRAFT
- Processed cheese spreads.
- Prepared mixes.
Sweet whey, which may be dried much more readily than acid whey,
is finding a wider market at the present time. Because of
desirable functionality and high nutritional value, the protein
of both acid and sweet whey has considerable market potential.
Galactose is the major deterrent to whey utilization. Consider-
able research is in progress in this country to enzymatically,
microbially, or chemically modify lactose into a more usable
product. All approaches are technologically feasible but of
unknown economic merit.
Daily Operational Waste Control Procedures
Although recommendations for in-plant waste prevention have been
published repeatedly, the incorporation of those procedures that
involve the actions of employees on a day-to-day basis merit
reiteration. The waste control supervisor should use the follow-
ing as a checklist for compliance with good waste control manage-
ment practices. In some instances this list may be incorporated
into^job descriptions and union contracts. It should be em-
phasized that the failure of unions to endorse waste prevention
practices on the part of plant employees will make it impossible
for the plant to comply with discharge effluent guidelines and
limitations.
.Receiving Operations
Tank Truck Receiving '
1. Make sure that each-tank is properly connected to
the transfer pump on initial unloading of the first tank of the
day. A check should be made to insure that all couplings and
pump sseals are not leaking. Immediate attention should be
given to attempting to correct any leaks that are observed. If
leaks cannot be corrected, then a request should be made to main-
tenance to make repairs.
t;i
2. Tank trucks should not be permitted to stand more
than one hour prior to unloading. Long standing of tank trucks
with milk in the quiescent state permits creaming. Once creaming
occurs even extensive agitation will not prevent adherence of the
cream material to the sides of the tank.
3. Allow adequate time for the tank truck to drain •
prior to disconnecting the transfer hose. Care should be taken
to show that all product in the transfer hose has been properly
emptied prior to disconnecting the tank.
82
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Can Receiving
1. Utilize a product saving pre-rinse at the end of
the can washer over the drip pan saver with adequate time for
complete drainage.
2. The whey tank must be properly assembled and free
from all leaks for fittings and pumps.
3. Raw milk lines are generally filled with milk be-
tween receiving different lots of the product, at the end of
the total receiving operation all milk should be removed from
the lines between the receiving room and the storage tanks. In
most modern operations this is accomplished by air blowdown.
In all cases the lines must be emptied prior to cleaning to avoid
extensive product losses.
Processing
1. All sanitary fittings, valves rotary seals, pump
parts, and filler parts must be handled with extreme care dur-
ing every phase of operation to prevent damage to the surface
which may cause leaks. Small parts should be properly washed
in small parts washers and placed on rubber mats for draining
to minimize any damage. Constant running water hoses should
not be used in any area.
2. Employees should either eliminate the cause of
spillage or report it to the waste control supervisor rather
than washing away spilled product. Valves, pipelines, pumps
should be properly installed and gaskets installed and carefully
seated to prevent leakage.
3. All lines, tanks and processing vats should be
drained before rinsing. The process equipment surfaces should
be rinsed as soon as possible after use so that the product does
not dry on and increase cleaning requirements.
4. All lines on the suction side of pumps should be
properly sealed to avoid air leaks and resultant foaming which
can cause excessive waste.
5. Plate type heat exchangers should be connected care-
fully so that there is no possibility of milk being pumped to
the water side of the exchanger or water being pumped to the
milk side.
6. Drips and leaks occurring during processing runs
should be corrected if possible; if it is not possible then the
drips should be collected in containers and not allowed to go
down the drains.
7. Where drip shields are supplied they should be in
place and provided with adequate containers for each day's
operation. 83
Kearney: Man
-------
DRAFT
8. If a processing vat is not supplied with high level
shut-off controls, the employee responsible for filling the vat
should pay careful attention to the filling operations so that
overflows do not occur.
Packaging and Handling of Products
1. All bottles should be inspected carefully at the
beginning of bottle washing operations so that defective bottles
do not get to the filler.
2. For plastic and glass bottle fillers, cappers should
be maintained in first class condition to avoid breakage and/or
product loss.
3. Paper-filling machines must be maintained in proper
operating condition during operation. Seetings on paper forming
equipment should be checked frequently to insure proper package
formation and sealing to minimize leaking.
4. Filler valves should be checked to see that all
containers are filled to correct capacity. When glass bottles
are used, filling to the cap seat may create spillage when the
cap is forced past the cap seat.
5. Operators should check the filler supply bowl for
foam and eliminate any foam to minimize spillage and ensure
proper operation of packaging machine;.
6. Bottles, plastic and paper containers should be
handled carefully during casing, stacking, loading, and deliver-
ing to avoid product losses.
7. Spilled dry ingredients should not be washed down
the drain but handled as a solid waste.
Cleaning and Sanitizing Waste Water Handling
1. Care should be taken to avoid incorporation of
cleaning compounds and/or sanitizing solutions into milk pro-
ducts, thus eliminating the need for disposal of large quanti-
ties of milk solids.
2. The concentration of cleaning and sanitizing com-
pounds needs to be carefully controlled. Where cleaning com-
pounds are added by hand, only sufficient cleaning compounds
necessary to insure adequate cleaning and sanitizing should be
used to minimize discharge of potentially toxic materials and
avoid excessively high or low pH levels.
84
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Distribution
Care should be exercised in the handling of packaged products to
minimize the leakage of damaged packages in the delivery truck.
Special Recommendations for Cheese plants
1. Employees should be paying particular attention
to cheese vats during filling so that they will not be over-
flowed with subsequent loss of product to the drain. Liquid
level in the cheese vats should be at least three inches below
the top edge of the vat to prevent spillage during agitation.
2. All valves, pumps and line fittings should be
checked on a daily basis to made sure that they are leak free.
3. All spills of curd particles from cheese operations
should be swept up and handled as solid waste and not washed
down the sewer drains.
Special Recommendations for Ice Cream Plants
1. Overfilling of ice cream mix vats should be avoided
to eliminate the spillage of high BOD containing materials dur-
ing agitation. During filling, attention should be maintained
on the filling operation to avoid overflow.
2. Foodstuffs and other dry ingredients from ice cream
operations should be swept up and treated as solid waste.
3. Ice cream mix has a very high BOD level and frozen
products that are dumped on the floor during filler breakdowns
should not be washed down the drain but placed in a container
for handling either as a high solids waste or for animal feed.
Special Recommendations for Plant Manufacturing
of Condensed and Dry Milk Products
1. Where hot wells are utilized, care must be taken to
avoid overfilling and to prevent boiling over.
2. Evaporators should be operated at sufficiently low
liquid level as to prevent boiling over.
3. Where dry ingredients are utilized or where milk
powder is spilled on the floor, contents should be swept up and
not washed into the sewer.
4. Care must be taken in materials handling to avoid
breakage of containers and product spillage.
85
Kearney: MArwjjement Consutants
-------
DRAFT
Engineering Improvements For In-Plant Waste Control
Many equipment, process, and systems improvements can be made
within dairy food plants to provide for better control of water
usage and waste discharges. In many cases significant engineer-
ing changes can be made in existing plants at a minimal expense.
The application of engineering improvements must be considered
in relationship to their effect on water and/or waste discharges
and also on the basis of economic cost of the changes. Many
engineering improvements should be considered as "cost recovery"
expenditures, since they may provide a basis for reclaiming re-
sources with a real economic value and eliminating the double
charges that are involved in treating these resources as wastes.
New plants or extensive remodeling of existing plants provides
an even greater opportunity to "engineer" water and waste re-
duction systems. Incorporation of advanced engineering into
new plants provides the means for the greatest reduction in
waste loads at the most economical cost.
Engineering improvements include consideration of the following:
Existing Plants
- Equipment improvements
- Process improvements
- System improvements
New Plants or Expansion of Existing Plants
- Plant layout and equipment selection
Waste Management Through Equipment Improvements
Waste management control can be strengthened by upgrading exist-
ing equipment in plant operations. These can be divided into:
(a) improvements that have been recommended for many years and
are widely but not universally used in dairy plants, and (b)those
that are new and not widely used or evaluated.
Standard Equipment Improvement Recommendations
1. Put automatic shut-off valves on all water hoses so
that they can not run when not in use.
2. Cover all drains with wire screens to prevent solid
materials such as nuts, fruits, cheese curd from going down the
drain.
86
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
3. Mark all hand operated valves in the plant, especi-
ally multiport valves, to identify open, closed and directed
flow positions to minimize errors in valve operations by per-
sonnel.
4. Identify all utility lines.
5. Install suitable liquid level controls with auto-
matic pump stops at all points where overflow is likely to occur.
(filler bowls, silo tanks, process vats, etc.) In very small
plants, liquid level detectors and an alarm bell May be used.
6. Provide adequate temperature controls on coolers,
especially glycol coolers, to prevent freezing on the subse-
quent product loss. In some instance high-temperature limit
controls may be installed to prevent excessive burn-on of milk
which not only increase solids losses but also increase clean-
ing compound requirements.
7. All GIF lines should be checked for adequate support
Lines should be rigidly supported to eliminate leakage at fit-
tings caused by excessive line vibrations. All lines should be
pitched to a given drain point.
8. Where can receiving is practiced in small plants,
an adequate drip saver should be provided between can dumping
and can washing. This should be equipped with the spray nozzle
to rinse the can with 3-4 ounces of water. A two minute drain
period should be utilized before washing.
9. All piping around storage tanks and process areas
where pipelines are taken down for cleaning should be identified
to eliminate misassenbly and damage to parts and subsequent
leaking of product.
10. Provide proper drip shields on surface coolers and
fillers so that no spilled product can reach the floor.
11. All external tube chest evaporators should be
designed with a tangential inlet from the tube chest to the eva-
porating space. All coil or clandria evaporators should be
equipped with efficient entrainment separators.
12. "Splash discs" on top of the evaporators cannot
prevent entrainment losses through improper pan operation.
13. Evaporators/condensers should be equipped, wherever
possible, with full barometric leg to eliminate sucking water
back to the condenser in case of pump or power failure.
87
Kearney: Maruvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
New Concepts For Equipment Improvement
1. Install drip shields on ice cream filling equipment
to collect frozen product during filling machine jams. Such
equipment would have to be specially designed and built at the
present time.
2. Install a system for collecting novelties from
frozen dessert novelty machines and packaging units. At the
present time numerous types of failures, especially on stick
novelty machines, cause defective novelties to be washed down
the drain. Such defects include bad sticks, no sticks, poor
stick clamping, overfilling, and poor release. The "defective-
product collection system" would have to be specially designed
and custom built at the present time.
3. Since recent surveys have shown that case washers
may use up to 10% of the total water normally utilized in a
total plant operation, automatic shut-off valves on the water
to the case washer should be installed so that the case washer
sprays would shut-off when the forward line of the feeder was
filled. Many cases are exposed to long term sprays because of
relatively low rate of stacking and use of washed cases in many
operations. Another alternative to the shut-off valve would be
an integrated timer coupled to a trip switch in which the trip
switch would activate the washer sprays which would automatically
shut-down after a specified washing cycle.
4. Install a product recovery can system, attached to
a pump and piped to a product recovery tank. Such a system
should be installed near filling machines, (including ice cream)
to provide a system for placing the product from damaged cartons
or non-spoiled product returns. Such product could be sold for
animal feed.
5. Develop a "non-leak" portable unit for placing
damaged product containers. The system might be designed as
shown in Figure 16. Currently used package containers are not
liquid tight and generally leak products onto the floor. This
is particularly undesirable for high products materials such
as ice cream.
6. Install an electrical interlock between the CIP
power cut-on switch and the switch for manual air blow down, so
that the CIP pump cannot be turned on until after the blow down
system has purged the line of product.
7. Equip filling machines for most fluid products with
a product-capture system to collect products at time of change
over from one product to another. Most fillers have a product
88
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Stainless
Steel
tTank
Perforated
Screen
Leave
controller
interlocked
to air
valve and
transfer
pump
Spray
DeviceN
^
Air Actuated
Valve
Transfer
Pump
ir-n
Figure 16.
Damaged Container Product Recovery Cart. Located in
packaging area to receive all damaged cartons. Burst
rinse of water used to reduce product loss. Product
and rinse pumped to recovery tank. Cart moved to -solid
waste area for dumping of cartons.
89
Kearney Maiwjement Consuli.ints
-------
DRAFT
by-pass valve. An air-actuated by-pass valve interlocked with
a low level control could be piped to the filler product re-
covery system or the container collecting the product from drip
shields; so designed that when the product in the filler bowl
reaches the minimal low level the product by-pass system would
open, the product would drain, followed by a series of short
flushing rinses. Filler bowls could be equipped with small
scale spray devices for this prupose. The entire system could
be operating through a sequence timer. All the components of
such a system are readily available but the system would have
to be designed and built for each particular filler at the
present time. (Figure 17)
8. In the future, there is a need to give attention
to the design of equipment such as fillers and ice cream freezers
to permit them to be fully CIP cleaned.
9. Develop a curd saving system whereby fine curd
and/or casein particles could be efficiently separated from the
whey. Two designs are possible: (a) a gravity density separa-
tor, (b) a high performance sleeve filtration system such as
that designed for desludging pickle brine. Desludging solid
separating clarifiers have been shown to be ineffective in re-
moving the fine particles from cottage cheese whey. Generally
only 40-60% of the curd particles can be removed by centrifugal
means at the present time. There is need to develop a more
efficient solids centrifugal separator.
Waste Management Through Process Improvements
Dairy plant operations are made up of a number of standard manu-
facturing processes or unit operations. This section of the re-
port will deal primarily with the alternatives in equipment
selection combinations and operation that relate to the manage-
ment of water and waste discharges. At the same time focus will
be directed to features in the unit operation or process that
can be waste generating and may be subject to future design
alterations. Processes reviewed include:
- Milk receiving
- Clarifying and separating
- Pasturization
- Ice cream mix manufacturing
- Ice cream freezing
- Churning
- Cheesemaking
- Ultra-high temperature (UHT) processes
90
Kearney: Marvvjernent Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Product
Inlet\
High Level
Limit Control
Spray
Device
Low Level
Control
Filler
Valve'
Product
,^_Re c o ve ry
Valve
Figure 17.
Diagrammatic Design of Recovery System for Filler Supply
Tanks. On product change over, the low level control
would open the product recovery valve and close the
filler valve and shut down filler carton supply. After a
time delay the spray device would provide three small
burst rinses. After complete draining the system would be
ready for the next product. (In case of shortage of
product to the filler, the'same sequence would occur.)
(Diagram shows the major features of the system, but
should not be considered as the only possible design.)
91
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
(a) Milk Receiving:
Milk is received either by can or tank truck with can receiving
being continued only in small plant operations. Probably more
milk is received by cans in the cheese industry than any other
segment of the dairy industry. Salient features of can re-
ceiving operations were mentioned earlier in this section.
The large majority of milk is received by tank truck. Tank
truck receipts also include cream, ice cream mix, condensed skim,
and condensed whole milk.
The salient design features of tank truck receiving as related
to potential waste generation are illustrated in Figure 18. As
presently designed, the plastic transfer hose which contains
about a gallon of product under proper design remains full of
milk after the tank truck is emptied. Unless special care is
exercised this is lost to the drain each time a tank truck is
disconnected. This represents a potential loss of .04 kg of
BOD/1000 kg of milk received. (Later in this section a rinse
saving system design is shown that would eliminate this as a
problem; this would represent about 27 liters of total product
saved per tank truck.)
(b) Clarifying and Separating:
Centrifugal processes common to most dairy plant operations in-
clude clarification and separation. In small and older plants
two separate machines will be used for each operation. Each
machine accumulates sludge, thus increasing waste and cleaning
requirements. Today, even for small plants, combination machines
which will clarify, separate and also standardize product are
available. Until recently, centrifugal machines were not de-
signed to be cleaned in place and therefore many exist in the
industry which must be hand cleaned. The bowl sludge should
not be washed to drain, but handled as a solid waste.
New centrifugal machines can be cleaned in place and are de-
signed to intermittently desludge during the processing opera-
tion. This may occur in 15 or 30 minute intervals. The sludge
should not be discharged to drain bxit be collected for separate
handling.
(c) Pasteurization:
Pasteurization may be accomplished by batch (vat) or flow-
through (HTST) processes. Small plants will still tend to uti-
lize vat pasteurization processes which generally means filling
and emptying the same vat pasteurizer several times during a
day's operation. Vat pasteruizcrs are also commonly in use in
large ice cream operations for the pasteurization of ice cream
mixes. Special attention in these cases to mix recovery is
merited.
92
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
Storage
Tank
n
VD
CO
Air Eliminator to
remove air (foam)
from product
(should be
designed for GIF)
Transfer
Pump of
Centrifugal
Design
Properly designed Spray Cleaning
System for tank truck cleaning.
Should be designed to reach all
tank surfaces of largest tankers
(up to 23,000 liters) received by
/ operation. Can be used for short
/ spray bursts to pre-rinse tankers
I that might be collected. (See
V Figure )
Truck Receiving Area
sloped to provide for
maximum draining and
unloading of product.
3-4" Plastic Transfer Hose should
be kept short as feasible. With current
systems milk remains in this line after
truck is emptied. It contains about one
gallon of the product.
Figure 18. Main Features of a Milk tank Receiving Process.
-------
DRAFT
HTST pasteurizers are started up and stopped with water of
necessity because of public health requirements. In all cases,
this necessitates discharge to drain of milk - water mixtures
both on start-up, change-over and shut-down because of legal
regulations against the adulteration of dairy products with
water. This is almost always accomplished by opening a line and
watching the flow of the mixture to drain until it appears to
contain either all milk or all water as the case may be and then
start the machine forward flow. All but the smallest organiza-
tions would find it profitable to include the products recovery
system mentioned later in this section. In small installations
where this is not feasible the incorporation of an interlocking
timing device could be utilized to minimize or at least control
the amount of water - milk discharged to the sewer. This would
be a simple timer interlocked to the control panel to initiate
forward flow after a specific timed volume of product had been
discharged to the drain.
The pasteurization process may be simple or complex, integrating
many other items of equipment into the process system (Figure 19),
In such cases control of the system is more difficult and good
maintenance is essential.
(d) Ice Cream Mix Manufacturing:
In a large ice cream operation where a number of different
flavored products are manufactured, small multi-compartmentalized
tanks will be utilized to prepare each different flavored mix.
While convenient and permitting large scale operation, the
currently designed equipment is a major contributor to waste
load in ice cream operations. The method of operation fre-
quently requires relatively small batches of mix to be prepared
sequentially with cleaning necessary between mix lots. This is
in contrast with small counter freezer operations where the
freezing operation is a batch process and the flavoring is
accomplished in the freezer itself with minimal loss of product.
There is need to redesign flavoring systems to either require
less processing components to be cleaned several times during
the operation or development of a continuous mix flavoring
operation. (A proposed mix product saving system is presented
later in this section.)
(e) Ice Cream Freezing:
Ice cream freezing operations can be done either by batch or
continuous process. Only very small ice cream operations con-
tinue to operate by the batch process. Unlike most dairy plant
processes, continuous ice cream freezing has probably contri-
buted to a greater waste than to a savings in waste. However,
return to batch freezing operations, which would be less waste-
ful, would be impractical because of limitation in capacity of
equipment.
94
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
Homogenizer(High pressure
multi-piston pump.
Leaking seals are
common and can cause
considerable product
loss)
Plate Heat Exchangers,
with gaskets under pressure
Balance Tank- should j
, be equipped with high *.
* level limit controller '
and low limit level '
'controller interlocked
to water supply
Pod reduces amount
of water-milk
mixture to be
discharged to drain
or recovery system.
Vacuum Deororizer
(Must be protected
against entrainment
losses)
Flow Diversion Valve.
New type has leak
protection port that
should be piped to
recovery system.
h^Hplding Tube
Separator-Clarifie r
(CIP type, sludge
discharge collected)
A
Centrifugal
Booster Pump
Timing Pump
(Positive Pump)
Figure 19.
Integrated HTST Pasteurizer System. Integrating a booster pump, timing pump,
separator-clarifier, vacuum deodorizer and homogenizer. Such a complex system is
more subject to periodic shut downs because any malfunction in any unit in the
-process will cause the system to go to diverted flow or shut down. Each time the
system is shut down there is wasted milk-water mixtures; since it has to be started
and stopped on water to meet public health criteria.
o
E
H
-------
DRAFT
(f) Churning:
In the batch butter-manufacturing process, a number of separate
churns were utilized which necessitated the cleaning of a large
number of different items. That process contributes a higher
waste load than modern conventional continuous buttermaking
processes. All continuous buttermaking processes utilize a
combination of processing units including separation, phase in-
version, blending of non-fat ingredients, and processing through
continuous mixers which are in mechanical aspects similar to
the ice cream freezer. The reduction in number of pieces of
equipment that need to be cleaned and the nature of the opera-
tion provide for a relatively low waste load. The major waste
load in continuous buttermaking operations is at the packaging
end, in the butter printing and packaging equipment operation.
(g) Cheesemaking:
The majority of cheese manufacturing processes in the United
States are of a batch, manual-type operation in which milk is
coagulated, cut, the whey expelled by cooking and then the curd
whey separated. The continuous processing of cheese curd has
been accomplished, primarily in Europe, in which the milk is
precondensed and coagulated in a continuous flow system. This
system produces less whey per unit volume of milk made into
cheese, with more efficient handling, less equipment, and on an
automated basis. It therefore lends itself to waste reduction.
However, at the present time the quality of continuously manu-
factured cottage cheese or Cheddar cheese has not been sufficient
to merit its wide utilization in the industry.
Mechanical curd handling processes for washing cottage cheese
have generally resulted in excessive curd break-up and excessive
production of "fines" go out with the wash water to the sewer.
The transfer of cottage curd in a cream form to filling machines
has eliminated the hand transfer of the curd and under proper
management can result in a reduction in curd loss.
(h) UHT Processes:
In recent years there has been a tendency for the dairy industry
to utilize an increasing amount of heat in the processing of its
fluid products. Many high solid specialty products such as
creams, half and half, and some puddings are being "sterilized"
by continuous flow processes. The utilization of higher heat
processes has a tendency for greater burn on, and a greater •
requirement for equipment which will not fail. Such equipment
must be operated under aseptic conditions and any stoppage of
the processing operation requires a complete clean-up of the
system. Such operations are sterilized by hot water 300°F prior
to running. If there is a stoppage for any reason, the process
must be shut-down, cleaned, and resterilized before use.
96
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Waste Management Through Systems Improvements
In the context of this report a 'system" is a combination of
operations involving a multiplicity of different units of equip-
ment and integrated to a common purpose which may involve one or
more of the unit processes of the dairy plant. Such systems can
be categorized into: (a) those that have been put in use in
at least one or more dairy plants, and (b) those that have not
yet been utilized but are technologically feasible and for which
component equipment parts now exist..
(a) Waste Control Systems Now In Use:
Systems which are currently in use that have a direct impact on
decreasing dairy plant wastes include the following:
- CIP cleaning systems
- HTST product recovery systems (for fluid products and
ice cream)
- Air blow down
- Product rinse recovery systems
- Post rinse reutilization systems
- Automatic processes
1. CIP - The management of cleaning systems for dairy
plants has significance to waste discharges in three respects:
(a) the amount of milk solids discharged to drain through rins-
ing operations, (b) the concentration of detergents in the final
waste water, and (c) the amount of milk solids discharged to
drain as the result of the cleaning operation itself. The clean-
ing of all dairy equipment, whether done by mechanical force
or hand cleaning, involves four steps: pre-rinse, cleaning,
post-rinse, and sanitizing.
Wherever possible, circulation cleaning procedures are replac-
ing the hand-cleaning operations primarily because of their
greater efficiency and concomitant result in improving product
quality. Since cleaning compounds have been shown to be dele-
terious to the microflora of dairy waste treatment systems, all
cleaning systems should take into account both water utilization
and cleaning compound utilization.
In small plants where hand-cleaning cannot be economically avoided,
a system should be developed to pre-package the cleaning com-
pounds in amounts just sufficient to do each different type of
cleaning job in the plant. This will avoid the tendency of
97
Kearney: Marvvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
plant personnel to use much more cleaning compound than necessary.
A wash vat for hand cleaning should be provided that has direct
connection to the plant hot water system and incorporates a
thermostatically controlled heater to maintain the tank tempera-
ture at or around 120°F. High-pressure spray cleaning units
should be used for hand cleaning of storage tanks and process
vessels to improve efficiency and reduce cleaning compound usage.
Cleaning compounds should be selected for a specific type of
operation and the different types of compounds kept at a minimum
to eliminate confusion, loss of materials, and utilization of
improper substances.
Small parts such as filler parts, homogenizer parts and separator
parts from those machines needing to be hand-cleaned should be
cleaned in a we11-designed COP (cleaned-out-of-place) circulation
tank cleaner equipped with a self-contained pump and a thermosti-
cally controlled heating system.
For maximum efficiency, minimum utilization of cleaning compounds,
and maximum potential use of rinse recovery systems, as much of
the plant equipment as possible should be CIP. Two types of CIP
systems are currently in use in the dairy industry:
Single-use: the cleaning compound is added to the
cleaning solution and discharged to drain after a
single cleaning operation.
Multiple-use: the cleaning compound is circulated
through the equipment to be cleaned and returned to
a central cleaning tank for reutilization. The
cleaning compound concentration is maintained at
a desired level either by "recharging" or by using
contactivity measurements and automatic addition of
detergent as required.
There is a conflict within industry as to which method is best
from the viewpoing of cleaning compound (detergent) and water
usage. In principle it would appear that the reutilization of
the detergent solution should be the most economical in respect
to water and cleaning compound requirements. Under actual
practice this has not always been the case and in some instances
the highest water and cleaning compound utilization has been
with plants equipped with multiple-use CIP systems. On the
average, single-use systems use less cleaning compound and
slightly more water than multiple or reuse systems.
This is shown for two plants in the data on the following
page.
98
Kearney: M«ia\3ement Consultants
-------
Plants Amount of clean-
ing compounds
used per day
Volume of clean-
ing solution
per day
DRAFT
Average % con-
centration of
cleaning com-
pound in solu-
tion
KK
A
B
1
1
,538
,133
Ibs.
699
515
liters
68
79
,130
,485
18
21
gal.
,000
,000
0
0
.4
.2
Although the multiple-use system does get multiple utilization
out of its cleaning compound solution, the concentration of
cleaning compound utilized must be higher than in the single
use system. The incorporation of milk solids as a result of
cleaning action decreases the efficiency of cleaning operation
and therefore requires a larger cleaning compound concentration
to effect an equivalent cleaning job. A concentration of 2.57o
has been recommended for multiple use system for cleaning a
high temperature short time unit (one of the most difficult jobs
in a milk plant) (145). The normal concentration single-use
GIF cleaning for HTST of equivalent size and capacity would be
from 0.75 to 1%.
As regards water volume, the only savings in multiple-use is
the cleaning solution itself. The pre-rinse, post-rinse and
sanitizing operations require the same amount of water as for
the single use cleaning system, since these rinses and sanitiz-
ing solutions are passed through on a single-use basis. Based
on incomplete data it would appear that for an equivalent clean-
ing job the multiple-use cleaning system requires approximately
two times the concentration of cleaning compound 'as the single
use and about 75-85% as much water.
Based on these facts, it would appear that the multiple-use
system may be more advantageous in the management of waste
discharges in dairy plants. In addition, since these systems
are generally fed with liquid detergents, they are more adapta-
ble to total automation than are the systems using dry deter-
gents.
Automation of a GIF system provides for maximum potential waste
control, both in respect to product loss and detergent utiliza-
tion. An automated GIF system is composed of necessary supply
lines, return lines, remote operated valves, flow control pump-
ing system, temperature control system and centralized cpntrol
units to operate the system.
99
Kearney: Maaigement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Two separate automated CIP systems are shown in Figure 20. One
of these represents a multiple-use system and the other repre-
sents a single-use design. It should be noted that in most
plants employing single-use systems that even a 450,000 kg
(million pound) milk plant can be cleaned with no more than
two separate systems, whereas the multiple use system generally
would require at least twice as many cleaning stations.
2. HTST Product Recovery System - Figure 21 illus-
trates a product recovery system for pasteurizer start-up and
shut-down. A low-level control actuates the water shut-on
valve. The water valve allows water to enter the balance tank
based on the flow rate; the timer actuates valve 4 to divert the
flow to a rinse recovery tank until a given volume of water has
been metered through the balance tank. At that time the flow
is either diverted to the balance tank in the case of shut-down
with water or to forward flow in the case of start-up with water.
The water-milk mixture is collected in a product recovery tank.
3. Air Blow Down System - In large plant installa-
tions it is impossible to provide a system for draining product
lines in a practical manner so that both manual and automated
air blow down systems have been designed. Figure 22 shows the
details of design of an air blow down system. These systems
have to be designed with safety in mind as well as efficiency.
A major problem in most current designs in inadequate air
capacity to completely clear the lines of product and dependency
upon plant personnel to make sure that they are used prior to
initiation of the CIP cleaning operation.
4. Product Rinse Recovery - The automated CIP system
and product recovery system for the HTST pasteurizer can also
be expanded to include rinse recovery for all product lines and
receiving operations. Figures 23 and 24 show two different
approaches to recovery in receiving operations. Figure 25 de-
tails the features of a rinse recovery system for tanks and
pipes within a fluid milk plant. Figure 26 shows the major
features of the rinse recovery for ice cream operations.
5. Post Rinse Utilization System - Figure 27 shows
the method of diverting final rinses and sanitation water to a
holding tank for utilization in prerinsing and wash water make-
up for single use CIP application.
6. Automated Continuous Processing - Fluid products,
including ice cream mix, can be prepared in a continuous, sequen-
tial manner eliminating the need for special processing vats, for
various products, and also eliminating the need to make a change-
over in water between products that are being pasteurized. Such
systems are currently in use for milk products and could be
for ice cream operations. A diagram representating
100
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
?
le
is
1
r"
r
C1P UN''
~ —
»• •
© :i
"3d—^
?f 2T"
Courfesy Klenrad* Producfs Oiv ,
Cconom«s laboratory. Int. ^—)
Figure 20. Schematic Flow Diagram Showing Typical Approaches to CIP.
-------
3
,~1
i
TO RINSE TANK
PAST. MILK
CREAM
L _L
LOVJ Level
Control
Figure 21. Diagrammatic presentation of automated system for minimizing milk losses
for recovery of shut-down and start-up of water-milk mixtures.
-------
Air Pipe Line Filter
/and Moisture Trap •
Milk Pipeline (may be hundreds
feet in actual installation)
I
I
2
n
Disposable
Media
Filter
I
—D
^Compresser
Intake Air
— Filter
Air Actuat
to line (
system, s
be accomp
line)
;d Valve to admit air
interlocked with CIP
that cleaning can not
.ished without blowing
Recovery
/Point
Figure 22. Simple Diagramatic Presentation of Air Blow Down System.(Simplest form)
(May blow to a specific tank or blow back into a storage tank containing
product) Must have a release point for safety.
-------
DRAFT
Product
Storage X
Rinse Recovery Tank
Air Eliminator
Valves
•Transfer Pump
Spray Device
,Q
r
Automated
Water Supply
O
Product
Storage
Figure 23.,
Rinse Recovery Tank
Transfer
Pump
Air
Eliminator
Automated
Water Supply
Gravity Fed Surge Tank
Three-Way Valve
Spray Device
D
Figure 24.
Figures 23 and 24.
Rinse Recovery System.for Tank Truck Receiving,
Small volxime hurst rinses through spray device
rinse tank nnd remove product in plastic line
before truck is unloaded.
104
Kearney Marwsement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Cheese
Vat
Product
Line -
CIP Return
Line
HTST—*
Devices
/ Spray
f Devices
• Cleaning Line
Automated CIP
System or
Water Supply
Rinse Recovery
Tank
Figure 25. Tank and Line Rinse Recovery System.
105
Kearney. Man.vj;einont Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Packaging Machine
V,
Valve to divert product
if filler jams, and to
provide for rinse return/*
Freezer
Mix Supply Tank
Supplied with
Spray Device
CIP
System^Q
Frozen Ice Cream
Recovery Tank.
Mixer break down
foam and mix is
returned to mix
supply vat.
High Speed
Mixer
Rinse Recovery
Tank (with spray
device for
cleaning)
Figure 2b. Product Recycle System for Ice Cream Operations
and Rinse Recovery.
106
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
GIF Rinse and Sanitizer
'Recovery Tank
Valve interlocked to sequence timer
^tc direct final rinse and sanitizing
r solution to recovery tank.
Reducer
to
produce
To CIP
supply
tank for
cleaning
solution
make-
HTST
Unit
Invert elbows
to CIP
Raw
Tanks
Figure 27. CIP Rinse Recovery System.
-------
DRAFT
an automated system for continuous blending of products at the
HTST pasteurizer balance tank (thus eliminating need for pasteuri-
zer to shut down between change-overs) is shown in Figure 28.
Figure 29 shows the adaptation of the system for flavored ice
cream mix in which the pasteurized product is fed to an end-of-
process surge tank where flavorings and sugar may be added.
(b) New Waste Control Concepts
A number of new waste control systems could be engineered using
existing components and electrical and electronic control systems.
These include the following:
1. High solids recovery system interlocked with the
drainage system of the dairy plant.Since accidental spills are
not avoidable in any current dairy plant and since certain areas
•are unavoidably high waste areas, the following system was de-
signed to cope with unexpected high waste discharges. The system
could be set up in each major processing department:
- Receiving
- Tank storage
- Processing
- Filling
- Cottage cheese
- Ice cream
- Condensing
- Drying
- Churning
Because of the expense, this would not be feasible in most cases
and only a single high waste recovery system might be installed.
Figure 30 shows how low-waste and high-waste drains could be
segregated and how the high recovery system could be incorporated
into the high waste drain.
The drain line from the department or the single segregation
point would be equipped with a tnrbidimeter that was calibrated
to the solids content of the waste for the given outlet. Any
discharge over a pre-set value which crossed the drain line
would be diverted to a high-solids waste recovery tank. When
the flow became normal, tho divert line valve would close and
the drain valve would open, returning flow to the sewer.
108
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
£
2 O
n vo
TO RINSE TANK
PAST. MILK
CREAM
HOMO
DRAIN
Fipare 28. -Lri-T'--"
,fl,ic .,re?fentation of auto-nated sycten. for nintmizinc rsilk losses
nus'Mon.iim- of products -,t HTl'-T p^^uri?^ V-^no- tar.*,
u- ::ee-.l for oicteurizer shut-town during proluct -r
-------
Fruit & Nut
Feeder
Liquid Flavors
Metering
Pump
Blender
To Freezer
Figure 29. Proposed Diagrammatic Scheme for Continuous Make-Up of Ice Cream Mixes.
All feed lines would be equipped with metering pumps and meters and could
be automatically controlled. Mix make-up tank could be located just
ahead of freezer(s).
-------
DRAFT
High Solid wnstej^
recovery tank C-j
(Fed to treatment
plant slowly, or
package, frozen
or mixed with ^
plastic and disposfcic]
of as solid waste.-SV
,/ Q/
J": I PRODUCT LOSS WASTE
Turbidity
detection
and divert valve
Figure 30. Floor drain system for segregation of high and low
solids waste waters in a dairy food plant.
Ill
Kearney Marwvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Installation of sanitary drain lines for each different major
area might be developed so that high milk solids materials could
be saved for product rerun. The cost versus the potential gain
of such an advanced system would have to be determined.
2. Line recovery system. Most dairy plants of large
size have piping systems that contain up to 4,500 kg (10,000 Ibs)
of product. Even with complete air blowdown of any current de-
sign, about 0.25 to 2% of the product, depending upon viscosity,
remains in the line. At a 1% loss, this represents 45 kg
(100 Ibs) of product per day and 1 kg of BOD per 1000 kg
(1 Ib per 1,000 Ibs) of product in the line. The system en-
visioned would combine the CIP system with the air blowdown
system. 'The CIP system would be automated to provide for the
incorporation of small "slugs" of water in the line during air
blowdown. The "water suasages'1 would be more effective in re-
moving the product from the line than normal air blowdown.
During operation of the system, the product would be collected
in a product recovery tank.
3. Ice cream mix recovery system. High-speed ice
cream fillers necessitate a new approach to prevent wasted ice
cream. This could involve a direct system interlocked to the
filler. With the filler stopped, a divert valve could transfer
the mix to a tank where the mix sould be melted and reused. An
alternative would be to transfer the mix from the freezer to a
well-insulated surge tank so that the filler stoppages would not
interfere with ice cream freezer operations. (See Figure 26.)
A new freezer design that would permit the circulation of the
partially frozen mix merits consideration.
4. Cascading water uses in dairy plant operations.
In addition to product recovery tanks, water recovery tanks
should be installed to provide for a system of reuse. Lines
which hold 4,500 kg of product also hold the same amount^of
water. The tollowing types of water are used in a cleaning
system:
- Prerinse
- Cleaning water
- Post rinse
- Acidified rinse
- Sanitizing solution
The prerinse and cleaning wash water are high in solids content
and such waters are not suitable for further usage without
112
Keainey: Management Consult.xnts
-------
DRAFT
treatment. Prerinse could be segregated for product reuse as
outlined previously. Post rinse, acidified rinse, and sanitiz-
ing solutions could be used at least a second time, as follows:
(a) Post rinse and acidified rinse combined, for
use as a product prerinse.
(b) Sanitizer solution (chlorine) could be
neutralized with alkali and used as make-up
water for the next cleaning cycle, since
chlorine increases the efficience of alkaline
cleaning compounds.
(c) Prerinse, post rinse and acidified rinse may
be used (with further chlorination as needed)
to wash cottage cheese.
(d) Cottage cheese second and third wash waters
(filtered free of curd fines) can be used
as make-up water for acid pre-rinse of plant
equipment.
5. Water purification for in plant us<^. Reverse
Osmosis units may be utilized to recover water for reuse in
dairy plants. Prerinses, final post rinses, acidified rinses,
and cottage cheese wash water, after a second use, could be run
through a reverse osmosis unit to concentrate milk solids; the
concentrate could be discharged to a product recovery tank for
feed use. The water reclaimed could serve for a number of in-
plant uses, including boiler make-up, cottage cheese wash water,
cooling water, and plant hot water.
6. Reclamation of cleaning compounds. Reverse osmosis
thin channel units may be designed to be used to minimize solids
losses to drains and recover chemicals for reuse in cleaning
compound formulation. Alkaline-resistant membranes would be
required, along with a high-turbulence, thin-channel membrane
processor. Milk protein and milk fat would be collected by use
of an ultrafiltration unit to concentrate to maximum solids for
discharge as a feed material. The filtrate would be further
processed by reverse osmosis to concentrate chemicals for solids
waste disposal, for reuse in cleaning.,
7. Pretreatment to reduce fats, oils and grease.
Plants discharging wastes to municipal sewer systems may find
themselves under severe, limitation in terms of the level for
fats, oils and grease they can discharge. Fats, oils and grease
may interfere with the primary treatment system in municipal
waste treatment plants by adding to a high sludge volume and to
clogging of the treatment facility. Such materials do not
interfere with dairy waste treatment systems, but these exclude
113
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
the common primary filter used in municipal plants. At the
present time there is no technology available to reduce the
fats, oils, and grease to less than approximately 250 mg/liter
under the best operating conditions without the use of a
secondary biological oxidation treatment of the dairy waste
discharge. The following approach may be feasible: Wastes
over a pre-set limit are detected by a turbidimeter and diverted
to an ultrafiltration membrane processor. Thin-channel, high-
turbulence systems now exist that concentrate whole milk and
these systems should be able to concentrate milk solids that
would cause the waste to exceed the current limits of 100 mg/liter
of fats, oils, and grease in the waste discharge to municipal
sewers. At the present time care would have to be taken to
exclude waste water with pH levels higher than 8.0 or lower than
3.5 because of the pH sensitivity of curd membranes. In addition
to concentrating fat the system would also concentrate protein
and these two might well be recovered for use as animal feed.
If necessary, the initial concentrate could be diluted and re-
concentrated to provide for a purer feed stuff. Economic
practicability is not known.
Waste Management Through Proper Plant Layout and Equipment
Selection
Proper layout.and installation of equipment designed..to minimize-
waste are important factors to achieve low waste and low water
consumption in new or expanded plants.
(a) Plant Layout
Whereas the principles involved apply to all dairy food plants,
they are most critical for large ones. The point is approach-
ing when 80% of the dairy products will be produced in less
than 30% of the plants. Thus, major waste discharges will be
associated with a relatively few very large plants. For such
operations, attention to plant layout is essential.
Some major features in plant design which will minimize waste
loads include:
1. The use of a minimum number of storage tanks. A
reduction in the number of tanks reduces the number of fittings,
valves, pipe length, and also reduces the amount of wash water
and cleaning solution required. Also, the loss due to product
adhering to the sidewalls of tanks is minimized by using fewer
and larger tanks.
2. Locating equipment in a flow pattern so as to
reduce the amount of piping required. Fewer pipes mean fewer
fittings, fewer pumps and fewer places for leakage.
11A
Kearney: Management Consult.inls
-------
DRAFT
3. Segregation of waste discharge lines on a depart-
mental basis. Waste discharge lines should be designed so that
the wastes from each major plant area can be identified and,
ideally, diverted independently of other waste discharges. This
would permit identification of problems and later application of
advanced technology to divert from the sewer all excessive dis-
charges - such as accidental spills.
4. Storage tanks should be elevated and provide for
gravity flow to processing and filling equipment. This allows
for more complete drainage of tanks and piping, and reduces
pumping requirements.
5. Space for expansion should be provided in each de-
partmental area. This will permit for an orderly expansion,
without having to install tanks and equipment at remote points
from existing equipment. Only the equipment needed for current
production (or production for the next three years) should be
installed at the time of building the plant. The eliminates the
tendency to operate a number of different pieces of related
equipment under-capacity to "justify" their presence in the
plant Such surplus equipment, especially pasteurizers, tends
to increase waste loads and require additional maintenance at-
tention.
6. Hand-cleaned tanks should be designed to be high
enough from the floor to permit draining and rinsing. The ap-
plication of these principles is illustrated in Figure 31.
(b) Equipment Selection
In new or remodeled plants, attention must also be given to the
selection of equipment, processes and systems to minimize water
usage and waste discharge. The following considerations are
applicable to all dairy plant operations. In many instances,
remodeling to incorporate these concepts may be beneficial to
overall plant efficiencies and operations.
1. Evaluation of equipment for ease of cleaning.
Equipment should be designed to eliminate dead space, to permit
complete draining, and be adaptable to GIF (cleaned in place).
Use of 3A-approved equipment is to be encouraged, since these
cleanability factors are included in the approval process.
2. Use GIF air-actuated sanitary valves in place of
plug valves. They fall shut incase of actuator failure, reduce
leaks in piping systems, are not taken down for cleaning and
therefore receive less damage and require less maintenance. Such
valves are the key to other desirable waste management features
such as automated GIF systems, automated process control, rinse
recovery systems, and air blowdown systems.
115
Kearney: Marw^ement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
/
iCottage Cheese
Tanks elevated for gravity
/feed to processing and
/filling
Use few.large tanks to
minimize the number of
. tanks,valves, fittings,
pumps and lines to reduce
(a) amount of equipment
to be cleaned and (b)
reduce the number of points
for potential leakage.
) Receiving located
/<- close to storage
\ tanks
\
Load T
Out
All equipment located
so as to minimize the
amount of piping
valves and fitting
required.
Main
Sewer
Access
Drain
Access
Points
x Central
Cleaning Station
to minimize piping
Expansion space provided within
a given type of operation to
eliminate excessive piping and
tankage at a later time.
Figure 31. Plant Lay Out Concepts for Dairy Plants (milk and
cottage cheese used as an example)
116
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
3. Welded lines should be used wherever possible to
reduce leaks by eliminating joints and fittings.
4. For pipes that must be disconnected, use CIP fit-
tings that are designed not to leak and require minimum main-
tenance .
5. CIP systems should be used wherever possible. In
all new installations, these should be automated to eliminate
human errors, to control the use of cleaning compounds and
water, to improve cleaning efficiencies and to provide basic
systems for use in future engineering processes for waste con-
trol.
6. Install a central hot water system. Do not use
steam "T" mixers; they waste up to 5070 more water than a central
heating system for hot water.
7. Evaluate all available processes and systems for
waste management concepts.
Waste Reduction Possible Through Improvement
of Plant Management and Plant Engineering
Assessment of the extent to which in-plant controls can reduce
dairy plant wastes id difficult, because of the many different
types of plants, the variability of management, and the lack of
an absolute model on which to base judgement. Based on limited
data, it would appear probable that with current management,
equipment, processes and systems that have been utilized any-
where in the industry, that the best that could be achieved in
most plants would be a water discharge of 830 liters per 1,000 kg,
(100 gallons per 1,000 Ibs.) of milk equivalent processed, and a
BOD5 discharge of 0.5 kg. per thousand kilograms of milk equi-
valent processed. This would be equivalent to a BOD^ waste
strength minimum of 600 mg/liter. The achievement of such levels
have been demonstrated only in a few instances in the industry
and in all cases these have been in single-product plants not
involving ice cream or cottage cheese.
Waste Reduction Possible Through Management
The extent to which management can reduce water consumption and
and waste loads would depend upon a number of factors that do
not lend themselves to objective evaluation such as the initial
quality of management, the current water and waste loads in the
operation, and the type and efficiency of implementation of
control programs within the plant. No absolute values can be
ascertained. Nor is it possible to assign individual water and
waste discharge savings to specific "aspects of the plant manage-
ment improvement program; rather, the problem can only be looked
at subjectively in the context of its whole.
117 •
Kearney: M.irv»3ement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
The consensus amongst those who have studied dairy plant waste
control recently (Harper, Zall, and Carawan) is that under most
circumstances management improvement generally can result in a
reduction of 100% of final load in both water and waste concen-
tration discharges (or reduction equicalent to 5070 of current
loads).
Although there are exceptions, there has been a general relation-
ship found between waste water volume and BOD5 concentrations in
dairy plant waste waters. Based on the premise that for most
plant operations the waste water discharge could be reduced to
a rate of 1,660 liters per 1,000 kg (200 gallons per 1,000 Ibs.)
of milk equivalent processed and BOD5 to 2.4 kg BOD5 per thous-
and kilograms milk equivalent processed, then the percentage
reduction in both water and BOD^ can be calculated as shown in
Figure 33 and 34 for BOD5 and waste water, respectively. The
reductions achievable represent a real economic return to the
operation. Each kilogram of BOD5 saved for every 1,000 kg of
milk processed represents a savings of up to 10 cents on sur-
charge and 70 cents in cost value of raw milk. (Grade A milk
at a farm price of $7 per cwt.) For a 227,000 kg a day milk
plant, this would represent a potential return of $400 per day
or $120,000 per yeat (based on 300 processing days).
v
The values on Figures 3. and 3? do not include cooling water,
which should be segregated from the sanitary sewer system of the
of the plant. As a point of reference in terms of total water
utilized in the dairy plant, about 20% is consumed and does not
enter the drain and up to 307o is used as cooling water.
Waste Reduction Through Engineering
Assignment of values to water and waste reduction through engin-
eering is very difficult because of the multiplicity of variable
factors that are involved. The values arrived at in this report
are based on subjective judgment. It is assumed that an overall
reduction of about two kg of BOD5/1,000 kilograms of milk equi-
valent processed is achievable in a well-managed plant through
the application of presently available equipment, processes and
systems. The values used as a base line for unit operations are
the "standard manufacturing process: waste loads based on "good
management," reported in the 1971 Kearney report. It should be
recognized that these values were obtained on relatively limited
data and may not be generally achievable in the dairy industry
as a whole at the present time.
An example of what can be achieved through application of engin-
eering is shown in Figures 34 and 35. Figure 34 shows the waste
load for a fluid milk operation under normal practices of rela-
tively good management. Figure 35 shows the values for unit
118
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
400
7
/o
Reduction
Possible
200
100
34 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13
Discharged/1000# i^ilk processed
Reduction
Possible
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
)-
)
).
)
1
B
^
^^
^^
^^
100 200 360 400 5d
gallons water/1000# of milk
^^
o el
process
^^
)0 70
ed
0
Figures 32 and 33. Percentage reduction in BOD and water volume
through IN-Plant Management control.
119
Kearney: /VUrwvyment Consultants
-------
Raw
Storage
Silo
Separation
M Tank " \ } ,—. HTST
^ UU 00 U H, <• '
S r 1U 20 gal; 160 gal;
0.2$ BOD 0.8# BOD
16 gal; 0.2#BOD 2gal.
f 0.08#
1
f ^ • Storage
^ O yJnl 1 — 1 .
3 r' 1 n D n r- 1
o ^
| Distribution >^ 2 gal; Conveying
f Returns / O-1* SOD L gal;
B @^ 0.1# BOD
Past
Storage
Silo
\ /
N A-
20 gal;
0.2# BOD
I
Filling
1Q gal.
0.3# BOD
12 gal;
iz g
0.4$
Total 243 gal
2.35$ BOD
Figure 34. Waste Coefficients for a Fluid Milk Operation Normal Operation.
(#B6D/1000# Milk processed, gal waste water/1000#Milk processed)
-------
n
i
£
Q>
Rav?
Storage
Silo
• — • Seperating
Tank " "\ )
!' r* \ /
GO OO>V Ph. N
O Mo
a
12 gal. 1.8 gal. 10 gal.
0.06# BOD 0.0 1# BOD 0.05# BOD
2 gal.
0# 0# BOD
HTST
n
40 gal.
0.15#
Past
storage
Silo
10 gal.
0.0$
U Filling
1 gal. 6 gal.
0.1# BOD 0.07# BOD
Total 102.8 gal./1000#
0.5# BOD/1000#
Figure 35.
Waste Coefficients After Installation of Engineering Advances in a Fluid
Milk Operation ( #BOD/1000 milk processed, gal. waste water/1000# milk
processed)
-------
DRAFT
operations and the plant after the following engineering changes:
- Installation of drip shields on all fillers.
- A central water heating system with shut-off valves on
all hoses.
- A product recovery for the HTST operation for start-up,
change-over, and shut-down.
- Air blown down of lines.
- A rinse recovery system.
- Collection of CIP separator sludge as solid waste.
- Utilization of all returns for hog feed.
- Utilization of a water-tight container for all damaged
packaged products.
The reductions achieved would appear to be as great as could be
conceivably possible under any currently available engineering
equipment process or systems.
The estimated reduction in waste water volume and BOD5 concen-
tration for the various engineering aspects cited in this report
are summarized in Table 18 along with the various suggested im-
provements in equipment processes and systems. In some cases it
is not possible to estimate a potential waste reduction in value.
In mant instances the systems are being installed to eliminate
dependence upon people and therefore savings relate to management
aspects of the plant operation. As in the cast of waste control
through management improvement, the extent of decrease in overall
waste loads would depend to a large extent upon the current
utilization of recommended equipment processing systems. It must
be emphasized that the incorporation of engineering improvements
without concomitant management control can and has resulted in
water and waste discharges that are in excess of those of the
dairy plant with less modern equipment and planned management
waste control.
122
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 18
Effect of Engineering Improvement of
Equipment, Processes and Systems on Waste Reduction
Engineering
Improvement
Estimated Waste Reduction Potential
Water
Equipment
Cone-type silo
tank
Water Shut Off
Valves
Drain Screens
Drip Saver
Filler Drip
Shield
Interlock
Control
760 liters (200 gal.) 73 kg (160 Ibs)
Up to 50% of water
used
None
None
Requires water
for operation
Variable
(Water saved
equivalent to
about 10 liters
per liter of fluid
product saved)
Variable
Not estimable - waste
represents spillage
in most cases
0.36 kg per 38 liter
can (0.8 lbs/10 gal.
can) for milk;
1.5 kg per 38 liter
can (3.2 lb/10 gal.
can) for heavy cream
Variable - can save
up to 0.25 kg BOD per
1,000 kilograms of
milk packaged; 1.0 kg
BOD5 per 1,000 kg of
cream packaged. In
cases of poor management
and maintenance, re-
duction could be 2 to 3
times these values.
Not calculable. Loss
without control would
be caused only by
employee error. Such
error could result in
discharge of 1 kg BOD5
per 1,000 kg of milk
processed, or 4 kg
BOD 5 per 1,000 kg of
heavy cream processed.
123
Kearney: Marwvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 18 (cont.)
Engineering
Improvement
Estimated Waste Reduction Potential
Water
BOD5
Equipment
Ice Cream Filler
drip shields
Novelty Collection
System
Product Recovery
Can System
"Non-Leak"
Portable Damaged
Package Unit
Curd Saving
Unit
Filler-Product
Recovery System
Variable
(20 liters per
liter ice cream
saved)
Variable - up
to 1,900 liters
(500 gallons) of
water to wash
frozen novelties
down the drain.
Variable;
Should save
8.3 liters of
water per 1,000
kg of milk
processed.
Variable
Variable. At 6,800
1/hr, a one-minute
spill is equivalent
to 113 liters of ice
cream (57 kg) or 23
kg of BOD5.
Variable - reduction
in loss depends on
efficiency of machine.
On an average machine
savings should average
5-10 kg BOD5/day.
Variable: Depends
machine j ams. On an
average operation,
should save 0.1 kg
BOD5 per 1,000 kg of
milk processed.
Variable: Depends on
machine jams. Should
save 0.1 kg BODs per
1,000 kg of milk
processed
Not calculable at
Present time.
Variable; probably
save 0.05 kg BOD5
per 1,000 kg of milk
processed
124
Kearney: Marvvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 18 (cont.)
Engineering
Improvement
Estimated Waste Reduction Potential
Water BO~D~5
Equipment
Case Washer
Control
Systems
CIP Systems -
RE-Use Type
CIP Systems -
Single Use
Automated Continuous
Processing
HTST Recovery
System
Product Rinse
Recovery
Post Rinse
Utilization
5,000 gallon
tanks; valves,
pipes & controller
Air Slowdown
Should reduce water
used about 170 liters
(20 gal.) per 1,000
kg milk packaged
107o over single-use
system
None (10% less
cleaning compound
under average use)
Save 300 liters of
water on each pro-
duct cleaned over.
(6 change overs =
1,800 liters).
600 liters of
water/day
About 2 liters
of water/kg of
milk recovered
Approximately 5%
of water volume
of plant
0.1 kg water/I,000 kg
of milk processed
125
None
20% over hand-cleaning
of pipelines
20% over hand-cleaning
Save 0.6 kg BODS per
1,000 kg milk processed
for each product change
over (change over -
910 kg/2 min x 6 =
5,460 kg = 3.3 kg BOD5
saved per day.)
0.6 kg/1,000 kg
milk processed
0.15 kg BOD5/1,000 kg
milk processed
None
0.2 kg BODs/1,000 kg
of milk processed
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 18 (cont.)
Engineering Estimated Waste Reduction Potential
Improvement WaterBOD5
Systems
Ice Cream Rerun
System 2 liters per liter Variable; in most
ice cream saved operations, saving
(spilled ice cream in BOD5 should ave-
is rinsed to drain) rage 245 kg of BODs
per day.
New Systems
Not determinable at the present time
126
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
The data In Table 18 must be considered as guideline values
subject to confirmation through additional analyses that are
not available at the present time.
In a well-operated dairy plant one of the most visible sources
of organic waste is the start-up and shut-down of the pasteur-
izing unit. In this respect, the utilization of a product
recovery system merits particular mention in terms of potential
waste savings. Figure 36 shows the fat losses and product loss
as a function of time during the start-up and shut-down of
a 27,300 kg/hour (60,000 Ibs/hour) high-temperature short-time
pasteurizer. To go from complete water to complete milk or from
complete milk to complete water generally requires approximately
two minutes with the discharge of approximately 910 kg (2,000 Ibs)
of BOD5 every time the unit is started, stopped, or changed-
over in water between product. The utilization of the product
recovery system for HTST units can result in a 75% reduction in
product going to drain.
127
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
I
NJ
00
n
s •
v
3.5 %
i 1 i li i
500* PRODUCT/AT 60,000 #/hr.
J i t t
Figure 36.
TIME(min)
Fat losses as a function of time during start-up and shut-down of a
60,000 pound/hour HTST pasteurizer.
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VIII
END-OF-PIPE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
This section covers a discussion of treatment technologies that
can be applied outside manufacturing operations to reduce the
raw wastes before discharge to lake or stream.
The first part of the section covers a description of the end-
of-pipe technologies available, current practices, and problems;
the second part covers a discussion of the waste reductions achiev-
able by those end-of-pipe technologies.
Current Practices
With the exception of whey, dairy wastes are generally amenable
to biological breakdown. Consequently, the standard practice to
reduce oxygen demanding materials in dairy wastewater has been
to use secondary or biological treatment. Tertiary treatment
practices in the dairy industry - sand filtration, carbon adsorp-
tion, or other methods - are almost nil. Systems currently used
to treat dairy wastewater include:
Activated Sludge
In activate sludge systems, the wastewater is thoroughly mixed
and brought to contact with microorganisms by means of enforced
air. Microorganisms in the overflow are allowed to settle quies-
cently into sludge and are either returned back to the aerated
tank to maintain the population or wasted.
Trickling Filters
In trickling filters, biological slime on rock, slag or plastic
media breakdown organic matter as wastewater is sprayed on the
filter bed. Conventional rock or slag beds are 1.8 to 2.4 meters
( 6 to 8 feet ) deep. Plastic filters are higher and occupy less
space. As wastewater trickles down through the filter, slime is
eventually sloughed off and carried away by the treated water to
settling and wasting. Slime sloughing allows continuance of an
active young biota surface and prevents clogging of the filter
bed due to excessive slime growth.
Aerated Lagoons
Aerated lagoons are similar in principle to activated sludge
systems except that there is no return of sludge. Hence, the
microbial population in the aerated basin is less than in activated
sludge tanks and retention of wastewater becomes longer to attain
high BOD5 reduction. A settling lagoon usually follows the aerated
lagoon to allow settling of suspended solids. Mixing intensities
127
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
are usually not as great as in activated sludge tanks. This
results in a suspended solids blanket covering the aerated and
settling lagoons which is further attacked by aerobic and anaer-
obic bacteria. Periodically, the sludge blanket has to be dredged
out.
Stabilization Ponds
Stabilization ponds are holding lagoons, Q.6 to 1.5m (2 to 5 ft.)
deep, where organic matter is biodegraded by aerobic and anaero-
bic bacteria. Algae utilize sun rays and C02 released by bacteria
to produce oxygen which in return allows aerobic bacteria to break-
down the organic matter. In lower layers, facultative bacteria
further biodegrade the sludge blanket.
Disposal On Land
1. Spray Irrigation - Consists of pumping and discharg-
ing the wastes over a large land area through system of pipes and
spray nozzles. The wastes should be sprayed over grasses or crops,
to avoid erosion of the soil by the impact of the water droplets.
Successful application depends on the soil characteristic - (coarse,
open-type soils are preferred to clay-type soils), the hydraulic
load, and BOD5 concentration. A rate of application of 56 cubic
meters per hectare per day (6,000 gallons per acre per day) is
considered typical.
2. Ridge and Furrow Irrigation - The disposal of dairy
wastes by ridge and turrow irrigation has been successfully used
by small plants with limited volume of wastes. The furrows are
30 to 90 centimeters (1 to 3 ft) deep, and 30 cm to 90 centimeters
(1 to 3 wide, spaced 0.9 to 4.6 meters (3 to 15 feet) apart.
Distribution to the furrows is usually from a header ditch. Gates
are used to control the liquid depth in the furrow. To prevent
soil erosion and failure of the banks, a good cover of grass must
be maintained. Odors can be expected in warm weather, and in
cold weather the ground will not accept the same volume of flow.
The need to remove the sludge which accumulates in the ditches is
an additional problem which does not exist in spray irrigation.
3. Irrigation by Truck - The use of tank trucks for haul-
ing and disposing of wastes on land is a satisfactory method for
many dairy food plants. However, the cost of hauling generally
limits the use of this method to very small plants.
Disposal on the land may be done by driving the tank truck across
the field and spraying from the rear, or by discharging to shallow
furrows spaced a reasonable distance apart.
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion has been practiced in small dairies through
128
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
the use of septic tanks. In the absence of air, anaerobic
bacteria breakdown organic matter into acids then into methane
and C02. Usually a reduction period of over three days is requir-
ed.
Combined Systems
Waste treatment plants combining the features of some of the
biological systems described in the preceding paragraphs have
been constructed in some dairy plants in an attempt to assure
high BOD5 reduction efficiencies at all times. Examples and
possibilities of such systems include: An activitated sludge
system followed by an aerated lagoon; anaerobic digestion fol-
lowed by an activated sludge system; trickling filter followed
by activated sludge system; activated sludge system followed
by sand filtration.
Design Characteristics
Figure 37 is a schematic flow diagram of activated sludge,
trickling filter and aerated lagoons systems which should per-
form satisfactorily. Table 19 lists the recommended design
parameters for the three types of biological treatment systems.
Systems constructed in accordance with the suggested design
characteristics should result in year-round BOD5 reductions above
90 percent.
Problems, Limitations And Reliability
It is recognized that biological waste treatment facilities do
not operate at constant efficiencies. Very wide variations of
the BOD5 reduction efficiencies from day to day and throughout
the year can be expected from any individual system. Factors
such as BOD5 concentration, type of waste, flow, temperature,
and inorganic constituents of the effluent may affect the rate
of treatment of dairy wastes by living organisms, but the inter-
action of and correlation between such factors is not fully under-
stood. Available data show that it is possible to achieve BOD5
reduction efficiencies greater than 99% part of the time with
almost any of the type of biological waste treatment that are
available. However, due to high variability of the composition
of dairy effluents these same treatment systems can be expected
to have BOD5 reduction efficiencies as low as 30% during other
times, such as after sudden, highly concentrated loads are dis-
charged or other causes if upset occur.
To obtain consistent high BODs removal, it is essential to
allow microorganisms to biodegrade organic matter under favorable
operating conditions. These include properly designed and operated
treatment systems to prevent shock loads and to allow microorga-
naisms to function under well balanced conditions; addition of
nutrients if absent; exclusion of whey and cheese washes; in-plant
/
129
Kearney. Management Consultants
-------
FIGURE 37
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FOR DAIRY WASTEWAfER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
DRAFT
MH.-i.ln. 4
Uv 'it'll «on«jvj|
Vjftrwattl I
TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM
AERATED LAGOON SYSTEM
— ET. — *•
VtlttvJItc
A*r«lff4 1.1(a*M
(.»>( KOtl/ri'U •)
Olb*.U)U/l900(l')
Ullllol
CMI«C|
(••U
S«r*wMt*ry '
|If|y*nt
130
Keainey Marw^gemerw Consultants
-------
TABLE 19
RECOMMENDED DESIGN PARAMETERS
FOR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF DAIRY WASTES
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
D
!
i
1. Removal of floating substances.
2. Twelve-hour equalization to buffer
fluctuating BOD5 and detergent loads.
Diffused air supply to prevent acid
fermentation.
3. Activated sludge tank, to provide 36 hours
retention.
4. Micro-organisms population in the aerated
tank to maintain a maximum loading of 0.5 Kg
BOD/Kg volatile mixed liquor suspended solids.
5. Air supply of 60 cubic meters per Kg (1,000 ft.
per pound) 6005 applied.
6. Nutrient nitrogen and phosphorus addition
if below BOD:N:P ratio of 100:5:1.
7. Use of defearners to prevent foam.
8. Steam injection of equalization and aerated
tanks if temperature drop impairs BOD removal
efficiency.
9. Segregation of whey and cheese wash water from
wastewater.
10. Reduction of milk waste concentration to
a minimum through in-plant control.
11. Chlorination of final effluent.
TRICKLING FILTER
1. Removal of floating substances.
2. Twelve-hour equalization to buffer
fluctuating BOD5 and detergent loads.
Diffused air supply to prevent acid
fermentation.
3. Applied BOD5 load of 32 Kg/100 m3 (20
lb./l,000 ft.3).
4. Rock size of 6 to 9 centimeters (2.5 to
3.5 inches) or equivalent plastic media
to allow proper ventilation and prevent
clogging. Diffused air supply is help-
ful. (3)
5. 100% recycle of treated effluent.
6. Nutrient nitrogen and phosphorus addition
if below BOD:N:P ratio of 100:5:1.
7. Steam injection of equalization tank if
temperature drop impairs BOD removal.
8. Winter enclosure of filter in cold regions.
9. Segregation of whey and cheese wash water
from wastewater.
10. Reduction of milk waste concentration to
a minimum through in-plant control.
11. Continuous dosing of filter to prevent
drying up of slime.
12. Chlorination of final effluent.
AERATED LAGOON
1. Applied BDD5 loading of 3.2 Kg
per 100m3 (2 Ibs./l.OOO ft.3.)
2. Air supply for sufficient oxygen
dispersion.
3. Nutrient nitrogen and phosphorus
addition if below BOD:N:P ratio
of 100:5:1.
4. Settling basin to sediment
suspended solids.
5. Segregation of whey and cheese
wash water from wastewater.
6. Reduction of milk waste concentra-
tion to a minimum through in-plant
control.
7. Chlorination of final effluent.
-------
DRAFT
reduction of wastewater BOD5 to a minimum; and maintaining
favorable temperature levels whenever possible.
Research indicates that percent BOD5 removal decreases with
increasing 6005 influent concentration. In one experiment, the
BOD5 reduction efficiency of an activated sludge system decreased
significantly when influent BOD5 concentration increased beyond
2,000 mg/1. High BOD5 loading (in excess of 2000 mg/1) decreased
the concentration of gram negative organisms and encouraged the
development of a microflora that apparently could not utilize
aminoacids as a nitrogen source, but only inorganic nitrogen,
such as ammonia nitrogen. Under these conditions the efficiency
of the system decreased.
Detergents at concentrations above 15 mg/1 begin to inhibit
microbial respiration, with anionic detergents showing re-
latively less inhibitory effects than non-ionic and cationic
surfactants.
Treatment of Whey
Managers of cheese plants which have treatment facilities have
recognized for a long time the desirability of keeping whey out
of the treatment system. The reasons given for problems with
the biological oxidation of whey have been a BOD5:N ratio, that
is undesirable and that whey is deficient in nitrogen. The 6005:N
ratio, however, is near to the 100:5 value and this is considered
to be satisfactory.
Recent studies have revealed the following on the problem of whey
treatment: The constituent present in highest concentration in
milk wastes is lactose, and nearly all of the lactose in milk is
present in whey. The first step in degradation of lactose is:
Lactase
Lactose *** glucose + galactose
During the manufacture of cheese, a small amount of the lactose
is degraded to glucose and galactose. Glucose is readily degraded.
Studies have shown that whey contains about 0.05% glucose and 0.3
-0.45% galactose. Galactose at a concentration of 0.4 will inhibit
lactase by more than 50%. At the same time there is some evidence,
which needs further confirmation, that galactose also stops the
organisms in the biomass from producing any more lactase enzyme.
Studies are needed under commercial conditions to confirm these
findings. If substantiated, methods could be developed to material-
ly increase the efficiency of biological treatment of dairy wastes
and permit the development of procedures to treat whey.
132
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Studies are in progress under the auspices of the National
Science Foundation to determine if lactase treatment of milk
wastes will improve its treatability. Laboratory studies have
been completed to prove that the addition of gram negative
organisms to an activated sludge treatment system permits removal
of up to 90% BOD5 at a BOD5 loading of 3000 mg/1. (Only about 80%
reduction was possible in the absence of the organisms.)
Advantages And Disadvantages Of Various System
The relative advantages, disadvantages and problems of the waste-
water treatment methods utilized in the dairy industry are sum-
marized in Table 20.
Management Of Dairy Waste Treatment Systems
If biological treatment systems are to operate satifactorily,
they must not only be adequately designed, but must also be
operated under qualified supervision and maintenance. Following
are some key points that should be observed to help maintain a
high level of performance.
(a) Suggestions Applicable
To All Biological Systems
1. Exclude all whey from the treatment system and the
first wash water from cottage cheese.
2. If it is impossible to exclude whey from the treat-
ment system, a retention tank should be provided so that the
whey can be metered into the treatment system over a 24-hour
period. In this case it would be necessary to make sure that
the pH of the whey does not fall below 6.0. Normally, this
would require a neutralization process.
3. It would be beneficial to provide pre-aeration for
all dairy food plant wastes.
4. A retention tank of sufficient size should be pro-
vided to hold the waste water from one processing day to equalize
hydraulic and BODs loading. Such an equalizing tank might well
be pre-aerated.
5. The treatment facility should be under the direct
supervision of a properly trained plant engineer. He should have
sufficient time and sufficient training to keep the system in a
total operating condition. It should be recognized that in the
operation of a dairy food treatment plant there are two types of
variations that cause operating problems. The first of these are
the short term surges from accidental spillages that can be dis-
astrous to a treatment facility if not checked immediately. In
the hands of a skilled operator, immediate corrective measures
133
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
TABLE 20
A9VANIACES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
TREATMENT SYSTEMS UTILIZED IX
THE DAi«r
Advantages
Good BOD reduction.
Good operating flexibility.
Good resistance to shock
loads when properly de-
signed.
Minimum toad requirements.
Disadvantages
Substantial capital
High operating cost.
Continous supervision.
Upsets to shock loads.
Sludge disposal problem*.
Performance drops with
temp. drop.
TRICKLING FILTERS (T. F. )
Advantages
Good BOD reduction.
Good resistance to shock
loads when properly
designed.
Less operating cost than
Disadvantages
Substantial capital
investment.
High operating cost.
Continuous supervision.
Long acclimation period
after shock loads.
Ponding of trickling
filters when poorly de-
signed and operated.
Significant land re-
quirements.
Fly and odor problem*.
when poorly designed and
operated. Sludee disposal
problems. Performance drop
with temp. drop.
Advantages
Good BOD reduction.
Good resistance to stock
loads.
Low capital cost.
Less supervision thai A.S.
and T.F.
Less sludge problems than
A.S. and T.F.
Di s advan t ages
Large land requirements.
High power cost.
Performance drop witi
temp. drop.
Advantages
Suitable as a pretreatment
system.
Prevents shock loads to pro-
ceeding treatment systems.
Good resistance to shock
loads.
Low capital cost.
Low operating cost.
Less sludge problems than
A/S. and T.F.
Disadvantages
BOD reduction below
A.S., T.F., and A.L.
Algae growth.
Large land requirements.
Insect problems.
Odors.
Ordinances restricting
its location.
IRRIGATION
Advantages
100* treatment efficiency.
^ow capital cost.
-ow operating cost.
No sludge problem* (except
for ridge and furrow).
Suitable for disposal
of whey.
)ls advantages
mount of land required
md in some cases, distance
TOB the dairies.
Surface run-off.
tad ing.
eepage to ground water
upplles,
ealth hazards to animals.
oil-e logging and compaction.
egetation damage.
nsect propagation.
dors.
pray carry-over.
aintenance problems-clogged
ozzles, freeze-up, and the
equirement that lines be
elocated to allow "rest
>eriods".
ludge build-up (ridge and
urrow only) .
tate orditances Uniting
ts location.
Advantages
Suitable as a prei riatment
system.
Prevents shock loads to pro-
ceeding treatment systems.
Minimum capital cost.
Minimum operating cost.
Mini mum sludge disposal
Minimum supervision ,
Suitable only Cor low
volume wastewaters ,
BOD reduction below A.S.
T.F., and A.L.
Susceptible to shock loads.
Methane odor and safety
problems.
Advantages
Good BOD reduction.
Good resistance to shock
loads.
Good operating flexibility.
Disadvantages
rligh capital cast.
High operatinj cost.
Significant land requlre-
nents .
"on scant supervision.
Sludge disposal problems.
CJ
•P-
-------
DRAFT
can be taken. The second type is much more difficult to con-
trol and relates to the very slow acclimatization of the
biological microflora to dairy food plant wastes. This appears
to take a minimum of about 30 days so that changes in the com-
position of the waste may not show up in changes in operating
characteristics of the treatment system for 30 to 60 days.
6. The operating personnel should keep daily records
and operate a routine daily testing procedure which should in-
clude as a minimum: influent and effluent pH, influent and
effluent BOD, influent and effluent suspended solids, calcula-
tion of BOD and hydraylic loading and a log of observations on
the operation of the treatment facility.
7. The dairy food plant should be operated in such
a manner as to minimize hydraulic and BOD shock loading.
8. Any accidental spillage in the dairy food plant
should be immediately indicated to the engineer in charge of
the treatment facility. This is particularly critical if there
is inadequate equalization capacity ahead of the treatment
facility.
9. All equipment should be kept in good operating
condition.
10. Final treatment effluent should be chlorinated
and checked for coliform organisms.
11. In the development stages of planning a new
treatment facility or an expanded treatment facility, lab or
pilot scale operation of the design type should be made for
at least 60 days in the intended loading and process region.
(b) Recommendations in Respect
to Spray Irrigation
1. Spray irrigation is generally not practical in
dairy plants processing over 100,000 pounds of milk per day or
over 0.5 pounds of BODs per thousand pounds of milk processed.
2. Regular inspection of the soil should be made to
evaluate organic matter and microbial cell build-up in the soil
that could lead to "clogging".
3. The land used for spraying should be rotated to
minimize over-loading of the soil.
4. Regular inspection of the spray devices should
be made to eliminate clogging and uneven soil distribution over
the land surface.
135
Kearney: Marvvjement Consultants
-------
DRAFT
5. A drain area should be located on the low side
of the irrigation field and the run-off checked on a regular
basis to determine the efficiency of the operation. If the
irrigation field is adjacent to a stream, then regular monitor-
ing of the stream should be made to insure adequate operation,
since it is insufficient to assume that spray irrigation is
100% effective.
(c) Suggestions Concerning
Oxidation Ponds
1. Aerated lagoons have limited application in areas
where they are frozen for a period of time during the winter.
2. Normal loading of aerated lagoons is 20 pounds of
BOD5 per day per 1000 ft.3 for ponds with a 30-day retention time.
This level of loading appears to provide an optimum ratio of
microbial and algal balance in the ponds.
3. Diffusers should be regularly inspected to insure
that inlets are not clogged.
4. Dissolved oxygen should be measured regularly in
the first and second aeration ponds and correlated to the load-
ing and to the air input to the lagoon.
(d) Suggestions in Respect to
Trickling Filter Systems ; :
1. The system should be loaded between 17 and 20
pounds of BOD5 per thousand cubic feet with a recirculation ratio
of about 8 to 10. The hydraulic loading should be in the range
of 500 gallons per cubic yard.
2. In northern climates, the filter should be en-
closed for year-round operation.
3. The flow to the filter should run for 20 hours
out of every 24-hour day.
4. All debris and solids should be prefiltered.
5. Inspection of the distribution system of the
filter should be made regularly to insure a uniform distribution
of the influent.
6. Pre-aeration is useful in the treatment of wastes
by trickling filter procedures. Where blowers are used, they
should have a capacity of 0.5 cubic feet per gallon of raw waste
treated.
136
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
7. Filters should be inspected regularly for pond-
ing. If ponding occurs, it may be desirable to decrease hy-
draulic flow and increase the recirculation rate.
(e) Suggestions with Relationship to
the Operation of an Activated
Sludge Treatment System
1. The operator should have dissolved oxygen data
available in the pre-aeration and assimilation tanks. It would
be desirable to have the measuring equipment integrated into
the oxygenating equipment to serve as a controlling device.
Frequently, problems in respect to dairy food plant activiated
treatment systems result from lack of close attention to trends
in the system, and operation is always in reaction to changes
that have already taken plance. In the case of Type-2 (stable)
foam, the operator frequently will cut the air level back to
decrease the foam only to have the treatment system go anaerobic.
Abrupt changes in aeration are to be avoided to prevent sharp
changes in operating characteristics. One of the most difficult
factors to control in dairy food plant waste activated sludge
systems is proper aearation.
2. The operator should make regular inspection of
the aerating devices to make sure that there is no clogging
of the inlets.
3. There should be intentional sludge wastage espe-
cially in the case of extended aeration type activated sludge
treatment. The amount of wastage may be varied depending upon
the characteristics of the sludge. One of the most serious
problems in dairy food plant activated sludge treatment is
the poor characteristics of the sludge formed. The reasons for
poor sludge characteristics relate in part to the chemical nature
of .the waste, the microbial flora and the operating character-
istics. The problem is highly complex and step-wise procedures
for control or correction of the problem have not yet been de-
veloped.
4. The loading of the treatment plant should be in
the range of 0.2 to 0.5 pounds of BODs per pound mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS), and in the range of 35* to
50 pounds BOD5 per thousand cubic feet.
Tertiary Treatment
Even at BODs reduction efficiency above 90% biological treat-
ment systems will generally discharge BOD5 and suspended solids
at concentr at lions above 20 mg/1 (see Table 21). For further
reduction of BOD^, suspended solids, and other parameters,
137
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
TABLE 21
00
TYPICAL BOD AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS OF DAIRY EFFT.TTKNTS
Operation
Italian Cheese
Cottage Cheese
Fluid and Cul-
tured Products
Yoghurt and
Ricotta Cheese
Whey Processing
Italian Cheese
American, Cheddar
and Colby
Cheese
Fluid and Cul-
tured
Products
Treatment System
Anaerobic + Activated
Sludge
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Anaerobic + Bio Disc
Activated Sludge +
Aerated Lagoon
Average
Influent
BOD mg/1
827
590
1,291
637
1,373
1,910
1,062
1,712
1,175
Influent
S.S. me/1
376
243
176
503
602
314
300
359
Effluent
BOD mg/1
14
20
17
24
46
.52
41
139
44
Effluent
S.S. mg/1
32
25
18
29
108
46
80
48
Percent
BOD
Reduction
98.3
96.6
98.7
96.2
96.6
97.3
96.1
91.9
96.2
Percent
BOD Re-
duct ion
91.5
89.7
89.8
94.2
82.0
85.3
73.3
86.6
-------
DRAFT
tertiary treatment systems will have to be added after the
biological systems. To achieve zero discharge, systems such
as reverse osmosis and ion exchange would have to be used
to reduce inorganic solids that are not affected by the bio-
logical process.
The following is a brief description of various tertiary
treatment systems that could have application in aiming at
total recycling of dairy waste water.
Sand Filtration involves the passage of water through a packed
bed of sana on gravel where the suspended solids are removed
from the water by filling the bed interstices. When the pres-
sure drop across the bed reaches a partial limiting value, the
bed is taken out of service and backwashed to release entrapped
suspended particles. To increase solids and colloidal removal,
chemicals are added ahead of the sand filter (143).
Activated Carbon Adsorption is a process wherein trace organics
present in waste water are adsorbed physically into the pores
of the carbon. After the surface is saturated, the granular
carbon is regenerated for reuse by thermal combustion. The
organics are oxidized and released as gases off the surface
pores. Activated carbon adsorption is ideal for removal of re-
fractory organics and color from biological effluent.
Lime Precipitation Classification process is primarily used
for removal of soluble phosphates by precipitating the phos-
phate with the calcium of lime to produce insoluable. calcium
phosphate. It may be postulated that orthophosphates are pre-
cipitated as calcium phosphate, and polyphosphates are removed
primarily by adsorption on calcium floe. Lime is added usually
as a slurry (1070-1570 solution), rapidly mixed by flocculating
paddles to enhance the size of the floe, then allowed to settle
as sludge. Besides precipitation of soluble phosphates, sus-
pended solids and collodial materials are also removed resulting
in a reduction of BOD5, COD and other associated matter.
With treated sewage waste having a phosphorus content of 2 to 8
mg/1, lime dosages of approximately 200 to 500 mg/1, as CaO,
reduced phosphorus content to about 0.5 mg/1 (142).
Ion-Exchange operates on the principle of exchanging specific
anions and cations in the wastewater with nonpollutant ions on
the resin bed. After exhaustion of the resin, it is regenerated
for reuse by passing through it a solution having the ion remov-
ed by wastewater. Ion-exchange is used primarily for recovery
of valuable constituents and to reduce inorganic salt concentra-
tions .
Reverse Osmosis process is based on the principle of applying
a pressure greater than the osmotic pressure level to force
139
Kearney: Mrtrvvjeineni Consultants
-------
DRAFT
water solvents through a suitable membrane. Under these condi-
tions, water with a small amount of dissolved solids passes
through the membrane. Since reverse osmosis removes organic
matter, viruses, and bacteria, and lowers dissolved inorganic
solids levels, application of this process for total water re-
cycled has very attractive prospects (143).
Ammonia Air Stripping involves spraying wastewater down a column
with enforced air blowing upwards. The air strips the relatively
volatile ammonia from the water. Ammonia air stripping works
more efficiently at high pH levels and during hot weather condi-
tions.
Recycling System
Figure 38 gives a schematic diagram of a tertiary treatment sys-
tem that could be used for treatment of secondary wastewater for
complete recycle.
For recycling of treated wastewater, ammonia has no effect on
steel but is extremely corrosive to copper in the presence of a
few parts per billion of oxygen (144). Ammonia air-stripping
and ion-exchange are presently viewed as the most promising
processes for removing ammonia nitrogen from water.
Besides the secondary biological sludge, excess sludge from the
tertiary systems--speci"fically the lime precipitation clarifica-
tion process—would have to be disposed of. Sludge from sand
filtering backwash is recycled back to biological system. Or-
ganic particles, entrapped in the activated carbon pores, are
combusted in the carbon regenerating hearths.
Pretreatment of Dairy Wastes Discharged
to Municipal Sanitary Sewers
General
Dairy wastewater, in contrast to many other industrial waste-
waters, does not contain significant quantities of readily set-
tleable suspended solids and is generally near neutral. Hence,
primary treatment practices such as sedimentation and neutrailiza-
tion have no necessary application in the case of dairy waste-
water. Equalization is recommended for activated sludge and
trickling filter systems; however, dairy waste loads discharged
to municipal treatment plants will be equalized in the sewer
lines if the dairy wastewater does not constitute a very large
proportion of the load on the municipal plant.
The best approach to reduce the load on municipal plants and
excessive surcharges is good in-plant control to reduce BODc and
recycling of cooling water.
140
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
$
i
?
4>
t->
FIGURE 38
TERTIARY TREATMENT OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE
W
Is
SF
AC
For Recyc!
LC= Lime Precipitation Clarification
AS= Ammonia Stripping
RC= Recarbonation
SF= Sand Filtration
RO= Reverse Osmosis
AC= Activated Carbon
-------
DRAFT
However, if sanitary districts impose ordinances which can be
met only through some degree of pretreatment , the following
treatment methods are suggested:
L. Anaerobic digestion.
2. High-rate trickling filters and activated sludge
systems.
3. Stabilization ponds.
4. Aerated ponds
5. Chemical treatment
Anaerobic digestion could be applicable to small plants discharg-
ing low volume waste. High-rate trickling filters and activated
sludge system require high capital outlay and have appreciable
operating costs. Stabilization ponds and aerated ponds require
considerable land and will usually be impractical to dairy plants
located in cities. Chemical treatment will require a high capital
outlay and an extremely high operating cost, especially with the
disposal. In regard to efficiency, anaeorbic digestion and
aerated ponds will attain less BODs reduction. However they could
eliminate appreciable BODs at very long retention periods.
If the dairy waste is a significant part of the total load being
treated by a municipal plant, it is necessary that whey be segre
gated to avoid the risk of. upsetting the system.
Hexane Solubles
Some municipalities across the country are imposing tight re-
strictions on hexane- soluble fats, oils and grease. Waste
containing mineral oils discharged by the chemical and petro-
chemical industries and other sources inhibit the respiration
of microorganisms. However, fat in dairy wastewater does not
exhibit such an inhibitory effect. Appreciable quantities of
dairy fat are being treated successfully biologically with no
noticeable effects on microorganisms (see Table 22).
Although large quantities of floating fats and grease could
potentially clog or stick to the walls of sewer lines, dairy
fat does not contain inhibitory substances or toxic heavy metals
that could upset a municipal treatment system. Sanitary dis-
tricts should recognize the difference between the potential
detrimental effects of mineral-based versus milk-based fats, oils
and grease in applying their ordnances. A test that distinguishes
between those sources of fatty matter should be developed, since
mineral oil and dairy fat are both solubilized in the hexane
test currently used for control purposes.
142
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
TABLE 22
EFFECT OF MILK LIPIDS ON THE EFFICIENCY
BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION OF MILK WASTES
r
j
»<
5
I
43
neni Consulw
3
Products Mfe.
Milk, c.c., cond.,
milk p.
Cheese
Milk
Milk + c.c.
Milk + c.c.
Milk + ice c.
Ice cream
Italian Cheese
Type of Waste
Treatment
Activated sludge
Aerated lagoon
Activated sludge
+ lagoon
Activated sludge
+ lagoon
Activated sludge
Activated sludge
Trickling filter
Septic tank and
activated
s ludge
BOD
Influent
ms/1
1,750
1,200
1,500
2,000
. 2,250
3,000
1,100
827
Fat
Influent
mg/1
496
350*
308*
560*
787
1,250
540
415
Percent
Reduction
of BOD
98.0
97.5
99.9
99.0
96.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
OF
BOD
Effluent
me./l
35
30
•j \j
20
*•» V
20
*• \j
90
60
22
14
Fat
Effluent
me /I
"*^^ / »
1
i
JL
1
i.
1
.1.
1
1
1
1
N°te: * Value^may varyU±10%d ** minimum levels based on ^P6 of operation and BOD loading,
No data.
Nomenclautre
c.c.: cottage cheese
cond.: condensed milk
milk p.: milk powder
ice c.: ice cream
-------
DRAFT
Performance Of Dairy Waste Treatment Systems
Biological Treatment
Performance data for dairy treatment systems are presented in
Table 23. Two groups of data are shown: One from identified
plant sources and the other from literature or plants that are
not identified. Detailed information of identified sources
appears in Exhibit 11, Supplement B.
Activated sludge, trickling filter, and aerated lagoon data from
a limited number of identified plants indicated average BOD5 re-
movals of 97.3%, 94.0%, and 96.2% respectively and vary over a
narrow range. Those treatment plants are, in general, well-
designed, well managed facilities, or "exemplary" plants. The
overall average performance of these facilities is a BOD redxc -
tion of 96.170. The overall average 6005 reduction of 148 non-
identified plants is 83.8% and there is a wide range of values
in this group. Four combined systems showd an average 6005
reduction of 95.7%.
Anaerobic digestion has a much lower efficiency (30.5% BOD
reduction from two data sources) but is a good preliminary
buffering stage, especially for low volume waste to be treated
by activated sludge or trickling filter systems. Stabilization
ponds also represent a good preliminary buffering stage prior
to activated sludge or trickling filter systems when land is
available.
One data source for sand filtration showed average reductions
of 81.0% for BOD and 95.5% for suspended solids. Sand filtra-
tion removes not only suspended solids but also associated 6005,
COD, turbidigy, color, bacteria and other matter.
Tertiary Treatment
Table 24 gives a general comparison of tertiary treatment systems
efficiency to remove specific pollution parameters.
Table 25 gives some further insight of the efficiencies of
tertiary treatment systems. It shows reductions produced after
passage of biological effluent through sand filtration and
activated carbon at the South Tahoe, California treatment plant.
The effluent from the conventional activated sludge process is
treated with alum and polyelectrylyte prior to its passage
through a multi-media sand filter.
144
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
n
s
TABLE 23
PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Type of Treatment
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filters
Aerated Lagoons
Stabilization Ponds
Combined Systems
Anerobic Digestion
Sand Filtration
(of Secondary Effluent)
Data from Unidentified
Plant Sources (133)
Number
of Plants
Data from Identified
, , Plant Sources
Percent EOD^ Reduction Number Percent BOD-s Reduction
100
46
2
Average
1
None
None
None
Average
84.0
82.8
96.5
83.8
95.0
Range
24 - 99.6
35 - 99.8
95 - 98.0
of Plants
3
2
4 96.2
Average 96.1
None
4 95.7
2 30.5
1 81.0
Average Range
97.3 96.6-98.7
94.0 93.0-95.0
95.2-97.3
91.9-99.6
19.8-41.3
81.0-
Tl
H
-------
TABLE 24
GENERAL COMPARISON OF TERTIARY TREATMENT SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY
Parameter
BOD
COD
S.S.
T.D.S.
Nitrogen
Phosporus
NH3
Color
Lime Precipi-
tation
*•#
*
**
**
*
"tcicit
*
**
(140)
Sand Filtra- Carbon Ion Reverse
tion Absorption Exchange Osmosis
** *** * ***
*tjffj*+jf
-------
TABLE 25
PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT AT
SOUTH TAHOE. CALIFORNIA (141)
Quality Parameter
Biochemical oxygen demand
(mg/liter)
Chemical oxygen demand (mg/
liter)
Total organic carbon (mg/
liter)
Suspended solids (mg/liter)
Turbidity (units)
Phosphates (mg/liter)
ABS (mg/liter)
Coliforn bacteria
(M.P.N./100 ml)
Color (units)
Odor
Raw Waste-
Water Effluent
200-400
400-600
-
160-350
50-150
15-35
2-4
15,000,000
High
Odor
Activated Sludge
Plant Effluent
20-40
80-160
-
5-20
30-70
25-30
1.1-2.9
150,000
High
Odor
Water Reclamation Plant
Sand Bed
Effluent
Under 1
30-60
10-18
Under 0.5
0.5-3.0
0.1-1.0
1.1-2.9
15
10-30
Odor
Chlorinated Carbon
Column Effluent
Under 1
3-16
1-6
Under 0.5
Under 0.5
0.1-1.0
0.002-0.5
Under 2.2
Colorless
Odorless
-------
DRAFT
SECTION IX
COST, ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Cost of In-Plant Control
An accurate assessment of the costs of in-plant improvement is
not possible because of the following:
- broad variation in types and sizes of plants
- geographical differences in plant location
- difference among plants in repsect to their current
implementation of necessary management and/or en-
gineering improvements
- management limitations
However, an estimate of costs are provided in this section for
both management and engineering improvement areas. These values
should be used as general guidelines only; they could vary sub-
stantially in individual situations.
For the same reasons indicated above, it is not possible to re-
late costs recurred for in-plant control to specific reduction
benefits achievalbe (as estimated in Section VII) on an industry
or subcategory basis. However, many of the in-plant improve-
ments that have been suggested in this report as means to achieve
the effluent limitation guidelines have been successfully im-
plemented in a number of plants at a net economic return as a
result of product saved. It can be reasonably assumed, therefore
that the in-plant controls necessary to achieve the suggested
effluent guidelines in most plants will not cost more than
economic benefit they will achieve. Exceptional cases in all
probability, will involve the economic disposal of whey in
plants producing cottage or natural cheese.
Management Improvement Program
Management may elect to use tx^o different approaches with which
to achieve the objectives of the waste management program out-
lined in Section VII. The first approach would be to do this
entirely within the boundaries of the company organization.
A second approach would be to utilize outside consulting help
to set up the program, initiate the educational phases, train
149
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
to^rovide the most efficient program at the leas? IbsolSte
' °
s!
exceed that of the external consulting firm. Laree multi-
.
Cost of Equipment, Process and Systems Improvements
o -
Estimated values are based on figures obtained from
"
27. They should be considered as guideline valuer•
;y-K — ^ln individual situations could be Is much Is 207
higher than the quoted figures.
150
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
Table 26
o
§
£
Estimated Cost of Implementing of Waste Management
Improvement Program in a Large Dairv Plant
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Item
Educational Program
Program Development
Management Phase
Supervisory Instruction
Employee Phase
Program Evaluation
Waste Controls Supervisor
Development of Job Descriptions
Waste Monitoring Equipment and Installations
Sampling Units and Other Basic Equipment
Flow and pH Measuring Equipment
Testing and Operational Supervision
Plant Maintenance Improvement
Production Scheduling
Alternate Use of Wasted Products
Total Cost
Single-Time Cost
Annual Cost
First-Year Cost
(1,000,000 Lbs. Milk per Day)
_ , . „ Implemented with
Implemented Totally Assistance of Outside Consultants
u w^" C°SP?"r >. ,. Consulting Ultra-Company Total
unit i.ost lotai Lost
$10,000 $10,000
1,000 1,000,'
$20/hr. /employee 1,000)
30/hr. /person 2,000/year
15,000/year 15,000/year
. $20/hour 1,600
10,000 10,000
5 000 5 Oftf)
^ 9 »* w j j \J\J\J
$50/day<2) 15,000/year
7,500/year 7,500/year
$10/day(3) 3,000/year
*ees Expenses
$1,000(4)
3,000 31,500
1,000/year 2,000/year
15,000/year
1,500
10,000
5,000
15,000/year
1,000 7,500/year
1,000 3,000/year
Cost
$ 1,000
4,500
3,000/year
15,000/year
1,500
10,000
5,000
15,000/year
1,000
7,500/year
1,000
3.000/vear
vafnp^f1^6 not P°ssible because of the large number of alternatives and variable
SAO orm n Product. For whey, 100,000 kg BODj surcharges could cost about
cost ' many alternative ^thods of disposal could be achieved for this
$28,600
42,500
$71,100
— _.
$24,000
/.-> cnn
^ j , j\j\j
$67,500
Notes:
S SSS-nSS-toemae^ p^onne'l^rthis8 ^111^' «»^««« of P««™ «- —rials.
U) Assumes one-half hour at $20/hour.
(4) Assumes program development costs are distributed among a number of companies.
O
I
H
-------
DRAFT
Table 27
ESTIMATED COST OF ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS OF EQUIPMENT, AND
SYSTEMS TO REDUCE WASTE.
Item Unit Cost Total Cost for a
230,000 kg/day
(500,000 Ib/day)
dairy plant
Standard equipment
Automatic Water
Shut-Off Valves $ 15-25/
value $ 300
hrain Screens $ 12 $ 150
[Note: Not recommended by equipment suppliers, because they plug-up
too early. New design needed for drain. Quick estimate of non-fouling
drain system would be $150/drain).
.iquid Level Control $300/probe $6000 (min)
emperature Controllers $1000 $2000
IP Line Support $330/100m (Included in line
($100/100 ft.) installation cost
of $2500/valve)
rfip Saver (can $150 (Not applicable)
dumping)
tiler dripshield $50-250 $1500
Cost depends on size
and type of filler)
vaporator Improvement Included today in basic cost of equipment
ew Equipment Concepts
ce Cream Filler $1000 $3000
Drip shield. Note: These items would have to be specially designed and
may cause redesign in filler)„
152
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Item
Novelty Collection System
Case worker
Water Control
Product Recovery Can
System (including 20
gallon container, piping
fittings, and controls)
"Non-leak" damaged package
uait; complete with pump
valve,level controller,
spray device.
Interlock control between
CIP and air blow down
Filler Product Recovery
System
CIP fittings
and
controls
Curd Saving System
Table 27
(con't)
Unit Cost Total Cost for a
230,000 kg/day
(500,000 Ib/day)
dairy plant
Equipment manufacturers cannot eatimate
cost at this time. Would require
special design.
$550 $550
$2,COO/unit $6,000
$2,500 $7,500
$700 $4,200
$2,700 $10,800
$25-30/
fitting
$300-5007
control
No cost estimate possible at this
time; equipment would heed to be
designed.
Improvement of Systems based on Existing Components
CIP System
- Revised type
$10,000/
Unit
$30,000
153
Kearney Marvvjement Consultants
-------
Table 27
(con "I:)
ERAFT
Item.
3IP System
- Single-Use type
iTST Receiving System
Mr Blow Down System:
Jon-Lubricated
Mr Compression
Blow Down Unit
filler, valve, etc.
roduct Rinse Recovery
ost Rinse Utilization
utomated Continuous
'recessing
Unit Cost
$15,000/
unit
$10,000
$5,000--
$6,000
$300/unit
$10,000
$7,500
$10,500
Total Cost for a
230,000 kg/day
(590,000 Ib/day)
dairy plant
$30,000
$20,000
$7,800
$10,000
$7,500
$10,500
pplication of New Systems Concepts
igh Solids
ecovery System, including
Valves
0,000 gallon tank
aobiditag Inter Controls
ce Cream Recovery
ystem, Including
50 gallon tank and
Valves/unit with piping & fittings
$104,000
ther new systems
$13,000
Cost not determinable at present time.
154
Kearney: Management ConsulMnls
-------
Table 27
DRAFT
Item
Standard 190,000 liter
(50,000 gal.)
Silo tank
Cone shaped 190,000 liter
(50,000 gal.)
Silo tank
Standard 78,000 liter
(20,000 gal.)
Silo Pasteurizer Surge
Tank
Standard 78,000 liter
(20,000 gal.)
Stlo Pasteurizer Surge
Tank
Welded pipelines, fittings,
controls, installation:
A products only --
30 valves
Full product line--
150 Valves
Drain Segregation
Air actuated valves
Central Hot Water
(con't)
Unit Cost
$50,000
$60,000
$20,000
$24,000
$2,500 x No.
of air-actuated
valves
Increase in Con-
struction cost
estimated at $.25/
square ft. include
man holes for each
department and drain
junction.
$700-800/valve
$330-820/100m
($100-250/100 ft.)
$3,000-10,000
Total Cost for a
230,000 kg/day
(500,000 Ib/day)
dairy plant
$100,000
$120,000
$100,000
$120,000
$75,000
$375,000
$50,000
$7,500
155
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Cost of End-Of-Plpe Treatment
Biological Treatment
A summary of the estimated capital operating costs for activated
sludge, trickling filter and aerated lagoon systems are shown
in Figures 39 through 42„ The data are based on 1971 cost
figures (136, 137, 138). Operating costs include power, chlorine,
materials and supplies, laboratory supplies, sludge hauling,
maintenance, direct labor, and 10-year straight-line deprecia-
tion. The detailed estimates of costs are included in Supplement
A.
Cost estimates for biological waste treatment systems are based
on model plants, covering various discharge conditions represen-
tative of the dairy industry. Specifically, raw waste BOD^ con-
centrations of 500 mg/1, 1000 mg/1, 1500 mg/1 and 2000 mg/1 were
selected, each at a flow volume of 187 cu m/day, 375 cu m/day,
935 cu m/day, 1872 cu m/day (50,000 gpd, 100,000 gpd, 250,000
gpd and 500,000 gpd). Cost analysis for wastewater volumes of
187 cu m/day (50,000 gpd) and less were based on treatment by
means of package plants. (Activated sludge was considered
although packed towers could be as efficient.
Substantial savings could be realized through use.of prefab-
ricated plants for low volume discharge. Although field-instituted
treatment systems cost more even at larger capacities they would
generally provide greater operational flexibility, greater re-
sistance to shock loads and flow surges, better expansion pos-
sibilities and higher average treatment efficiencies. Cost
estimates assume plants designed in accordance«with the para-
meters specified in Table 19, Section VIII.
Capital cost estimates for aerated lagoons for the four BOD
cases--500 mg/1, 100 mg/1, 500 mg/1 and 200 mg/l--were almost
identical. Therefore, one case is indicated, namely 1500 mg/1
BOD at 187 cu m/day, 375 cu m/day, 935 cu m/day, 1872 cu m/day
(50,000 gpd, 100,000 gpd, 250,000 gpd and 500,000 gpd). Also,
operating cost estimates for the four 6005 concentrations were
almost identical and only the operating cost for the model
plants receiving 2,000 mg.l BOD is indicated.
Ridge and Furrow
Capital cost for ridge and furrow can be based on $8,000 per
156
Kearney: Marvvjement Consultants
-------
FIGURE 39
CAPITAL COST (AUGUST. 1971)
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEMS (FOR DAIRY WASTEMATKRl
DRAFT
• A .«;
FLOW
wastewater
(375 cu m/day)(100,000 GPD.)'
e 7 a a 10
air,
include sand
laboratory, garage and land cost
L57
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
FIGURE 40
CAPITAL COST (AUGUST, 1971)
TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM (FOR DAIRY WASTEWATER)
DRAFT
: : ; : ! : '. : '.
. . .
.:::::
FLOW (375 cu m/day)(100,000 GPD.)
7 a a to
Includes: Raw wastewater pumping, half-day equalization with diffused air,
trickling filter, settling chlorination feed system, chlorination contact
basin, recirculation pumping, sludge pumping, sludge holding tank, sand bed
drying with enclosure and fans, garage and facility, yardwork, engineering
and land.
158
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
FIGURE 41
CAPITAL COST (AUGUST, 1971)
AERATED LAGOON (FOR DAIRY WASTEWATER)
DRAFT
.3 .A .5.6 .7 .a .» UD
FLOW (375 cu m/day)(100,000 GPD.)
s e 7 e a 10
Includes: Raw wastewater pumping, aeration lagoon with high-speed floating
surface aerators, concrete embankment protection, settling basin, chlori-
nation contact basin, engineering and land.
159
Kearney: Man.vynieni Consultant
-------
FIGURE 42
OPERATING COSTS (AUGUST, 1971)
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM, TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM,
AND AERATED LAGOON.
(FOR DAIRY WASTEWATER)
DRAFT
LO
7 a e 10
(375 cu m/day)(100,000 GPD)
(Includes 10-year straight-line depreciation.)
Package treatment system does not include sludge sand beds, laboratory
and shop facilities.
160
Kearney: Marwvjement Consulwnts
-------
DRAFT
hectare ($3,200 per acre) for an application rate of 12,000
liters per hectare (8,000 gallons per acre) per day. Annual
operating cost can be considered as 20 percent of capital cost.
Spray Irrigation
Capital cost for spray irigation can be based on $0.32 per liter
($1.3 per gallon) per day, excluding cost of land. Annual opera-
ting cost can be considered as 20 percent of capital cost.
Tertiary Treatment
For further reduction of BOD5, suspended solids, phosphorus and
other parameters which biological systems cannot remove, ter-
tiary treatment systems would have to be used.
The capital and operating costs for such tertiary systems are
given in Table 28. The operating costs include ten-year straight
line depreciation costs. The total capital and operating costs
represent the costs required for treatment of secondary waste-
water for use in a complete recycle process.
Economic Considerations
Today many wastewater treatment plants of approximately the
same BOD-removal capacity vary as much as fivefold in installed
capital investment. If due consideration is not given to econ-
omic evaluation of various construction and operating parameters
such as plant layout, basin construction and equipment choice,
an excessive capital investment and high operating expense
usually result. The engineer is faced with defining the problem,
determining the possible solutions, economically evaluating the
alternatives and choosing the individual systems that, when com-
bined, will yield the most economical wastewater treatment pro-
cess. Both capital investment and operating cost must be con-
sidered carefully since it is sometimes more economical to in-
vest more capital initially in order to realize a reduced yearly
operating cost.
Of the three biological systems that provide refined treatment,
namely, activated sludge, trickling filters and aerated lagoons,
the aerated lagoon system provides the most economical approach.
Investment can be minimized by providing weatherproof equipment
rather than buildings for equipment protection. Where buildings
are required, prefabricated steel structures set on concrete
slabs are economically used.
161
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Table 28
Tertiary Treatment Systems Cost (139)
Estimated Capital Cost (1971 Cost)
Lime precipitation
clarification
Ammonia air stripping
Recarbonat ion
Sand filtration
Reverse osmosis
Activated carbon
Total
Estimated Operating;
•
Lime precipitation
clarification
Ammonia air stripping
Recarbonation
Sand filtration
Reverse osmosis
Activated carbon
Total
0.1
49
53
28
28
111
139
408
Flow (MGPD)
0.5
($ 000)
80
94
39
79
467
347
1,106 1
1.0
120
125
49
125
858
528
,805
Cost*(1971 Cost)
0.1
(
-------
DRAFT
Plant layout should always receive careful consideration. Simple
equipment rearrangement can save many feet of expensive pipe and
electrical conductors, as well as reducing the distances plant
operators must travel. Maintenance costs are reduced by pro-
viding equipment-removal devices such as monorails to aid in
moving large motors and speed reducers to shop areas for main-
tenance. When designing pumping stations and piping systems, an
investigation should be made to determine whether the use of
small pipe, which creates large headlosses but which is low in
capital investment, is justified over the reverse situation.
Often a larger capital investment is justified because of lower
operating costs. (141)
Table 29 depicts the relative costs of the three biological
treatment systems as practiced in the chemical industry based
on consistent unit land and construction costs for each process.
Plants discharging less than 375 cu m/day (100,000 GPD) should
consider using package treatment systems. Such treatment systems
could result in capital and operating costs savings.
Table 29
Biological System Cost Comparisons
As Applied in the Chemical Industry (141)
Cost Ratio (relative to 1.0 as
lowest cost system
ActivatedTrickling Aerated
Sludge Filters Lagoons
Land Requirements 1.0 1.0-1.4 2.0-100
Capital Investment 1.8-2.5 1.8-5.5 1.0
Operating Costs
Manpower 2.5-5.5 2.2-5.0 1.0
Maintenance 6.0-12.0 4.0-8.0 1.0
Chemical Usage 1.2+ 1.2+ 1.0
Power 40-100 1.0 50-300
Sludge Disposal 50-150 50-150 1.0
Cost And Reduction Benefits
of Alternate End-of-Pipe
Treatment Technologies
Incremental BOD5 removal and costs of treatment are compared for
all subcategories and three plant sizes (50,000, 250,000 and
750,000 pounds milk equivalent renewed per day) in Tables 30,
163
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
31 and 32 respectively.
Three treatment alternatives are considered in each case:
1. Activated sludge
2. Activated sludge and sand filtration
3. Complete recycling
The estimates are based on Level I 6005 loads (achievable through
in-plant control) and current average wastewater volume dis-
charges in each subcategory (See Tablel?, Section V ). Since
a degree of reduction in water consumption can be expected when
in-plant controls are implemented, the cost estimates are pessi-
mistic.
Non-Water Quality Aspects of
Dairy Waste Treatment
The main non-water pollutional problem associated with treat-
ment of dairy wastes is the disposal of sludge from the biolo-
gical oxidation systems. Varying amounts of sludge are produced
by the different types of biological systems. Activated sludge
systems and trickling filters produce sludge that needs to be
handled almost daily0
Waste sludge or activated sludge systems generally contains
about 1% solids. The amount of sludge produced ranges between
0.05 to 0.5 kg solids per kg BODs removed. For extended aera-
tion, systems, about 0.1 kg solids will be produced per kg
BODs removed.
Sludge from trickling filters consists of slime sloughed off
the filter bed. This sludge settles faster than activated
sludge and compacts at solids concentrations greater than 1%
solids. The amount of sludge generated will be less than that
produced by activated sludge systems.
Aerobic and anaerobic digestion of sludge generated from activ-
ated sludge systems is recommended to render it innocuous,
thicken it, and improve its dewatering characteristics., Sludge
thickening can preceed digestion to improve the digestion oper-
ation. Digested activated sludge and thickened trickling filter
sludge can be vacuum-filtered, centrifuged or dried on sand
beds to increase their solids content for better "handleability"
before final disposal (147).
164
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Incremental BOD. Removal and Colt Efficiency
Waste Condition
Tvp« of Plant
inrouKn in-natr
Discharged
Achievable
it Control
S555
Remaining
(Callons/lOJ (CPD) (Pounds/10^
rounds «.£.) rounds M.E.
Receiving Station (Cans)
Receiving Station (Bulk)
Fluid Products
Cultured Product a
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
Ice Cream HU
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
100
65
465
465
100
925
100
500
250
475
225
125
125
5.000
3.250
23.250
23.250
5.000
46.250
5.000
25.000
12.500
23.750
11.250
6.250
6.250
0.5
0.3
1.5
2.0
0.8
8.0
O.T
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
O.4
0.6
(Found!?
. ) Day)
25
15
75
100
40
400
35
150
75
50
7S
20
30
of
50.000 Pound« Ptr Day Milk Equivalent Processed
Waste Condition Achievable Through
Activated Sludge-90X Reduction
BODj
Remaining
Day)
2.5
1.5
7.5
10.0
4.0
40.0
3.5
15.0
7.5
5.0
7.5
2.0
3.0
BOD5
Reduction
(Pounds/
Day)
22.5
11.5
67.5
90.0
16.0
360.0
31.5
135.0
67.5
45.0
67.5
18.0
27.0
Treatment
Cost
(Dollacsf
Day)
55.00
52.00
69.75
69.75
55.00
75.39
55.00
68.75
62.50
68.88
• 61.88
56.25
56.25
Pound
Removed
Pound)
2.44
3.85
1.03
0.78
1.53
0.21
1.75
0.51
0.92
1.53
0.92
3.12
2.08
Waste Condition Achievable Through
Sand Flltratf on-601 Reduction
BOD.
Remaining
Day)
1.0
0.6
3.0
4.0
1.6
16.0
1.4
6.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
0.8
1.2
BOD.
Reduction
^ Pounds/
Day)
1.5
0.9
4.5
6.0
3.4
24.0
2.1
9.0
4.5
3.0
4.5
1.2
1.8
incremental
Treatment:
Cost
Day)"
1.62
1.13
5.87
5.87
1.62
10.40
1.62
6.25
3.50
5.99
3.20
1.95
1.95
t-ost per
Pound
Removed
Pound)
1.08
1.25
1. 10
0:97
0.47
0.43
0.77
0.69
0.77
1.99
0.71
1.62
1.08
Complete Recvcl
BOD;
Remaining
Day)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BOD5
Reduction
Day)
1.5
0.9
4.5
6.0
3.4
2.4
2.1
9.0
4.5
3.0
4.5
1.2
1.8
Achievable Through
inn-1007. Reduction
— Incremertal — Cost per
Treatnent Pound
Cost Reflovec
(Dollars/
Day)
20.50
14.93
61.14
61.14
20.50
99.43
20.50
64.50
39.37
61.75
36.45
23.93
23.93
(Dollars
Pound)
13.66
16.61
13.58
10.19
6.02
4.14
9.76
7.16
8.74
20.58
8.10
19.fi
13.29
I
-------
Incremental BOOj Renoual and Cost Efficiency
ftS°!I^Iry' Iertl"r>-. «"<) Recycle Treatment Systems -
0\
Waace Condition Achievable
Trtw of riant
Receiving Station (Can.)
*«etvlng Station (Bulk)
Fluid Products
Cultured Product.
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Ullli
Dry Mill,
Condensed Uhey
Dry Uhey
Discharged Remaining
Pounds M.E. )
100 25.000
65 16.250
465
100
925
500
250
225
125
116,250
116.250
25.000
231,250
25.00O
125.000
62.500
118.750
56,250
31.250
31,250
Waste Condition Achievable Through
Activated SludKe-901 Reduction
BODS
_ Kemainln
(Pounds/10-> (Pounds/ (Pounds/
Pounds K.E.) Day) Day)
0-5 125 12.5
0.3 75 7.5
1.5
2.0
0.8
8.0
0.7
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
0.*
0.6
375
SOO
200
2,000
175
750
375
250
375
100
150
37.5
50.0
20.0
200.0
17.5
75.0
37.5
25.0
37.5
10.0
15.0
BODj
8 Reduction
(Pounds/
Day)
U2.5
67.4
337.5
450.0
180.0
1.80O.O
157.5
675.0
337.5
225.0
337.5
90.0
135.0
Treatment
Cost
(Dollars/
Day)
6S.75
65.00
167.40
167.40
68.75
265.93
48.75
212.50
200.00
207.81
205.31
71.25
71.25
Pound
Removed
TBbllars/
Pound)
0.61
0.96
0.50
0.37
0.31
0.15
0.44
0.31
0.59
0.92
0.61
0.79
0.53
Waste Condition Achievable Through
Sand Filtratlon-607. Reduction
tOD;
Remaining
(Pounds/
Day)
5.0
J.O
15.0
20.0
(.0
80.0
7.0
30.0
15.0
10.0
15.0
4.0
6.0
BODj
keduc 1 1 on
Day)
7.5
4.5
22.5
30.0
12.0
120.0
10.5
45.0
22.5
15.0
22.5
6.0
9.0
Incremental
Treatment
(Dollars/
Day)
6.25
4.33
22.55
23.55
6.25
40.00
6.25
23.75
13.37
22.80
12.76
7.50
7.50
Cost per
Pound
Removed
(Dol lars/
Pound)
0.83
0.96
1.00
0.75
0.52
0.3)
0.60
0.53
». 59
1.52
0.57
1.25
O.S3
Jaste Condition Achievable Through
BOD;
_Renaintnje
(founds/
Day)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BODj
Reduc tiqn
(Pounds/
Day)
5.6
3.0
15.0
20.0
8.0
80.0
7.0
30.0
15.0
10.0
15.0
i.O
6.0
Incremental Coit per
Treatment Pounc*
Cost
(Dollars/
Day)
6i.25
-7.45
190.65
190.65
64.25
109.87
64.25
200.00
122.50
192.37
113.62
75.00
75.00
(Delias
Pound i
12.fi
15.82
12.71
8.CJ
3. 3'
9.18
6.67
8.17
19. :i
7.57
18.73
12.50
-------
Incremental 8005 Removal and Cost Efficiency
of Secondary, Tertiary, and Recycle Treatment Systems -
Watte Condition Achievable
Type of Plant
Receiving Station (Cans)
Receiving Station (Bulk)
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Cottage Cheese
Natural Cheese
Ice Cream
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whev
astewater BOD5
Discharged Remaining
Pounds H.E.)
100
65
465
465
IOO
925
100
500
250
475
225
125
125
IbfDf ( rounds/ 1O-* (Poundvj
Pounds M.E.) Day)
75.0OO
48.750
348.750
348.750
75.000
693.750
75.000
375.000
187.500
356,250
168.750
»».7SO
93.750
0.5
0.3
1.5
2.0
0.8
8.0
0.7
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
0.4
0.6
375
225
1.125
1,500
600
6.000
525
2.250
1.125
750
1.125
100
450
Waite Condition Achievable Through
Activated Sludee-901 Reduction
BOD5
. Renatnlni
f (Founds/
Day)
37.5
22.5
112.5
150.0
60.0
600.0
52.5
225.0
112.5
75.0
112.5
30.0
45.0
BOD,
c Reduc t ion
(founds/
Day)
337.5
202.5
1.012.5
1,350.0
540.0
5,400.0
472.5
2.025.0
1.012.5
675.0
1.012.5
270.0
405.0
incremental
Treatment
Cost
(Dollars/
Day)
195.00
209.62
317.36
317.36
195.00
464.81
195.00
328.12
202.50
320.62
236.25
196.87
196.87
Lost per
Pound
(Dollars/
Pound)
0.57
1.03
0.31
0.23
0.36
0.08
0.41
0.16
0.20
0.47
0.23
0.72
0.48
Waste Condition Achievable Through
Sand Filtratlon-60Z Reduction
BOD5
Remaining
(Pounds/
Day)
15.0
9.0
45.0
60.0
24.0
240.0
21.0
90.0
45.0
30.0
45.0
12.0
18.0
BODS
Deduction
(Pounds?
Day)
22.5
13.5
67.5
90.0
36.0
360.0
31.5
135.0
67.5
45.0
67.5
18. C
27.0
Incremental
Treatment
Cost
(Dollars/
Day)
15.67
10.87
57.54
57.54
15.67
102.67
15.67
61.50
33.93
58.42
31.05
18.84
18.84
Cost per
Pound
(Dollars /
Pound)
0.69
0.80
0.85
0.63
0.43
0.28
0.49
0.45
0.50
1.29
0.46
1.04
0.69
Waste Condition Achievable Through
Complete Reeve line- 1001 Redurtinn
BOD5 BODj
(Pounds/ (Pounds/
Day) Day)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
9.0
45.0
60.0
24.0
240.0
21.0
90.0
45.0
30.0
45.0
12.0
18.0
Incremental Cost per
Treatment Pound
(Dollars/
Day)
142.50
103.35
41d.50
418.50
142.50
679.87
142.50
442.50
271.87
427.50
251.43
166.87
166.87
(Dollars
Paund)
9.50
11.48
9.30
6.97
5.93
2.80
6.78
4.91
6.04
14.25
5.58
13.90
9.27
-------
DRAFT
Sand bed drying, with enclosures and fans to rapidly remove
moisture and lessen odor and fly problems, is recommended over
vacuum filtration and centrifugation. Sand Bed drying requires
far less capital outlay and operating cost than vacuum filtra-
tion and centrifugation and appeals attractive considering the
relatively small amount of sludge produced by dairy plants when
compared to some other industries. For final disposal, dried
sludge can be buried, used as fertilizer, or incinerated.
For aerated lagoons and stabilization ponds, periodic dredging
of the beds is .required to prevent excessive buildup of solids.
The dredged sludge can be buried or used as landfill.
168
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
SECTION X
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
(LEVEL I EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES)
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved July, 1, 1977
are to specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the "Best Practicable Control Technology Cur-
rently Available", or "Level I Technology". The Environmental
Protection Agency has defined the best practicable control tech-
nology currently available as follows.
"Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available is
generally based upon the average of the best existing performance
by plants of various sizes, ages and unit processes within the
industrial category and/or subcategory. This average is not based
upon a broad range of plants vrithin the beet sugar processing
industry, but based upon performance levels achieved by execplary
plants.
Consideration must also be giA'en to:
1. The total cost of application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from
such application;
2. the size and age of equipment and facilities involved;
3. the processes employed;
4. the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques;
5. process changes;
6. non-water quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements).
Also, Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
emphasizes treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing
process but includes the control technologies within the process
itself when the latter are considered to be normal practice within
an industry.
A further consideration is the degree of economic and engineering
Noticr; These ;uv tentative recomrnetu1.itions based upon
lnfor.mil inn In this report owl are subject to ch.ingo based
upon conwH>nfK received and n-rthcr >.ntcrnal review by El'i\.
169
Kccwney: MArvvjetnent Consultants
-------
DRAFT
reliability which must be established for the technology to be
"currently available." As a result of demonstration projects,
pilot plants and general use, there must exist a high degree of
confidence in the engineering and economic practicability of the
technology at the time of commencement of construction or instal-
lation of the control facilities."
Effluent Reduction Attainable
Through The Application Of
The Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available
BOD5
Based upon the information contained in Sections III through
Section IX of this report it has been estimated that the degree
of BOD5 reduction attainable through the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available in each in-
dustry subcategory is as indicated in Table 33. The BOD5 loads
under "Final Effluent", are the suggested BOD5 effluent limitation
guidelines to be met by July 1, 1977.
The derivation of the final effluent BOD5 limits are evident from
Table 33. Although the final effluent loads were derived by
assuming the use of a biological treatment system followed by
sand filtration, it is not implied that plants must necessarily
install a sand filter: it is possible (as demonstrated by the
data in Table 13 that a number of plants may achieve the indicated
final effluent waste loads though a biological treatment system
operating at an average efficiency of 96% BOD5 reduction.
Suspended Solids
Findings of this study indicate a high correlation between sus-
pended solids and BOD5 in dairy waste water, with a mean of 40%
suspended solids/BOD5 rates.
End-of-pipe controls in existing dairy plants are designed primarily
to reduce BOD5. An overall reduction efficiency of 96% (such as
90% through bioligical treatment and 60% further reduction through
sand filtration) has been selected for Level I. A plant that meets
the final effluent BOD5 loads indicated in Table 33 without sand
filtration, will probably have a biological treatment system operat-
ing at close to 96% efficiency. A biological system operating at
that efficiency for BOD5 will perform at about 90% reduction effi-
ciency for suspended solids. Therefore, if the raw waste load
for suspended solids is equal to 40% of the BOD5 load, and the end-
of-pipe reduction is 96% for BODs and 90% for suspended solids, the
Notice: These aro tentative reromr
-------
Table 33
of
Raw Waste Load
BOD5 Reduction
Best Practicable
Achievable
Through In-Plant Control
Subcategory
Receiving Station:
Cans
Bulk
Fluid Products
Cultured Prodn.
Butter
Natural and Processed
Cheese
Cottas»f» r.h^*»R<»
O ~««*-^.jfc. -
Ice Cream
Kg BODs per
1,000 kg M.E.
Received
0.5
0.3
1.5
2.0
0.8
0.7
8 0
3.0
Kg BOD5 per
100 kg BODs
Received
0.5
0.3
1.5
2.0^
2.1
0.7
11.4
6.0
Attainable Through
Control Technology
Reduc tion
the Application
Currently Available (Level I)
Through Reduction K.g
Biological Through Sand 1,
Treatment Filtration
907,
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
607o
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Final
Effluent
BODs per Kg BOD5 per
000 kg M.E. 100 kg BOD5
Received Received
0.020
0.012
0.060
0.080
0.032
0.028
0.320
0.120
0.020
0.012
0.060
0.080
0.081
^JKOJS^
^SP
0.240
Ice Cream Mi
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
Limited available data are inconclusive; assume same values as for "Fluid Products"
1-0 1.0 90 60 0.040 0.040
!-5 1.5 90 60 0.060 0.060
0.4 1.0 90 60 0.016 0.040
0.6 1.5 90 60 0.024 0.060
Note: (1) No plant data are available for this subcategory; the figure indicated is an estimate, based on an analysis
of the sources of waste in the process, the volume of product lost in key operations in the manufacturing
process, and adjustment for viscosity and 6005 content of the product.
-------
DRAFT
final effluent loads for suspended solids will have a 1:1 ratio
with the BODtj loads, i.e, they will be numerically the same as
those for BOD5 shown in Table 33.
The situation described above represents the highest suspended
solids loads that would result, i.e, when the final effluent
loads are met through biological treatment alone, where sand
filtration is added to meet the BOD5 limits, the suspended solids
loads will be numerically lower than the BOD5 loads. Therefore,
it is suggested that Level I effluent limitation guidelines for
suspended solids be the same values suggested for BOD5 (expressed
in Kg suspended solids per 100 Kg BOD5 received).
Identification Of Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available
The suggested Level I raw waste loads and end-of-pipe waste
reduction are currently being achieved by a number of "exemplary"
plants in the industry. Other plants can achieve them by imple-
menting some or all of the following waste control measures:
(a) In-Plant Control
1. Establishment of a plant management improvement
program, as described in detail in Section VII. Such a plan
would cover an educational program, for management and employees,
installation of waste monitoring equipment, improvement of plant
maintenance, improvement of production scheduling practices, qual-
ity control improvement, finding alternate uses for products cur-
rently wasted to drain, and improvement in housekeeping and product
handling practices.
2. Improving plant equipment as described specifically
under "Standard Equipment Improvement Recommendations", items 1
through 13, in Section VII.
(b) End-Of-Pipe Control
1. Installation of a biological treatment system (acti-
vated sludge, trickling filter, or aerated lagoon), designed
generally in accordance with the suggested parameters set forth
in Section VIII, and operated under careful management.
2. Installation of a sand filter of adequate capacity.
3. Where land is available, irrigating the waste water
by spray or ridge and furrow, if this can be done economically and
satisfactorily.
Notice: These arc tentative recommendations based upon
Information In this report and are subject to change based
upon comments received and further internal review by EPA.
172
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Rationale For Selection Of
Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available
Keeping in mind the definition of Level I technology, the data
contained in Table 33 were developed utilizing the following
basic methodology:
(a) Raw BOD5 Load Achievable
Through In-Plant Control
1. Waste characterization data for identified plants
were analyzed, in context with an evaluation of present manage-
ment practices and of the engineered waste control improvements
available at some of those plants.
2. Waste load data for identified plants were compared
with those from unidentified plants and with calculated values
for complete plants (based upon "Standard Manufacturing Processes",
as defined in the 1971 Kearney report).
3. Waste load data for single-product plants were
tested against those of multi-product plants, using the follow-
ing relation:
BOD5 load of multi-product plant (Kg/100 Kg) -
BOD5 load of single-product (Kg/100 Kg) x BOD5 processed
'Total BOD5 Received (Kg)
4. Final values were selected, based on the results
of the preceeding analyses.
(a) BOD5 Reduction Achievable Through
End-Of-Pipe Control
Reported efficiencies of biological treatment systems in nine
identified plants (including activated sludge, trickling filters
and aerated lagoons) average 96.1% BOD5 (See Table 23). Those
treatment plants, as a whole, approach the highest average level
of BOD5 reduction that can be achieved with a well designed, well
managed biological treatment system. They are therefore, represent-
ative of "Level II Technology", or "Best Available" technology
economically achievable".
The average BOD5 reduction efficiencies for 146 treatment systems
of the same type (from unidentified plant sources) is 83.8%.
This value represents the reduction capability for an average
Nprico: These .ire- tentative recommendation* based ,,,>on
inloirflititinn in this report and «ro stihioct t,, ,.i, ,, ', .
upon comments received'and lurther internal reviow^y EP^
173
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
biological waste treatment plant in the industry.
By definition, Level I biological treatment must represent
"the average of the best plants in the industry"; therefore,
Level I average performance should be somewhere between 83.8%
and 96.1% BOD5 reduction. The mean value, 90%, was selected.
Comparison Of Level I Raw Waste
Loads After In-Plant Control
With Calculated Values Based
On Previously Recommended
"SMP" Loads
It is of interest to compare the Level I raw waste data derived
in this study (Table 33) with the calculated values based on the
"standard manufacturing process" (SMP), waste loads recommended
as guidelines in Kearney's 1971 study:
Table 34
Comparison Of Level I
Raw Waste Loads with SMP -
Based Waste Loads
Raw Waste Loads
Subcategory (Kg BODs per 1,000 Kg. M.E. Received)
Calculated with Derived in this study
SMP loads with expanded data
(1971) base
Receiving Station
Cans 0.47 0.5
Bulk 0.33 0.3
Fluid Products 0.96-1.32 1.5
Cultured Products - 2.0
Butter 1.11 0.8
Natural Cheese 1.77 0.7
Cottage Cheese 8.69 8.0
Ice Cream 3.15 3.0
Ice Cream Mix - 1.5
Condensed Milk 0.67-1.26 1.0
Dry Milk 0.94-1.91 1.5
Condensed Whey 1.22-1.35 0.4
Dry Whey 1.12-1.85 0.6
It can be noted that Level I waste loads for each subcategory
developed during this study (which assume implementation of in-
plant controls as described earlier in this Section) are generally
Notice; These are- tentntivn rerommcml.itions hased upon
TnTbr'n.ition IP. t.his report and •. rp nuhjr.nt to ':h.iiiRC based
upon comments recc iv< J and furtfer inti-raal review by EI'A.
174
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
in accordance with those based on SMP loads (which were developed
under controlled conditions - "use of reasonably modern equipment
and careful operation").
Three significant exceptions to this are "Natural Cheese", "Con-
densed Whey" and "Dry Whey", in which the waste loads derived in
this study are substantially below the calculated loads derived
previously. Non-identified plant source data for 21 natural cheese
plants gave a waste load of 2.0 Kg BOD5 the 1.7 calculated figure.
The principal reason for the lower figures derived in this study
for Natural Cheese and Whey processing operations could be the
fact that the identified plant data which were the main basis for
developing the guidelines consist primarily of large plants belong-
ing to important companies that are relatively sophisticated in
waste control practices. It is therefore, cautioned that smaller,
less sophisticated cheese and whey plants may have considerable
difficulty in reaching the Level I raw waste levels suggested, and
the corresponding guidelines should be revised as additional data
become available.
Notice: ..hose we tcnt.itivp rocoiwemlatiuns haaed -ipon
intornifltloii in ,!iJc ro;.™-t ;ux< arc Si,|,y-t ro change based
«l>ou commonts ret-i-ivoj and further intern.!I review'bv El'A
175
Kearney Maruvjemcnt Consultants
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
(LEVEL II EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES)
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1983
are to specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the "Best Available Technology Currently Avail-
able" or "Level II Technology". The Environmental Protection
Agency has defined the best available technology currently avail-
able in the following terms:
"Level II technology is not based upon an average of the best
performance within an industrial category, but is to be determined
by identifying the very best control and treatment technology em-
ployed by a specific point source within the industrial category
or subcategory; where it is readily transferable from one industry
process to another, such technology may be identified as Level II
technology. A specific finding must be made as to the availability
of control measures and practices to eliminate the discharge of
pollutants, taking into account the cost of such elimination.
1. the age of equipment and facilities involved;
2. the process employed;
3. the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques;
4. process changes;
5. cost of achieving the effluent reduction/resulting
from application of Level II technology;
6. non-water quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements).
In contrast to Level I technology, Level II assesses the avail-
ability in all cases of in-process controls as well as control or
additional treatment techniques employed at the end of a production
process. In-process control options available which should be
considered in establishing Level II control and treatment technology
include, but need not be limited to, the following:
Notice; These are tentative recommendations hasud upon
Information In this report nnd arc subject to cl>am»e based
upon comments received and further internal review by El'A.
177
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
1. Alternative Water Uses
2. Water Conservation
3. Waste Stream Segregation
4. Water Reuse
5. Cascading Water Uses
6. By-Product Recovery
7. Reuse of Wastewater Constituent
8. Waste Treatment
9. Good Housekeeping
10. Preventive Maintenance
11. Quality Control (raw material, product, effluent)
12. Monitoring and Alarm Systems
Those plant processes and control technologies which at the pilot
plant, semi-works, or other level, have demonstrated both technolog-
ical performances and economic viability at a level sufficient to
reasonably justify investing in such facilities may be considered
in assessing Level II technology. Level II is the highest degree
of control technology that has been achieved or has been demonstrat-
ed to be capable of being designed for plant scale operation up to
and including "no discharge" of pollutants. Although economic
factors are considered in this development, the costs for this
level of control is intended to be the top-of-the-line of current
technology subject to limitations imposed by economic and en-
gineering feasibility. However, Level II may be characterized
by some technical risk with respect to performance and with
respect to certainty of costs. Therefore, Level II may necessi-
tate some industrially sponsored development work prior to its
application.
Notice: These are tentative recommendations based upon
information in this report and are subject to change based
upon comments received and further internal review by EPA
178
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Effluent Reduction Attainable
Through the Application of the
Best Available Technology
_. Economically Achievable
BOD5
Based on the information contained in Sections III through Sec-
tion IX of this report it has been estimated that the degree of
effluent reduction attainable through the application of the
best available technology economically achievable in each industry
subcategory is as indicated in Table 35. The BOD5 loads under
"Final Effluent" are the suggested effluent limitations guidelines
to be met by July 1, 1983.
Suspended Solids
Based on the same analyses and rationale described under "Suspended
Solids" in Section IX of this report, it is suggested that the
Level II effluent limitation guidelines for suspended solids be
numerically the same as the Level II BOD5 guidelines (Table 35), but
expressed in Kg suspended solids per 100 Kg BOD5 received.
Identification Of Best Available
_ Technology Economically Achievable
The suggested Level II raw waste loads and end-of-pipe waste re-
duction are currently being achieved by a few "exemplary" plants
in the industry. Other plants can achieve them by implementing
some or all of the following waste control measures:
(a) In-Plant Control
1. Establishment of a plant management improvement
program, as described in detail in Section VII. Such a plan
would cover an educational program for management and employees,
installation of waste monitoring equipment, improvement of plant
maintenance, improvement of production scheduling practices,
quality control improvement, finding alternate uses for products
currently wasted to drain, and improvement in product handling
practices.
2. Improving plant equipment as described si—-^-- *y
under "Standard Equipment Improvement Recommendations", items 1
through 13, in Section VII.
3. Improving plant equipment as described specifically
under "New Concepts for Equipment Improvement" items 1 to 4, in
Section VII.
Notice; These are tentative recommendations based upon
Information in thi« report and are subject to change based
upon comments received and further internal review by EPA.
179
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Table 35
BOD^ Reduction Attainable through the Application
Raw Waste Load Achievable
Through In- Plant Control
Subcateeorv
Receiving Station:
Cans
Bulk
Fluid Products
Cultured Products
Butter
Natural and Processed Cheese
Cottage Cheese
Ice Cream
Kg BOD5 per
1,000 kg M.E.
Received
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.7(1)
0.3
0.4
4.7
1.1
Kg BOD5 per
100 kg BOD5
Received
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.7(1)
0.8
0.4
6.7
2.2
Reduction
Through
Biological
Treatment
96%
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
Reduction
Through
Sand
Filtration
60%
60
60 '
60
60
60
60
60
Final Effluent
Kg BOD5 per
1,000 kg M.E.
Received
0.006
0.003
0.008
0.011
0.005
0.006
0.075
0.018
Kg BOD,- per
100 kgJBOD5
Received
0.006
0.003
0.008
0.011
0.013
0.006
0.107
0.035
£
1
§
8 i
r-4 £
1
1
1
Ice Cream Mix
Condensed Milk
Dry Milk
Condensed Whey
Dry Whey
Limited data available are inconclusive; assume same values as for "Fluid Products".
0.5 0.5 96 60 0.008 0.008
0.7 0.7 96 60 0.011 0.011
0.2 0.5 96 60 0.003 0.008
0.3 0.7 96 60 0.005 0.011
Note: (1) No plant data are available for this subcategory; the figure indicated is an estimate, based on an analysis
of the sources of waste in the process, the volume of product lost in Key operations in the manufacturing
process, and adjustment for viscosity and BOD5 content of the product.
-------
DRAFT
4. Applying process improvements, as described speci-
fically under "Waste Management Through Process Improvements",
items (a) through (h), in Section VII.
5. Implementing systems improvements, as described
specifically under "Waste Management Through Systems Improve-
ments", items (1), (2) and (3) of "Waste Control Systems now
in use", in Section VII.
(b) End-Of-Pipe Control
1. Installation of a biological treatment system
(activated sludge, trickling filter, or aerated lagoon) designed
generally in accordance with the suggested parameters set forth
in Section VIII, and operated under good management.
2. Installation of a sand filter of adequate capacity.
3. Where land is available, irrigating the wastewater
by spray or ridge and furrow, if this can be done economically
and satisfactorily.
Rationale For Selection Of Best
Available Control Technology
Economically Achievable
Keeping in mind the definition of Level II technology, the data
contained in Table 35 were developed utilizing the following
basis methodology:
(a) Raw BOD5 Load Achievable Through
In-Plant Control
Essentially the same as described in Section IX for Level I, but
considering: (1) the performance of the best among the better
plants in each subcategory, and (2) the application of new en-
gineering improvements not widely used in the industry.
(b) BOD5 Reduction Achievable
Through End-Of-Pipe Control
A BOD5 reduction efficiency of 96% was selected for biological
systems, based on the performance data of nine identified plants
contained in Table 23.
Not Ice! These arc tentative recommendations based upon
information in this report and are subject to chan&e based
upon comments received and further internal review by EPA.
181
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XII
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
(LEVEL III PERFORMANCE STANDARDS)
Introduction
In addition to Level I and Level II guidelines, the Act requires
that performance standards be established for new sources"
(Level III technology). The term "new source" is defined in
the Act to mean "any source, the construction of which is com-
menced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing
a standard of performance."
The Environmental Protection Agency has defined Level III tech-
nology in the following terms: "Level III technology shall be
evaluated by adding to the consideration underlying the identi-
fication of Level II technology a determination of what higher
levels of pollution control are available through the use of
improved production processes and/or treatment techniques. Thus,
in addition to considering the best in-plant and end-of-process
control technology, identified in Level II, Level III technology
is to be based upon an analysis of how the level of effluent may
be reduced by changing the production process itself. Alterna-
tive processes, operating methods or other alternatives must
be considered. However, the end result of the analysis will be
to identify effluent standards which reflect levels of control
achievable through the use of improved production processes
(as well as control technology), rather than prescribing a part-
icular type of process or technology which must be employed.
A further determination which must be made for Level III tech-
nology is whether a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants
is practicable.
At least the following factors should be considered with respect
to production processes which are to be analyzed in assessing
Level III technology:
1. the type of process employed and process changes
2. operating methods
3. batch as opposed to continuous operations
4. use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw
naterials
5. use of dry rather than wet processes (including
substitution of recoverable solvents for water)
6. recovery of pollutants as by-products
Notice-; Those are tentative recommendations based upon
Information in this report and arc subject to change based
upon continent R rc-coi"c'l ;uul further intcrnai review by EPA.
183
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
DRAFT
Effluent Reduction Attainable
In New Sources
Because of the large number of specific improvements in manage-
ment practices and design of equipment, processes, and systems
that can potentially be applied in new sources it is not pos-
sible to determine, within reasonable accuracy, the potential
waste reduction achievable in such cases. However, the imple-
mentation of many or all of the in-plant and end-of-pipe con-
trols described in Section VII and Section VIII should enable
new sources to achieve the waste loads defined as Level II or
better. It is suggested that new source performance standards
be the same as the level II effluent guidelines, as defined in
Section X.
184
Notice! Those are tentative rccoinmend.itinns based upon
information in thla n'p.irt and aru subject to chuit^c- hascil
upon commi'iifs rt-coivnil und further Infernal, review by EPA.
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
SECTION XIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A. T. Kearney, Inc. gratefully acknowledges the many people and
organizations who cooperated and assisted in this study.
We acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided to us by
member companies of the Dairy Industry Committee and other dairy
companies. We appreciate their allowing our subcontractors to
sample their wastewater, allowing us to visit their plant oper-
ations and furnishing us with important plant data. The samp-
ling of wastewater carried out by many of the dairy companies
is also greatly appreciated.
We acknowledge the assistance and advice given to us by Dr.
Richard Gregg, Project Officer, EFG. His visits of some dairy
plants on our behalf is appreciated. We acknowledge the con-
tributions made by Mr. Allen Cywin, Director, EFG, and Mr. Ernest
Hall, Deputy Director, EFG.
We also acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of those
•water pollution control equipment manufacturers who provided us
with valuable cost information.
« • •
We are very thankful to the following individuals, whose assist-
ance contributed significantly in making this report possible:
Dr. Warren Clark, American Dry Milk Institute, Inc.; Dr. Peter
Noznick, Beatrice Foods Co.; Mr. H. S. Christiansen, Carnation
Co.; Mr. Eldred Bowen, Dairylea Corp.; Mr. Dale Sieberling,
Economics Laboratory; Mr. Carl Blanchard, H. P. Hood & Sons;
Mr. Kenneth Watson, Kraftco Corp.; Mr. Ronald Rice, Kroger Co.;
Messrs. Philip Stocker and Barney Gaffney, Land'O'Lakes, Inc.;
Messrs. Jim Garrison and Joe Grant, Mid-America Dairymen, Inc.;
Mr. John Rugaber, Pet Inc.; and Mr. Luther Elkins, The South-
land Corp. Special thanks go to Mr. Fred Greiner, Chairman,
Dairy Industry Committee, for his generous assistance and coop-
eration.
Finally, we are especially grateful to Dr. W. James Harper,
Professor of Dairy Technology, The Ohio State University, asso-
ciated consultant to A. T. Kearney for this project, who provided
technical guidance and contributed materially to the report.
This report was under the overall direction of Mr. Joseph H.
Greenberg, Vice President of A. T. Kearney, Inc. The working
team included Messrs. David Asper, David Dajani and Ronald
Orchard, Associates.
187
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
SECTION XIV
REFERENCES
1. Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Executive
Office of the President, Bureau ot the Budget, 1967.
2. Dairy Effluents. Report of the Dairy Effluents Sub-
Committee of the Milk and Milk Products Technical
Advisory Committee; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, Scottish Home and Health Department; Her
Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1969.
3. Dairy Food Plant Wastes and Waste Treatment Practices.
A "State-of-the-Art" Study by W. James Harper and J. L.
Blaisdell for the Water Quality Office of the Environmental
'Protection Agency, 1971.
4. Industrial Wastes - Dairy Industry. H. A. Trebler and
H. G. Harding, Ind. Eng. Chera. 39: 608, 1947.
5. Manual for Milk Plant Operators. Milk Industry
Foundation, 1967.
6. Disposal and Treatment of Dairy Waste Waters.
G. Walzholz.International Dairy Federation Annua1
Bulletin (2) 1-57 1964.
7.. Effluent Treatment and Disposal. M. Muers. Dairy
Industry (England) 33 (11) 747-751. 1968.
8. The Control of Dairy Effluent. L. Royal. Milk Industry
(England) 55: (4) 36-41. 1964.
9. Recent Developments in the Design of Small Milk Waste
Disposal Plants^J. P. Horton and H. S. Trebler.
Proc. 8th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.,32-45, 1953.
10. The Disposal of Wastes from Milk Products Plants.
E. F. Eldridge, Mich. Engng. Exp. Sta., Bull.272, 1936.
11. Proportional Sampling of Dairy Waste Water. H.M.J. Scheltinga.
Pollution figures related to production.17th Int. Dairy
Congr., E/F:767-771. 1966.
12 Multistage Plastic Media Treatment Plants. P.N.J.Chipperfield,
* M. W. Askew, and J. H. Benton.Proc. 25th Ind. Waste Conf.,
Purdue Univ., 1-32. 1970.
13 Practical Aspects of Dairy Wasts Treatment C.W.Watson, Jr.
Proc. 15th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., 81-89. 1960.
14 Dairy Waste Treatment. R. R. Kountz, J. Milk Fd. Technol.,
18:243-245.T931T
189 •
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
15. Some Considerations on Waste Waters from Dairies and
Their Purification.F. Cantinieaux, Bull, mens. Cent.
Beige Etude Docutn. Eaux, No. 24, 103-109. 1954.
16. Air Diffusion in the Treatment of Industrial Wastes.
G. E. Hauer, Proc. 9th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.,
60-63. 1954
17, Milk Waste Treatment by Activated Sludge. P.M.Thayer,
Wat. Sewage Wks., 100:(1)34.195T.
18. Review of Cases Involving Dairy Effluent for the
Period October, 1967-October. 1968. H. Werner and
E. K. Lytken.Bilag til 28. arsberetning,
47-54. 1968.
19. Trickling Filters Successfully Treat Milk Wastes.
7". E"I Morgan and E. IT Baumann, Proc. Amer. Soc.
Civ. Engrs., 83:SA4, Pap. No. 1336, 1-35. 1957.
20. Dairy Wastes Disposal by Ridge and Furrow Irrigation.
F. H. Schraufnagel.Proc.12th Ind. Waste Conf.,
Purdue Univ., 28-49. 1957.
21. Waste Treatment Facilities of the Belle Center
Creamery and Cheese Company"] D. G. Neill. Froc. 4th
Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., 45-53. 1948.
22 Milk Waste Treatment by Aeration. F. J. McKee.
Sewage Ind. Wastes, 22:1041-104b. 1950.
23. Spray Irrigation of Dairy Wastes. G. W. Lawton,
G. Breska, L. E.Engelbert, G. A. Rohlich and
N. Porges. Sewage Ind. Wastes 31:923-933. 1959.
24. Milk Plant Waste Disposal. W. E. Standeven. 39th
Ann. Rept., N.Y. State Assn. Milk and Food San., III.
1965.
25. Food Dehydration Wastes. A study of wastes from the
dehydration of skim milk, raw and fermented whey,
|
Sotatoes. beets, rutabagas, and hominy.F. E. DeMartini,
. A. Moore, and G. E. Terhoeven.Publ. Hlth. Rep.,
Wash., Suppl. No. 191, 1-40. 1946.
26. Disposal of Food Processing Wastes by Spray Irrigation.
N. H. Sanborn.Sewage Ind. Wastes, 25:1034-1043. 1953
190
Kearney Management Consultants
-------
27. The Occurrence of Tubercule Bacilli in Drain Water
of Slaughter Houses, Dairies, and Rendering Plants.
M. J. Christiansen and A. Jepsen.Maanedsky,
Dyrloeg., 57:(6)173-193. 1945.
28. The Cost of Milk Waste Treatment. P. E. Morgan.
Am. Milk Rev., 19:(6)30, 82, 84, 86 and 101-102.
1957.
29. Methods and Results of Activated Sludge Treatment
of Dairy Wastes'! S"! D. Montagna.Surveyor, 97:117.
1940.
30. Aeration of Milk Wastes. W. A. Hasfurther and
C. W. Klassen. Proc. 5th Ind. Waste Conf.,
Purdue Univ., 72, 424-430. 1949.
31. Some Experiences in the Disposal of Milk Wastes.
D. K. Silvester.J. Soc. Dairy Technol., 12:228-231.
1959.
32. Two-thousand Town Treats Twenty-thousand Waste.
0. E. Grewis and C. A. Burkett.Wat. Wastes Engng.,
3:(6)54-57. 1966.
33. Water Pollution by Finnish Dairies. M. Sarkka,
J. Nordlund, M. Pankakoski, and M. Heikonen.
18th Int. Dairy Congr., I-E, A. 1.2 11. 1970.
34. Properties of Waste Waters from Butter Factories
and Processes for Their Purification. S, S. Gauchman.
Vodos. Sanit. Tekh., 15: (1)50. 1940.
35. A Study of Milk Waste Treatment. B. F. Hatch and
J. H. Bass.13th Annual Report, Ohio Conf. on
Sewage Treatment, 50-91. 1939.
36. Analysis of Waste Waters from Dairy and Cheese
Plants on the Basis of Existing Literature.
M. Schweizer.Molkereizeitung, 9:254 and
256-257. 1968.
37. Dairy Waste Disposal by Spray Irrigation.
F. J. McKee.Sewage Ind. Wastes, 29:(2)157-164.
1957.
38. Investigations on Irrigation with Dairy Waste
Water. K. Wallgren. H. Leesment. and F. Magnusson.
Meddn. Svenska Mejeriern. Riksforen., 85: 20. 1967.
191
Kearney:
-------
39. The Problem o£ Waste Disposal. An analysis of systems
used by selected diary plants. M. E. Anderson and
H. A. Morris. Mfd. Milk Prod. J., 57:(8)8-10. 12,
(9)30-32, (10)12-13. 1966.
40. How can Plant Losses be Determined? D. E. Bloodgood
and R. A. Canham.Proc.3rd Ind. Waste Conf.,
Purdue Univ., 293-309. 1947.
41. Milk Wastes in Sewage Sludge Digestion Tanks.
ITFTBackmeyer.Proc.5th Ind. Waste Conf.,
Purdue Univ., 411-417. 1949.
42. Milk Waste Treatment on an Experimental Trickling
Filter. E. F.Gloyna.Water Sewage Works. J., 97:
(11)473-478. 1950.
43. The Quantity and Composition of Dairy Waste Water
at a Dairy PlantTT. Bergman, F, Magnusson and
A. Berglof.Meddn Svenska Mejeriern. Riksforen, 86.
1966.
44. Glucose Disappearance in Biological Treatment Systems.
J. S. Jeris and R. R. Cardenas.Appl. Microbiol.,
14:(6)857-864. 1966.
45. Monitoring Waste Discharge: a New Tool for Plant
Management.W.R. Zall. Dissertation, Cornell Univ.
1968.
46. Dairy Factory Effluent Treatment by a Trickling Filter.
J. S. Fraser.Aust. J. Dairy Technol., 23:(2)104-106.
1968.
47. Dairy Waste-Saving and Treatment Guide. Dairy Sanitation
Engineers Committee of the Pennsylvania Association of
Milk Dealers, Inc. in cooperation with Pennsylvania
Sanitary Water Board, 1948.
48. Industrial Waste Guide to the Milk Processing Industry.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Public Health Service Publication No. 298, 1959.
49. An Interpretation of the BOD Test in Terms of Endogenous
Respiration of Bacteria. 3"! R. Hoover, N. Porges and
L. Jasewicz. Sewage Ind. Wastes, 25:(iO)1163-1173.
1953.
50. Contributions to the Problem of Waste Waters in the
Milk Industry.H. Schulz-Falkenhain.Molk.-u. Kas.-Ztg.,
6:1060-1062, 1116-1117, 1588-1590, 1610-1611, and
1671-1672. 1955.
192
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
51. Waste Control in the Dairy Plant. G. Walzholz.
17th Int. Dairy Congr., E/F:785-792. 1966.
52. R.A.A.D Test Installation. J. H. Rensink.
Halfjaarl. Tijdschr. belg.stud. document.
Centre. Wat., No. 12,44-46. 1963.
53. Experiments on the Biological Treatment of Dairy
Wastes.W. Furhoff. Vom Wasser, 28:430.1961.
54. Oxygen Uptake of Factory Effluents. K. Christensen.
18th Int. Dairy Congr., I-E, A. 1.2, 14.
55. Methods for Estimating the Strength of Dairy Effluents.
D. J. Reynolds, 17th Int. Dairy Congress, 5:773-780.
1966.
56. Effluent Problems in Dairy Factories. G. Walholz, A.
Lembke, J. Gronau, H. Kosher, and H. Schmidt. Kieler
milckw. Forsch Ber., 20: (5) 415-532. 1968.
57. How Can Plant Losses be Determined? D. E. Bloodgood and
R. A. Canham.Proc. 3rd Ind. Waste Confer.. Purdue Univ.
293-309. 1947.
58. The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III - Industrial Waste
Profile No. 9: Dairies. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1967.
59. Industrial Waste Recovery by Desalination Techniques.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Saline
Water. Research and Development Progress Report
No. 581, October 1970.
60. Waste Prevention in the Dairy Industry. Report of
the Waste Disposal Task Committee of the Dairy
Industry Committee, February, 1950.
61. Treatment and Disposal of Dairy Waste Waters; A Review.
W. J. Fisher.Review Article No. 147, Dairy Science
Abstract (England) 30 (11) 567-577. 1968.
62. Byproducts from Milk. B. H. Webb and E. 0. Whittier
. The AVI Publishing Company, 1970.
63. Water Use and Conservation in Food Processing Plants.
B. A. Twigg, Journal of Milk and Food Technology,
July 1967, 222-223.
193
Kearney; Management Consultants
-------
64. Monitoring Milk Plant Waste Effluent - A New Tool for
Plant Management"! R. R. ZallW. K. Jordan, Journal
of Milk and Food Technology, June 1969.
65. Treatment and Disposal of Effluents. Part 1 - Pollution
and legal requirements.Part 2 - Conventional and other
treatment processes. L. A. Allen. Dairy Inds., 29:(2)
90-93, (3) 164-168 and 176. 1964.
66. Sedimentation and Hydraulic Classification. A. Anable.
Ind. Engng. Chetn. , 40:50. 19~4lT
67. The Problem of Waste Disposal. An Analysis of Systems
used by selected dairy plants^I - Spray irrigation
systems.II - Lagoon and trickling filter disposal system.
Ill - Municipal waste disposal system. M. E. Anderson and
H. A. Morris. Mfd. Milk Prod. J., 57:(8)8-10, 12, (9)30-32,
(10)12-13. 1966.
68. Treating Milk Wastes in Deep Trickling Filters. Anonymous.
Wastes Engng., 33:28-29. T%2^
69. Pretreatment of Dairy Effluent by the Tower System.
T. R. Ashton and A. J. Caster.18th Int. Dairy Congr.,
I - E a. 1- 2, 9. 1970.
70. Milk Waste Disposal. D. E. Bloodgood. Sewage Wks. J.,
20:695-708.1948.
71. Pre-treatment of Milk Wastes Reduces Treatment Plant Load.
P. S. Davy. Publ. Wks., Lond. , 83: (1)56. Y35T.
72. Sewage Disposal Works for the Borough of Great Torrington.
A. E. Dyer.J. Inst. Sew. Purif., Pt. 3, 198-200.1953.
73. A Full Scale High-rate Recirculating Filter for Milk Waste.
E. F. Eldridge. Mich. Engng. Exp. Sta.} Bull. 87, 11-14.
1939.
74. Laboratory Scale Purification of Dairy Effluent by Plastics
"Filters. P. S. Hansen and 0. Krough. Nord. Mejeritidsskr.,
34:(16)194-197. 1968.
75. Trickling Filter Treatment of Whey Wastes. W. T. Ingram.
J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed., 33:(8)844-855. 1961.
76. Treatment of Dairy Wastes. J. A. Logan. Chem. Abstr.,
34:3,855.1940.
77. Preliminary Results of Comparative Investigations on
Treatment Plants for Factory Effluent.E. Lytken and
K. Christensen.18th Int. Dairy Congr., I - E, A. 1.2,13.
1970.
194
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
78. Operation of a Milk -wastes Treatment Plant Employing a
Trickling Fi It e r~. J. W. Rugaber. Sewage ind. wastes,
23: (11)1425-1428. 1951.
79. Some Experiences in the Disposal of Milk Wastes.
D. K. Silvester. J. Soc. Dairy Technology, 12:228-231, 1959.
80. Preparation of Wastes for Biological Filters. R. L. Smith
and Agneberg. Publ. Wks. , N.Y. , 94: (10)170, 172, 174. 1963.
81. Treatment of Milk Washings by Addition of Coagulants.
Sedimentation, and Biological Filtration^ B. A. Southgat e .
Dairy Inds. , 13: (3)235-240. IMS"!
82. Dairy Waste Disposal. H. A. Trebler and H. G. Harding.
Chem. Engng. Prog., 43: (5)255. 1947.
83. Treatment of Dairy Effluent by the Ferrobion-percolating
Method. G. Walzholz, H. Quest, A. Lembke and H. J. Fehlhaber.
J. Molkereizeitung, Hild. , 13: (14)395-398. 1959.
84. New Developments in Treatment of Milk Wastes. L. F. Warrick.
Fd. Inds., 12: (9)46-48 and 99. T9W.
85. Treatment of Waste Waters from Milk Products Factories.
A. B. Wheat land. Waste Treatment, Pergamon Press, 411-428.
1960.
86. High Rate Filters Treat Creamery Wastes. M. A. Wilson
Sewage Wks. Engng., 17:309. T94FI
87. Treatment of Milk Waste. N. D. Woolings. Mimic. Util. ,
90: (11) 50, 52, 54, (12)25-28, 30, 32, and 44-45. 1952.
88. Fundamentals of the Control and Treatment of Dairy Waste.
H. A. Trebler and H. G. Harding. Sewage ind. Wastes,
27:1369-1382. 1955.
89. Effluent Treatment Plant. Anonymous. Wat. and Wat. Engng. ,
71:140.
90. The Role of Contact Stabilization in the Treatment of
Industrial Waste Water and Sewage, a Progress ReportT
A. G. Boon. Wat. Pollut. Control, Lond. ,68:67-84. 1969.
91. Dairy Waste Waters and Their Aerobic Treatment. S. Bunesova
and M. Dvorak. Vod. Hospod. , 18:466-467. I96~8.
92. Some Considerations on Waste Waters From Dairies and Their
Purification. F. Cantineaux, Bull. mens. Cent. Beige
Etude Docum. Eaux. No. 24, 103-109. 1954.
195
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
93. An Industrial Waste Guide to the Milk Processing Industry.
Dairy Industry Committee, Sub-Committee on Dairy Waste
Disposal. Publ. Hlth. Engng. Abstr., 32:(9)22-23. 1952.
94. Effect of Industrial Waste on Municipal Sewage Treatment.
E. F. Eldridge. Munic. Sanit. , 10:491. T9W.
95. Milk Waste Treatment by the Mallory Process. Waterworks
and Sewerage?E. F. Eldridge. 88: (10)457-462. TWT.
96. Estimation of Colifprm Bacteria in Dairy Wastes. J. Gillar
attd D. Stelcova.Sb. Praci vyzk. Ust. Mlek., 118-129.
1963.
97. Experiments on the Biological Treatment of Dairy Wastes.
W. Furhoff.Vom Wasser 28:430, 1961.
98. BOD Shock Load. G. Gault. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed.,
32:903.1960.
99. Dairy Industry. H. G. Harding. Ind. Engng. Chem.,
44:487-491.1952.
100. Areation of Milk Wastes. W. A. Hasfurther and C. W. Klassen.
Proc. 5th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ. 72, 424-430. 1949.
101. Successful Treatment of Dairy Waste by Aeration.
G. E. Hauer.Sewage Ind. Wastes, 24:1271-1277. 1952.
102. Satisfactory Purification of Dairy Wastes by the Activated
Sludge Method.A. Kannemeyer.Mplk. -u.Kas. -tg., 9:(7)
187-190.TS5U.
103. Dairy Waste Treatment Pilot Plant. R. R. Kountz. Proc. 8th
Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., 382-386. 1953.
104. Performance of a Low-pressure Aeration Tank for Biochemical
Clarification of Dairy Waste Waters.B. G. Mishukov.
Chem. Abstr., 62:12,889.I955T
105. Methods and Results of Activated Sludge Treatment of Dairy
Wastes.S. D. Montagna.Surveyor 97:117.
1940.
106. Treatment of Milk Trade Waste Water by the Activated-sludge
Process"K. Muller.Veroff.Inst. Siedlungswasserwirt-
schaft, Hanover, No.15, 35-143.
107. Waste Treatment Facilities of the. Belle Center Creamery
and Cheese Company.D. G. Neill.Proceed. 4th Ind.
Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., 45-53. 1948.
196
KeArnev: AAarvviement Consultants
-------
108« Waste Treatment. A. Pasveer. Proceedings of the 2nd
Symposium on Treatment of Waste Waters. Univ. of Durham,
117. 1959. '
109» Plant for Biological Purification of Effluent in a Central
Dairy.U. Paul.Wass. Luft Betr., 13:(3)89-92.1969.
110. Treatment of Dairy Waste by Aeration. R. M. Power.
'Sanitalk, 3:(4)2-3.1955.
HI. Demonstration R. A. A. D. Purification Plant for Waste
Waters at Nutricia Ltd., Zoetermeer. Alg. Zuivelb.
J. H. A. Schaafsma. 50:366-309, and 316-332. T557.
112« The Treatment of Waste Waters at a Condensed Milk Plant.
L. F. Schua.Wasserwirtschaft, Stuttg., 56:370-372.T966.
113. Non-clogging Foam-safe Aerators Lick Cheese-waste Problem.
K. L. Schulze.Fd. Engng., 26:(9)51-53.T$W.
H4. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs. . K. L. Schulze. 81: SA4,
Pap. No. 847. 1955.
115. Activated Sludge Treatment of Milk Wastes. P. M. Thayer.
Sewage Ind. Wastes, 23: (12)1537-153$. 1951.
116• Treatment of Dairy Waste Waters by the Activated Sludge
Method with Large Bubble Aeration.R. Thorn. 17th Int.
Dairy Congr., E/F:709-714.1966.
117« Model Experiments for the Purification of Dairy Effluents
By Aeration.I. Tookos.Elelm. Ipar, 19:(12)367-37TT1965,
118« Practical Aspects of Dairy Waste Treatment. C. W. Watson.
Proc. lith Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., 81-89. 1960.
119« Purification of Dairy Waste in an Activated-sludge Plant
at the Rue Co-operative Dairy. H. Werner. Beretn.
St. Forso-Ksmejeri, 173:1722. 1969.
120. Activated-sludge Treatment of Some Organic Wastes.
QQQB;nnoeatland'Proc*22 Ind- Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.,
983-1008. 1967.
121. The Treatment of Effluents from the Milk Industry
A. B. Wheatland. Chemy Ind., 37: 1547-1551. 1367.
122. An Atlas of Activated Sludge Types. W. 0. Pipes Report
on Grant No. WP-0058ti-04 FWPCA, USDI, Civil Engineering
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
197
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
123. Dairy Waste Disposal System. H. G. Harding. Amer. Dairy
Rev., 31:32. ~
124. Disposal of High Organic Content Wastes on Land.
R. H. Scott. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed., 34:932-950. 1962.
125. The Development, Evaluation and Content of a Pilot Program
In Dairy Utilization- -Dairy Waste Disposal and Whey
Processing. W. S. Arbuckle and L. F. Blanton. Cooperative.
Extension Service and Department of Dairy Science,
University of Maryland, 1-53. 1968.
126. Industrial Waste Stabilization Ponds in the United States.
R. Forges. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed. ; 35: (4)456. T$6T.
127. Waste Treatment by Stabilization Ponds. C. E. Carl.
Publ. Hlth. Engng. Abstr. , 41: (10)35. 1961.
128. Sewage Stabilization Ponds in the Dakotas. Joint report
by North and South Dakota State Departments of Health,
and U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Public Health Service. 1957. .
129. Sewage Lagoons in the Rocky Mountains. D. P. Green.
Journal or Milk and Food Technology. October, 1960.
130. Aerated Lagoons Treat Minnesota Town's Wastes. J. B. Neighbor.
Civil Engineering - ASCE. December, 1970.
131. Effect of Whey Wastes on Stabilization Ponds. T. E. Maloney,
H. F. Ludwig, J. A. Harmon and L. McClintock. J. Wat. Poll.
Cont. Fed., 32:1283-1299. 1960.
132. Monitoring Milk Plant Waste Effluent - A New Tool for
Plant Management . R". R. Zall and W. K. Jordan. Journal
of Milk and Food Technology, June, 1969.
133. Study of Wastes and Effluent Requirements of the
bairy Industry! A. T. Kearney, Inc. , Chicago, Illinois.
May, 1971.
134. The Treatment of Dairy Plant Wastes. Prepared for the
Environmental Protection Agencies, Madison, Wisconsin,
March, 1973 Technology Transfer Seminar. Compiled by
K.S. Watson, Kraftco Corp.
135. Effect of Selected Factors on the Respiration and
performance of a Model Dairy Activated Sludge System..
J. V. Chambers, The Ohio State University. Disser-
tation, 1972.
198
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
136. Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for
Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
to. L. Patterson, R. F. Banker, Black 6c Veatch
Consulting Engineers. October, 1971.
137. Cost and Performance Estimates for Tertiary
Bastewater Treating Processes'. Robert Smith,
Walter F. McMichael. Robert -A. Taft Water Research
Center. Report No. TWRC-9. Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio.
June, 1969.
138. Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of
Wastewaters.Robert Smith.Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio.
July, 1968.
139. Waste Water Reclamation in a Closed System. F. Besir.
Water & Sewage Works, 213 - 219, July, 1971.
140. Reverse Osmosis for Municipal Water Supply. 0.-Peters
Shields.Water & Sewage Works, 64 - 70.
January, 1972.
141. Industrial Waste Disposal. R. D. Ross, Edt. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1968.
142. Chemical Treatment of Sewage and Industrial Wastes.
Dr. William A. Parsons.National Lime Association,
Washington, D.C. 1965.
143. Industrial Pollution Control Handbook. H. F. Lund,
ESt~. McGraw-Hill Book Co. , New York, 1971.
144. Tertiary Treatment - Refining of Wastewater.
V. M.Roach.General Filter Company, Ames, Iowa.
Bulletin No. 6703R1. June, 1968.
145. Upgrading Dairy Production Facilities to Control
Pollution^Prepared for the Environmental Protec-
tion Agencies, Madison, Wisconsin, March, 1973,
Technology Transfer Design Seminar. Prepared by
R. R. Zall and W. K. Jordan, Cornell University.
146. Water and Wastewater Management in Daily Processing.
R. E, Carawan, V. A. Jones and A. P. Hansen, Department
of Food Science, North Carolina State University.
December, 1972.
147. Theories and Practices of Industrial Waste Treatment. •
Nelson L. Nemetow.Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.
Reading, Massachusetts. 1963.
199
Kearney Marvvjemcnt Consultants
-------
148. Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers. Clair N. Sawyer,
Perry L. McCarby.Me Graw-Hi11 Book Co., New York.
1967.
149. Procedural Manual for Evaluating the Performance of
Wastewater Treatment Plants, „ Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. Contract No. 68-01-0107.
200
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
SECTION XV
GLOSSARY
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Biological
Oxidation
Churned
Buttermilk
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
Chlorine Contact
Chamber
(Or five-day BOD). Is the amount of
oxygen consumed by microorganisms to
assimilate organics in wastewater over
a five day period at 20° C. BOD is
expressed in mg/1 or ppm and is the
most common yardstick at present to
measure pollutional strength in water.
The process whereby living organisms
in the presence of oxygen convert
the organic matter contained in waste-
water into a more stable or a mineral
form. f
Byproduct resulting from the churning
of cream into butter. It is largely
defatted cream and its typical com-
position is 917o water, 4.5% lactose,
3.4% nitrogenous matter, 0.7% ash
and 0.4% fat. Churned or "true"
buttermilk is distinguished from cul-
tured buttermilk, which is a ferment-
ation product of skim milk. The latter
is sold in the retail market and re-
ferred to simply as "buttermilk."
Is the amount of oxygen provided by
potassium dichromate for the oxidation
of organics present in wastewater. The
test is carried out in a heated flask
over a two hour period. One of the
chief limitations of the COD test is
its inability to differentiate between
biologically oxidizable and biologically
inert organic matter. Its major advan-
tage is the short time required for
evaluation when compared with the
five-day BOD test period. COD is ex-
pressed in mg/1 or ppm.
A detention basin where chlorine is
diffused through the treated effluent
which is held a required time to pro-
vide the necessary disinfection.
201
Kearney: Marvvjement Consultants
-------
Condensed
Cultured Products
Effluent
Endogenous
Respiration
Food To Microorganism
Ratio
The terra "condensed," as used in
this report, applies to any liquid
product which has been concentrated
through removal of some of the water
it normally contains, resulting in
a product which is still in the
liquid or semi-liquid state. When
applied to milk, the term "condensed"
is used interchangeably with "evap-
orated" to designate milk which has
been concentrated by means of an
evaporator, which is the common method
of concentrating milk. Commercially,
however, the term "evaporated milk"
is commonly used to define unsweetened
concentrated milk.
Fermentation-type dairy products
manufactured by innoculating different
forms of milk with a bacterial culture.
This designation includes yogurt,
cultured buttermilk, sour cream, and
cultured cream cheese, among other
products.
Waste-containing water discharged
from a plant. Used synonymously
with "wastewater" in this report.
An auto-oxidation of cellular material
that takes place in the absence of
assimilable organic material to fur-
nish energy required for the replace-
ment of worn-out components of proto-
plasm.
An aeration tank loading parameter.
Food may be expressed in pounds of
suspended solids, COD, or BOD added
per day to the aeration tank, and
microorganisms may be expressed as
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)
or mixed liquor volatile suspended
solids (MLVSS) in the aeration tank.
The flow (volume per unit time) applied
to the surface area of the clarifi-
cation or biological reactor units
(where applicable).
202
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Hydraulic
Loading
Influent
Ice Cream
Milk Equivalent
(M.E.)
Mixed Liquor
The flow (volume per unit time) applied
to the surface area of the clarification
or biological reactor units (where
applicable).
Wastewater of other liquie - raw or
partially treated; flowing into a
reservoir, basin, treatment process or
treatment plant.
Applied in a general sense, this term
refers to any milk-based product sold
as frozen food. Food regulatory
agencies define ice-cream in terms
of composition, to distinguish the
.product from other frozen dessert-type
products containing less milk-fat or
none at all, such as sherbet, water
ices and mellorine.
Quantity of milk (in pounds) to produce
one pound of product. A milk equival-
ent can be expressed in terms of fat
solids, non-fat solids, or total solids,
and in relation to standard whole milk
or raw milk as received from the farm:
the many definitions possible through
the above alternatives has resulted in
confusion and inconsistent application
of the concept. The most widely used
milk equivalents are those given by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Statistical Bulletin No. 362 "Conversion
Factors and Weights and Measures for
Agricultural Commodities and Their
Products."
A mixture of activated sludge and
wastewater undergoing activated sludge
treatment in the aeration tank.
A means of expressing the degree of
acidity or basicity of a solution,
defined as the logarithm of the reci-
procal of the hydrogen ion concentra-
tion in gram equivalent per liter of
solution. Thus at normal temperature
a neutral solution such as pure dis-
tilled water has a pH of about 7, a
203
Kearney-. Management Consultants
-------
Raw Milk
Raw Waste Load
Recirculation
Rate
Sanitary Sewer
System
Skim Milk
Sloughines
tenth-normal solution of hydrochloric
acid has a pH near 1 and a normal sol-
ution of strong alkali such as sodium
hydroxide has a pH of nearly 14.
- Milk as received from the farm or of
standardized composition that has not
been pasteurized.
- Numerical value of any waste parameter
that defines the characteristics of
a plant effluent as it leaves the
plant, before it is treated in any
way.
- The rate of return of part of the ef-
fluent from a treatment process to
, the incoming flow.
• A sewer intended to carry wastewater
from homes, businesses, and industries.
Storm water runoff sometimes is col-
lected and transported in a separate
system of pipes.
• In common usage, skim milk (also de-
signated non-fat, defatted, or "fat-
u6^ milk) raeans cow's milk from which
the fat has been separated as complete-
ly as commercially practicable. The
maximum fat content is normally esta-
blished by law and is typically 0.1%
in the United States. There is also
a common but not universal requirement
that non-fat milk contain a minimum
quantity of milk solids other than fat
typically 8.25%. In many States the
meaning of the term skim milk is broad-
ened to include milk that contains less
fat than the legal minimum for whole
milk, such as the low-fat of "diet"
milk with 2% or o.99% milk fat sold in
the retail market. The term skim milk
used in this study refers to non-fat
milk.
Trickling filter slimes that have been
washed off the filter media. They
are generally quite high in BOD and
will degrade effluent quality unless
removed.
204 .
Kearney: Management Consultants
-------
Standard Manufacturing
Process (SMP)
Suspended Solids
Waste
Waste Load
Waste Water
Whey
Whole Milk
An operation or a series of operations
which is essential to a process and/or
which produces a waste load that is
substantially different from that of
an alternate method of performing
the same process. The concept was
developed in order to have a flexible
"building block" means for character-
izing the waste from any plant within
an industry.
Particles of solid matter in suspen-
sion in the effluent which can nor-
mally be removed by settling or fil-
tration.
Potentially polluting material which
is discharged or disposed of from a
plant directly to the environment
or to a treatment facility which
eliminates its undesirable polluting
effect.
Numerical value of any waste parameter
(such as BOD content, etc,) that serves
to define the characteristics of a
plant effluent.
Waste-containing water discharged
from a plant. Used synonymously with
"effluent" in this report.
Byproduct in the manufacture of cheese
which remains after separating the
cheese curd from the rest of the milk
used in the process. Whey resulting
from the manufacture of natural cheese
is termed "sweet whey" and its compo-
sition is somewhat different to "acid
whey" resulting from the manufacture
of cottage cheese. Typically, whey
is composed of 937o water and 7% solids,
including 5% lactose.
In its broad sense, the term whole milk
refers to milk of composition such as
produced by the cow. This composition
depends on many factors and is seasonal,
with fat content typically ranging
205
Kearney: Marwwment Consultants
-------
between 3.5% and 4.070. The term
whole milk is also used to designate
market milk whose fat content has been
standardized to conform to a regula-
tory definition, typically 3.570.
206
Kearney: Management Constituents
-------
|