INSTORAGE]
Health Effect Potential of Reusing Treated
Fruit Processing Wa-cewater within a Cannery
PB85-137115
Eavelt Environmental Engineering, Spokane, WA Prr^'? "f" q ^n -: r,!enta,
Prepared for
Health Effects Research Lab.
Research Triangle Park, MC
Nov 84
Pwp«nyoru.S.Envif«nDnnUI
nA0ji^Ls^O
AU6 2 0 2003
EJBD
ARCHIVE
EPA
600-
1-
84-
029
111
-------
EPA-600/I-84-029
November 1984
THE HEALTH EFFECT POTENTIAL OF REUSING
FRUIT PROCESSING WASTEWATER
The Health Effect Potential of Reusing Treated
Fruit Processing Wastewater Within a Cannery
by
Larry A. Esvelt
Esvelt Environmental Engineering
Spokane, Washington 99206
and
Hepbe^t H. Hart
Snoklst Growers Cannery
Yakiow, Washington 98901
Cooperative Agreement No. CR807441
Project Officer
David A. Brashear
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
HE«tTH EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
*NATIO§NAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
85 3(»MIKil Of COMME'CE
SMIKIIIIO. »». 22161
-------
34-
02*
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Heat ntd Inttrucnoni on »A« nvtru etfon compltnntl
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/1-84-029
3. RkCIPIENT-SACCESSiON NO.
13Z115
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
THE HEALTH EFFECT POTENTIAL OF REUSING FRUIT PROCESSIN(
WASTEWATER. The Health Effect Potential of Reusing
Treated Fruit Processing Wastewater Within a Cannery.
S. REPORT DATE
November 1984
•. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR4SI
Larry A. Esvelt, Esvelt Environmental Engineering
Herbert A. Hart, Snokist Growers
•. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
• PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORESS
Esvelt Environmental Engineering
E. 7905 Heroy Ave.. Spokane, WA 99212
Snokist Growers, Cannery Division, Yakima, WA 98901
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
CBFB1C
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
CR807441
13. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
'3. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report 9/80 - 12/82
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-600/11
is.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES project. Officer: David A. Brasnear
Cooperative Agreement among EPA HERL, Food & Drug Administration, U. S. Dept. of Agri
Nat'l Food Processors Association, and Snokist Growers
to
o
to
H
16. ABSTRACT
Reclamation of fruit processing wastewater by biological treatment, granular media
filtration, and disinfection with chlorine,-and reuse of the reclaimed wastewater
for fruit washing and conveying, and for dfrect contact container cooling, was
investigated over three seasons for its health effect implications. It was concluded
that the reclaimed effluent had no adverse effect on product quality. It is recommen
that this technology be applied to other processing plants for high acid foods packed
in sealed containers, with certain safeguards to protect product quality. It was
recommended that application of this technology to plants processing low acid foods
be initiated, with additional care and attention to reclaimed water quality.
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340 Proosrv m us ?*•,-.»
Mailcode 3404T F,^.... .--.,.
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004 • - W
202-566-0556
eci
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Cioup
Cannery, Wastewater, Apples, Peaches,
Pears, Plums, Wastewater reuse,
Health effects of wastewater reuse,
Reclaimed wastewater quality.
Fruit tannery wastewater,
Food wiste treatment,
Biolog-ical treatment,
Wastewater reclamation,
Wastewater reuse,
Can cooling.
r:
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to the public.
19. SECURITY CLASS I Tim Report /
unclassified
21. NO Of PAuES
10 S
20. SECURITY CLASS I Tins pa ft I
unclassified
22.
CPA P*n> 2220.1 (Re*. 4-77) PHBVIOU* BOITIOM n OMOLCTC .
sositor Material
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been subjected to the U.S., Environmental
Protection Agency's peer and administrative review pol,1cy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
•«g-
o
ILJ
in
—
g r
«=
11
-------
FOREWORD
The many benefits of our modern, developing, Industrial society
are accompanied by certain hazards. Careful assessment of the
relative risk of existing and new man-made environmental ^azards 1s
necessary for the establishment of sound regulatory policy. These
regulations serve to enhance the quality of our environment 1n
crder to promote the public health and welfare and the productive
capacity of our Nation's population.
The complexities of environmental problems originate 1n the
deep Interdependent relationships between the various physical and
biological segments of man's natural and social world. Solutions
to these environmental problems require an Integrated program of
research and development using input from a number of
disciplines. The Health Effects Research Laboratory, Research
Iriangle Park, NC and Cincinnati, OH conducts a coordinated
environmental health research program in toxicology, epidemiology and
clinical studies using human volunteer subjects. Wide ranges of
pollutants known or suspected to cause health problems are
studied. The research focuses on air pollutants, water pollutants,
toxic substances, hazardous wastes, pesticides and nonionlzlng
radiation. The Laboratory participates in the development and
revision of air and water quality criteria and health assessment
documents on pollutants for which regulatory actions are being
considered. Direct support to the regulatory function of the
Agency Is provided in the form of expert testimony and preparation
of affidavits as well as expert advice to the Administrator to
assure the adequacy of environmental regulatory decisions involving
the protection of the health and welfare of all U.S. Inhabitants.
This document reports the results of three years of
Investigation of the health effect potential of reusing treated and
reclaimed processing effluent in the production of canned
fruit. The conclusions are applicable to wastewater reclamation and
reuse in plants producing high acid processed foods 1n hermetically
sealed containers. The recommended extensions of these findings to
production of low add foods must be approached with suitable
precautions to assure full protection cf the product against
contamination, and to assure its safety.
F. Gordon Heuter, Ph.D., Director
Health Effects Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a three year
investigation of the reclamation and reuse of processing
wastewater in a fruit cannery. The project, conducted at Snokist
Growers cannery, Y.akima, Washington, used biologically treated
(activated sludga) processing wastewater, containing no sanitary
wastes, for reclamation by granular media filtration and
chlorination. The reclaimed wastewater was reused for direct
contact container cooling, for initial fruit washing ana
conveying, and for floor and gutter washing. This was the second
phase of an earlier study which had recommended more intensive
investigation of the potential for constituents being present in
the reclaimed water which might affect human health if
incorporated into the product (canned fruit), and of the
maintenance of product quality when reclaimed water is used. The
overall goal of the project was to demonstrate the acceptability
of applying piuperly treated reclaimed processing effluent for
critical uses in fruit and veoetable processing.
The project results lea to the conclusion that fruit
processing wastewater. which has received good biological
treatment, filtration and disinfection with chlorine, is suitable
for reuse, in a fruit cannery, for critical uses such as direct
contact container cooling and initial fruit washing and
conveying. The quality of product in containers cooled in the
reclaimed wastewater was not adversely affected and the container
failure rate was not increased, when compared to cooling in a
well water supply. Heavy metals, pesticide residues, and
halogenated organic compound concentrations were shown to be
acceptable in the reclaimed water. Microbiological quality of
the reclaimed wastewater (not containing any sanitary wastes) was
acceotable. ' Reclamation system performance for removing
'microorganisms measured by total aerobic count, total and fecal
coliform tests, total anaerobic count, yeast and mold tests, and
aerobic and anaerobic spore tests was determined.
i v
-------
Basea on the results of the investigations, recommendation
was made that continued use cf the reclaimed wastewater at
Snokist Growers cannery be approved. Furthermore it was
recommended that reclamation and reuse of adequately treated
processing wastewater be considered acceptable for all high acid
fooa processing plants, where the product is sealed in containers
and given terminal thermal processing. Approved uses would be
for container cooling, and fruit and equipment washing, so long
as the reclaimed water does not enter the final product.
The trial use. of adequately treated reclaimed processing
wastewater in low-acici food processing plants was recommended.
Special attention to the necessary levels of treatment attainment
for removal of anaerobic and spore forming organisms was
recommended. The desired amount of documentation regarding
halogenated organics in the reclaimed wastewater was not achieved
during this program and further documentation of this aspect of
reclamation was recommendei.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of requirements of
EPA Cooperative Agreement CR807441, by Snokist Growers. The report
covers the period of September 1980 through December 1982 when
investigations were completed.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword 111
Abstract 1v
List of Figures v111
List of Tables v111
Acknowledgments 1x
Report
1. Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Objectives 1
Technical Review 2
Background ~. . ..... 3
2. Conclusions . . 9
3. Recommendations 12
4. Facilities and Conduct of the Study . 15
Processing Plant Operations '. 15
Solid and Liquid Waste Generation 16
Processing Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facilities . 16
hastewater Reclamation System Oneraticn and Mon1tc-7«g ... 18
Use of Reclaimed Wastewater 27
5. Results and Discussion 30
Uastewater Reuse 31
Reclaimed Water Quality 36
Chemical Quality 36
Microbiological Water Quality . . . 43
Heavy Metals 61
Pesticide Results ^ . . . . 63
Volatile Haloqenated Organic Compounds 64
Wastewater Reuse 1n Coolers 67
References 73
Appendixes
A. .Analytical Methods 75
B. Analytical Quality Control 80
C. Photos of Treatment and Reuse Systems 90
Preceding page blank
-------
Number Page
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Wastewater treatment and reclamation - flow diagram 21
2. TSS and turbidity frequency distribution - 1980 . . 38
3. TSS and turbidity frequency distribution - 1981 39
4. TSS and turbidity frequency distribution - 1982 40
5. Turbidity frequency distributions - 1980, 1981, 1982 42
6. Total and fecal coliform - 1980 44
7. Total and fecal coliform - 1981 * 45
8. Total conform - 1982 ........ .1 46
9. Aerobic total plate count - 1980 . . 48
10. Aerobic total plate count - 1981 49
11. Aerobic total plate count - 1982 50
12. Yeast count - 1980 52
13. Yeast count - 1981 53
14. Mold .count - 1980 54
15. Mold count - 1981 55
16. Anaerobe total plate count - 1981 . . . 56
17. Anaerobe total plate count - 1982 57
18. Aerobic spores - 1981 59
19. Anaerobic spores - 1981 60
20. Chloroform vs. free chlorine residual 66
21. Can cooler total plate count - 1980 70
22. Can cooler total plate count - 1981 71
23. Can cooler chlorine residual - 1980 72
24. Can cooler chlorine residual - 1981 72
C-l through C-8. Photos of treatment system and reuse 90-93
LIST OF TABLES
1. Biological Treatment Facilities 17
2. Wastewater Reclamation Facilities 19
3. Testing and Monitoring Schedule 24
4. Reclaimed Wastewater and Supply Water Quality 36
5. Heavy Metals Test Results 61
6. Pesticides'Analyzed 63
7. Detection Limits for Purgeable Organic Compounds 64
8. Chloroform Results ....... 65
A-l. Sample Handling and Analytical Methods 76
A-2. Halogenated Organlcs Analyses 79
B-l. Results of Tests on EPA Check Samples 82
B-2. Duplicate Chemical Analyses 83
B-3. Duplicate Microbiological Analyses 85
B-4. Heavy Metal Fortification Recovery 87
B-5. Recovery of Extractable Organic Compounds . . 88
B-6. Purgeable Organlcs Recovery Data 89
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I . - '
This project was conducted at the Snoklst Growers Yakima,
Washington cannery. The Snoklst Growers Board of Directors is
acknowledged for Its continued support of the concept of wastewater
reclamation and reuse as a means for resource conservation and
limiting environmental degradation. Mr. R. B. Leavens was general
manager during this investigation. Mr. Frank Coleraan is currently
general manager of Snoklst Growers. Mr. Larry .'ederspiel, assistant
to the1 general manager, provided coordination of activities and
conmuni cat Ions between the Snoklst Growers management and the
project. Mr. Bernle Sims, comptroller, established budget control
procedures and monitored the project budget and
expenditures. Mr. Doug Robberson was cannery manager durine 1980
and 1981 processing seasons. Mr. .Darwin Finch (deceased), assistant
cannery manager during 1980 and 1981 seasons, 1s acknowledged for
his continuing support. Mr. J1m McGee and Mr. Jim Buttes were
cannery manager and assistant manager during the 1982
season. Mr. Don Peterson, maintenance superintendent, coordinated
and directed equipment modifications to accommodate the wastewater
reuse. Mr. Tteve Maley, production manager, provided coordination
between cannery operations and this project.
Mr. R. 0. Kearl, Mr. G. H. Shepard, and Mr. G. D. Peck
were USDA Inspectors-1n-Charge at the cannery during this
project. They are acknowledged for monitoring of water reuse
locations within the cannery, observation of relative container
failure rates between reclaimed and house water coolers, and
assistance 1n determining causes for container failures.
Mr. Herb Hart, director of pollution control facilities for
the cannery, acted as Project Manager. He managed the day to day
operation of the wastewater treatment and reclamation system,
directed laboratory operations, controlled water reuse within the
cannery and assessed container failures for cause. Mrs. Nina
Wright, Mrs. Sharon Hill, Miss Steva Ames, and Mrs. Laura Henley
performed laboratory testing. ; Miss Ames performed a major part of
the experimental work In assessing the procedures for anaeroolc
bacteria count tests. Mr. Keith Ousil, Mr. Norman Hart and
Mr. Walter Geyer assisted in treatment and reclamation facility
operation, sampling, on site testing and calibration of continuous
monitoring test equipment.
ix
-------
Dr. Larry Esvelt of Esvelt Environmental Engineering was
principal Investigator for the project. He directed overall
project activities, monitored work plan attainment, communicated
witn outside laboratories, reduced data and prepared reports.
Mr. David Brashear of EPA's Health Effects Research
Laboratory was Project Officer. He with Mr. Herbert Pahren,
Physical Science Administrator at HERL provided technical and
management advice which helped ease the administration of the
project.
The National Food Processors Association, Western Research
Laboratory, Berkeley, California provided assistance in the form
of heavy metals analysis, can failure evaluations and input of
ideas to give the project maximum relevance to the rest of the
food processing industry. Dr. Henry Chin provided analytical
assistance. Mr. Allen Katsuyama reviewed the project and
findings from an industry perspective.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research
Service, Western Regional Laboratory, Albany, California has
provided analytical and interpretive assistance for halogenated
organic compounds in the reclaimed wastewater. Drs. Charlie
Huxsol and Lee Tsai directed these activities.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington provided analytical services for Pesticides, PCBs and
for volatile halogenated organics (1981 season only) during this
project. Dr. Roger Schirmer and Ms. Barbara Vieux directed and
performed the analyses.
Although no formal technical advisory committee was
assembled for this project, several persons contributed project
review and assisted in the development of conclusions and
recommendations. They included:
Dr. Reginald L. Hanawerk, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Science and Education Administration,
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Reltsville,
Maryland.
Dr. Melvin R. Johnston, Division of Food Technology,
Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C.
-------
fir. Herbert R. Pahren, Health Effects Research
Laboratory, En vi ronnteiital Protection Agency,
C inci nnat1, Ohi o.
Mr. Kenneth A. Dostal, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati , Ohio.
Mr. Allen M. Katsuyama, Western Regional Laboratory,
National Food Processors Association, Berkeley,
Cali forni a .
Mr. David A. Brashear, Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency,
Cinci nnati , Ohio.
Mr. Herbert H. Hart, Project Manager, Snokist Growers
Cannery, Yakiipa, Washington.
Dr. Larry A. Esvelt, Principal Investigator, Esvelt
Environmental Engineering, Spokane, Washington.
x1
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This study was undertaken to assess the health effect
implications of the reuse of reclaimed processing wastewater 1n a
fruit cannery. The technical feasibility of reclaiming biologically
treated processing effluent from the cannery had been addressed 1n
an earlier study.1 This project was to specifically determine the
level of constituents 1n the reclaimed water which may be of
health significance if the water 1s utilized on a continuous basis
for direct contact container cooling. Initial product washing and
conveying, and processing area floor and gutter wash. The
constituents of concern Include bacteriological Indicators of water
duality, heavy metal toxicants, pesticides used on the raw fruit to
be processed, volatile halogenated organics potentially formed during
disinfection processes using chlorine, and other halogenated organics,
some of which may be formed during disinfection with chlorine.
The study w-.s performed under a cooperative agreement among
the Environmental Protection Agency Health Effects Research
Laboratory, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the National Food Processors Association, and Snoklst
Growers. The work has been performed at the Snoklst Growers
cannery, Yaklma, Washington.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this project was to demonstrate on a
commercial ,scale whether there are potential nealth effects related
to reclamation and reuse of treated processing effluent 1n a fruit
cannery. Demonstration of the acceptability of the reclaimed
effluent for reuse 1n the critical water use areas of direct
contact container cooling and Initial fruit washing and conveying
would be accomplished by showing the feasibility for the following:
1) production of a consistent, acceptable reclaimed water of
adequate bacteriological quality ifor use 1n the ctnnery;
-------
2)
3)
production
filth; ana
of a water free from contamination with
production of a water with acceptably low levels of
toxicants ana priority pollutants to prevent
development of adverse health effects by the water's
reuse.
The ultimate purpose of the project was to determine if a
properly treated, reclaimed effluent would be acceptable by
regulatory agencies and the fruit and vegetable processing
industry for critical uses in food processing.
TECHNICAL REVIEW
The technical review of this project was coordinated by the
Project Officer and was conducted by representatives of several
agency and industry organizations. The work plan, ongoing
project activity reports and this final report have been reviewed
by the following individuals, frequently with assistance from
members of their staff or organization;
Dr. Melvin R. Johnston, Chief,
Branch, Division of Food
Administration.
Plant and Protein Technology
Technology, Food and Drug
Dr. Reginald L. Hanawerk, Science ana Education
Administration Agricultural Research, ,U. S. Department
of Agri culture. . .
Mr. Allen M. Katsuyama, Head, Sanitation Section, National
Food Processors Association, Western Research
Laboratory.
Mr. Herbert R. Pahren, Physical Science Administrator, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Health Effects Research
Laboratory.
Mr. Kenneth A. Dostal, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory. , > '
Mr. David A. Brashear, Project Officer, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Health Effects Research Laboratory.
Mr. hi rbert H. Hart, Project Manager, Snokist Growers.
Or. Larry A. Esvelt, Principal Investigator, Esvelt
Environmental Engineering.
-------
BACKGROUND
The fruit and vegetable processing industry (canned, frozen,
pickled and dehydrated fruit and vegetables) operates about 1600
plants in the United States and processes about 30 million metric
tons (kkg) of raw product per year. The industry uses about 430
million cubic meters (110 billion gallons) of water annually to
process this food, and subsequently discharges almost all of the
water as wastewater. About 46 I of this wastewater is discharged
to publicly owned treatment works (POlWs). About 28 I is treated
by the industry and disposed of to surface waters. The remaining
26 % is treated and disposed of on land. Thirty five to forty
percent of the industry production occurs in California.
The increasing cost of suitable water and its decreasing
availability in some regions will tend to make processing
wastewater reclamation and reuse an inviting alternative for
supplementing or replacing primary sources of water supply. It
is unlikely that wastewaters containing sanitary sewage will ever
be seriously considered for reclamation and reuse in food
processing.
The degree of treatment already required for discharge of
food processing effluents to surface waters makes these plants
the most likely candidates for effluent reclamation and reclaimed
effluent reuse. If fifty percent of the process wastewater
currently discharged to surface waters were reclaimed for reuse
it would result in a "new" water supply of 60 million cubic
meters (16 billion gallons) per year.
Dischargers to POTWs are facing increasingly higher
wastewater treatment charges and, in some instances, limitations
on quantities of wastewaters and/or pollutants which can be
discharged. These dischargers are faced with expenditures for
pretreatment facilities and municipal charges which may make
further treatment and reuse economically feasible. If twenty
five percent of the process wastewaters discharged to POTWs were
reclaimed for reuse it would result in a "new" water supply of 50
million cubic meters (13 billion gallons) per year.
Wastewaters currently treated and discharged on land are
probably the least likely to be reclaimed for reuse unless the
cost or availability of supply water or land for treatment and
disposal iwould justify the' treatment and reclamation system
cost.
Up to 110 million cubic meters (29 billion gallons) of fruit
and vegetable processing wastewater now being discharged to
surface water and POTWs may be feasible for reclamation and reuse
if the reclaimed water were satisfactorily demonstrated to be an
acceptable water supply.
-------
Processing Wastewate.' Treatment at Snokist Growers Cannery
Snokist Growers is a fruit grower's cooperative located in
the Yakima valley of Washington. The cooperative operates a
fruit cannery near Yakima to process pears, apples, peaches,
plums, crab apples and cherries produced by the grower members.
The principal annual pack consists of canned pears and canned
apple products. During a typical season, the cannery processes
about 250 metric tons (kkg) of pears per day for about two months
with about 10CO kkg of freestone peaches and about 500 kkg of
purple plums processed concurrently. From 100 to 200 kkg per day
of apples are processed into slices, sauce and rings for two to
four months per year. Cherries and crab apples are processed for
limited seasons each year.
For several years prior to 1966, Snokist Growers and its
predecessor was subjected to increasing pressure from regulatory
agencies to upgrade the quality of wastewater discharged to the
Yakima River. In 1967 the cannery constructed an aerated lagoon
treatment facility. In 1968 it was upgraded to an activated
sludge teatment system with capability for limited sludge
reaeration. These facilities were evaluated under a Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration Research, Development and
Demonstration Grant. The results were highly gratifying and were
made available through the literature to processors throughout
the United States, Canada and the rest of the world for
application on similar wastewaters.2, 3, 4
The activated sludge system was effective in reducing
biochemical oxygen demand (BOO) and suspended solids levels in the
processing effluent on an efficient and consistent basis. Snokist
Growers' cannery wastewater treatment system was selected as being
exemplary during the development of guidelines for best practicable
technology for wastewater treatment according to provisions in the
Federal water quality amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). The
operating data from studies at Snokist Growers cannery were used in
the development of effluent limitation guidelines and new source
performance standards for the fruit ant* vegetable processing
industry.5.6
Development of Reuse Concept at Snokist
The'year 1973 was a low water year in the Northwest which
resulted in a declining water table in the vicinity of the plant
and in its water supply wells. One of the plantfs three wells
became unusable and concerns were expressed about the cannery
being able to ope-ate with adequate water in the event of
mechanical problems in either of the other two. An investigation
of the feasibility >f a new well, versus reclaiming a portion of
the biologically treated process effluent, as a supplementary
cannery water supply was initiated.
-------
The wastewater treatment system performed admirably from
1968 through 1973 and consistently produced a highly oxidized ana
very clear effluent. It was felt that the effluent would provide
a suitable supplementary water supply source. The investigation
indicated, however, that the lower cost alternative was
development of a new well supply source.
Results of the feasibility analysis and the fact that
Snokist was considering reclaiming effluent became known to EPA
officials interested in reducing food processing wastewater
emissions by reclamation .ana reuse according to goals set forth
in Public Law 92-500 for elimination of pollutant discharges.
Research, Development and Demonstration (R, D & 0) funds had
been appropriated by Congress to evaluate wastewater reuse in
industry. The potential availability of these funds to offset the
cost differential between the reuse proposal and a new well water
supply, prompted Snokist Growers to apply. A grant »as awarded in
late 1974 for the investigation of reuse of treated fruit
processing wastewater within the cannery. The grant allowed for
payment of funds to compensate for the well water/water reuse
differential and Investigation of the reclamation system for a two
year period with the principal objective being pollutant emission
reduction.
Wastewater Reuse R 8 D Project
Snokist Growers installed a treated wastewater reclamation
system to produce water for reuse in the cannery to supplement
the regular well water supply before the start of the 1975
processing season. It should be reiterated that their processing
effluent contains no sanitary wastewater. Sanitary wastewater
from the plant is discharged to a municipal sewer system. The
reclaimed wastewater was put to four trial uses in the cannery
during the 1975 and 1976 processing seasons. The uses were as
follows:
1) equipment cleaning;
2) product cleaning and conveying;
3) boiler feed to produce steam for cleaning equipment,
exhausting product containers, cooking and blanching of
product; and
4) direct contact container cooling.
-------
The results were presented In the final report ana puDlishea
in several pi aces.*»'»«»' The final report conclusions ana
recommenaations were reviewed ana approved by members of a
technical aaviscry committee representin9 the EPA Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, the EPA Health Effects
Research Laboratory, the Food and. Drug Administration (FDA)
Division of Food Technology, the USDA Fruit ana Vegetable Quality
Division, ana the National Fooa Processors Association (MFPA)
Western Research Laboretory.
. The conclusions from the 1975-1976 project as presented in
the final report1 were as follows:
1. Snokist Growers biologically treated wastewater can be
polished by filtration ana disinfected by chlorination
to a quality suitable for reuse within their cannery,
except auring periods of high suspended solias
discharge from biological treatment.
2. The lack of consistency ana the potential for equipment
malfunctions requires that continuous monitoring of
reclaimed water quality De sufficient to provide
cannery operating personnel with early warning of
deterioration. Resiaual chlorine monitoring at two
points, turbiaity monitoring of the reclaimed effluent
ana low chlorine residual ana h'igh turbidity alarms at
strategic locations in the cannery are necessary to
allow t*e conversion to alternate wate- supplies for
*e> cannery processes in the event of effluent quality
deterioration.
3. Based on this study, neither the quality nor the safety
of the final product is adversely affected by the use
of reclaimed processing wastewater. Specific uses
evaluated were equipment cleaning in the initial
processing area, raw product conveying, container
cooling ana boiler feed for steam generation. Steam
generated from the reclaimed water was used for
equipment cleaning in the initial processing area,
exhausting, cooking and blanching. Monitoring for
volatile organics in the steam and product was not
conducted so reclaimed water steam use for exhausting,
cooking ana blanching cannot be concluded as
acceptable.
I
4. Toxic constituents tested for were not present in the
reclaimed effluent, in concentrations sufficient to cause
public health concern for the final products. Heavy
metals were at or below primary drinking water standard
maximum permissible concentrations. Pesticides were
undetectable or below primary drinking water standard
levels. Halogenated organics were below
-------
levels founo In many drinking water supplies. No
buildup of these toxicants in the system with extended
reuse was apparent at the testing schedule conducted
although added testing would be desirable to confirm
these results.
The reclaimed wastewater is suitable for full scale
continuous use for initial raw proauct conveying,
washaown of equipment in the initial processing area of
the cannery (excluding peelers and peeled product
conveyors), floor and gutter washaown and direct
contact container cooling when the quality is
maintained equal to:
Suspended solids 1 30 mg/1 ,
Turbidity < 20 NTU,
Total coliform < i organism/100 ml,
Fecal coliform £ 1 organism/100 ml,
Total plate count < 500/ml.
The reclaimed effluent is suitable for continuous full
scale boiler feea except that COD and dissolved oxygen
were higher than recommended levels. When the
suspended solids are higher in the reclaimed effluent
than in the house tap water, it may be less desirable
for this use because of potential solids buildup in the
ion exchange boiler feed water treatment system. Use
of the generated steam may be restricted to areas where
it would not directly contact the product due to the
unknown extent of concentration of volatile organics
into the steam.
Recommendations from the reclamation and reuse R & D study
were as follows:
1. Further demonstration of consistent performance for
reclamation is recommended. Funding of Phase 2 of the
project to demonstrate reclamation and reuse on a full
scale basis for a two year period should be obtained.
Full scale use for can cooling, for initial product
conveying and for initial processing area (prior to
peeling) washaown would give full use of the reclaimed
effluent.
-------
2. Monitoring of the reclaimed effluent curing the
demonstration seasons should induce: coliform, fecal
coliform ana total plate count analyses to demonstrate
sanitary quality; suspended solids ana turbiaity to
demonstrate aesthetic quality; heavy metals,
.pesticides, polychl on nateo biphenyls (PCBs) and
halogenatea cr-janics to demonstrate whether there is a
buildup of toxic or carcinogenic substances during
prolonged reuse. The methodology, detection limits,
frequency and quality assurance program for all of
these tests should be reviewed by concerned regulatory
agencies to assure that they will be able to apply the
results on an industry wide basis.
Health Effect Potential Study
The project to assess the health effect potential of reusing
the reclaimed wastewater 1n Snoklst Growers cannery was Initiated 1n
1980 after partial funding was approved through the EPA Health
Effects Research Laboratory. The project was conducted under EPA
Cooperative Agreement No. CR807441. It has attempted to address
the deficiencies in knowledge identified 1n the conclusions of the
previous R & D project and to follow the recommendations for a
"Phase 2" in that project final report, as set forth in the
OBJECTIVES.
The Food and Drug Administration, after review of previous
documents arr the croject wor< olan, conduced tnat sufficient
safeguards were introduced into the rinal ppocedure to assure the
quality of the resultant processed fruits. They stated that
"Based on our continued review of the product, we would agree
that the reclaiming water technique would produce a water
suitable for the intended use. We would agree that the product
would not be deemed unsafe based solely on having been prepared
using the reclaimed water. In the absence of other circumstances
whicl would lead to an adultered product, the prepared foods are
considered marketable." (Letter dated August 13, 1980. from
Taylor M. Quinn, Associate Director for Compliance, Bureau of
Fooos, Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service,
Department of Health, Education, ano Welfare). The State of
Washington concurred with the FDA letter regarding marketability
of the product (Letter dated September 8, 1980 from Verne E.
Hedlund, Chief, Food Inspection Section, Dairy and Food Division,
Washington Department of Agriculture). It was understood that
the statements by the FDA. and State would be in effect only
through the duration of tne demonstration project.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
This three season Demonstration of processing wastewater
reclamation ana reuse has resulted in several conclusions which
may oe of industry wiae significance. In consicering the
widespreac application of wastewater reuse oasea on the
conclusions from this project., it must be remembered that they
are applicable to treatment and reclamation of a fruit processing
wastewater containing no ' sanitary wastes. The reclaimed
wastewater was used in processing high-acid (fruit) products
preserved by heat treatment for storage in hermetically sealed
containers. Since high.acid products inherently inhibit the
growth of many microorganisms, caution should be exercised in
application of these conclusions to any other class of food.
These conclusions must not be considered applicable to any
wastewater containing sanitary wastes.
Since this project is a more intensified version of a
previous study of reclaiming food processing wastewater, it
should not be surprising that many of the conclusions presented
herein are similar to those from the previous work. The
conclusions have been reviewed and approved by ropresentati ves of
the EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory, the EPA Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, the FDA Division of Food
Technology, the USDA Science and Education Adm4nistration, and
the National Food Processors Association Western Regional
Laboratory. Conclusions are as follows:
1. Processing wastewater given good biological treatment,
filtration and disinfection with chlorine is suitable
for reuse in a fruit cannery,, except during periods
when the biological treatment system discharges
suspended solids in excess quantities.
2. Continuous monitoring of turb,idity and chlorine
residual with an appropriate alarm system to alert
operating personnel of reclaimed water quality
deficiencies, is sufficient to protect against using
the reclaimed wastewater when quality criteria are not
met due to treatment upset or equipment malfunction.
-------
3. The quality of product in containers coolea In the
reclaimea wastewater was not aaversely affectea, ana
the failure rate of containers coolea in the reclaimea
wastewater was not increased in comparison to
containers coolea in the cannery well water supply.
4. Heavy metals concentrations in the reclaimea wastewater
were within the EPA drinking water stanaaras ana were
approximately the same as the well water supply.
5. Pesticide residues were .'«ot present, in the reclaimea
wastewater in detectable concentrations.
6. Chloroform was the only volatile halogenatea organic
compound present in the reclaimea wastewater in
detectable concentration. Chloroform concentration in
the reclaimea wastewater appeared to be influenced oy
the free chlorine residual maintained during
disinfection. During the limited data collection of
this study, concentrations of chloroform reached or
exceeded the EPA drinking water level of 0.1 mg/1 when
free chlorine residual was in the vicinity of 2 mg/1.
7. Turbidity concentrations of 20 NTU or less were
attainable. This criterion appeared to protect the
oualUy of product cooled in the reclaimed
water. Maintaining this turbidity level did not assure
that suspended solids would always be maintained at less
thin 30 ug/1.
8. Disinfection of the reclaimed wastewater so that
collform organism concentrations were in compliance
with Grinning water regulations was consistently
achieved when turbiaity was 20 NTU or less and totil
suspended so'ias was 40 ing/1 or less.
9. So long as it is assured that no sanitary wastes entpr
the processing effiuent to be reclaimed, it is not
necessary to monitor fecal colifcrm organism
concentrations since they will be adequately removed
when disinfection reduces total conforms to acceptable
1 e ve 1 s .
10. Aerobic tot*l bacterial concentrations can be
consistently reduced to 500/ml or less 1n the reclaimed
wastewater ano to less than 100/ml a majority of the
time with chlorine disinfection They were present in
concentrations of 10* to 106/ml aefore disinfection ana
were reduced by about 3 orders of magnitude ay
chlorination.
10
-------
11. Total counts of Bacteria which grow unaer anaerooic
conditions were about the same in the wastewater before
disinfection as counts for those that grow unaer
aerobic conaitions(103 to 105/ml). They were reaucea
about 3 orosrs of magnitude by chlorination.
12. Yeast and mold organisms were present 1n the reclaimed
wastewater before disinfection at concentrations of 100
to 1000/ml and 10 to 100/ml, respectively. They were
reduced by chlori nation by 2 to 3 and 1 to 2 orders
of magnitude, respectively.
13. Both .aerobic and 'anaerobic mesophilic spores were
indicated to be present in the reclaimed wastewater
(survived boiling for 3 minutes). They were present in
concentrations from less than one up to 100/ml before
disinfection. Chlorination reaucta the counts by about
an order of magnitude.
14. The bacteriological quality (total aerobic plate count)
of water in can coolers being fed with reclaimed
wastewater was equivalent to that of coolers fed with
cannery well water.
The Food and Drug Am1n1strat^on has provided the following
conclusion: "As a result of our review, we have concluded that
sufficient safeguards were Introduced Into the final procedure to
assure the quality of the resultant reclaimed water for the
Intended uses and especially cooling of double seamed sanitary metal
cans." (Utter -iated March 5, 1384, from Mr. Taylor M. Qulnn,
Associate Director for Compliance, Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services).
11
-------
SECTION 3
RECONHENDATIONS
The results from this study, the potential health effects of
reusing treated fruit processing wastewater In a fruit cannery,
have Industry wide Implications. These recommendations have been
reviewed and concurred with Dy representatives of the EPA Health
Effects Research Laboratory, the EPA Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, the FDA Division of Food Technology, the
USDA Science and Education Administration, ana the National Fooo
Processors Association. The recommendations are as follows:
1. It is recommended that Snoklst Growers continue to
reclaim and reuse processing wastewater in the areas of
can cooling, initial fruit dumping and conveying ana
for floor ana gutter washing.
2. It is recommended that reclamation and reuse of
processing wastewater for container cooling and initial
product washing and conveying be considered acceptable
for all high.acid food products packaged i.n
hermetically sealed containers ana terminally thermal
processed.
3. It is recommended that reclaimed processing wastewater
be considered acceptable for processing equipment
washing in high-acid food processing plants, so long as
none of the reclaimed water can enter the final product
package ana so long as the final product rinse is not
accomplished with the reclaimed water.
4. It is recommendea that the use of reclaimed processing
wastewater be regulated under the same criteria as any
other water supply for the processing plant, the Gooo
Manufacturing Practice regulations (GMP's), including
21 CFR 110.35(a) and other applicable parts.
5. It is recommenced that the criteria guideline for
suitability of a reclaimed processing wastewater for
use in direct contact container :ooling, initial
proouct conveying ana washing, processing equipment
cleaning, ana floor ana gutter washing be as follows:
i) The reclaimed wastewater should receive good
biological treatment to achieve low levels of
12
-------
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen
demand (COD).
2) The reclaimed wastewater should have a low
turbidity. At Snoklst Growers an objective of
15 NTU or less and a criterion for turbidity not
to exceed 20 NTU resulted in consistently adequate
disinfection performance. These values are
recommended unless specific studies indicate higher
values are justified on a case by case basis.
3) The reclaimed wastewater total suspended solids
should be as low as practical. At Snokist Growers
an objective of 30 mg/1 or less and a maximum
concentration criterion of 40 mg/1 were compatible
with the turbidities given above and resulted in
adequate disinfection performance. At other
applications permissible suspended solids
concentrations may be higher or lower to achieve
other water quality objectives.
4) The reclaimed wastewater should be disinfected to
comply with drinking water regulations for total
conform organisms.
5) The reclaimed wastewater shot; Id be disinfected to
reduce the total aerobic bacteriological plate count.
to 100/ml or less 50% of the time. 500/ml or less
90% of the time, and the total plate count should
not exceed 1000/ml.
6) The reclaimed wastewater should be tested
periodically for heavy metal toxicants and the heavy
metal concentrations should comply with the primary
drinking water regulations.
7) Wastewater for reclamation must not receive sanitary
sewage discharges, and the processing plant should
be periodically surveyed to assure that no sanitary
waste enters the processing wastewater system.
8) Reclaimed wastewater should contain a measurable
chlorine residual at the point of use.
9) Continuous on line monitors cf chlorine residual and
turbidity should be included in any wastewater
reclamation facility to alert processing plant
personnel of deterioration of reclaimed wastewater
quality.
6. It 1s recommended that active consideration be given to
trial use of reclaimed processing wastewater in low-ac'd
13
-------
food processing plants if they comply with ihe above
recommendations.
7. It is recommended that additional information bo developed
regarding disinfection needs for anaerobic organisms and
spores and the relation to low-add food processing.
8. Since the full scope of nonvolatile and volatile
halogenated organics testing originally anticipated during
this study was not accomplished due to a laboratory fire
at the USDA Western Regional Research laboretory, it is
recommended that that objective be completed when
possible.
The Food and Drug Administration, following review of the
results from this project, and these recommendations, states that
"The extension of this reclaimed water use to the cooling of low-
acid canned foods must be monitored very closely to assure
compliance with 21 CFR H3.60(b) 'Cooling Mater. Container
cooling water shall be chlorinated or otherwise sanitized as
necessary for cooling canals and for recirculated supplies. There
should be a measurable residual of sanittzer employed at the water
discharge point of the container cooler.'" The FOA reiterated the
policy developed for this project, for use in Implementation of
these recommendations: "Based on our continued review r " the
process, we would agree that the reclaiming water technique would
produce a water suitable for the intended use. - We would agree
that the product would not be deemed unsafe based solely on having
oeen orepared using the reclaimed water. In tne aosenct of otne-
circunstances which may lead to an adulterated product, the prepared
foods are considered marketable." (Letter dated March 6, 1984,
from Taylor H. Qulnn, Associate Director for Compliance, Bureau of
Foods, Food and Drug Administration).
14
-------
SECTION 4
FACILITIES AND CONDUCT OF THE STUDY
This study was conducted at the Snokist Growers cannery,
Yaklma, Washington. Fruit processing wastewater,. containing no
sanitary sewage, was treated by screening, aerobic biological
treatment, granular media filtration, and disinfection by chlorination
for ireuse 1n .the cannery during this project. Fruits processed
during the reuse of wastewater were pears, peaches, plums and
apples. The reclaimed wastewater was reused in the cannery for
diract contact container (can) cooling, for Initial fruit washing
and conveying, and for a floor gutter flush water. Monitoring and
testing of the wastewater during and following reclamation and of
use within the cannery were according to the detailed work plan
attached to the EPA Cooperative Agreement, No. CR807441, and as
modified and approved by the Project Officer.
PROCESSING PLANT OPERATIONS
Pears are floated from the bins, sized, peeled by mechanical
peelers, rinsed, inspected, placed in cans, syrupea, exhausted,-
capped and seamed, cooked in atmospheric steam cookers, cooled
and palleted for warehousing. During this project reclaimed
water was used for float water (with sodium sulfate added to
increase the specific gravity so the pears would float) and
sprays to remove chemical or other residues. It was also used
for the direct contact container coolers. During the 1980 season
reclaimed water was used, in about one-half of the coolers.
During the 1981 and 1982 seasons reclaimed water was used in all
of the coolers except one. i
Peaches are handled similarly to pears 6xce.pt that they are
peeled by hot caustic ana water sprays. Peaches are processed
concurrently with pears using the same equipment following the
peeli ng step .
Plums are not [>eelea but are washed, inspected, canned,
cooked, cooled ar.a wa-ehojsed. Reclaimed water was used only for
the cooling of the cats.
Apples are dumped from bins into water ahead of peeling.
Reclaimed water was used for the dump water. Apple slices are
steam blanched, canned, cooked, cooled end warehoused. Reclaimed
water was used for cooling. Apple sauce is finished, cooked by
15
-------
direct steam injection, canned, cooled and warehoused. After
proD'ems with product loss due to inadequately sterilized
containers from the cooked sauce, a short duration atmospheric
can cooker using steam was installed between the seamer and
cooler before the 1982 season. Reclaimed water was used for
cooling during all three seasons. Apple rings are packed in
glass containers, pressure retorted and cooled under water
sprays. Reclaimed water was used for the sprays.
SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE GENERATION
Solids generated in the processing area are collected on
.conveyer belts from the peelers and inspection area and
transported to a "slurry processing" area. Pear ana apple slurry
is sdld to a juice processor for incorporation into that
company's products.
All processing wastewater, product and equipment spray
drainage, spillage, washdown water for equipment and floors,
water from the bin dumps and all other sources except the cooler
overflows, is discharged to the floor gutter drainage system.
The floor gutters crain by gravity^ to a sump in the treatment
area where it is pumped to inclined screens and then piped to the
treatment system.
Cooler water is discharged to a separate Dump sump. From
this sump a portion is pumoed to the fruit receiving area for use
in the bin dumps and for flushing water in the gutters. The
remainder 1s pumped directly to the plant outfall to the Yakima
river, bypassing the treatment system.
Wastewater from the cafeteria, restrooms, quality control
laboratory and the. first aid room is discharged to the Terrace
Heights Sewer District sewer system. Wastewater from the wastewater
laboratory is disposed of into a separate septic tank and
drainfield system.
PROCESSING WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND RECLAMATION FACILITIES
Facilities to provide activated sludge aerobic biological
treatment of Snokist Growers cannery processing wastewater to
meet' effluent requirements i were completed in 1968.' Effluent
polishing and disinfection facilities were constructed in 1975 to
enable the cannery to reclaim water for reuse.
Biological Treatment Facilities
The wa^tewater treatment facilities to provide an effluent
quality adequate for discharge to the Yakima river were described
in the report of the 1967-68 R & D project.1 These facilities
16
-------
consisted of the components described in Table 1 along with
interconnected 'piping, controls and auxiliary components. The
biological treatment facilities along with a laboratory of
approximately 800 square feet were valued at about $500,000 at the
time of construction.
TABLE 1. SNOKIST GROWERS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
FACILITIES - COMPLETED 1968
Facility
Descri pti on
1. Screens - 2 ea.
2. Aeration Basin
3. Clarifier
4. Uastewater Pumping
5. Equalization
6. Sludge Thickener
4 ft. wide x .030 in. mesh, sidehill.
i
22,700 cubic meter (6 million gallon)
earth dike, PVC lined basin with 5
surface aerators - 4 @ 45 KW (60 HP),
1 0 112.5 KW (150 HP).
27.5 meter (90 ft.) diameter, hydraulic
.sludge removal', 2.4 meter (8 ft.) side
water depth, center feed.
Three variable speed pumps each with
6,600 liter per minute (1750 gal. per
minute) capacity for clarifier sludge
recirculation and pumping from
equalization to aeration.
5,700 cubic meter
basin with 2 - 22.5
surface aerators.
(1.5 mill ion gal 1 on )
KW (30 HP) low speed
9.2 meter
recycle
thickener.
(30 ft.) diameter
dissolved air
pressurized
f1otati on
Design Capacity of Biological Treatment System
Flow = 6.8 x 106 liters/day (1.8 mgfl)
COD - 10,000 kg/day (22,000 Ib/day)
BOD = 7',300 kg/day (16,000 Ib/day)
The nutrient deficient but high strength (carbohydrate)
wastewater? are screened, nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients are
added and they are conveyed to the aeration basin. The
wastewater is mixed with return sludge and air is furnished by
17
-------
low speed surface aerators to allow oxidation of the soluble
organics. Detention time in the aeration basin is from 3 to 5
flays based on the untreated wastewater flow rate.
From the aeration basin the wastewater flows to the clarifier
where settling removes the activated sludge mixed liquor suspended
solids, before the clarified effluent is discharged to the Yakima
river cr is pumped to the reclamation system. Suspended solids
removed 1n the clarifier (activated sludge) are returned to the
aeration basin or wasted. Waste activated sludge is thickened by
the flotation thickener and hauled to disposal on agricultural land.
. i
Reclamation Facilities
In 1975 Snokist Growers added facilities for reclaiming a
portion of the biologically treated cannery processing effluent
for reuse in the cannery. These facilities are described in
Table 2.
Wastewater reclamation includes granular media filtration,
chlorination, retention for chlorine contact and pumping to a
separate water distribution piping system inside of tne cannery.
A pump feeds the filters by pressure. Chlorine is administered
proportional to flow at a ratio automatically adjusted to meet a
preset residual. Disinfection is enhanced by injection of the
chlorine solution from the gas chlorinator into the discharge
pipe from the filters. After a short plug flow contact in the
pipe the chlorinatea water enters tne bafflea chlorine contact
chamber. The contact chamber also acts as storage and the flow
through the reclamation system is automatically adjusted downward
from its preset flow rate to keep the basin from overfilling.
The reclaimed water pump maintains a nearly constant pressure in
the reclaimed water distribution .piping system.
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the wastewater treatment
and reclamation system.
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION SYSTEM OPERATION AND MONITORING
The wastewater reclamation system at Snokist Growers cannery
uuring the 1980, 1981 and 1982 processing seasons produced water
for reuse i .1: can cooling, initial fruit conveying and floor
gutter wash. Reclamation system performance was monitored during
pear, peach and apple processing each of the seasons from about
September through December and occasionally into the winter
portion of the apple processing season.
18
-------
TABLE 2. SNOKIST GROWERS CANNERY WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
FACILITIES - CONSTRUCTED 1975
Facility
Descri ption
1. Filters
2. Pumps
Two 2.4 meter (8 ft.
meter (6 ft.) high,
Area » 4.7 sq. meters
Media »• 91.5 cm depth
sp. gr. anthracite ;
anthracite; 30% 2.6 sp.
101 4.0 sp. gr. garnet
and gravel media
unaerarains, surface
backwash program
Des. flow rate
(5 gpm/sq. ft.)
3. Chlorinator
4. Contact/Storage Tank
5. Monitoring Equip.
Max. flow
(7 gpm/sq.
Backwash
(18 gpm/sq,
rate
ft.) -.
rate
ft.).
) diameter by 1.8
pressure filters.
(50 sq. ft.) each.
(36 in.) : 301 1.5
30% 1.6 sp. gr.
gr. silica sand;
sand. With sand
support, pipe
wash, automatic
and flow control.
(each) = 0.34 cm/sec
950 1/fflin (250 gpm).
(each) » 0.48 cm/sec
1400 1/min (350 gpm).
« 1.2 cm/sec
Filter and backwash: Two 3800 liter/min.
(1000 gpm) P 20 meter (66 ft.) TDH each.
22.5 KW (30 HP).
Reclaimed water: 2600 liter/min. (700
gpm) O 54 meter (177 ft.) TDH. 37.5 KW
(50 HP).
227 kg (500 Ib) per day gas-solution
chlcMnator with motorized control valve
and motorized vacuum valve for "compound
loop" control.;
227 cu. meter (60,000 gal.) baffled tank
- 11.6 m x 6.7 m x 3 m deep (38* x 22' x
1C') with 6 transverse baffles.
Tu.-bidity meter - low range, continuous
flow, light scattering to read filter
effluent,, range » 0 to 30 NTH.
Chlorine residual analyzers - Two
wastewater type atnperometri c continuous
flow anal/zers for monitoring chlorine
residual it the inlet and outlet to the
contact tank.
{Continued)
19
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Faci1ity
Description
5. (Continued)
6. Controls
7. Alarms
Flow meters - orifice meters for total
flow, flow from each filter.
Head loss - differential pressure across
each operating filter.
Contact/storage tank level - bubbler
with differential pressure sensor.
Flow control - throttling vaives on
filter discharge to a preset maximum
flow or to not exceed a preset contact
tank water le vel.
Backwash control
manual .initiation,
and timing.
proportional
flow rate with
val ve; ratio
timer, headloss or
automatic sequence
Chlorine
according
motorized
control
to filter
chlori ne
water
gas
adjustment by vacuum control in
chlorinator to meet preset chlorine
residual analyzer value.
High turbidity - two level for alarm and
shutdown.
Chlorine residual - high end low alarms
on reuse pump discharge.
System malfunction or shutdown.
Operation of the Reclamation System
Figure I shows the schematic flow diagram of the processing
*astewater treatment and reclamation system as 1t has been operated
during this project. The nutrients nitrogen (as ammonia, NH3-N)
and phosphorus (as d1 ammonium phosphate, [NH3J2HPCM) were added
following screening tc allow proper biological growth in the
activated sludge system. The equalization basin was used to
prevent chlorine residual in the untreated wastewater from plant
cleanup from entering the aeration basin.
20
-------
W&STE FROM
CANNERY
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER
FOR REUSE IN CANNERY
SCREENS
db
NUTRIENTS
.
EQUALIZ-
ATION
BASIN
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANK
CHLORINE
MULT I
MEDIA
FILTERS
FLOTATION
X 1 SLUDGE
THICKENER
WASTE SLUDGE
I TO LAND SPREADING
Figure 1. Snokist Growers cannery wastewater treatment and
reclamation system - schematic flow diagram.
21
-------
Viable biological solids are maintained in the activated sludge
aeration basin on a year round basis. Periods of cannery
inactivity result in no waste being discharged to the system for
extended intervals but the treatment performance rapidly reestablishes
itself when waste flow begins again. Summer processing of cherries
and crab apples provides the system with some feed prior to pear
processing but the feed rate is low due to the relatively small
amount of these products processed. Pear .processing gives the
treatment system a sudden heavy load and it normally takes several
days of operation to meet discharge requirements, especially for
suspended solids content. It takes several more days to achieve
effluent suspended solids concentrations low enougn to allow
initiation of wastewater reclamation.
The aeration basin aerators are operated to maintain a
dissolved oxygen concentration of 2 mg/1. Sludge recycle rate
for the activated sludge system normally averages 1.5 to 2 times
the wastewater flow rate. After the start of the pear processing
season in August, the mixed liquor suspended solids level is
allowed to build up to about 4000 mg/1 before sludge wasting is
initiated. Thickened sludge is disposed to farm land.
Treated wastewater reclamation was initiated on September 10
during the 1980 and 1981 processing seasons and on August 31
during 1982. Each pressure filter flow rate limit was set at 950
1/m (250 gpm) with the system set to throttle the flow as the
contact/storage tank reached its top 30 cm (1 ft) of capacity.
Ihe chlorine oose rate was maintained to get a 3 to 4 mg/1 total
residual during the 1980 and 1981 seasons and about 5 mg/1 during
1982.
The pollution control supervisor (project manager) had
control over the operation of the reclamation system. He
established the points of use of the reclaimed water and
init -ted the reclamation and reuse at the start of each day's
processing. During the day shift if the reclaimed water
turbidity or chlorine residual monitors indicated noncompliance
with quality 'criteria (alarm actuation), or if the reclamation
system malfunctioned, tne project manager immediately initiated a
remedy of the problem or terminated reuse for can cooling,
according to the problem. During other shifts any alarm
concition was responded to by the tannery process supervisor by
terminating reuse in the coolers (ana fruit receiving area) until
the following day shift, when the project manager could rectify
the problem and again initiate reuse. ,
Reclamation System and Reclaimed Water Monitoring
The wastewater treatment and reclamation system was
monitored for proper operation during all periods of reuse. The
22
-------
wastewater at various points in the system was monitored
according to the project work plan during each of the processing
seasons. The specific points of wastewater monitoring were as
follows:
1. Screened Wastewater - wastewater following the
screening station at the weir for metering.
2. Aeration Basin - effluent from the aeration basin to
the clari fier.
3. Clarifier Effluent - effluent from the clarifier which
is discharged to the river or reclaimed for reuse.
4. Filtered Effluent - effluent from the granular media
filters, prior to chlorination for all parameters
except chlorine residual and turbidity monitoring,
which were following the chlorine injection point ana
about 5 m (16 ft.) of 20 cm (8 in.) pipe.
5. Reclaimed Effluent - effluent at the discharge from the
chlorine contact tank where it is withdrawn for pumping
to the cannery for reuse.
6. Well Water - the cannery normal water supply, at a tap
from the water supply system within the cannery.
The monitoring and testing schedule for wastewaters is shown
in Table 3. All routine testing was performed at the Snokist
Growers cannery wastewater laboratory. These tests included
normal vastewater parameters and bacteriological analyses.
Testing for heavy metals was performed by the National Food
Processors. Association, Western Research Laboratory, Berkeley,
California during the 1980 and 1981 seasons. Testing for
pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (1980 and 1981)
and for volatile halogenated organic compounds (1981 season only)
was performed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,
Richland, Washington. The U. S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA)
Western Regional Lagoratory, Albany, California was scheduled to
test for halogenated organics (volatile and nonvolatile) during
the 1980 and 1981 processing seasons, but a lab fire prevented
completion of this task.
Automatic monitoring equipment was calibrated daily in the
early morning. Additional checks were made in the afternoon and
the calibration was adjusted if needed.
Analyses were performed according to EPA recommended methods
for the most part although several tests had no recommended
procedures. A list of the procedures used is included in
Appendix A.
21
-------
TABLE 3. RECLAIMED WASTEHATER TESTING AND MONITORING SCHEDULE
tv>
Sample Frequency1 and Type2 by
Screened
Test Waste
Flow Rate or Quantity
Temperature & pH
Total Suspended & Volatile
Suspended Solids (TSS & VSS)
Settleable Solids
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Total, Total Volatile & Total
Dissolved Solids (TS, TVS &
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Biochemical Oxygen Dem. (BOD)
Ammonia & Organic Nitrogen
(NH3-N £ Org. N)
Nitrate Nitrogen (N03-N)
Total & Orthophosphate
Phosphorus (Tot. P & P04-P)
Total & Calcium Hardness
Alkalinity, Sulfates. &
Chlorides (Alk., S04 & Cl~)
Detergents & Silica
(MBAS & Si02)
O3
D,G3
D,C3
D.G3
H,C
TDS)
O.C3
w,c3
H,C
H.C
W.C
W.C
Aeration Clarifter Filter
Effluent Effluent Effluent
D.G3 D.G3
D,C3 D,C3
D.G3 D,G3
D,G3 D.G3
W.C3
O.C D,C3
M,C3 .
W,C3 H.C3
W,C3
H.C3 W.C3
W.C
W.C
Mr
»*•
D3
D.G
D,C3
W.C
D.C
w.c
w .c
w.c
W.C
w.c
w.c
Location
Reclaimed Well
Water Water
D3
D.G
D,C3
W.C3 W.C
D.C3 W.G
w.c w.c
w.c w,c
.C M,C
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
ro
tn
Sample Frequency1 ana
Screened Aeration Clarifier
Tesrt Waste Affluent Effluent
Turbidity
Color
Conductivity W,C
Total Chlorine Residua)
(T CI2)
Free Chlorine Residual (F C12)
Microbiological Testing
Total Plate Count
Total Coliform
Feca'i Coliform
Mold
Yeast
Aerobic Spores
Total Anaerobe Count**
Anaerobic Spores
Outsioe Testing
Heavy Metals6 4
Halogenated Organic*7 4
Pesticides £ PCBs3 4
O.G
W.C
W.G3
W.G3
W.G
W.G
W.G
W.G.
W.G3
W.G
4
4
4
Type^ by Location
Filter Reclaimed Wei 1
Effluent Water Water
D.G3
W.C
D.G3'4. §
CONT. *
O.G3'4
W.G4
W.G4
W.G4
W.G4
W.G4
W.G4
W.G4
W.G4
4
4
4
O.G3 & W.G
CONT.3'4
M.G M.G
W.C W.C
O.G3 S
CONT.3
D,G3
D.G3
D,G3
H.r,
W,G
W,G
W.G
W,G3
W.G
12 4
12 4
12 4
^"Continued J
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
Sampling Frequency:
> Continuous Monitor
Type of Sample: G *
Testing followed same
D « Each Process!
and Recorder.
Grab Sample; C *
schedule in 1982
ng Day; W * Week
Composite Sample;
processing season
ly; M » Monthly;
CONT.
CONT. * Continuous.
Basic schedule
1 s for
3» 5
6.
7.
processing seasons 1980 and 1981. No note reference indicates test was not
performed during the 1982 season.
4. Turbidity (continuous), and residual chlorine samples taken after chlorination
but ahead of chlorine contact tank. Microbiological testing was both before and
after chlorine addition.
Anaerobic bacteria testing was initiated during the 1981 season after
communication between the various parties to the Cooperative Agreement.
Number of samples per season. Heavy metals samples sent to National Food
Processors Association Western Research Laboratory, Berkeley, California for
ana lysis.
Number of samples per season. Halogenated Organlcs samples sent to USDA Western
Regional Laboratory, Albany, California for analysis of volatile and total
halogenated organlcs. During the 1981 season duplicate samples were sent to
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Rlchland, Washington for volatile
halogenated organlcs analysis.
8. Number of samples per season. Samples for Pesticide and PCB testing were sent
to Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington for analysis.
-------
USE OF RFCLAIMED WASTEWATER
During the previous study of westewater reclamation ana
reuse at Snokist Growers cannery, several trial areas of reuse
were evaluated. Final deliberations among the technical advisory
committee resulted in the recommendation that during a further
study of the health effect potential of t..e reclaimed wastewater,
full scale reuse be applied to direct contact can cooling,
initial fruit washing and conveying and floor and gutter wash.
No uses where the reclaimed water could contact the peeled fruit
or become otherwise incorporated in the 'finished product were
considered acceptable during this project.
Direct Contact Container Cooling
One of the major water use areas within the Snokist Growers
Cannery is container (can) cooling. The cans following cooking
in atmospheric pressure steam retorts are conveyed into coolers
where a combination of submersion and water sprays cool them
sufficiently to.^stop the cooking process. The cans are
mechanically conveyed through the coolers with the can retention
time in thf cooler preset by the mechanical drive speed. The
exit temperature of the can is a function of Its retention time
• in the cooler,, its entrance temperature, and the cooler
temperature. The entrance temperature is constant from the
cooker retort, retention time is preset by the cooler mechanical
drive speed and the cooker temperature is maintained by an
automatic temperature control valve.
The temperature control valve admits enough new cooling
water to maintain the temperature of the cooler at Its preset
value. The coolers are preheated at the oeginning of the
processing day to the desired operating temperature by direct
steam injection. A constant controlled temperature is important
to assure that the cans are cooled sufficiently to arrest all
cooking of the product, but remain warm enough to dry in the air
to prevent external corrosion.
(During the 1980 processing season for pears, peaches and
apple's, following the initiation of reclaimed -water use, about
one-half of the finished product was cooled using reclaimed water
in the can coolers. A.fte- the season was over it was discovered
that documentation of the fate of the containers from the two
cooling waters was insufficient to stati st i caUy compare the rate
of container failure from the two lots. This was. due to
container size and; handling differences and product mix
differences. Observations by the USDA inspectors, who Mere
constantly aware of the reclaimed water use, and by the persons
performing market follow-up, dia nowever provide a qualitative
comparison.
27
-------
During the 1981 processing season the reclaimed wastewater was
used* as quality permitted, in all of the can coolers except
one. That cooler used the regular cannery well water supply only
and was for comparison with two coolers using reclaimed
wastewater. The three coolers were of the same configuration and
received essentially the same product in the same size of can
(*2 1/2 cans, 4 1/6 x 11/16 in.). An attempt to track the
product from these comparative systems was made in order to
establish a statistical comparison of the failure rate of containers
cooled in the well water supply versus the reclaimed processing
wastewater. .
The rate of failure of the cans cooled in the two waters
during the 1981 season was determined by retaining all cans
rejected during labeling from the coolers under
comparison. Rejection could result from low can vacuum (inadequate
depression of can ends), dents, swells, leakage, other damage,
corrosion or any other appearance of nonunlformity. Eacn of the
rejected cans was Inspected and those with physical damage were
eliminated from consideration as having failed due to the cooling
water quality. Of the cans receiving no outwardly apparent
physical damage. Inspection Included a teardown to determine if
there was some other physical reason for loss of vacuum (which was
the predominant cause of rejection after apparent physical damage),
or failure. Seams and welds, as well as other container
characteristics, were examined. Evidence of actual product spoilage
was also sought to determine if microbiological contamination had
occurred.
>•!
Since there was a higher than expected rate of rejection of
undamaged cans which were apparently low In vacuum from both
waters, the National Food Processors Association was asked to help
determine the cause. Cans were shipped to the NFPA laboratory in
Berkeley, California for examination and testing of the containers
and contents.
The retention of one cooler on well water for comparison with
cooler product using reclaimed water was maintained through the 1982
pear and peach processing season. Results from thU testing are
In qualitative form, as observations by the cannery personnel in
charge of labeling and shipping of product. • There was not an
excessive overall failure rate, as had occurred during the 1981
season, and no apparent differences in failure rate between product
cooled in > reclaimed water and that cooled in house water.
28
-------
Initial Fruit Washing ana Conveying
Water from the can coolers was collected ana reused again in
the area of initial fruit washing ana conveying. The water was
used to fill the fruit bin dumping vats and used in the sprays
for washing the residue from the dumping vat from the pears. The
fruit and dumping water using reclaimed water versus well water
was compared during the 1975 and 1976.processing season reuse
trials and was reported earlierl. There was no difference in the
bacteriological content of the oump water from the two sources
during that study ana no difference in the bacteriological
concentration on the fruit. No monitoring of this use was done
during this project.
Floor and Gutter Uasn
Reclaimed water was used for all of the cannery /needs for
flushing floor gutters during this study period. No washaown of
floors or equipment with the reclaimed water was performed in
areas where splash could reach equipment handling peeled fruit.
Since this use was not of a critical nature, there was no
monitoring of the use. Reclaimed water for gutter flushing was
obtained either from the can cooler reuse line or directly from
the reclaimed water line from the treatment area.
29
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reclamation ana reuse of processing wastewater at Snokist
Growers cannery was conducted ana monitored for three processing
seasons. Initiation of reclamation and reuse followed the start
of pear .processing by a sufficient time each season to assure
that the wastewater treatment and reclamation processes had
stabilized. The biological treatment system characteristically
takes a short acclimation period in order to adjust to the large
organic waste load accompanying the start of pear processing.
When functioning well the biological treatment system produces an
effluent sufficiently clear for reclamation. Dates of start of
pear .processing and of wastewater reclamation for the three
seasons were as follows:
Processing
Season
1980 - 81
1981 - 82
1982
Pear
Processing
Start
August 22, 1980
August 24, 1981
August 24, 1982
Wastewater
Reclamation
Start
September 10, 1980
September in, 1981
September 1, 1982
The 1982 season startup delay is most representative of the
acclimation period expected under normal circumstances. The
delay in 1980 was largely predicated on finalization of the work
program, and administrative details surrounding this study.
Reclamation facilities could have been started on about
Septemoer I, 1981, but the filter system control air compressor
failed and took another week to fix. The clarifier was clogged
with blowing weeds and debris from a wind storm and required
cleaning at about the same time.
Reclamation and reuse of the treated processing wastewater
(sanitary sewage from lavatories, cafeteria and laboratories is
discharged to the Terrace Heights Sewer District) continued
through apple processing and ended the 1980-81 processing season
on April 15, 1981. Reclamation and reuse of wastewater
terminated on February 18, 1982 during apple processing in the
1981-82 season. The collection of data for this project
concluded on November 3, 1982 at the end of pear canning in the
1982-83 processing season.
30
-------
WASTEWATER REUSE
The reuse of reclaimed processing wastewater in the Snokist
Growers cannery was continuous except for reclamation system
mechanical failure when the water could only be used for waste
gutter flushing. Reuse of the reclaimed wastewater was less
continuous for the critical use areas of direct contact container
(can) cooling and initial fruit dumping and conveying. These
uses depended not only on the ability of the equipment to supply
the water, but also on the quality of the reclaimed water
produced.
Criteria for u«3 of the reclaimed water in "critical areas"
were set at the initiation af this project end were understood by
all parties to the Cooperative Agreement to comply with the
criteria recommended 1n the final project report from the wastewater
-euse study conducted at Snokist Growers cannery during the 1974
through 1976 processing seasons.1 Those recommended criteria were
as follows:
Parameter Criteria
Coliform bacteria Natlonjl Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations!0 {monthly mean
= 1 /100 ml; and i 5 % of samples
>
4 /lon mi ).
Fecal coliforms Same as for conforms.
Total aerobic Average < 500/ml .
bacteria (Total Maximum 5 1000/ml .
Plate Count, TPC)
Turbidity < 2C NTU.
Total Suspended < 30 mg/l .
Solids (TSS)
Chlorine residual Measurable at the point of use.
During day to day operation or the wastewater reclamation
system, the decision to use reclaimed water in critical areas, was
based on attainment of the turbidity criteria, and maintenance of a
chlorine residual, ' known by experience to indicate compliance with
the bacteriological criteria. This procedure was followed since
testing for TSS and bacteriological parameters takes one to two
days to obtain results, and an immediate method of determining
compliance is necessary.
31
-------
The turbidity was continuously, automatically monitored at
the reclamation system with an alarm set point at 15 NTU ana an
automatic shutdown set point at 20 NTU. The shut down mode could
be overridden, but the project manager had the responsibility of
assuring that reuse in the critical areas was terminated if the
override was actuated. On one or more .occasions, water of high
turbidity was introduced to the coolers, but the product was
retained for observation and determined to be of ordinary quality
on these occasions before it was released.
Chlorine residual was monitored at two points, ahead of the
chlorine contact tank, ano at the intake to the pump which
supplied reclaimed wastewater to the cannery reclaimed water
distribution system. The first monitoring unit supplied a signal
to the chlorination equipment to keep the residual within a
preset range. The second chlorine residual monitor contained
alarm setpoints to be actuated if the chlorine residual dropped
below a preset minimum. The wastewater manager, or an alternate
person, was designated to shutdown reclaimed water u«° in
critical areas if the alarm was actuated.
As it turned out, and as will be shown below, TSS violations
can, and did occasionally, occur evn though the turbidity was
within the allowable range. Bacteriological noncompliance was
only observed when turbidity and/or chlorine residual were
outside their preset ranges.
1980 - 61 Processing Season
After startup of the reclamation system on September 10,
1980 the system was operated an additional ten days to assure
that the reclaimed water quality met the study criteria before
using in the coolers or fruit dumping area. The reclaimed water
was introduced into the can coolers on September 24. During the
period from September 10 through the end of pear processing
monitoring indicated that the reclaimed wast :»wa:.er was suitable
for use on 32 of 42 days. On the 10 days when wastewater could
not be reused, 9 were due to clarifier mechanical failure. The
other day of unsuitable quality was due to an apparent slug of
chlorinated water being discharged to the biological treatment
system, causing it to upset and cause loss of solids over the
clari fier wei r.
During the apple processing portion of the 1980-1981 season,
the reclamation system was operated for 89 processing days. The
reclaimed wastewater was suitable for use in the critical areas
(can coolers) on cnly 79 of those days. It was unsuitable on the
first day following the long Christmas holiday shutdown due to
high turbidity, and for 9 consecutive days in mid-February when
turbidity was high. The weather was quite cold at the time which
32
-------
could explain the loss of" solids over the clarifier weir. Other
activated sludge plants have been observed to upset during
extended cola periods.
A summary of the reuse during periods when the reclamation
system was mechanical'y operable during the 1980-1981 season is
as follows:
Pear
Processing
32 days
1 day
33 days
97 %
46.6 MG
15.0 MG
32 I
Apple
Processing
79 days
10 days
89 days
89 I
53.7 MG
20.3 MG
38 I
Full
Season
111 days
11 days
122 days
91 %
100.3 MG
35.3 MG
35 %
0.19mgd 0.6810.21n,gd 0.90t0.41mgd
0.26t0.15mgd 0.32tO.17mgd
Water quality
suitable for use
Unsuitable for use
Total
Days suitable
Wastewater during
suitable days
Reclaimed on
suitable days
Wastewater flow
Reclaimed flow
Note: MG = million gallons; mgd = million gallons per day;
MG x 3.785 =^thousana cubic meters; mgd x 3.785 » thousand
cubic meters ,(je~ day.
1981 - 1982 Processing Season
The 1981 - 1982 fruit processing season began with a filter
system control air compressor breakdown which delayed startup of the
reclamation system. Then a pipe feeding the filter system broke
which shut it down for 6 processing days (8 days total). This
was followed by a breakdown in the delivery system for nutrient
chemicals (nitrogen and phosphorus) which are necessary for efficient
biological treatment. The biological solids became nutrient
deficient and suspended solids' soon began to appear in the
clarifier effluent in concentrations too high for the filters to
remove effectively on a consistent basis. The nutrient deficient
biological solids in the wastewater treatment system were the
apparent source of turbidity and TSS problems which occurred in the
biological effluent a number of times from mid-October into
December. Periods of high turbidity and TSS were accompanied by
inadequate disinfection. On some occasions, the solids were
sufficiently hign to make shutdown of the filter
33
-------
system necessary ana reclaimed water could not even be used for
gutter flushing.
During the pear processing season, the reclamation system
produced water of suitable quality on only 34 day; out of a
possible 59. Breakdowns prevented reclamation on 14 days, and the
water quality was unsuitable for use on another 11 days. Of 46
processing days during apple processing reclaimed water was suitable
for use on only 17. Thus during this season reclaimed water was
available for pear processing only 58 % of the time, and only 49 X
of the time overall.
A summary of wastewater reuse during the 1981-82 season when
the reclamation system was mechanically operable is as follows:
Water quality
suitable for «jse
Unsuitable for use
Total
Days suitable
Uastewater during
suitable days
Reclaimed on
suitable days
Uastewater flow
Reclaimed flow
•Pear Apple
Processing Processing
34 days 17 days
11 days 29 days
45 days 46 days
76 % 37 %
37.9 MG 16.9 Mi
14.8 MG 4.7 MG
39 I 28 V
1*1110.18mgd 0.99±0.27mgd
0.44+n.l9mgd 0.27l0.11mgd
Full
Season
51 days
40 days
91 days
56 I
54.8 MG
19.5 MG
36 I
1.07t0.22mgd
0.38±0.18mgd
All but two coolers used reclaimed wastewater when it was of
suitable quality for reuse during this season. On one processing
day, water of high turbidity was inadvertently piped to the cooler
for applesauce gallon cans. The USOA on-site inspector placed a
hold on all of that product for 30 days, until it was determined
that no container contamination had taken place. On several days,
when the turbidity was within the range of the criteria for this
project, the total suspended solids were above 30 mg/1. In spite
of this, the total bacterial aerobic plate count remained below
1000 /ml, and no Incidence of can failures was experienced.
Water overflowing tie coolers was piped to a pump sump and
equipment was Installed so 1t could be recycled for use in the
fruit dump and Initial wash area *nd for use in gutter flushing.
34
-------
Equipment was also Installed which permitted bypassing of waste
cooling water around the treatment system to the plant outfall to
the river. This reduced the total wastewater flow to the
treatment system. It also resulted in the percentage of
wastewater reclaimed being not directly comparable to the 1980-81
season. A oort.ion of the waste cooling water still went to the
wastewater treatment system however, since the bypass pumps were
inadequate to handle it all.
The combination 'of additional coolers using reclaimed water,
and a portion of the cooler overflow being pumped directly to the
river outfall, resulted in the reclaimed percentage of total
wastewater flow being higher than in 1980, even though the poorer
water quality resulted in a lower percentage of days when the
water could be reused.
1982 Fall Processing Season
The reclaimed wastewater was suitable for use based on the
turbidity ana bacteriological criteria established for this
study, for a full 53 days after initiation of reclamation on
September 1. Although the turbidity aid not exceed 11 NTU, the
TSS exceeded 30 mg/1 on 8 days (maximum was 42 mg/1). The
reclaimed wastewater was used for can cooling on all days. The
maximum TPC was 200 /ml and only exceeded 50 /ml on 7 days. A
summary of wastewater reclamation anc reuse during the 1982
season (pears only) is as follows:
Pear Processing
Reclaimed wastewater 53 days
suitable for use 100 I
Total wastewater 54.3 MG 1.02+0.16 mgd
Rerlaimec wastewater 28.9 MG 0.55+o 14 mg
-------
RECLAIMED HATER QUALITY
Quality .parameters of the well water supply, processing
wastewater, ind treated and reclaimed wastewater were monitored
through the three seasons of operation of this project. The
principal objective of . this monitoring was to determine if
substances might be present, or introduced during use or
treatment, that could cause detrimental effect on the health of
consumers of canned fruit that had been produced using the
reclaimed water. The operating characteristics of the treatment
system were not a primary concern of this project since they had
been studied and reported earlier.If2
Chemical Quality
The chemical quality of the reclaimed water and of the well
water supply was tested at the Snokist Growers cannery
laboratory; Table 4 contains a summary of the results of this
testing. '
TABLE 4. WELL WATER AND RECLAIMED WASTEWATER QUALITY
Well Water
Parameter
Conduct! vity
Tot. Ois. Solids
PH
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Alkalinity
Chloride
Sulfate
Silica
Color
Detergents
COD
BOD
Organic Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Sodium*
Potassium*
Calcium*
Magnesium*
Units Mean
umho/cm
mg/1
units
mg CaC03/l
mg CaC03/1
mg CaCO-i/1
mg/i
mg/1
mg Si02/i
units
mg LAS/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg N/l
mg N/l
mg N/l
mg P/l
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
85
85
8.
40
34
71
3.
4.
44
3.
0.
8.
18
2.
10
1.
Std. Dev.
1
7
2
9
005
4
7
7
5
5
0.
10
6
11
2.
2.
7
1.
0.
6.
6
0.
2
0.
2
2
3
1 .
008
0
4
3
Reel .
Mean
251
296
7.
22
20
73
66
24
49
10.
0.
26
7.
3.
0.
1.
11.
93
12.
''5.
0.
Wastewater
Std. Dev.
0
4
03
8
0
1
7
6
2
4
9
105
109
0
10
6
45
34
20
8
7
0
16
10
3
0
4
11
44
5
2
0
.5
.8
.02
.8
.7
.7
.1
.7
.1
.0
.4
f Analytical results near zero.
* Analyses performed at national
laboratory, Berkeley, California.
Food Processors Association
36
-------
As seen on Table 4 there are substantial differences between
the chemical quality of the water supply ana the reclaimed
wastewater. Most evident is the increase in the dissolved salt
content as illustrated by the conductivity, chlorides and
sulfates. This is a result of salt being used on the cannery
floor to reduce slickness, salt solutions used to prevent
discoloration of fruit and the use of sodium sulfate to increase
the specific gravity of water for pear flotation from the bins.
The pH averages lower in the reclaimed water even though the
alKalinity averages about the same as for the water supply,
probably due to the increase in carbonic acid (C02) from
biological treatment of the wastewater. The hardness and calcium
are 'ower in -the reclaimed wastewater on the average, possibly
due to precipitation in the biological treatment system with
alkalinity from caustic added for peach peeling, and occasional
caustic addition to keep the treatment system pH in the optimum
range for biological treatment.
Temperature--
The temperature of the reclaimed wastewater is of interest
to Snokist Growers, since they plan to use it for can cooling.
As during the earlier study, the reclaimed water temperature
decreased as the processing season progressed. The following is
a summary of temperatures recorded during this project:
Mean, °_C Std. Dev.
Well water supply 14.5 575
Reclaimed wastewater
September 1-15 17.6 1.7
September 16 - 30 16.6 2.3
October 1 - 15 14.4 2.7
October 16 - 31 12.4 2.1
November 1-15 11.1 2.6
Nov. 16 - Dec. 31 7.8 2.4
January & February 6.9 2.5
March & April 10.6 1.8
From about October 1, the reclaimed water offers an advantage
over the well water for coolin9 cans due to its lower
temperature.
Total Suspended Solids and Turoidity--
The total suspended solids (TSS) content of the biological
treatment effluent, the filter ef'luent and the reclaimed
wastewater (filter effluent after chlorination and retention for
contact) had considerable variation during this project. Figures
2, 3 and 4 show the TSS concentration frequency for the 1980,
1981 and 1982 processing seasons. Turbidity readings obtained
from the continuous nephelometric turbidity monitor are also
plotted on these figures. Readings above 30 MTU were off scale.
37
-------
§1
|
ttO-i
Mi
M
M
SI
10
a
Vt
"a
.0
' •' s
' •'/
i • •
s
/f
//•?
o.t i
T
WO
•0
•0
M
•0
•It
10
10
tO M 40 SO tO TO tO
to ts
tt t»
Figure 2. Total suspended solids and turbidity frequency distribution - 1980.
-------
OJ
VO
•OOn
W
•o
4O
*• •>
jo
!o
»- I*
•o
0
o»
E
tO
•o
10
0. •
OT
.£ t
.o
•- X
•0
ft
to
•It
10
0.» I t
10 40 M> «O ID
•O tt
Figure 3. Total suspended solids and turbidity frequency distribution - 1981.
-------
M
M
40
K>
tt>
•e
I-
V)
•0
•0
40
10
tt
to
•I*
10
ok i I • 10 to M « »o «o re «o *> it •• ••
Figure 4. Total suspended soUds and turbidity frequency distribution - 1982.
-------
A comparison among the
placing the plots on top
comparative values at the
suspended solids are helpful
water quality
during 1981.
was better aurlng tf-.c
three years is difficult without
of each other but the following
50 and 90 percentile values for
in confirming that the reclaimer
seasons than
Effluent
Sampli ng point
Clari fier
FiIters
Reclaimed
Year
1980
1981
1982
1980
1981
1980
1981
1982
TSS less than or equal, mg/1
50 I of time 90 I of time
18
29
10
7.5
22
6.2
21
6.2
37
67
48
19
55
17
55
33
It was noted following the study conducted in 1975-76 that
the reclaimed effluent quality was highly dependent on the
biological treatment system producing an effluent low in suspended
solids. The TSS concentrations shown on Figures 2, 3, and 4 'Show
how closely the reclaimed water quality corresponded to the
biological (cTarlfler) effluent during this investigation.
Figure 5 shows the reclaimed effluent turbidity frequency
plots from 1980, 1981 and 1982 all on the same graph fur
comparison. Once again it is clearly evident that the 1980 and
1982 seasons enjoyed much better reclaimed water quality than
1981. The 50 and 90 percentile Intercepts are as follows:
Year
1981
1982
50 t
T7?
10.3
2.8
90 t
TeTJ
>30
9.5
Another use for the information on the figures is a
comparison of the percentages of the readings within the criteria
established for reusing the reclaimed water in critical areas.
The values are as follows:
Trrbidity < 20 NTU
T.;S < 30 mg/1
1980
TTT
97 t
1981
TTT
68 t
1982
in
83
41
-------
t* •»
o» i i » to ~io ST 40 >o *o 10 to to ••
Figure 'j. Reclaimed effluent turbidity frequency distributions - 1980, 1981, 198?.
-------
The turbidity and TSS data illustrate that the 1981 processing
season produced less desirable reclaimed water for reuse, probably
due to the mechanical breakdowns and nutrient feed deficiencies
which made the biological solids more difficult to remove by
clarification.
Microbiological Hater Quality
Dally monitoring of the .reclaimed wastewater for total
coliform organisms ana total aerobic plate count was performed to
assure that the reclaimed water complied with the preestablished
project criteria and would be suitable for critical uses in the
cannery. Additional, less frequent monitoring evaluated the
reclaimed water for the presence of yeast and mold organisms,
organisms which will qrow under anaerobic conditions, and
organisms which will survive high stress and grow under aerobic
or anaerobic conditions. '
Coliform Organisms--
Figures 6, 7 ana 8 show the col i form and fecal col i form
concentration frequencies in the clarifier, filter and reclaimed
effluents during the three processing seasons. Coliforms are
consistently reduced by 30 to 50 percent by the filter system as
shown on Figures 6 ana 7. The percentile concentrations from
these figures are as follows:
Sample point Year
Total Coliform Organisms/100 ml
Clarifier effluent 1980
1981
1982
50 I
90
30,000 590,000
300,000 3.40C.OOO
260,000 560,000
FiIter effluent
Reclaimed effluent
1980
1981
1980
1981
1982
Fecal Coliform Organismo/100 ml
Clarifier effluent 1980
1981
Filter e 'fluent
1980
1981
Reclaimed effluent 1980
1981
20,000
170,000
< 1
< 1
< 1
80
700
50
430
< 1
< 1
200,000
2,500,000
1
1
< 2
540
2,800
350
2,800
1
< 1
43
-------
10*
10'
tO«
o
o
~ 1000
e
o
o
U
I ,.
•o
o
riLTfM CPrUICMT
COLIPOMH
IFFLUCNT
It 4 «6 M «0 40 »0 CO K> M MM M ••
Figure 6. Total and fecal coll form frequency distribution - 1980.
E
*
i
-------
10'
10'
10'
10'
1000 •
E
O ,00-J
0.
I.
o>
XI 10
E
z
\
CLAKIFIEH EFFLUENT
TOTAL COLiFOHM
CLANIFIEN EFFLUENT
FECAL COLIFONM
at
o>
OC.
O
•DECLAIMED EFFLUENT
TOTAL COLIFOMM
I II IS 2O »0 «0 »0 «0 K> «0 »O t» M •»
Figure 7. Total and fecal coliform frequency distribution - 1981.
-------
E
o
o
.a
E.
z
i
£
w
o
o
O
10'
10'
10'
10'
1000
100
10.
I -
r
_J
•>»
r- f
"o
a
'»
»
-------
these figures and values snow mat the disinfection system is
very effective in reducing the total and fecal coliform organism
counts to within the limits established by the Interim Drinking
Water Standards^ and established as criteria for wastewater reuse
in critical areas during this project.
Total Aerobic Plate Count--
Total aerobic bacterial count (TPC) frequencies for the
clarifier, filter and reclaimed effluents are plotted on Figures 9,
10 and 11 for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982. Concentrations in
the clarifier effluents are similar between 1980 and 1982 with 1981
concentrations higher. Reduction through the filters is about 30
to 50 X, similar to the reduction for coliform organisms. The 50
and 90 percentile TPC values are as follows for comparison:
Total Plate Count / ml
Sample point Year 50 t 90 %
Clari Her effluent 1980 19,000 50,000
1981 52,000 170,000
1982 12,000 36,000
Filter effluent 1980 13,000 47,000
1981 28,000 120,000
Reclaimed effluent 1980 4 60
1981 35 300
1982 9 120 .
The percentage of time that the TPC in the reclaimed
effluent met the criteria for reclaimed water use in critical
areas and other levels of quality are as follows:
Year <50/m1 <100/ml <500/ml <1000/ml
1980 89 I 91 I 97.5 X 100 I
1981 65 I 75 I 96.5 % 100 I
1982 86 % 87 I 100 I 100 %
The disinfection system is very effective at reducing TPC to
the criteria level for (reuse in critical areas1 as stipulated for
this project. The TPC before disinfection was clearly higher in
the 1981 season, which indicate:, poorer effluent quality. This
corresponds with observations nude from suspended sol Ids and
turbidity data. The 1982 season showed that when the turbidity
and chlorine residual remain within proper ranges, the TPA will be
consistently within the preset- criteria.
47
-------
CD
o
a.
10'
10'
10'
10'
1000
100 -
8
o
tl
S »OH
Q.
MCI CI|—\
•4
T
o>
•t _"
o
a
w
tr
tO SO 4O BO «O 10 10
•o n M «t
Figure 9. Aerobic total plate count frequency distribution - I960.
-------
10'
10'
to4-
E
L.
& 1000
*•
§
o
B 100
i
o
CL
I •
O.I
o>
U
T
10 10 40 BO tO TO M
•0 tS
M 9*
Figure 10. Aerobic total plate count frequency distribution - 1981.
-------
10
1C
to
•: looo
3
O
o
H 100
I
o
0.
h-
. o
2 10
o
9
-o
O
T
T
* • * M M> 40 tO *0 10 10 »0
Figure 11. Aerobic total plate count frequency distribution - 1982.
-------
Yeast and Mold--
Frequency graphs for yeast and mold organism concentration
In the clarifier. filter, and reclaimed effluent for the 1980 and
1981 seasrns are shown on Figures 12, 13, 14 and 15. The 50 and
90 percentile intercepts on these graphs are as follows:
Sample point
Clari fier effluent
Filter effluent
Year
1980
1981
1980
1981
Yeast / ml
50 t 90 I
Mold / ml
50 t 90
Reclaimed effluent 1980
1981
170
340
120
260
< 1
< 0.5
>3000
1000
470
520
20
1
25
54
18
33
1
0.4
70
160
60
250
20
6
Yeast and mold organisms are of interest in reclaimed
wastewater because of the potential for vegetative yeast
organisms to invade cans and cause spoilage, especially in high
acid foods. Mold organisms may seed equipment cleaned with the
reclaimed water and cause growth of mold, which could then
contaminate the product coming in contact with the equipment.
The filters appear to reduce the organism count by 30 to 50 I.
The disinfection system appears to be, effective at killing thp
yeast and mold organisms, although no criteria are available to
indicate desirable levels of achievement.
Total Anaerobic Plate Count--
Organisms which grew on BBL Anaerobic Agar (TH of Becton,
Dickenson & Co.) under anaerobic conditions were enumerated
during the 1981 and 1982 seasons. Figures 16 and 17 show
frequency plots of the results for the two years. No standard
method exists for this test and the technique for its performance
was new to the technicians and to the project manager, so
variability in the results was expected. A different technician
did the testing in 1?82 than in 1981. The percentile intercepts
from the frequency plots are:
Anaerobi c
Total Plate Count
Sample point
Clan " er effluent
Filter effluent
Reclaimed effluent
1981
1982
1981
1981
1982
50 I
, 1,700
1 6,000
1,80C
3
3
90 *
9,000
300,000
18,000
1C
50
51
-------
r\>
10'
1000
«. to
*
o
i <
run ei,
NCCLAIMCO
o
a
'
"T 1 1 I ~55 33 Jo *ow oo »o 7* of iT
Figure 12. Yeast count frequency distribution - 1980.
-------
in
to
10
10'
10'
to4
1000
100
16
i •
'RECLAIMED EFFLUENT
O
3
T3
O
I t I 3M M 40 »0 «0 ?B M S5 tB
Figure 13. Yeast count frequency distribution - 1981.
M tt
-------
TO
tn
10'
M
1000
u
I
2 10.
"o
i •
»
E.
"5
JO
'5
OC.
M
O
~l i I Z » M> 40 »o So" in «o to JT
Figure 14. Mold count frequency distribution - 1980.
MM
-------
en
01
10'
1000
100
.0
E
' 10
2
o
I •
T»
°W
•I
(E
M »0 40 SO «0 10 00 »0 t» M t*
figure 15. Mold count frequency distribution - 1981.
-------
E
i
10'
10*
1000
H too
o
a.
10
I
, 6
o
TO
'5
2
w
O
-MCLAIMCD IfTLUCNT
I i * 16 w »o «o »o «e w M »o ••
Figure 16. Anaerobic total plate count frequency distribution - 1981,
M ••
-------
tn
10
10
.0
o
o
_ 1000
o
B. 100
H
o
c 10
* F
"5
O
i—ar
to jo «o to «o TO to
to ta
M t»
Figure 17. Anaerobic total plate count frequency distribution - 1982.
-------
The results from 1981 indicated that the Anaerobic TPC of
the ciarifier and filter effluents was one-fifth to one-tenth the
values for the aerobic TPC. The 1982 results indicated them to
be nearly equivalent however. The effect of disinfection seemed
to be about the same as for the aerobic TPC.
There are no criteria for anaerobic 1PC. Anaerobes could be
significant in cooling water, where these organisms may enter the
container, and especially where a low acid environment inside the
container would allow the organisms to grow. Some organisms
which would grow under an anaerobic environment, can produce
toxins inside Vow-acid food containers.
Spore Forming Organisms--
Tests were run during the 1981 processing season for
organisms that formed spores resistant to boiling for 3 minutes.
The samples after boiling were tested for both aerobic total
plate count (TPC) and for anaerobic TPC with incubation at
mesophilic temperatures. Frequency plots of the results are
shown on Figures 18 and 19. Percentile intercepts from the plots
are as follows expressed as spores/ml:
Aerobic Spores Anaerobic Spores
Sample point Year 50 t 90 I 50 t 90 I
Ciarifier effluent 1981 <0.5 2.5 2.5 300
Filter effluent <0.5 3 3 20
Reclaimed effluent 0.4 <1 0.1 <10
Due to the low numbers of these organisms, the infrequency
of the testing, and inexperience of the technicians it is
difficult to draw any significant conclusions from this data. It
does appear that the disinfection system causes a reduction in
concentrati ons.
58
-------
en
vo
10
13
10
,o«
s.
IOOO •
o
o.
co 100
u
a
o
?! 10
u
15
o
a*
<
\
\
CLAWp.M tFFLUtllT
it 9 10 10 10 40 »0 «0 JO «0 »O »S M >»
;igure 18. Aerobic spore count frequency distribution - 1981.
•4
•1
* o
«
a:
o
-------
91
O
E
a.
JQ
Z
I
o
a.
u
o
o
e
10
10*
1C
10
1000
100
10
1 •
\
> - TOTAL Cl,
'.. \
T*tt
CLAHIFIEM CFFLUCNT-.
N
DC
CN
RECLAIMED CFFLUCNT
I • • I* 10 M 3o BO «0 10 iO to 15 M Jt"
Figtre 19. Anaerobic spore count frequency distribution - 1981.
-------
Heavy Metals
Heavy metals analyses were performed on samples from the
1980 ana 1981 seasons by the National Food Processors Association
Western Research Laboratory, Berkeley, California. Samples were
stiipped to the laboratory by air after preservation with acid
(see Appendix A). A portion of the samples were spiked for
quality control (see Appendix B). Table 5 contains a summary of
the results on well water samples, cannery effluent (before
treatment), and the reclaimed wastewater. Also included is a
summary of results from analyses of reclaimed wastewater during
the 1975-1976 project for comparison. The primary and secondary
EPA drinking water standard maximum contaminant levc»l
concentrations are included for reference.
TABLE 5. HEAVY METALS TEST RESULTS
Hea vy Met a 1
(MCLl)
/•rseni c
(.05)
Sari urn
(1.0)
Cadmi urn
(.01)
Chromi urn
(.05)
Lead
(.05)
Mercury
(.002)
Sample
Poi nt
Well water
Cannery effluent
Reclaimed water
75-76 Reclaimed?
Well water
Cannery effluent
Reclaimed water
Well water
Cannery effluent
Reclaimed water
75-76 Reclaimed
Well water
Cannery effluent
Reclaimed water
Well water
Cannery effluent
Reclaimed water
75-76 Reclaimed
Well water
Cannery effluent
Reclaimed water
75-76 Reclaimed
Number
Samples
3
3
7
7
7
7
19
7
8
19
9
6
7
18
7
8
19
9
7
8
19
9
Concentratl
Median
.006
.007
.008
<.5
<.5
<.5
<.005
<.005
<.005
<.03
.01
<.01
.01
.004
.005
<.004
X.05
.o'ooe
.0007
.0006
.0003
on, mg/1
Maxi mum
.009
.008
.014
<.05
<.5
<.5
<.5
.01
<.005
.01
<.03
.04
.03
.073
.01
.03
.01
<.05
.0008
.0008
.0008
.0026*
(Conti nued)
61
-------
TABLE 5. (Continued)
,
Metal
(MCL)
A1 umi num
Copper
(1.0)5
Iron
(0.3)5
Manganese
(0.05)5
Tin
Zinc
(5.0)5
Notes:
1. MCL in
2. 75-76 i
3. Second
4. Second
Sample . Number Concentrati
Point Samples Median
Well water 7 <.2
Cannery effluent 8 .3
Reclaimed water 19 .1
75-76 Reclaimed 6 .8
Well water 7 <.007
Cannery effluent 8 .04
Reclaimed water 19 .01
75-76 Reclaimed 9 <.05
Well water 7 .n
Cannery effluent 8 1.57
Reclaimed water 19 .15
75-76 Reclaimed 9 <.15
Well water 7 <.01
Cannery effluent 8 .02
Reclaimed water 19 <.01
75-76 Reclaimed 9 <.05
Well water 7 <.3
Cannery effluent 8 <.3
Reclaimed water 19 <.3
75-76 Reclaimed 6 <3
Wei 1 water 7 .03
Cannery effluent 8 .13
Reclaimed water 18 .05
75-76 Reclaimed 9 .25
mg/1 is EPA maximum contaminant level 10.
s results from 1975-1976 studyl. ;
highest sample result was .03 mg/1.
highest sample in 75-76 was .0009 mg/1.
5. MCLs for copper, iron, manganese ana zir.c are "
MCLs wh
for hea
ich are for esthetic control of water quali
1th protection.
on ,mg/l
Maximum
.2
.9
.8
2.2
.04
.06
.03
<.05
1.98
2.15
.41
.2
.02
.03
.02
<.05'
<.3
.3
v.3
<3
.05
.24
.37
.63
Secondary"
ty and not
Only one value for any of the heavy metals exceeded the
primary drinking witer standard values. The second highest
chromium value recorded was well within the standards indicating
that the high value was transient in nature or a product of
sampling or analytical mishap.
62
-------
Pesticide Res-jits
Samples of the well water, cannery effluent, biological
treatment effluent (clarifier effluent), and the reclaimed
wastewater were sampled into brown glass bottles and shipped on
Ice to Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington for pesticide analysis. Four samples of the well
water, five samples of each the cannery ana clarifier effluents
and seven samples of the reclaimed wastewater were tested during
the 1980-81 processing season. Four well water and clarifier
effluent samples, five cannery effluent and 12 reclaimed
wastewater samples were tested during the 1981-82 season.
Table 6 contains a list of the pesticides which were included in
the analyses.
TABLE 6. PESTICIDES ANALYZED BY BATTELIE NORTHWEST LABORATORIES
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Organophosphorus, Qrganosulfur,
and Organonitrogen compounds
Alarin
a, b and g 8HC
Captan
Casuron* (Dichlobeni1)
CHlordane
2,4-D
ODD, DDE and DOT
Diazinon
Dichlone
Dielarin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Heptichlor
Hept.^chlor Epoxide
Kelthane
Methoxychlor
PCS 1016, 1254, and 1260
Pe,rthane
Pydrin*
Si 1 vex
Toxaphene
Aniline-dg
Ni trobenzene-dg
2-f1uorophenol
Smiazine (Princep*)
Guthionw
Imidan*
Parathion
Ethion
Malathion
Phosphamidan
De-Fend*
Omite*
Ziram
Elgetol* (4,6-Oinitro-o-cresol )
Rootone*
Amid Thin W» (Amid)
Ethephon
Plictran® (Cyhexatin)
Systox*
Sinbarw (Terbacil )
SOPP (sodium o-phenylphenol )
Nabam (Dithane*)
Zineb (Dithane*)
Maneb (Dithane1*)
Karathane« (Dinocap)
Morestan* (Hesurol*)
BAAM«v
63
-------
Analysis of all of the samples was by gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry by EPA Meth.oa 625 with internal standards
following extraction. Battelle reported that none of the target
pesticides •or herbicides were detected in any of the water
samples. Detection limits varied, but were appropriate to the
MCL's for pesticides with drinking water limitations, and were
normally 10 ug/1 or less for aTl others. Earlier analyses,
without the mass spectrometry, gave false positive indications
that some of the compounds were p.resent. Complete results of
these analyses were contained in Annual Data Reports .No. 1 and
No. 2 for this project.
Volatile Halogenated Organic Compounds
During the 1981 processing season, Battelle Northwest
Laboratories analyzed 15 samples for volatile organic compounds
in addition to the pesticides and herbicides. Twelve were of the
reclaimed wastewater and one each from the well water, cannery
effluent and clarifier effluent. The samples were analyzed by
EPA method 624 (see appendix A) for "Purgeables". Table 7
contains a list of the purgeable organic compounds and detection
limits for the analyses.
TABLE 7. DETECTION LIMITS FOR PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Compound Detectable Limits, ug/1
Bromoform 14
Bromodichloromethane 10
Carbon tetrachloride 11
Chlorobenzene 1
Chloroform 8
Dibromochloromethane 8
Dibromomethane (methylene bromide) 8
trans - 1,2-dichloroethane 5
1,2-dichloropropane 2
1,1,1-trichloroethane 8
1,1,2-trichloroethane 26
Trichloroethene 15
Tetrachl o'roethene 10
The only volatile halogenated organic compounds found during
the initial' analyses were chloroform and dioromomethane. After
an extensive search for the source of the dibromomethane and no
result, it was decided to reanalyze the samples (fortunately
duplicates had been collected along with most of the original
samples and kept refrigerated in sealed containers). The
reanalysis determined that dibromomethane.was not present in the
64
-------
duplicate samples, and therefore its earlier presence was concluded
to be laboratory contamination.
The only confirmed halogenated organic compound in the
reclaimed effluent was chloroform. The chloroform findings are
shown on Table 8. The drinking water MCL for total
trihalomethanes, including chloroform, is 100 ug/110.
TABLE 8. CHLOROFORM RESULTS
Sample Point
Reclaimed effluent
Well water
Cannery Effluent
Cl a ri fi er e f f 1 uent
Reclaimed effluent
Date
09/09/81
09/15/81
09/22/81
09/29/81
10/14/81
10/22/81
11/03/81
11/10/81
12/01/81
12/08/81
01/07/82
01/19/82
Chloroform, u,g/l
94
62
127
37
29
107
2
3
<1
7
21
13
43
62
19
Many literature sources have indicated that chloroform is
generated as a byproduct of water chlorination, due to reaction
of chlorine ana organic rat arials in the water. Chloroform
concentration in the reclaimed wastewater is plotted on
Figure 20, against free chlorine residual on the oay that the
samples were collected for halogenated organics analysis. From
this figure it appears Lhat the amount of chloroform in the
reclaimed water is correlated to the free chlorine residual,
although the limited amount of data precluded elimination of
other potential constituents to which it could have been
correlated (i.e., COD, TSS, turbidity). Since chlorination is
essential for attaining the low levels of microorganisms
necessary to make the reclaimed wastewater safe for critical
uses, it appears that chloroform is a necessary undesirable
companion. Since it is unlikely that reclaimed water w'11 be
used for actual filling of containers or be intentionally
incorporated into the processed food the presence of chloroform
at these low concentrations would not appear to be detrimental.
The quantity that could be expected to enter the processed
product would be practically nil.
65
-------
ISO
100
E
*_
o
*-
p
o
JC
o
so •
t 0
j o
Free Residual Chlorine, mg/L
Figure 20. Chloroform In reclaimed wastewater vs. free chlorine residual
-------
WASTEKATER REUSE IN COOLERS
During the three processing seasons of this project
reclaimed wastewater was used in can coolers on a demonstration
scale oasis. Following is a summary of estimated quantity of
product cooled in reclaimed wastewater curing the three
processing seasons encompassed in this project:
Product
Canned Pears
Apple products
Canned Pears
Apple products
Process Total cases cooled
Season in Reclaimed Water
1980 180,000
210,000
1981 510,000
180,000
Canned Pears 1982 800,000
Note: One case represents 24 cans, 2 1/2 size.
Portion of
total pack
18 X
35 X
46 X
28 X
78 X
During all three of the seasons, the USDA ih-plant
inspectors and the project manager monitored the use of the
reclaimed wastewater and ooserved the product quality on a
routine basis, per their regular schedule and duties. The USDA
inspectors "were asked to report any abnormality in regaro to
product quality which might have resulted from the use of
recycled cooling water." "The inspectors reported that they
observed no significant changes in product quality as a result of
the use of recycled water." (Letter dated January 23, 1984, from
ir. R.O. Kearl, Inspector-in-Charge, USDA, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Yakima, WA.)
In one' . Instance when a substantial number of cans of
applesauce were subjected to reclaimed water of substandard quality
(high tubidity and suspended solids), the entire lot of product was
retained an extra 30 days under1 close scrutiny to assure that no
deterioration of product had occurred before it was released for
distribution.
Container Rejection Rates Using Reclaimed and House Water
In order to estimate the comparative can rejection rate due
to failures after cooling in reclaimed water vs. well water,
comparable coolers were operated in parallel on pear processing
lines during the 1981 and 1982 processing seasons. The cans were
coded for future identification.
67
-------
1981 Processing Season -
All cans coining from those coolers that were rejectee for
any reason, during labeling of the 1981 product, were closely
examined. Cans without physical damage (dents, punctures, etc.)
were subjected to teardown (opened) for inspection of the
contents and can interior.. Of the total number of cans rejected
during labeling, 3,728 cans Mere without physical damage. None
of these cans showed any evidence of microbiological
contamination (gas swells, leakage due to internal pressure,
fruit spoilage). All cans had been held in storage for from
2 months to one year prior to labeling, at which time the rejects
were pul lea out. ' '. .
There was no apparent difference between the failure rate
among cans cooled using reclaimed water compared to those cooled
with the well water supply. The total pack of this size
container during that season was 214,000 cases (24 cans per
case), of which about half were cooled in each of the two
waters.
All of the 1981 season undamaged rejects were a result of
inadequate lid depression, an evidence of low vacuum. Some of
the low vacuum cans (less than 5 I) were due to subtle damage to
the seal surface (skip seam). The entire remainder, had an
1 naeterminant cause but nearly all showed signs of container
corrosion, either as head space pitting, or as body pitting.
A representative number of cans were sent co the national
Food Processors Association laboratory 1n Berkeley, California for
inspection and determination of the cause of low vacuum. The
laboratory responded that the lack of vacuum resulted from "the
formation of hydrogen gas as a result of product-container
interaction. Examination of the steel, after removal of tlncoating,
showed the presence of moderate amounts of pitting primarily at the
body beads. The occurrence of pitting is strongly suggestive that
the phenomenon known as rapid canned pear corrosion Is operative in
these containers." (Letter dated December 14, 1982. from Mr. Henry
8. Chin, Ph.D., Director, Chemistry Division, National Food
Processors Association, Berkeley, CA.)
Discussion with representatives of NFPA indicated that several
canneries had experienced product loss due to container internal
corrosion, and that the industry is attempting to determine the
reason for this problem. It is abundantly clear, /however, that
the failures experienced in this study were not related tc the use
of reclaimed wastewater.
68
-------
1982 Processing Season -
During the 1982 season a siml ' number of total 2 1/2 cans
were cooled in the parallel cooling ' .ie?, using reclaimed water
for approximately one-half ana house (well) water for the other
half. Observation by the USDA inspectors, the project manager,
ana by the cannery managers in charge of labeling ana
aistribution, indicated there were no abnormal numbers of
rejects, ana that there was no apparent aifference between lots
coolea in the tWo waters.
Coo l_ej_r_Mat: e r Quality
Water quality in the. can coolers was monitored luring the
1980-81 ana 1981-82 processing seasons in oraer to compare the
microbiological quality of tnose using reclaimed wastewater to
those using th6| cannery house water (well water). The frequency
distribution ofi total aerobic bacterial plate counts of samples
taken from the coolers is shown on Figures 21 ana 22 for the 1980
ana 1981 seasons. Total chlorine residual for the coolers is
shown on Figures 23 ana 24.
There doesn't appear to te any significant difference in
cooling water bacterial counts during the two seasons, between the
coolers receiving reclaimed water and tnose receiving well
water. The coolers receiving reclaimed water generally had a
slightly higher chlorine residual as a result of the chlorine
residual in the reclaimed water feed. Chlorine solution was added
to all coolers by a manually adjusted feed system from a separate
chlorinator. Based on the bacteriological quality of water in the
coolers, spoilage rates of containers cooled by waters from the two
sources would not he expected to differ.
69
-------
10'
10*
-. to*
E
1000
o
a.
»-
*- 100
o
o
O 10
o
s
HOUU WMC* rttO f»/H-II»IO/*»-t4/iO)s
HSUtl WATt* ff!0(»/M-IO/IT/»0>
7-«£CL»IMiO ««Tt« rcCO(t/!4-IO/T/tO)
ftECUUMCO WATCH ftt0(ll/I/iO-t/l»/«l)
It* 10 tO M> 40 »0 »0 YO M> .»0 tS M t*
Figure 21. Can cooler aerobic total plate count frequency - 1980.
-------
o
Q.
o
o
o
K>
I04
1000
100-
10
HCCLAIMCO WATCH
fC ID —
Houtt WATCH rcio
(•/•-It/11) \
i a
10
10 50 4O 80 §O TO
«0 »S •• ••
Figure 22. Can cooler aerobic total plate count frequency - 1981.
-------
4.0-1
3.0-
o
o 2.O-
o
o
o
Y-RECLAIMED WATER FEED
\ (II/3/8O- 2/19/81)
\
\\
-T-HOUSE WATER FEED
X (9/24 -10/17/80)
RECLAIMED WATER FEED
HOUSE WATER FEED
(9/12-23.10/23-24/80)
12 J KJ 20304090*07080 90 99 MM
Figure 23. Can cooler chlorine residual frequency - 1980.
3.0
2.0
o
— 1.0
o
.o
o
o
o
0-
\
-CI2 RESIDUAL
RECLAIMED WATER
CI2 RESIDUAL
HOUSE WATER FEED
12 3 10 203040906070809099M99
Figure 24. Can cooler chlorine residual frequency - 1981,
72
-------
REFERENCES
1. Esvelt, Larry A., Reuse of Jj^eated Fruit Process-in
Wastewater In a Cannery, EPA-600/2-78-203, DT 5"!ET
Industrial En vi ronmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio, September, 1978.
2. Snokist Growers, (Esvelt, L.A.), Aerobic Treatment of Fruit
Processing Wastes, Federal WaterPollutionControl
Admini stration, DTS. Dept. of the Interior, 12060 FAD,
October, 1969.
3. Esvelt, L.A., "Aerobic Treatment of Liquid Fruit Processing
Waste," Proceedings First National Symposium on Food
Processing Wastes, Federal Water Ouality Admini strati on,
April, 1970.
4. Esvelt, L.A. and H.H. Hart, "Treatment of Fruit Processing
Wastes by Aeration," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation. 42. 1305, July, 1970.
5. Development Document tor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Fruits, Vegetables
and Specialties Segment of the Canned and Preserved Fruits
and Vegetables Point Source Category. U.S. En vi ronmental
Protection Agency, March, 1976.
6. Development Document for proposed tf fluent. Limitations
Guidelines andNewSourcePerformanceStandardsToTthe
"CTtrus, Apple and Potato Segment of the Canned and Preserved
Fruits and Vegetables Processing Point Source Category. U.ST
Environmental Protection Agency, November, 1973.
7. Esvelt, L.A., H.W. Thompson and H.H. Hart, "Reuse of
Reclaimed Fruit Processing Wastewater", Proceedings, Vol. 1,
Water Reuse Symposium, March 25-30, 1979,Washington, DC.
(AmericanWaterWorks Association Research Foundation,
Denver, Colorado). i
I •
8. Esvelt, Larry A., "Food Processing Water Reuse - Case
History", Proceedings, Industrial Water Reuse Conference,
Oct. 31 and No- . 1, 1978, Culver City, Cali fornia
(California Office of Water Recycling).
73
-------
9. Thompson, H.W. and L.A. Esvelt, "Reclamation and Reuse of
Fruit Processing Wastewater", Paper presented at the 1978
Summer Meeting cf the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Logan, Utah.
10. "National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations",
Federal Register. Vol. 40. No. 248, page 59566,
December 24,1975.
SEE ALSO (Available for .review from EP*V HERL, Cincinnati, Ohio)
Annual Data Report No. 1, The Health Effect Potential of Reusing
Treatea Fruit Processing Wastewater Within A Cannery. Snokist
Growers Cannery, July 27, 1981. .
Annual Data Report No. 2, The Health Effect Potential of Reusing
Treatea Fruit Processing Wastewater Within A Cannery. Snokist
Growers Cannery, February 28, 1983.
74
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL METHODS
This appendix contains a summary of the procedures used
flaring this investigation for collecting, preserving and
analyzing samples. The sample handling and analytical methods
are jsummari zed in Table A-l for chemical tests run at the Snokist
Growers cannery laboratory, tests run by National Food Processors
Western Research Laboratory, Berkeley, California and for
continuous monitoring of the reclaimed wastewater. Table A-2
summarizes the procedures for analyzing samples for pesticides
and volatile halogenated organics used by Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington and procedures used
by the USOA Western Regional Laboratory, Albany, California for
volatile and nonvolatile halogenated organic compounds.
Sampling for all testing was done by the Snokist laboratory
staff. All sampling was representative of the water being tested
and according to best practices. Composite samples were normally
the result of six or more grab samples from the sample point,
taken over an 8 hour period per day, combined in equal volumes,
except that an automatic sampler was used to take a 24 hour time
composite on the wastewater entering the treatment system.
75
-------
TABLE A-l.
SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
Parameter
Alkalinity (Total )
as CaC03
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD)
Chlorine Residual
(free & total )
(continuous)
Chloride
D1 ssol ved Oxygen
Hardness (total &
cal cl urn) as CaCOj
Hydrogen Ion (pH)
Methyl ene blue
actl ve substances
Preservation
Holding time
Cool - 4°C
24 hr.
Cool .- 4°C
24 hr
Cool - 4°C
24 hr.
none
none
Cool - 4°C
7 day
none
Cool - 4°C
7 day
none
Cool - 4°C
24 hr
Analytical Procedure
Standard Methods! p 278
Titrate to pH 4.5
Standard Methods! p 543
Acclim. seed, Winkler
Standard Methods! p 550
Dichromate Reflux
Standard Methods! p 318
Amperometric titration
Amperometrlc potential
Standard Methods! p 304
Mercuric Nitrate
Probe
Standard Methods1 p 202
& p 189; EDTA titration
Standard Methods! p 460
Electrometric probe
Standard Methods! p 600
Extraction, color
(detergents)
Metals3 (aluminum,
arsenic, barium,
cadmium, calcium,
chromium, copper,
iron, lead, magnes-
ium, manganese,
mercury, potassium,
sodium, tin, zinc).
25 ml cone. HNO-
per 1iter
6 months
1974 EPA Methods? p 92,
95, 97, 101, 103, 105,
108, 110, 112, 114,
116. 118, 143, 147,
ISO4, 155
Continued
76
-------
TABLE A-l.. (Continued)
Parameter
Preservati on
Holding time
Analytical Procedure
Nitrogen, ammonia
organi c
nitrate
Phosphorus, ortho
total
Reacti ve Silicate
{silica)
Settleable Solids
Suspended Solids
(total & volatile)
Cool - 4°C
24 hr
Cool - 49C
24 hr
Cool - 4°C
24 hr
none
Cool - 4°C
24 hr
Solids (total, vol- Cool - 4°C
atile & dissolved) 24 hr
Sulfate
Turbi di ty
(grab samples)
(continuous)
Temperature
Microbiological
Coliforms (total)
(fecal)
Total aerobic
Cool - 4°C
none
none
Cool - 4°C
24 hr
Standard Methoasi p 410
Distillation, p 437
Kjeldahl minus ammonia
p 427, Brucine ,
EPA Methods?' p 249
Single Reagent method
Alkaline ashi ng and
EPA Methods2 p 249
Manual of Sea Water
Analysis!* p 57, color
Standard Methods! p 95
Standard Methodsl p 94
& p 96, glass fiter
filtration, dry @ 105°C
ignition > 55n°C
Standard Methods1 p 91,
95 & 93, dry P 105°C
ignition @ 550°C
Standard Methodsl
Turbi dimetri c
Standard Methodsl p 132
Forward scatter
Nephelometric
Standard Methodsl p 125
Glass thermometer
Standard Methodsl p 928
p 937, membrane filter
Standard Methodsl
p 908, Std. plate count
Continued
77
-------
TABLE A-l. (Continued)
Parameter
Preservation
Holding time
Analytical Procedure
Microbiological (continued)
Total anaerobic
Spores
aerobic
anaerobic
Mold (viable)
Yeast (viable)
Standard plate Count,
or membrane filter on
BBL Anaerobic Agar?,
Incubated' in anaerobic
Environmental P?ks8.
Boil for 3 minutes:
see total aerobic above
see total anaerobic
Recommended Methods^
p 101, acidified potato
dextrose agar
Recommended Methods6
p 101, acidified potato
dextrose agar
Notes:
1. APHA, 1975. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater. 14th ea. Washington, D.C.
2. USEPA, 1974. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA-625/5-74-003.
3. Metals analyses were performed by National Food Processors
Association laboratory at Berkeley, California.
4. Tin analysis preparation used a mixture of ^$04 and HN03 to
enhance recovery.
5. FRBC, 1965. A Manual of Sea Water Analysis. Bulletin No.
(125, 2nd ed., Ottawa.
6. APHA, 1966. Recommended Methods for the Microbiological
Examination of Foods.2nd ed.New York.
7. Trade Mark of Becton, Dickinson & Co.
8. Trade Mark of Marion Scientific Corp.
78
-------
TABLE A-2,
HALOGENATED ORGANICS ANALYSES
Parameter
Preservation
Holding time
Analytical Procedure
Pesticides & other
extractable organic
compounds?
Volatile halogen-
ated organics^
Cool - 4°C
Glass, bottles
with Teflon caps.
Cool - 4'C
Glass bottles,
Teflon caps,
no air soace.
EPA Method 625**
Extraction and GC/MS
EPA Method 6241
Purge and trap, GC/MS
Volati le &
non volat i 1 e
hal ogenated
organi cs*
Notes:
1. Federal
69464.
Glass bottles,
Teflon caps,
freeze and hold
3 -34'C
Register, Vol. 44, No.
EPA Methodl
Extraction, GC/FID 4/or
GC/EC with GC/MS for
identi fication
233, December 3, 1979, p.
2. Pesticide analyses were performed by Battelle
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.
Paci fie
Volatile halogenated organic compound analyses were performed
by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington for the 1981 season only.
Samples for volatile and nonvolatile halogenated organic
compound analyses were collected during the 1980 and 1981
processing seasons for analysis by the USDA Agriculture
Research Service Western Regional Laboratory, Albany,
California. Unfortunately results and unfinished samples
were destroyed by a fire at that facility.
79
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL
Throughout this project laboratory procedures were monitored by
the project manager for consistency and . accuracy. Replicate
chemical tests were performed on five per cent of the samples
included in the work plan test program for the Snokist Growers
canner. laboratory. In addition, samples were obtained from the
EPA laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, for check testing of samples
with known concentrations.
Table B-l contains the results of testing the known samples
from EPA in the Snokist Growers cannery laboratory. Four samples
were analyzed over the project period, two during 1981 and two
during 1982, for all tests except chlorine, which was run only in
1982. An average and standard deviation of differences between
the EPA published results and the results obtained by Snokist
Growers are included. Overall results obtained by the laboratory
at Snokist Growers cannery were satisfactory although consistency
of analyses for total dissolved solids, total hardness,
chlorides, sulfates, ammonia nitrogen and ortho phosphate could
have been better.
-»«,
Table 8-2''contains an analysis of the results of chemical
analytical tests run on replicates of the same samples in the
Snokist Growers laboratory. The data is divided into groups at
various concentration levels. Mean and standard deviation of the
concentration, mean and standard deviation of the difference between
replicates, and the mean and standard deviation of the difference
divided by the mean concentration are Included for each data
group. Generally the analyses on reolicate samples show that the
techniques employed yielded consistent results. The difference
between results divided by their mean averaged 10 % or less, except
for total volatile solids (23 X) at low concentrations (<200 mg/1)
and total and volatile suspended sol Ids at low concentrations (13
and 12 % at <40 mg/1).
Table B-3 shows an analysis of the results obtained from
microbiological testing on wastewater samples. Microbiological
testing was usually performed by inoculating or filtering varying
volumes or dilutions of sample for growth on the selected media.
The counts obtained with each volume or dilution was recorded.
Table B-3 contains an analysis of the consistency of results by
comparing the count obtained from * particular dilution or sample
80
-------
volume with the count obtained fro.n IQx the dilution or 1/10 the
volume. The data, in Table 6-3 is grouped by counts obtained from
the greater volume or lesser dilution (greatest number of counts
between the two results compared). The results of te'-ts on
replicate samples are also included. The data indicates good
consistency of results. The mean of the differences divided by
the averages is less that 20 % for all tests, except for mold at
very low counts (<10 per plate).
Table 'B-4 contains the results of testing spiked (fortified)
samples for heavy metals at the NFPA laboratory. A known amount
of the heavy metals was added to a replicate sample of reclaimed
water for comparative testing to determine accuracy and recovery.
The amount of fortification, the number of fortified samples
tested .and compared with the unfortified reclaimed water, and the
recovery are shown. The recovery is shown as the mean difference
between the test results from /the fortified and the unfortified
samples, divided by the fortified amount. Overall results
indicate good recovery and consistency. Mean recovery ranged
76 % for tin to 135 I for mercury. Arsenic and zinc, at 88 %,
were the only other metals which did not average within 8 % of
ideal (100 %) recovery.
Tables 8-5 and B-6 contain the results of testing samples
for recovery of pesticides and volatile (purgeable) halogenated
organic compounds by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
Data is as pm.^ded by Battelle accompanying their report on the
analytical results. The full reports containing all analytical
results and quality control results are contained in Data Reports
No. 1 and 2 for this project.
Of the extractable . organic compounds (Table B-5) only
methoxychlor was analyzed as a field spiked sample (methoxychlor was
added to a replicate sample of reclaimed water), as shown. A11
other quality control was based on obtaining purchased standards and
running four replicate laboratory spiked samples. Some constituents
were tested in 1980 and some in 1981 for recovery determination
and quality assurance. Spiking levels for the 1981 recovery
testing are included. Spiking levels for many of the 1980 tests
are unavailable, but were In the same range. These results
indicate that recoveries were good and confirm ' that if these
constituents were present in the reclaimed wastewater they would
have been detected. A list cf recoveries for these compounds as
found in readily available literature is included for comparison.
The purgeable organics recovery data in Table B-6 shows good
consistent recovery, indicating that the results of aralyses can be
relied upon. Standards were analyzed with each iaily run to
verify proper calibration. The recovery data in Tablt- 8-6 are for
four replicate laboratory spiked samples.
81
-------
TABLE B-l. RESULTS OF TESTS ON EPA CHECK SAMPLES*
Analysis
pH, units
Conduct 1 vity,
u mho/cm
Total 01 s. Solids
mg/1
Total Hardness,
mg/1 as CaC03
Calcium Ha rones s,
mg/1 as CaC03
Alkalinity,
mg/1 as CaC03
Chloriae, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Chemical Oxygen
Demand., mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand, mg/1
Ammonia, NHo_N
mg/1
Nitrate, N03_N
mg/1
Orthophosphate,
P0d-p' "S/1
Total Kjelcahl
Nitrogen, mg/1
Total Phosphorus,
mg/1
Chlorine, mg/1
Notes:
Date2
4/81
4/82
4/81
4/82
4/81
4/82
4/81
4/82
4/81
4/82
4/81
4/82
4/81
4/82
4/81
4/82
4/81
9/82
4/81
9/82
8/81
4/82
8/81
4/82
8/81
4/82
8/81
4/82
8/81
4/82
4/82
1. Samples received
Environmental Mon
Ohio.
2. Month samples wer
3. Percent (t)
Results
#1
8.
7.
546
125
446
30
140
30
no.
18.
76.
15.
66.
21.
92.
6.
18.
9.
2.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
from
1 tori
5
6
6
0
6
0
0
9
8
7
5
8
9
0
30
10
27
29
023
015
50
58
1?
15
41
U.
ng
#2
7.
8.
106
496
77
236
14.
60
14.
(81.
21.
69.
14.
76.
6.
52.
224.
188.
108.
94.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
4.
4.
0.
1.
1.
4
5
4
0
8
8
1
0
1
8
0
4
1
5
2
26
05
47
38
134
136
10
03
97
02
40
S. En vi
and
EPA Value
#1
8.
7.
572
125
338
66
136
26.
101.
16.
74.
16.
87.
20.
93.
12.
15.
10.
2.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6
4
6
5
8
7
0
9
5
6
0
4
4
4
2
19
19
31
31
031
031
52
52
14
14
55
*2
I Difference3
Mean
Std.Dev.
7.7
8.
113
479
54
277
20.
109
13.
80.
21.
73.
18.
70.
7.
75.
233.
192.
100.
83.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
4.
4.
0.
0.
1.
6
7
3
0
7
7
4
2
2
0
3
7
6
9
3
3
59
59
154
154
12
12
93
93
61
0.9
1.8
-9.3
14.9
-6.1
2.3
8.4
20.3
-2.0
-8.7
3.0
10.0
25.5
-1.3
-7.1
19.3
ronmental Protection
Support
Laboratory
i
e analyzed.
di f ference »
EPA
result
- Snoki
2.7
4.4
43.8
27.3
2.9
4.6
18.5
20.6
12.1
11.3
44.5
3.5
18.5
7.0
2.2
8.8
Agency,
, Ci nci nnati ,
i
i
st result
x 100
EPA result
Means and standard deviations are for all four samples
analyzed (two for Chlorine).
82
-------
TABLE B-2. CHEMICAL ANALYSES ON REPLICATE SAMPLES
CD
U)
Test
Total Suspended
Solias, mg/1
Volatile Susp-
ended Sol i os ,
mg/1
Chemical Oxygen
Demanc (COO),
mg/1
Total Solids,
mg/!
Total Volatile
Solids, mg/1
Ammoni a , rhg/1 N
Total KjeTdahl
Nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1 N
Total Phosphorus,
mg/1
Orthophosphate ,
mg/1 P
CoiiCL-ct: vi ty ,
micro mhos/cm
Number1 of Concentration2
Replicates Mean Std. Dev.
39
19
;5
39
19
25
39
14
12
8
25
8
34
8
28
21
_ 8
17
22
8
6
18
9
36
13.2
153
4800
17.2
144
4110
35.5
16JO
4980
122
294
1290
103
1040
0.91
5.8
264
0.22
3.4
81
0.57
3.3
86.4
255
16.0
153
1520
14.6
142
1250
29.6
900
1170
17
118
500
45
440
1.96
6.2
60
0.26
4.6
23
0.46
3.7
4.7
117
01 f fererice^
Mean Std. Dev.
1.6
13
54
1.5
8.2
52
2.2
14
57
12
19
9
22
5.6
0.05
0.10
2.5
0.008
0.13
2.9
0.03
0.07
0.11
0.36
1.5
22
76
1.8
11.3
66 .
2.2
16
51
15
16
16
18
6.1
0.20
0.08
1.6
0.011
0.17
2.5
0.03
0.14
0.33 .
1.07
Di ff ./Mean Cone.'1
Mean Std. Oev.
.132
.075
.012
.124
.051
.013
,086 .
.008
.011
.090.
.070
.006
.233
.005
.038
- .010
,025
.068
.035
.087
.018
.001
.002
. 126
.082
.017
. 129
.069
.017
.099
.008
.008
.098
.068
.009
.171
.005
.042
.007
.046
.089
.027
.107
.022
.004
.008
(Cont i nuea)
-------
TABLE B-2. (Continued)
00
Number1
Test Replica
Total Hardness ,
mg/1 as CaC03
Calcium Hardness,
mg/1 as CaC03
Chloride, mg/1
Alkalinity
mg/1 .as CaCC 3
Sul fate , mg/1
MBAS, mg/1 LAS
Silica, mg/1 S102
Color , uni ts
Notes:
27
18
27
18
8
24
8
16
25
8
24
8
9
9
14
-
1. Number of tests per
ranges of concentra
2. . Mean of the a
3. Difference in
4. Ratio of the
standard de vi
verage
of Concentrati
tes Mean Std.
16
54
18
38
4
66
100
65
101
4
22
37
0
44
7
.7
.1
.b
.1
.3
.1
.9
.2
.012
.3
formed on pairs
tion for
concent
concent rat i on
better
rat i on
8.
28.
5.
5.
2.
37
67
33
82
1.
14.
25.
0.
13.
8
of
de
on*
De v.
7
8
8
9
9
7
2
4
013
6
rep) i
finiti
from the
between the two
Difference3 01 ff. /Mean Cone.4
Mean Std.
1.
2.
0.
1.
0.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0
cate
17
06
80
01
49
7
0
32
84
10
7
7
002
3
sampl
on of prec
test
pal rs
tests on
difference between the test result
at i on
indicates that
s and
both test results
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3.
0.
1.
0.
3 .
2.
0.
1.
0
es.
1st
e
rep
the
De v..
24
50
90
69
66
4
3
28
44
05
0
6
003
6
Data
on .
1 icate
Mean Std. Dev.
.102
.038
.047
.026
.102
.040
.020
.005
.009
.026
.050
.031
.030
is separa
sampl es .
i r a verage . No
were zero
.122
.048
.065
.018
.112
.051
.022
.004
.021
.019
.036
.028
.024
ted into
mean and
one or more times
causing an undefined ratio.
-------
TABLE B-3. COMPARISON OF ,MICROH10LOGICAL TEST RESULTS
1
00
•
Test
Total Plate Count
Total Col 1 form
Fecal Collform
Yeast
- — —
Mold
•
Aerobic Mesoph-
ilic Spores
Anaerobic Total
Count
Anaerobic Spores
Count Number
Range2 Tests3
>300
100-300
<100
Reps.
>100
40-100
<40
Reps.
>300
101-300
11-100
0-10
>100
11-100
0-10
0-3
32
59
66
90
9
25
57
19
25
10
21
34
13
5
36
35
52
9
13
Concentration4
Mean Std.Dev.
498
204
54
9.1
140
61
18.8^
1.03
70.7
420
187
41.4
\.l&
131
29.3
3.53
0.24
630
9.3
215
58
36
22.2
30
21
8.7
1.80
46.6
123
66
.-22.4
- 2.23
11.0
19.5
2.45
0.52
1810
17.0
D1 f ference5
Mean Std.Dev.
35
30
11
0.78
16
6.4
2.9
0.26
3.64
24
15.6
4.77
0.39
7.2
4.4
1.17
0.21
170
1.16
38
49
18
2.10
15
6.3
3.8
0.45
4.77
37
20.3
6.92
0.51
2.4
4.2
1.38
0.50
500
3.28
01 ff ./Cone.6
Mean Std.Dev.
.073
.135
.181
.114
.101
.157
.063
.047
.088
.120
.055
.144
.537
.074
.080
.078
.166
.181
.095
.088
.175
.099
.051
.123
.128
.018
.105
.677
.091
.132
(Continued)
-------
TABLE B-3. (Continued)
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
00
o\
5.
6.
A comparison
of replicate
or volume of
between the test results from different dilutions or sample sizes
samples, or between replicate test results from the same dilution
a sample.
Range of numbers of colonies on plate or filter with highest count. Test results
were separated Into ranges to assess differences In precision according to quantity
of result. "Reps." Indicates that entire test procedure was performed with the
same dilutions or volumes on replicate samples.
Number of pairs of tests Included In comparison.
Average number of colonies on plate or filter with highest count. For all
comparisons except when replicate tests were used, sample volumes, or dilutions,
were different. The count resulting from the smaller volume, or greatest
dilution, was adjusted by the ratio of the volumes, or ratio of the dilutions,
to obtain the concentration presented, and to obtain the difference. "Reps."
means that the comparison was among pairs of samples of the same volume or
dilution.
Difference In number of colonies between tho tests of replicate samples, or
between the tests, after the number of colonies from the smaller volume, or
greater dilution, was adjusted to reflect the difference In volumes or
dilutions.
Ratio of the difference between the numbers of colonies, as adjusted, and the
average. No mean and standard deviation Indicates that average was zero one or
more times.
-------
TABLE B-4.
HEAVY METAL FORTIFICATION RECOVERY
Test1
Al umi num ( Al )
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Copper (Cu)
Chromium (Cr)
Iron (Fe)
Potassium (K)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Sodium (Na)
Tin (Sn)
Zinc (Zn)
Notes:
1. Heavy Metals
MDL2
mg/1
0.1 0
0.006
0.5 !
0.002
0.03 5
0.007
0.007
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.0002
0.01
0.3
0.01
analyses
Forti fi
mg/1
.1, 0.5
0.01
0.1
0.1
.0, 10.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
10.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.0005
20
5.0
0.2
Number
i2-
4
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
10
12
12
11
12
8 7,
12,
were performed by
Prop. Recovered*
Mean Std.Dev.
0.97
0.88
nd5
0.996
1.02
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.04
0.96
1.08
0.96
1.35
0.94
0;76
0.88
the Nationa
0.19
0.38
0.15
0.24
0.12
0.17
0.27
0.16
0.04
0.26
0.12
0.89
0.42
0.13
0.11
1 Food
Processors Association, Western Research Laboratory,
Berkeley, California.
2. MDL = Minimum Detection Limit, b^seo on instrument response
and sample concentration factors.
3. One of a pair of replicate samples of reclaimed effluent was
fortified in the field, with the concentrations shown on the
number of occasions shown. Two numbers indicate that
samples one year were fortified with one concentration, and
during the other year, the other concentration.
4. Proportion recovered is the test result from the 'ortifieo
sample, minus the result from the unfortified sample,
01 video by the amount of fortification.
5. All barium samples were below the MDL.
87
-------
TABLE B-5. RECOVERY OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS1
Compound
Recovery from Lab Spiked Samples?, %
Conc'n, jg/1 1980 1981 Sta.Dev. Literature
Alorin
BHC (alpha)
BHC (beta)
BHC (gamma)
Captan
Casuron«(D1chlobenil )
Chloraane
2,4-0
ODD
ODE
DOT .
De-Fena*
Dlazinon
01 ch lone
Oielarin
01 pheny famine'
Enaosulfan
Enarin
Ethion
Guthion*
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxiae
Iml aan*
Kel thane
Methoxychlor
PCB 1254
Pa rath Ion
Penncap M*
Perthane*
Phosphamlaan (
Pyarin j
Sevin*
S11 vex
Smiazine
Toxaphene
Ana line
nitrobenzene -a 5 '
2-fluorophenol
Methoxychlor (18 Fiela
94
122
95
105
103
102
49
102
111
103
104
101
123
136
•
49
98
83
129
102
94
103
84 ,
1
88
92
121
115
119
spikea
Notes: 1. Data from Battel
2. Blanks indicate
80
77
99
45
93
39
99
. 88
87
69
101
94
95
45
97
81
104
112
69
88
38
136
indefinite
samples § 100
163
171
64
100
166
1*0
55
122
115
110
154
6
126
122
48
61
76
132
76
74
19
23
21
65
35
29
18
20
19
23
32
21
17
25
'
59
27
29
18
results
26
26
44|
ug/1)
le Pacific Northwest
missing data.
27
27
2
- Recovery « 127 *
Laboratories.
100
96
108
85
91
100
90
90
82
97
89
43
71
'I
I
35 %
88
-------
TABLE B-6. PURGEABLE ORGANICS RECOVERY DATAl
Compound
Batch
ug/l Recovery sta.De*. ug/T
Batch II .
Recovery2 sta.Dev.
Bromofonn
Bromooi chl oromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
01 Dromoch 1 oromethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Di chl oropropane
1 , 1 , 1-Tri chl oroethane
1,1, 2-Trl chl oroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
01 bromomethane
(methyl ene bromide)
Surroaate Standards^
Fluorobenzene
4-Bromof 1 uorooenzene
Penta f 1 uoroDenzene
Internal Standards4
Bromochl oromethane
l-Bromo-3-chl oropropane
1,4 Dichlorobutane
27.2
24.6
22.6
18.1
17.2
24.0
25.6
37.6
33.0
24.8
44.3
23.8
45.7
12.6
12.5
12.3
13.9
12.4
12.4
97
98
96
94
97
77,
NO3
108
98
107
98
91
98
72
102
103
84
88
97
8
3
15
5
4
8
28
2
25
29
9
8
28
15
15
55
30
22
70.5
51.9
60.6
66.9
53.6
60.0
56.6
61.5
50.0
48.5
55.0
82.6
66.3
39.6
42.5
56.7
51.1
60.0
60.5
109
99
79
94
119
92
79
78
89
103
79
88
92
74
94
78
102
110
95
16
7
23
13
22
. 16
23
35 < ' •
24
12
19
12
18
'
10
24
21
5
16
15
Notes:
1. Analyses performed at Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Rich!ana,
Washington. Complete results contained in Data Report No. 2 for this
project.
2. Recovery ana stanaara deviations in percent based on four data points
Obtained on replicate standards, except for 4-bromofluorobenzene in
Batch II, which had only three data points.
3. Below detectable limits. ' ' '
4. Surrogate and Internal Standards were used for machine
calibration of the quantitative peak volumes from the compounds
of interest.
89
-------
ID
O
Reproduced from
best available copy.
FigureC-t. Snokist Growers cannery and wastewater treatment system. Cannery buildings - lower
left; Wastewater treatment - upper left; Yakinia river - upper right corner.
-------
Figure C-2. Snokist Growers cannery wastewater treatment
plant. Aeration basin - left. Equalization
- right. Clarifier & filter bldq - center.
Figure C-3. Aeration basin - 22,700 cu. meter (6 MG),
PVC lined with 4 - 60 hp and 1 - 150 hp
aerators.
Figure C-4. Clarifier - 27.7 meter (90 ft) dia., 2.4 m
(8 ft) side depth, hydrauMc sludge removal
-------
Figure C-5. Filters - 2.4 m (8 ft) dia., 1.8 m (6 ft)
high, granular multi-media (anthracite,
silica and garnet sands), pressure feed.
Figure C-6. Dual chlorine residual analyzers and
turbidity monitor tor reclaimed water.
Filters in background.
-------
Reproduced from
best available copy.
Figure C-7. Fruit dump and initial wash using reclaimed
water. Bins enter upper left, are submerged
where fruit floats out and is floated to
conveyor to spray wash and into cannery.
•
Figure C-B.Can cooler using reel n*fried water. Cans
(#10 shown) are rotated and conveyed,
alternately submerged and sprayed. Note
dual vert, water feed pipes (reclaimed and
house water), and temp, control valve
(far cooler).
93
------- |