Fruit and Vegetable Water and Wastewater Management: Spinoff On

SPINOFF ON
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WATER AND

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
ROY E. CARAWAN
JAMES V. CHAMBERS
ROBERT R. ZALL
PROJECT SUPERVISOR
ROGER H. WILKOWSKE
EXTENSION SPECIAL REPORT No. AM-18E

JANUARY, 1979
PREPARED BY:
EXTENSION SPECIALISTS AT:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
ADMINISTRATION-EXTENSION
USDA - WASHINGTON, D.C.
WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

In Food Processing Plants - An
Educational Program
The objective of this program is
to increase the knowledge of food
scientists, food processors,
engineers, scientists, waste
management specialists and
other practitioners in the concepts and principles needed
to properly control water use and
product waste in food processing
facilities. The materials are
designed for individuals con
cerned with management of food
plants, with pretreatment of food
processing wastewaters, with
treatment of food processing
wastewaters and with the utilization or disposal of food plant
residuals. The modules in this
program incorporate knowledge
from food science and technology, food processing, sanitary
and environmental engineering,
agronomy, soil science, agricultural engineering, economics and
law.
The program consists of some
15 modules. Introductory material is presented in the Core
Manual to introduce the program.
Technical specifics are provided
in 7 technical spinoffs. The application of water and waste
management in specific food
plants is related in 7 commodity
Spinoff Manuals.
Published by
THE NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
North Carolina State University at Raleigh, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University at Greensboro, and the U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Cooperating. State University Station, Raleigh, N. C., T. C. Blalock, Director. Distributed in furtherance
of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. The North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service offers its programs to all
eligible persons regardless of race, color, or national origin, and is an equal opportunity employer.
F&V SPNOFF/PREFACE
PREFACE
Purpose:
The main purpose of this FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WATER AND

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SPINOFF is to be a primary reference
document to aid the extension specialist in assisting fruit
and vegetable processors in meeting water pollution
requirements.
This document is intended as a guide, in that
it attempts to provide broad coverage, but cannot be totally

comprehensive on all topics.
Instead, it gives general
information on a wide scale, and then directs the reader to

additional specific data and bibliographic information.
By presenting the fundamentals of water and waste management
for fruit and vegetable processing, this booklet will enable
the extension specialist to help fruit and vegetable processors develop effective water and waste control programs.
Such programs can enable these processors to better meet
current water pollution control regulations and prepare for
future, more stringent regulations. Thus, this guide can be
a tool to help extension specialists and food processors
alleviate present misunderstandings and avoid future problems.
In addition, this guide can aid in bringing together
representatives from the food industry and regulatory

agencies-to coordinate their mutual interest in reducing
water pollution.
Audience:
This guide should be valuable not only to extension

specialists for which it was prepared, but also for food
processors and regulatory officials charged with the review
and approval of wastewater discharge from food plants not
only to surface waters but also to municipal wastewater
treatment systems.
F&V SPNOFF/PREFACE
Scope:
The subject of this guide is the management and control of

water use and waste discharge in fruit and vegetable
processing, with emphasis on necessary legal, sanitary,
environmental and energy factors.
In preparing this guide,
the committee has attempted to maintain a uniformity of

recommendations and suggestions, despite the variety of
processing plants and the disparity of requirements for
pollution control throughout the country.
Limitations:
No written material dealing with pollution control regulations can remain current and up-to-date with our rapidly
changing regulations.
Therefore, the reader is advised to
check on current laws and local regulations before consideration of any pollution control project.
The vast differ-
ences and complexities that exist in fruit and vegetable

processing do not allow for a detailed information that
would be applicable to any plant without modification.
Disclaimer:
The mention of manufacturers, trade names or commercial

products is for illustration purposes and does not imply
their recommendation or their endorsement for use by the
Agricultural Extension Service.
Learning Objectives:
1.
Recognition of unit operations and, plant practices that

can or do contribute to pollution.
2.
Understanding of the key elements in a water and waste

control program for a fruit and vegetable processing
plant.
3.
Identification of the key federal, state and local

pollution laws and regulations that affect fruit and
vegetable processors.
4.
Appreciation of the possible role of an extension

specialist in assisting processors to meet water
pollution control regulations.
ii
F&V SPNOFF/SUMMARY
SUMMARY
The important factors for extension specialists to consider in
developing programs to assist the fruit and vegetable industries in
meeting water pollution requirements are presented.
includes the following:
This document
(1) role an extension specialist can play in
plant pollution problems, (2) components of an effective water and waste

control program in fruit and vegetable processing, (3) methods for
monitoring and analyzing fruit and vegetable wastewaters, (4) terminology
and concepts of pretreatment and treatment of fruit and vegetable wastewaters, and (5) notes for developing an effective extension program for
fruit and vegetable processing plants.
Each fruit and vegetable plant has numerous operations that use water
and discharge skins, juices, bits of flesh or rejects which can contribute
to pollution and specific examples are reviewed for selected plants. The
possible ways these operations can be modified or employee practices
changed to reduce water use and waste are identified and discussed.
The
role of management in processing water and waste control is explained.

Various practices to reduce pollution after the institution of
inplant water and waste management procedures are presented.
These
practices include pretreatment, by-product recovery and/or treatment. The

most important aspects of each of these are reviewed.
The opportunities for wastewater discharge from a fruit and vegetable
processing plant are recognized as either discharge to a municipal system
or discharge directly to a stream, estuary or the ocean. The important
factors to consider in municipal discharge of fruit and vegetable processing wastes are identified as sewer use ordinances, user charges and
pretreatment.
reviewed.
State, federal and local regulations for pretreatment are
State and local requirements for discharge limitations to meet
NPDES permits or water quality criteria are listed and discussed.

Parameters of importance for fruit and vegetable processors for
municipal or direct discharge are identified as BOD5, TSS, pH and
flow.
The importance of proper sampling and analytical techniques are
explained.
iii
1
F&V SPNOFF/LAND DISPOSAL
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Industries
The fruit and vegetable industries are as varied as the name implies
- this industry processes in a number of ways the great variety of fruit
and vegetables grown in the United States.
The categories of processing
include canning, freezing, dehydrating, and pickling and brining.
The 1972
Census of Manufacturers indicates there are over 3000 establishments in

this SIC Code classification including 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2037 and
2038.
The Census also tabulated statistics showing that over 300,000
employees are employed by this industry.
The annual payroll in 1972
amounted to about $1.5 billion.

The value of products produced by this group of industries in 1972 was
over $15 billion.
The industries have plants all over the United States,
but California has the heaviest concentration of production of fruit and

vegetable products.
Water
Water in its pure state is a simple molecule consisting of two
hydrogen atoms attached to a single atom of oxygen. The greatest quantity
of water on this planet is in the oceans which contain 97.13% of the
supply.
The largest supply for human consumption exists as ground or
subsurface waters with an 0.612% of the supply. Only a relatively small

portion of the supply exists as surface water in lakes (0.009%) or streams
(0.0001%).
Most water pollution laws are designed to protect the water in
the streams, although newer legislation looks at the total water supply.
Legislation
Congress, on October 18, 1972, established PL 92-500, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This law was passed to
create a successful mechanism to control water pollution.
Authority was
granted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

establish a permit system including pollutant discharge limitations to help
2
abate water pollution.
In fact, the law, establishes a national goal to
eliminate pollutant discharges into navigable waters by 1985.

The limitations for industries were required to be established in
three parts.
First a set of effluent limitations reflecting the
application of the "best practicable control technology currently

available" (BPT) to be achieved by July 1, 1977. Second, limitations to be
achieved by July 1, 1983 reflecting the application of the "best available
technology economically achieveable" (BAT). Also, a set of effluent
limitations were to be established for all new sources based on the "best
available demonstrated technology."
Subsequently, Congress in 1977, passed
the Clean Water Act and EPA was required to replace BAT standards with
"best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT).
To assure that the effluent limitations and water quality standards
would be met, PL, 92-500 established the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).
Although the program was developed by and is
the responsibility of EPA, the various states have in most cases assumed
the responsibility for the NPDES program.
Industrial facilities that discharge to municipal systems were also
affected by PL 92-500.
User charges and industrial cost recovery (ICR)
were required of those industries in municipalities that receive federal

funds.
Also, effluent limitations were established for publicly owned
treatment works (POTWS).
These increased standards require more costly
treatment processes and these costs are passed on to the users, including
industrial discharges.
F&V SPNOFF/PROC PLANT SCHEMES
TYPICAL
FRUIT
AND
PROCESSING PLANT
VEGETABLE
SCHEMES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents some flow diagrams and process descriptions of
a few different fruit and vegetable commodities.
These flow charts will
give you a basic idea of the steps involved in processing fruit and vegetables.
Including flow charts for every fruit and vegetable commodity is
beyond the scope of this chapter.
The charts and accompanying texts were
taken from a publication by Soderquist.
GREEN BEANS
As shown in Figure 1, the green bean canning process involves an initial washing followed by grading, snipping of the ends, cutting, blanching,
canning and retorting.
The physical layout of a green bean processing plant
analyzed in the Soderquist study is presented in Figure 2.
The major con-
tributors to the total pollutant load were found to be the washing, grading,
and blanching processes.
CHERRIES
The Soderquist study investigated the processing of two different varieties of sweet cherries; Royal Anne and Lambert.
appears in Figure 3.
The processing layout
A comparison of Figures 4 and 5 reveals that the pro-
cessing methods for both varieties are similar.
PEARS
The plant layout for processing Bartlett pears appears in Figure 6.
The pollutional effects of two different types of mechanical peeling systems
were compared:
the older Ewald peelers, and the more modern contour peelers.
The Ewald peelers peel the fruit by slicing over a pre-set contour, while
the more modern contour model follows the individual contour of each pear,
abrading the peel and thereby increasing the yield of saleable product by as
much as 10%.
The study noted that the more modern peeler was decidedly in-
ferior to the Ewald peelers in terms of waste management.
5
6
8
Figure 6.
Physical configuration of pear processing.
9
Figure 7 depicts the pear canning process. After grading, the pears
are peeled and then flumed in a sodium chloride brine (which retards the
browning reaction on the peeled surface) to a fresh water rinsing tank for
removal of excess brine solution.
After rinsing, the pears are conveyed to
trimming tables where blemishes are removed. After trimming, any severely
disfigured pears are directed from the main process line to the "chopping"
area where they are processed for incorporation into secondary products.
CORN
TWO corn processing plants were studied; both plants produced frozen
whole kernel corn and frozen corn-on-the-cob.
The flow diagram depicting
the parallel corn processing lines in one plant appears in Figure 8. In

this figure, solid waste generation is indicated by the heavier arrows and
generation of liquid or waterborne wastes is indicated by the lighter arrows.
About 85% (by weight) of the total production from this plant was packed as
cut corn.
Fifteen percent of the total input remained on the cob.
As indicated in Figure 8 the first major unit operation in the process

was the air blower.
The blower was used to remove the loose material which
was received at the plant along with the raw product.
The waste material
from this operation was collected dry and used as silage. No liquid wastes
were generated at this point.
The second major unit operation was the mechanical husker. Here the
husks were removed and again the solid wastes were collected and used for
silage.
No liquid wastes were generated here either.
The third major unit operation involved in the corn process was the
de-silker, or "silker."
study.
Two types of silkers were in use at the time of the
One consisted of a large tumbler into which water was sprayed from
the inside.
The second silker was of the roller type. In this type, the
corn passed over a set of hard rubber rollers while it was being sprayed
from above.
Both types of silkers reused water which had been used in a
subsequent unit process; generally the water from the cooling operation was
reused in the silkers.
The steps described above were common to the cut corn process and onthe-cob process.
From this point on, it was necessary to consider separ-
ately the cut corn and corn-on-the-cob lines.

the corn was sorted.
After the silk was removed,
As mentioned before, about 85% (by weight) of the in-
coming raw product was shunted to the cut corn line.
The yield for cut corn
10
Figure 7.
Bartlett pear canning process diagram.
11
Figure 8.
On-the-cob and whole-kernel corn processing flow schematic.
12
was about 30% by weight.
Referring again to Figure 8, in the corn cutting operation the kernels
were mechanically removed and the cobs collected as solid waste.
Practically
no liquid waste was generated in the cutting operation during processing, but
considerable amounts of highly contaminated liquid wastes were generated
during the clean-up operation in the proximity of the cutter.
After being cut, the corn was blanched in a conventional steam blancher.
The only liquid waste generated at this point was the condensate. Following
blanching, the corn was sent to flotation washers. These washers removed unwanted material by encouraging it to float to the surface.
The overflow from
the tank carried the waste solids away.

After washing, the corn was transported by vacuum lines to large hoppers,
and from there, flumed to the freezing tunnel where it was dewatered, frozen,
and packaged.
The corn-on-the-cob was processed in a separate line after de-silking.
Following sorting it was steam blanched. After blanching, the cobs were
passed beneath a series of overhead sprays for cooling. Some of the corn at
this point was cut into uniform lengths and subjected to a second cooling
process before passing to carbon dioxide coolers. The cob ends resulting
from this trimming operation were collected as solid waste and used for silage.
The remainder of the corn, as indicated in Figure 8, passed directly
to the carbon dioxide coolers.

BLACKBERRIES
The Soderquist study observed one blackberry freezing plant in detail.
The flow diagram for the blackberry freezing process in that plant is shown
in Figure 9.
The berries arrived from the field in plastic crates or trays, each
tray holding about 15 pounds.
After the berries were dumped from the crates,
the crates were washed as shown in Figure 9.
After the crates were emptied,
the blackberries were passed through an air blower if the debris level in
the incoming product was sufficient to warrant using the blower. If the
berries were adequately clean and free of debris upon arrival at the plant,
the blower was not used.
The blower normally had to be used when the berries
had been mechanically harvested.
Conversely, it was normally not used when
the berries had been manually picked.

The next unit operation in the process was the washing step where the
13
Figure 9.
Blackberry freezing process schematic.
14
berries were subjected to a wash by overhead sprays. This washing constituted
the only point in the process where the product actually came into contact with
water.
Consequently, most of the plant waste load was generated at this
point.
After washing, the berries were inspected, sorted, and conveyed
mechanically to the freezing tunnel.
The conveyor belt was continuously
cleaned using a small water spray.

SUMMARY
The flow charts in this chapter are by no means meant to represent a
complete picture of all operations involved in processing various fruit and
vegetable products.
As you might imagine, processing schemes for many dif-
ferent commodities have some unit operations in common. There are on the
other hand, of course, many unit operations which are strictly commodityspecific.
The flow diagrams and texts offered here represent a small sampling of
the many and varied processing schemes that are associated with equally as
many different fruit and vegetable commodities.
Their value is in intro-
ducing you to some general processing layouts which comprise the processing
of fruits and vegetables.
References
1) Soderquist, M. R.
Wastewaters.
1975.
Characterization of Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University.
15
F&V SPNOFF/WW CHARACTERIZATION
W A S T E W A T E R
I N
T H E
C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N
F R U I T
P R O C E S S I N G
A N D
V E G E T A B L E
I N D U S T R I E S
Introduction
Whenever food, in any form, is handled, processed, packaged and
stored, there will always be an inherent generation of wastewater.
The
quantity of this processing wastewater that is generated and its general

quality (i.e., pollutant strength, nature of constituents), has both
economic and environmental consequences with respect to its treatability
and disposal.
The economics of the wastewater lie in the amount of product loss from
the processing operations and the cost of treating this waste material.
The cost for product loss is self evident, however, the cost for treating
the wastewater lies in its specific characteristics. Two significant
characteristics which dictate the cost for treatment are the daily volume
of discharge and the relative strength of the wastewater.
Other
characteristics become important as system operations are affected and

specific discharge limits are identified (i.e., suspended solids).
The environmental consequences i n not adequately removing the
pollutants from the waste stream can have serious ecological ramifications.
For example, if inadequately treated wastewater were to be discharged to a
stream or river, an eutrophic condition would develop within the aquatic
environment due to the discharge of biodegradable, oxygen consuming
compounds.
If this condition were sustained for a sufficient amount of
time, the ecological balance of the receiving stream, river or lake (i.e.,
aquatic microflora, plants and animals) would be upset.
Continual
depletion of the oxygen in these water systems would also result in the
development of obnoxious odors and unsightly scenes.
This chapter will deal with those industries who utilize the processes
of the canned and preserved fruits and vegetables industry to extend the
shelf life of raw commodities through the use of various preservation
methods including canning, freezing, dehydrating, and brining.
Fruit and
vegetable preservation generally includes the following unit operations:

cleaning and sorting, peeling, sizing, stabilizing and processing.
16
Fruit and vegetable processing plants are major water users and waste
generators.
Raw foods must be rendered clean and wholesome and food
processing plants must be sanitary at all times.

For the most part these wastes have been shown to be biodegradable,
although salt is not generally removed during the treatment of olive
storage and processing brines, cherry brines, and sauerkraut brines.
According to Standard Industrial Classifications of the fruit and
vegetable industries, the following industrial categories and subcategories
have been assigned: Note - the subcategories listed here are tentative
(1978).
The apple, citrus and potato processing segment of the industry has
been subcategorized as follows:
Designation
Subcategory
Apple Juice
Apple Products
Citrus Products
Frozen Potato Products
Dehydrated Potato Products
The above subcategorization does not include caustic peeled and

dehydrated apple products, and pectin and pharmaceuticals derived from
citrus products.
The remaining part of the industry has been tentatively
subcategoried, but is still subject to change. The tentative subcategorization is as follows:

Added ingredients
Apricots
Asparagus
Baby foods
Beets
Broccoli
Brussels sprouts
Cranberries, Blueberries
Carrots
Cauliflower
Cherries, sweet & sour
Cherries, brined
Corn
Corn chips
Cranberries
Dehydrated onions & garlic
Dehydrated vegetables
Dried fruits, prunes, figs

Dry beans, canned
Ethnic vegetables, Chinese &
Mexican
Grape pressing
Grape juice
Jams, jellies and preserves
Lima beans
Mayonnaise and salad dressings
Mushrooms
Olives
Onions (canned)
Peaches
Pears
Peas
Pickles, fresh pack
Pickles, process pack
17
Soups
Spinach/leafy greens
Strawberries
Sweet potatoes
Tomatoes, peeled
Tomato products
Tomato - starch cheese, canned
specialties
White potatoes, whole
Pimentos
Pineapples
Plums
Potato chips
Prune juice
Pumpkin and squash
Raisins
Sauerkraut, cutting
Sauerkraut, canning
Snap beans (green & wax)
Process
Description
In general, all subcategories have similar process operations as

follows.
Field to Plant
The crop is harvested, separated from "trash" (stems, leaves),
sorted, transported, and received at the plant.
No wastewaters are
generated.
Washing and Rinsing
Prior to processing the fruits and vegetables are washed and rinsed
by means of flumes, soak tanks, water sprays, flotation chambers, or any
combination of these methods.
Great quantities of water are used.
Detergents and ultrasonic techniques are also being tested for increased
cleaning efficiency.
Sorting (Grading)
The commodity is sorted and graded by mechanical, optical, manual or
hydraulic means.
Density graders employing brine of controlled density are
used to separate mature from over mature produce.
Weed seeds, chaff, and
stones may be separated by density and in froth separators.

Stemming, Snipping, Trimming
Steeming, snipping, and trimming are accomplished by a variety of
mechanical means. No wastewaters are generated.
18
In-Plant Transport
Various means have been adapted for conveying fruit or vegetable
products at unloading docks into and through the processing plant. These
include fluming, elevating, vibrating, screw conveying, air propulsion,
negative air conveying, hydraulic flow, and jet or air blasting. Water, in
one way or another, has been extensively used in conveying products within
plants because it has been economical in such use and because it serves not
only as conveyance but also for washing and cooling.
It has been traditional to consider water an economical means to
transport fruits and vegetables within a plant and to assume there was some
sanitary significance to such use, not only for the product, but also for
the equipment.
A significant disadvantage, however, may be leaching of
solubles from the product, such as sugars and acids from cut fruit; and
sugars and starch from cut corn, beets, and carrots.
Alternative systems
to decrease such losses from water have been investigated, such as

osmotically equivalent fluid systems.
Peeling
Many fruits and vegetables are peeled for processing. This serves
the multiple purpose of removing residual soil, pesticide residues, coarse,
fuzzy, or tough peeling with unpleasant appearance, mouth feel, or digestive properties.
Peeling is accomplished mechanically by cutting or abrasion; thermally
by puffing and loosening the peel-by application of steam, hot water, hot
oil flame, or blasts of heated air; or chemically, principally using
caustic soda (with optional surfactants) to soften the cortex so it may be
removed by mechanical scrubbers or high-pressure water sprays.
Pitting, Coring, Slicing and Dicing
Pitting, coring, slicing and dicing are accomplished by a variety of
mechanical techniques depending upon commodity used and end product
desired.
No wastewaters are generated.
Pureeing and Juicing

Widely varied techniques are used for pressing and separating fluid
from fruits and vegetables.
Equipment includes reamers and a wide variety
of crusher-presses, either batch or continuous in operation.
19
The oxygen and other gases (nitrogen, carbon dioxide) present in
freshly pressed or extracted fruit and vegetable juices may be effectively
removed by deaeration under vacuum.
The liquids to be deaerated are pumped
into an evacuated chamber either as a spray or as a thin film. Modern

deaerators operate at a vacuum of 29 inches or above. Deaeration properly
carried out not only improves color and flavor retention, but reduces
foaming during filling and also reduces separation of suspended solids.
In the concentration of solutions by evaporation, the liquid to be
concentrated continuously flows across a heat exchange surface which
separates it from the heating medium.
evaporators, including:
There are various types of
open kettles, shell-and-tube heat exchangers,
flash evaporators, rising and falling film evaporators, plate type

evaporators, thin-film centrifugal evaporators, vapor separators, vacuum
evaporators and heat pump evaporators.
The process involves heating the
product to evaporation and separating the vapors from the residual liquid.
Size Reduction
A wide range of size reduction equipment is required to produce
different types of particulated solids.
Selection of a machine which can
most economically product desired results is affected by physical characteristics of the material and by the required particle size and shape.
Blanching
Blanching (scalding or parboiling) of vegetables for canning,
freezing, or dehydration is done for one or more reasons: removal of air
from tissues; removal of solubles which may affect clarity of brine or
liquor; fixation of pigments; inactivation of enzymes; protection of
flavor; leaching of undesirable flavors or components such as sugars;
shrinking of tissues; raising of temperature; and destruction of microorganisms.
Blanching is accomplished by putting the products in contact with water
or steam.
In almost all cases for preparation of vegetables to be frozen,
it is imperative that the blancher processes be terminated quickly.

Consequently, some type of cooling treatment is used. Typically, if the
product has been water blanched, the vegetable is passed over a dewatering
20
screen and cooled either by cold water flumes or cold water sprays.
Product to be canned is usually not cooled after blanching.
The pollution loads from blanching are a significant portion of the
total pollution load in the effluent stream during the processing of
certain vegetables.
Canning
The sanitary codes of most states require that cans be washed before
being filled.
There are usually three steps in the can cleaning operation.
First, the cans travel a short distance in the inverted position; second,
they are flushed with a relatively large volume of water under high
pressure; and third, they travel another short distance in the inverted
position for the purpose of draining excess water. This is usually
accomplished mechanically.
The commodity is then filled into the can by hand, semiautomatic
machines, or fully automatic machines, depending on the product involved.
In some products, there is a mixture of product and brine or syrup. In
other cases, brine or syrup is added hot or cold as top-off liquid. When
the top-off is cold, it is necessary to exhaust the headspace gases to
achieve a vacuum and maintain product quality.
Exhausting in order to create a vacuum, is usually accomplished by one
of the three methods:
1.
Thermal exhaust or hot filling.
The contents of the container are
heated to a temperature of 160o to 18OoF, prior to closing the

container.
Contraction of the contents of the container after sealing
produces a vacuum.
2.
Mechanical.
A portion of the air in the container headspace is pumped
out by a gas pump.

3.
Steam displacement.
Steam is injected into the headspace to replace
the air, and sealed.
A vacuum is produced when the steam condenses.
Drying or Dehydration
Continuous belt dryers are the most commonly used method for dehydration.
They are usually long and multi-staged with baffled chambers
which blow heated and sometimes desiccated air from over and under the
bed-depth of the raw slices.
Residence time in this type of dryer is
21
usually ten to twenty hours, resulting in a product that has a finished
moisture content of no greater than 4.25 percent of onions or 6.0 percent
for garlic.
Post-Drying Operations
After dehydration the dried slices are usually screened, milled,
aspirated, separated, and ground in various mechanical combinations to
achieve the final desired piece size.
Mixing and Cooking
Certain commodities utilize additional ingredients in the manufacture of the finished products. For example, many frozen vegetables are
prepared with butter, cheese, cream sauce, sugar, starch and tomato sauce
added.
Equipment washouts and spills add an incremental waste load to the
total plant waste production.

Freezing
Freezing is accomplished in a tunnel freezer. The frozen commodity
is then inspected, sorted and sized prior to packing. The only waste loads
generated from this operation are from the clean-up operations and from
cooling water.
Clean-Up
Clean-up operations vary widely from plant to plant and from product
to product.
Normally the plant and equipment is cleaned at the end of the
shift, usually by washing down the equipment and floors with water. In
some plants it is desirable to maintain a continuous cleaning policy so
that end-of-shift clean-up is minimized.
Clean-up begins with a dry collection of wastes followed by a
washdown.
The washdown may be done with either water alone or with water
mixed with detergent.
Water is applied through either high-volume,
low-pressure hoses or low-volume, high-pressure hoses.

In some operations, such as the mayonnaise processing operation, clean
water is used to flush out the entire system at the end of the shift to
remove any residues which might harbor bacteriological growth. The water
used in clean-up operations generally flows through drains directly into
the wastewater system.
22
Wastewater
Characterization
Characteristics
Major wastewater characteristics of concern to the fruit and
vegetable industries are the wide ranges of wastewater volume and organic
strength generated.
The wastewater characteristics depend upon the
particular commodity being processed, the particular operation employed,

and daily and seasonal variations.
Treatment facilities must be designed
to handle large volumes intermittently. Citrus wastes are highly

putrescible and contain pectic substances which interfere with the
settling of suspended solids.
Pollutant parameters of significance to the fruit and vegetable
processing wastewaters are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS).
These parameters dictate the level of waste treatment
required and define the limitations of the permit to discharge to a tributary stream (NPDES) or a municipal sewer (Sewer Use Ordinance).
These
parameters can be defined by monitoring the plant's processing flow.

Sampling
Of equal importance is the problem of obtaining a truly representative sample of the stream of effluent.
The samples may be required not
only for the 24 hr effluent loads, but to determine the peak load
concentrations, the duration of peak loads and the occurrence of variation
throughout the day.
Assuming that a sample can be taken from the effluent
drain which will be representative of the liquid in the weir or flume,

there are a number of different ways of obtaining a 24 hr composite.
(a) A time-proportional method, which involves taking a sample at a
set time interval, e.g., every 1 min, or every 30 min; the greater the
frequency of sampling, the more representative will be the sample;
(b) A volume proportional method, in which a small sample is taken
from the drain after a known volume, e.g., 1000 1, has passed through the
flow measuring device;
(c) A flow proportional method, in which a sample is taken from the
drain at a particular time but proportional to the flow passing the
particular device at the time the sample is taken; and
(d) A combination method, in which the sample is taken proportional to
both time and volume.
23
Obtaining good results will depend upon certain details. Among these are
the following:
(a) Insuring that the sample taken is truly representative of the
wastestream.
(b) Using proper sampling techniques.
(c) Protecting the samples until they are analyzed.
The first of these requirements, obtaining a sample which is truly
representative of the wastestream, may be the source of significant errors.
This is especially apparent in the case of "grab" or non-composited
samples.
It must be remembered that waste flows can vary widely both in
magnitude and composition over a 24-hour period.
Also, composition can
vary within a given stream at any single time due to a partial settling of
suspended solids or the floating of light materials.
Because of the lower
velocities next to the walls of the flow channel, materials will tend to
deposit in these areas.
Samples should therefore be taken from the
wastestream where the flow is well mixed.
Since suitable points for
sampling in sewer systems are limited, numerous ideal locations are not
usual.
The usual method for accounting for variations in flow and waste
constituents and minimizing the analytical effort is by compositing the
samples.
Basically, sufficient samples should be taken so that, when mixed
together (before analysis), the results which are obtained will be similar
to taking a sample from a completely-mixed tank which had collected all the
flow from the stream in question.
Greater accuracy is obtained if the
amount of sample in the composite is taken in proportion to the flow. In

general, the greater the frequency of samples taken for the composite, the
more accurate the results.
Obtaining a representative sample should be of major concern in a
monitoring program.
A thorough analysis of the waste flows in the plant
must be made and a responsible staff member should be assigned to insure

that the samples taken are representative. As a general rule, closer
attention must be given to waste sampling than in the sampling of a
manufacturing process stream.
In many process operations, the wastes are pumped from sumps within
the plant before the liquid goes into settling tanks. Where a liquid is
being pumped through a pipe, flow monitoring and sampling are often
24
simplified, for in most cases the variations in pumping rate are minor
and can either be calculated from the pump curves, or by calibrating pumps.
Sampling under these systems involves using time-operated solenoid valves
which open for a brief interval every minute or so.
The timers should be
attached to the pump motors so that samples are taken only when the
effluent is being pumped.
Once the samples have been obtained, analysis procedures should be
initiated as soon as practical.
Table 1 summarizes the recommended storage
procedure for specific analysis.

Process Waste Point Sources
Figure 10 presents a simplified process flow diagram for both a
fruit and vegetable process line.
Major wastewater generation occurs
during the washing steps and at plant clean-up as noted by the heavy
arrows.
Because of the variation in wastewater characteristics found
throughout the fruit and vegetable industries, an attempt has been made to
group the commodity oriented industry according to BOD strength of the
wastewater.
Table 2 gives the raw waste characteristics for this
industry.
The table has been grouped by the following formula:
Group I
- Commodities with BOD less than 500 mg/l
Group II
- Commodities with BOD between 500-1000 mg/l
Group III - Commodities with BOD between 1000-2000 mg/l

Group IV - Commodities with BOD between 2000-3000 mg/l
Group V
- Commodities with BOD between 3000-5000 mg/l
Group VI
- Commodities with BOD greater than 5000 mg/l
Loading Factors and Their Estimates

It is a well established fact that a given volume or quantity of
production will have a direct effect on the level of waste generated.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 present data gathered by the U. S. and Canadian federal
environmental protection agencies as a result of plant surveys conducted
for the fruit and vegetable industry.
In the use of these tables, one can only develop a gross estimate of
the loading factors for a given commodity operation. It should be emphasized that these tables should not be used as a substitute for an actual
plant survey of sufficient duration to establish the loading factors based
on actual production.
25
Table 1.
Recommended Storage Procedure.
26
Figure 10.
Food Plant process flow diagram (Fruit and Vegetables).
28
29
NOTE;
* The BOD5 loadings for small and large fruit/vegetable processing

plants are low because the commodity mix indicates
that tomatoes comprise of the bulk of the processing, and the
average unit BOD5 loadings for tomatoes is comparitively lower
at 4.7 kg/t.
31
References
CH2M Hill, Corvallis, Oregon. 1976. Wastewater Treatment - Pollution
Abatement in the Fruit and Vegetable Industry. Prepared for Food
Processors Institute and Sponsored by Office of Technology Transfer,
Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 1976.
Wastewater and Its Treatment.
Grants Programs.
Published by EPA, Construction
Environmental Protection Agency Technical Transfer
Series (EPA-43-9-76-017c), Vol. III, Appendix 8.

Mulyk, P. A. and A. Lamb. 1977.
Inventory of the Fruit and Vegetable
Processing Industry in Canada - A report for Environment Canada,

Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
32
F&V SPNOFF/CONTROL OF WATER & WW
CONTROL OF WATER AND WASTEWATER

IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROCESSING
INTRODUCTION
Water is an absolute necessity in most fruit and vegetable process ing
operations, and by practicing its conservation and reuse, the amount of liquid waste from these operations can be reduced.
Until recently, little con-
sideration has been given to water reuse because it was cheap and relatively
abundant; reuse was considered hazardous because of bacterial contamination.
This chapter is divided into three major parts. The first portion presents some basic concepts related to controlling water and wastewater.
The
second section presents some case studies which examine various water and
wastewater control methods that have been applied to the processing of several different fruit and vegetable commodities.
The third section explores
reuse and recycling methods in more detail, and presents some commodityspecific information on by-product recovery and use.
CONTROL
OF
WATER
AND
WASTEWATER
SOME
CONCEPTS
The type of waste management system suitable for a food processing operation will depend upon:
the characteristics of the waste
the location of the processing plant
the degree of waste treatment required
available points of discharge for the treated liquid wastes
and for the collected solid wastes.
As with almost all industrial waste situations, a unique waste management
solution may exist for each operation.
One of the first and best approaches to devising a fruit or vegetable
processing waste management system is to investigate the opportunities for
in-field and in-plant modifications.
Let's Took at some of these in-plant
and in-field techniques that help decrease wastewater strength and reduce
water use.
These techniques include:
Using harvesting equipment that allows more of the stems,

leaves and culled material to remain in the field.
Washing and/or partially processing the crop in the field
to allow return of any residue to the land,

Using air blowers and water-filled flotation tanks to remove debris from the crop.
Modifying peeling and pitting operations to use less water
and waste less of the raw product.
Recovering and reusing process water through the plant.
Separating waste process streams at their sources for potential by-product use.
Separate waste treatment and disposal of wastes with
differing characteristics.
A nationwide study of the preserved fruits and vegetables processing
industry was conducted in 1974.About 500 processing plants were visited in
the course of this study. Certain unit processes and/or technologies were
readily identified as having an impact on reducing raw waste loads. Some of
these were:
Separation of low and high strength waste streams
Installation of low-volume high-pressure clean-up systems
Dry in-plant transport of products
Countercurrent reuse of wash/flume/cooling waters
Dry handling of solid wastes
Dry caustic peeling
Change-over from water to steam blanching (where possible)
Air cooling after blanching
An active and progressive waste management program.
Two major streams contribute wastewater flows in a food processing
plant:
1)
Water used in processing the product
2)
Water used for cooling.
Water conservation is practical in today's plants and can be practiced by

the use of low-volume high-pressure sprays for plant clean-up, elimination
of excess overflow from water supply tanks , use of automatic shut-off valves
on water lines, and use of mechanical conveyors to replace the old style of
water-gobbling flumes.
Reusing cooling water in counter-flow schemes to
wash the incoming raw fruits or vegetables is an example of a separation and

reuse technique.
Another water conservation method is the closed loop system for certain
processing units, such as a hydrostatic cooker-cooler used for canned products.
The water is reused continuously; fresh makeup water is added only
to offset the minor losses from evaporation. Closed loop systems not only
34
conserve water but also reclaim heat and can result in significant economic
savings.
Eliminating water in certain unit operations in turn eliminates attendant problems of treating the wastewaters which were generated by those
operations.
Wherever possible, food should be handled by either a mechani-
cal belt or pneumatic dry conveying systems.
If possible, an air system in-
stead of a water system should be used for cooling the products.
Studies
comparing hot air blanching of vegetables with conventional hot water blanching showed that both the product and environmental quality were improved
by using air.
Blanching is used to deactivate enzymes and produces a very
strong liquid waste when the hot water technique is used.
In a pea proces-
sing operation, for example, this small volume of wastewater is estimated to

be responsible for 50% of the plant's entire BOD wasteload; for corn, the
estimate is 60%; and for beets with peelings, 80%. Preliminary results have
shown a reduced pollution load, while simultaneously providing a product
quality improvement in terms of nutrient, vitamin and mineral content.
Segregating wastes within a plant can be important in optimizing the
least-cost approach to waste treatment.
For example in a typical brewery,
3% of the flow contains 59% of the plant's BOD load.
It is usually less ex-
pensive to treat this small flow separately than to mix it with the entire
plant waste flow, and then attempt to treat this much larger volume.
Other modifications to food processing operations for waste product
separation become apparent when a mass balance is conducted at a plant and
when by-product utilization opportunities are available. The development of
dry caustic potato and fruit peeling methods has reduced both the volume and
strength of wastes from these operations.
A waste survey of a food process-
ing facility, including a water balance and mass balances of product, BOD,
solids, and nutrients can reveal other opportunities for in-plant waste management modifications.
It has been determined that by controlling the pH of fruit fluming
waters using additions of citric acid, it is possible to reduce the flume
water volume without risk of increasing the size of the bacterial population,
thereby avoiding contamination.
A pH of 4.0 will maintain optimum conditions
with cut fruit such as peaches.
This technique not only reduces the total
volume of water required and therefore the amount of wastewater discharged,

but also increases the product yield by decreasing the loss of solids from
sugar and acids which would otherwise have leached from the fruit. Consequently, there is a reduction in the total pounds of organic pollutants

appearing in the wastewater.
Still another advantage offered by this process
is the improved flavor and color of the canned fruit due to better retention
of soluble solids.
Many factors determine the final effectiveness of proper water use. For
example, tomatoes spray-washed on a roller belt where they are turned over
are almost twice as clean as the same tomatoes washed on a belt of wire mesh
construction.
Also, warm water is about 40% more effective in removing con-
taminants than the same volume of cold water.

The last major source of liquid wastes is the washing of equipment,
utensils and cookers, as well as washing of floors and food preparation areas.
The wastewater from clean-up periods is likely to contain a large concentration of caustic, thus increasing the pH above the level experienced during
processing.
Use of waste monitoring equipment such as temperature recorders, conductivity measurements, flow measurement devices, and turbidity measurements can
be used toconduct mass balances at a processing plant, and to pinpoint potential improvements in processing operations.
Such waste production indices
can be used to measure the performance of both management and production workers. By using these techniques, waste handling costs can be reduced, water
conservation and reuse can be enhanced, and savings of raw materials may
result.
Proper management of processing wastes requires consideration of individual operations from harvest through waste disposal as integrated subunits
of the total process.
Every effort should be made to eliminate wastes and
to avoid bringing wastes from the harvesting fields into the processing plant.
Where possible, preprocessing should be done directly in the field to permit
the return of organic materials to the land,
Remember that in water reuse schemes, a delicate balance exists between
water conservation and sanitation.
There is no straightforward or simple
formula to obtain the least water use.
Each case and each process scheme has
to be evaluated in terms of the equipment used in order to arrive at a satisfactory procedure for maintaining product quality while reducing wastage and
water use.
SOME
CASE
STUDIES
The previous section outlined some concepts and the general techniques
which can put those concepts into practice.
This section presents various
36
methods for controlling water and wastewater in commodity-specific processes.
CARROT
WASH
PROCESSING
WATER
MODIFICATIONS
RFCYCLING
Washing soil from root vegetables requires a lot of water. One large
fresh carrot supplier in California used about 4,000 gal/min of wash water
in the course of processing 500 T carrots/day the year round.
Because
of
short supplies of water and expensive waste disposal, wash water recycling
became attractive.
The continuous water recycling system is described below
and depicted in Figure 11.

Two settling ponds, each 60' by 150', serve as surge reservoirs.
From
here, water is pumped for use in fluming the carrots. The flume water is
used for flushing the carrots from the trucks.
the field soil.
This flushing removes 90% of
Carrots go through a brush washer, and then through sorting
stations, where small sizes and misshapen carrots are removed as culls. The
desired sizes are hydrocooled, then sent through a second brush washer, Potable water is sprayed over the carrots in the final section.
Part of the flume water is pumped through a patented, cylindrical, solids-liquid separator.
Here, water enters an annular space at the top; flow
velocities decrease as solids are spun inward through orifices toward the
center, rather than outward as in conventional cone-shaped cyclone separators.
The cleaned water exits at the top; solids settle to the bottom where they
are continuously flushed out and returned to the settling pond. Trash is
screened out through a stationary curved screen separator before entering
the four centrifugal separators.
Flow through the four separators is 2OO-300
gpm total.
Water in the hydrocoolers and in the final sprays is chlorinated at 100
ppm.
Chlorination of these flows, which cycle through the ponds, keeps the
reservoirs, flumes, and equipment free of bacterial, fungal or algal growth.

RESULTS
ACHIEVED
The low-cost self-installed recycling system just described, effectively

recycles all wash and flume water, excepting a small amount sprayed during
final rinse, and the water carried out with the product. The system requires
no extra energy except that for handling a pressure drop of about 8 psi to
pump the water through the centrifugal separators, Separators remove 98% of
37
Figure 11.
Carrot wash water recycling system.
38
the soil particles sized 44 microns (325 screen size) or larger. The best
result of all is that there is no waste to treat.
IN-PLANT
CHANGES
RESCUE
CARROT
PROCESSOR
Plant "A" processes frozen carrots.
The plant operates on a typical
schedule of 5 days per week, 10 to 11 months each year.
Normal production
is set for two shifts per day with additional clean-up time as needed.
Average throughput is about 8 raw tons per hour.
Figure 12 shows the typical flow diagram that plant A followed before
any process modifications were made.
Carrots were delivered in bins either
directly from the fields or from a sorting shed. They were washed, trimmed,
conventionally lye peeled and diced or sliced.
Blanching was accomplished
in a water blancher; post blanch cooling was also accomplished using water.
Water use was high, approaching a daily average consumption of 1.5 mgd; BOD
levels were correspondingly high, averaging about 2,400 mg/l.
This plant, landlocked by city growth, was already paying a surcharge
for its effluent disposal to the municipal waste treatment system. The city
recognized that expanded treatment facilities were needed to accommodate industrial users.
So, the city proposed tentative revisions in its surcharge
system which if adopted, would cause monthly rates to approach $4,000.

At this point, plant A's managers decided to institute changes in the
form of capital investments.
When designing the plant modifications, the
engineers considered each waste contributing process within the processing

scheme. Figure 13 shows the results of these efforts; Table 6 records the
benefits gained.
CARROT
WASHING
Water used to wash the incoming carrots had previously been combined
with the main plant effluent stream.
However, observation and testing of
this stream indicated that its chief components were sand and dirt, some
field debris, and occasional carrot particles. Because of the plant's location, it was decided that this stream should be isolated from the streams
with higher waste concentrations and discharged separately under an NPDES
permit.
A double screening system was installed (not shown on diagram) to
remove various solid particles from the waste stream.
This not only lower-
ed the suspended and settleable solids but also, in part, contributed to reducing the BOD discharge.
Freezer defrost water was also diverted to merge
39
Figure 12.
Original flow, carrot processor "A".
40
Figure 13.
Modified flow, carrot processor "A".
41
Table 6.
0.35
MGD
Carrot Process "A".
discharqed
under
NPDES
Parameter Differences
permit, 0.25 MGD to city
42
with this stream.

The effect of this separation should not be underestimated.
These two components are responsible for about 60% of the total plant flow about 350,000 gallons per day.
The alternative discharge of this large water
volume to a municipal waste treatment system would have been extremely expensive.
PEELING
The peeling process was identified as the main source of BOD and SS generation.
The water required for peel removal was a substantial percentage of
the plant's total effluent.
A new lye peeler (ferris wheel type) was pur-
chased and installed.

The conventional high-pressure water lye peel removal system was replaced
with a Magnuscrubber.
a holding tank.
The resulting peel waste slurry was pumped directly to
Ultimately this waste fraction is disposed of in sanitary
landfill.
In addition to 'the water use and BOD reductions expected, the equipment
modifications just described were responsible for improving finished product
recoveries for both sliced and diced carrots,
These increased yields were a
direct result of the new peel removal system.
Plant personnel also noticed a
reduction in caustic soda consumption.

DRY
SOLIDS
HANDLING
The engineers working on process modifications recognized that every

attempt should be made to stop the introduction of solid wastes into the effluent stream.
The original plant flow allowed for trimmings and solid waste
to be flushed into gutters, followed by final screening before discharge to

the city sewer system.
This allowed for additional leaching of soluble sol-
ids and was, in part, responsible for the plant's high BOD. To overcome this
problem, a separate series of dry solids conveyors were installed to transport trimming table and other wastes directly to outside bins. Plant managers also made a concerted effort to instruct plant employees on proper
methods of handling solid waste.
BLANCHING
As shown in Figure 12, this plant had used a hot water blancher for years.
Water blanchers, however, have been shown to be major sources of water pollution.
Leaching solids, continuous spillage and overflow, all contribute
43
heavily to a plant's BOD and SS loads.
The waste stream from the water blan-
cher was not only concentrated, but was of substantial volume.
So, the old
water blancher was removed and a steam blancher was installed. Now the only
effluent from this unit process is a highly concentrated l-2 gpm condensate.
The effect on total BOD and SS load has been considerably lessened, yet the
desirable product quality characteristics have been retained.
COOLING
Similarly, post blanch hydrocooling, necessary to prepare carrots for
freezing and to optimize freezer efficiencies, was found to contribute to the
plant's effluent load.
The conventional hydrocooling system was replaced
with an ambient air cooler.
Working on a fluidized bed principle, the pro-
duct leaves the blancher and is blown and vibrated over perforated screens
by the action of air jets blowing through and upward to contact the product.
The action of the air and the mechanical vibrations of the screen move the
product across the screen during which time the required cooling gradient is
achieved.
Using air eliminates almost all water contact after blanching ex-
cept for one or two fine water sprays between the blancher and cooler.
Water
use at this stage was estimated at no more than 2 gal/min.

CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
The plant estimated that their total expenditures for all the improvements and modifications amounted to about $90,000. Although no attempt was
made to calculate paybacks on investment capital, it can be seen in Table 6
that savings accrued due to reduced discharged volume and pounds of pollutants sent to the city waste treatment system accounts for about $42,000 per
year.
If one were to add a monetary value to the increased yeilds obtained,
the investment would become even more attractive. The changes just described
were documented in a study by LaConde and Schmidt (1976).
DRY
CAUSTIC
PEELING
Of the unit operations in the processing of fruits and vegetables which

use water and generate waste, the most notable for magnitude of water use and
waste generation is the peeling operation.
Whether product peeling is by
water, steam, caustic, or a combination of these, the operation has always

generated a liquid waste troublesome because of its volume, organic load, and

pH value.
For example, approximately 40 percent of the BOD from peach can-
ning comes from the peeling operation.

In recent years interest in dry peeling of fruits and vegetables has
increased because of the impact that this process has on reducing water pollution.
As a result of this interest, equipment manufacturers have explored
developing machinery for such peeling processes. This section will present
the waste and water reduction results that have been achieved by using such
processes.
TOMATOES AND PEACHES
Tomatoes, clingstone peaches and potatoes are the principal target"
commodities at which dry caustic peeling efforts have been aimed. The peeling machine is basically designed to gently remove the peel from soft fruits
and vegetables without using water, and to collect the peel waste residue so
that it does not enter the plant's wastewater effluent. This is done by collection, haulage, and separate disposal of concentrated peeling wastes.
To gently wipe away peel softened by caustic, the machine uses very thin
soft rubber discs.
These rubber discs are placed on rotating cylindrical
rolls arranged in a circular revolving cage containing a feed screen through

the center.
The fruit moves parallel to the roll axis and perpendicular to
the surfaces of the roll discs.
The soft, moving disc surfaces provide gen-
tle, thorough scrubbing much like wiping the fruit with the palms of the
hands.
The feed rate is accurately controlled by the central screw conveyor.
A final rinse to remove the last traces of peel and caustic is the only fresh
water used.
During an EPA demonstration grant with the Del Monte Corp.,
water use in the peeling operation was reduced from 850 gal water/ton peaches
to 90 gal water/ton peaches by using the dry peeling process.
In conventional peeling, the peel is pre-softened by contact with dilute sodium hydroxide and then removed from the peach using large volumes of
fresh potable water that comprise high-pressure sprays. Water from this
peeling operation therefore contains essentially all of the removed peel.
Dry caustic peeling in which mechanical rubbing is used to remove the
softened peel was originally developed for the potato processing industry;
however, peeling softer fruit such as peaches required the development of
the new process just described.
Peeling is the largest single source of waste from fruit processing,
accounting for as much as 10 percent of the total wastewater flow and 40
percent of the total biochemical oxygen demand.
45
The dry caustic peeling process also allows for collection of the peel
as a pumpable slurry.
This slurry may have potential value as an animal
supplement or in reclaiming marginal farm land, Because the peel is not

carried in the wastewater flow, the total organic and suspended solids loading of the wastewater from the peeling process is reduced by about 60 percent.
Peach quality was judged to be equal to that of conventionally peeled peaches.
The most striking result of the commercial tests of the dry caustic
peeler is the 90 percent reduction in water use as compared to the conventional caustic peeler.
imately 60 percent.
Significant pollution parameters can be reduced by approxTable 7 illustrates the average wastewater volumes and
pollution loadings for each process, based on 24-hour composite samples taken
on each of the 21 days of the demonstration period.
Table 8 sununarizes the characteristics of the peach peel solid wastes.
The relatively high pH of the slurry and the low pH of the rinse water indicate that most of the caustic is removed with the peel.
A commercial dry caustic peeler has also been operated successfully on
freestone peaches.
There is additional economic incentive for use on free-
stone (as opposed to clingstone) peaches, since the mechanical action of the
wiper effectively removes bruises and decreases the higher cost of hand inspection associated with freestone peaches.
After having tested dry caustic peeling on peaches, Magnuson Engineers,
Inc. decided to try the process on tomatoes. They established that a dry
caustic peeling machine they designed would also very effectively peel caustically-treated tomatoes.
Tomatoes peel very differently from peaches. Much stronger caustic solutions are required and caustic-compatible wetting agents must be used.
While the tomato surface beneath the skin is attacked by the caustic, the
skin itself remains intact and dislodges as sheets of tissue.
Other types
of tomato peelers have difficulty in thoroughly removing this peel tissue

because it tends to transfer from tomato to tomato, or from tomato to equipment and back to another tomato.
Water sprays are generally used to try to
flush away these skins and hand labor is required to finish the skin removal.
The dry caustic peeler that has been used on peeling tomatoes removes
substantially 100% of the peel at capacities of 8 to 10 tons per hour without using any wash water.
This method has eliminated nearly all of the hand
labor required to remove the peel. About one gal/min of "lubrication"

water is used in the machine.
46
Table 7.
Comparison of the Average Liquid Effluent from the Del Monte Dry
Caustic Demonstration Project with Conventional Caustic Peeling
47
BOD
REDUCTION
In both the tomato and peach peeling operations, the dry caustic peeler
collects and delivers a full strength, essentially undiluted peel waste sludge.
Since the peel waste is a major source of BOD, it is highly desirable to keep
this peel waste out of a plant's wastewater.
Smith (1976) cited a 1974 study
that discovered that peel wastes accounted for 60% of the total plant BOD
load in a peach cannery and 35% of the total BOD load in a tomato cannery.
The plants comprising that study were generally typified by California processing methods.
Food processors now recognize that removing BOD loads from
wastewater is very expensive, both in terms of the plant investment for wastewater treatment facilities and the facilities' operating costs.
It is now
widely acknowledged that preventing wastes from entering the plant effluent
is an excellent method for precluding wastewater treatment costs.
This is
especially true in seasonal operations where expensive wastewater treatment

facilities would be used for only two or three months per year.
INCREASED
PRODUCT
RECOVERY
Smith (1976) also noted that a California tomato processor who was using
four dry peeling machines reported an increased product recovery of 2.5 cases
per ton.
This product recovery was attributed to the reduction in product
losses made possible by the dry peeling units. The same processor also noticed a 44.7% reduction in the amount of caustic consumption as a result of
installing the dry peelers.
Such savings were possible because the mechani-
cal wiping action of the-rubber discs can do an effective job while exposing
the tomatoes to less caustic.
This product savings of course, means less
product loss in the spent caustic solution.
Similarly, since water washing
is not used during peel removal, the loss of tomato solids which in conventional peelers are normally carried away by the wastewater, is eliminated.
SOME
BY-PRODUCT
POSSIBILITIES
Now that the mechanics of dry caustic peeling have been proven, much
attention is being focused on the handling and disposal of peel waste sludge.
So far, this sludge has been disposed of by spreading on land; sometimes it
has been spread on pasture land where cattle are feeding.
As this sludge material becomes available in greater quantities, possible uses for it will arise.
Brandy manufacture is one possible outlet.
Tomato peel waste offers promise for use as a by-product. The peel
48
waste has a higher solids content than pureed whole tomatoes, because it is
made up entirely of material from the outer cell walls of the tomatoes. This
material is the most highly colored portion of the tomato, so it is very high
in desirable red pigment.
Of course, the material contains caustic (NaOH),
but this can be neutralized with hydrochloric acid (HCl) and converted to
common table salt (NaCl) and water.
Salt is usually added to tomato products
anyway, so it's very likely that the tomato peel fraction can be processed
into high quality tomato products for human consumption.
LEAFY-GREENS
WASH
WATER
RECYCLE
Industries that process leafy vegetables use large volumes of water,

mainly during four unit operations:
washing
blanching
cooling
transporting product.
Three types of washers are most commonly used in commercial operations: immersion, spray-belt, and rotary-spray.
Estimates of wash water requirements
per unit weight of product range from 50% of the total water requirement of
3 to 5 gal/lb necessary for complete processing, to 73% of a total 1.1 to
1.5 gal/lb cited elsewhere for complete processing requirements.
One obvious way to conserve water in a greens-washing operation is to
modify the system in some way to-permit recycling of the wash water itself.
Of course the chief concern is that the recycled water be of good enough
quality throughout the period of use to insure against degradation of the
product quality beyond acceptable limits.
To learn more about effects of water recycling on product quality, two
full-scale, immersion-type washers that would permit wash water recycling
during greens-washing operations, were designed and evaluated in a study
whose description follows.
The washers' performances were monitored during five trials, four when
collard greens were being processed and one when spinach was being processed.
THE
PROCESS
DESCRIPTION
Two washers were designed to wash 4,000 lbs of product per hour. The
bottoms were comprised of three sections, each V-shaped to facilitate the
49
collection and removal of grit when the washers were drained,
The maximum
depth in each washing tank was 3 ft., and the nominal capacity of each was
688 gallons.
Water from each washer was recycled through separate settling
tanks whose nominal capacities were 718 gallons.

Both washers were identical and were operated in series. Each was
equipped at the input end with three banks of sprayers (4 nozzles each); one
bank placed at water level and two above the incoming product. One of the
overhead banks of sprayers was later taken out of service in order to maintain high pressure on the nozzles while reducing the overall recirculation
rate from 200 gpm (757 l/min) to about 125 gpm (473 l/min). This change was
necessary because it was discovered that the washer drain system and the return sump-pump could not handle the larger flow.
As product entered, it was spread out and vigorously agitated by the
sprayers, and pushed toward the first of three center-mounted, paddle wheels
covered with flattened expanded metal.
The three revolving paddle-wheel
drums propelled the product through the washer, alternately submerging and
releasing it. Insects and leaf fragments floated to the surface inside each
drum while the product was submerged, while water, forcefully dispensed
through a stationary bank of three spray nozzles (positioned inside each
drum), prevented leaves from becoming entangled in the expanded metal covering and provided additional cleaning. An exit conveyor - - made of an openmesh, plastic belting with flights every 2 ft - - carried product out of each
washer.
Water and floating trash that collected inside the rotating drums flowed
out of the washers through surface side-drains into a trough leading to a box
containing a submersible sump-pump.
This pump forced water into the settling
tanks through a moving-belt filter made of polyester screen that trapped

trash and carried it to a collection box.
Streams of compressed air at the
end of the conveyor were directed upward through the belt across its width to
force trash into the collection box.
The nominal capacity of each settling
tank was 718 gal, and provided a detention time of about 7 min for grit to
settle when the recirculation rate was 100 gpm.
Fresh, chlorinated water was added to the system at only one point: the
second settling tank.
first settling tank.
The overflow was carried through an H-flume into the

The volume in excess of that required to make up for
losses in each washer, caused by carry-over on the product, was discharged as

waste from the first settling tank through a second H-flume.
Flow meters
were installed to allow monitoring of fresh-water input and recirculation
50
rates, which could be controlled by opening or closing gate valves through
each washer-settling tank system.
The H-flumes were equipped with continu-
ous stage recorders and were calibrated so that depth of flow through the
flumes could be converted to volume flow rates.
The researchers concluded that the experimental washing system, as a
whole, performed well during the four trials using collards and the one
using spinach.
While the quality of the water as it was recycled through
the washers did deteriorate as more and more greens were processed, cleaning
of the greens while they passed through the system was always evident. Reduction of bacterial population densities on the greens were observed in all
five trials, probably because chlorine residuals were maintained at high
levels and because of a detergent action in the wash water induced by dissolved organic compounds leached from the vegetables.
Conclusions from this study were:
1)
Most of the actual cleaning of product occurred in the

first washer and settling basin; an average of 71% of
organic and inorganic wastewater constituents were present in the-first washer and settling basin.
2) The settling tanks were effective in removing small

particles such as silt and fine sand. In one trial when
sufficient grit for analysis was recovered, 63 percent
of the total was found in settling tank No. 1. Washer
No. 1 collected the most of the fine and medium sand (12
percent of the total weight of grit collected). Differences in total suspended solids concentrations in the
wash water from the head to the back of a settling tank
did not accurately reflect the actual solids removal
that occurred.
3) There were distinct differences in final wash water quality when different cuttings of collards were processed,
the differences most probably being a function of product maturity.
4) The water-usage rate in the experimental system, was, on
the average, 15.6 gal/min (59.0 l/min), which is 77 percent less than that used by the conventional commercial
washers. Water use per unit product was an average of
only 0.56 gal/lb (4.66 l/kg) compared to an estimated
usage of 1.5-2.5 gal/lb (12.5-20.8 l/kg) by conventional
equipment.
5) The average chemical concentrations of the wash water
being discharged from the system at the end of the trials were high, both in organic and inorganic suspended
solids. When collards were washed, the organic suspended solids were concentrated at 110 mg/l while the inorganic suspended solids were at concentrations of 61
mg/l. When spinach was washed, organic suspended solids
concentrations rose to 632 mg/l, and inorganic suspended
51
solids concentrations occurred at concentrations of 57
mg/l. The magnitudes of the solids concentrations probably reflect the fact that there was considerable turbulence in the settling tanks because of the high recirculation rates within the system, and because the lighter
particulates (clay and small leaf fragments, e.g,) did
not settle well.
6) The average concentrations of COD and BOD5 in waste water
being discharged from the system at the end of the trials
were similar to those in weak municipal sewage. When
collards were processed, COD values averaged 356 mg/l and
BOD values average 80 mg/l. When spinach was washed, COD
values averaged 211 mg/l while BOD values averaged 46 mg/l.
7)
Concentrations of both organic and inorganic compounds in

wash water were much lower than those reported in another
study, as were the waste loads generated per unit weight
of product processed. The best agreement of data between
the two studies was for total suspended solids. The other
study's values for organic waste loads (COD and BOD, lb/
ton) were from 5 to 6 times higher than those calculated
in this study.
8) Recirculation of wash water in immersion-type, leafy-green

washing systems is a promising modification of existing
processing methods for reducing water consumption and concentrating waste loads so that they can be more easily
treated.
INDIVIDUAL
QUICK
BLANCHING
(IQB)
Preparing vegetables for preservation by canning, freezing, or dehydration results in large volumes of high-strength organic waste streams. For
the purpose of reducing total plant effluent and BOD, attention has been
focused on the blanching operation.
Blanching serves several purposes in-
cluding:
removing tissue gasses
inactivating or activating enzymes
reducing microbial load
cleaning the product
wilting the tissue to facilitate packing.
These objectives are accomplished by heating the vegetables in either hot
water or steam.
Both hot water and steam blanching produce liquid wastes
high in BOD, and both result in loss of water soluble nutrients, A report
based on a study of two Wisconsin canning plants stated that a 90% reduction
in blancher effluent volume would reduce total plant waste flow by 10 to 20%,
52
and would reduce total plant BOD production by 20 to 50%. In an effort to
approach
these
reductions, a study was made to design a blanching process
which would produce a wastewater flow of 10% of that from a commercial hot
water
blancher.
The project resulted in a new concept of heating foods and
the application to blanching was demonstrated. The process, individual

quick blanch (IQB), was used as a precanning process, and the results of
that study are presented here.
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION
The IQB unit used in the study consisted of two insulated chests, one
heated by direct steam and the other heated indirectly. The IQB's capacity
was about 300 lbs/hr.
The product, taken from the process line just prior
to entering the conventional pipe blancher, was distributed in a single layer

on a mesh belt moving through the steam chamber.
The residence time in the
chamber allowed the mass average temperature of the product to reach desirable
blanching
temperatures.
The product was then transferred to a much slow-
er moving belt traveling through the second chamber.

there
until
blanching
was
accomplished.
The product remained
The product was then hand-packed
into 303 x 407 cans to a given fill weight, brine and hot water were added,
and the cans were sealed.
Then the cans were inserted into the plant's con-
veying line to go through the continuous retort process.

Previous investigations by other researchers with the IQB unit showed
that the reduction in waste flow from blanching was enhanced by slightly drying the product prior to steaming.
So, some of the experiments in this study
were conducted on the product which was dried by a 5 to 20% weight reduction
in an alternating upflow-downflow hot (160-180F) air dryer.
The effluent from the IQB blancher was collected and analyzed for BOD,
total
solids,
suspended
solids, total and soluble phosphorus, total organic-
nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, and pH.
CONCLUSIONS
OF
THE
IQB
STUDY
The results of this study indicate that IQB can be used successfully for
blanching vegetables prior to their canning.
The IQB process results in re-
duction of blancher effluent by 68 to 99% while maintaining product quality.

Specific
1)
results
include:
Peas: Blancher effluent was reduced at least 68% in the

IQB process compared to pipe-blanching. Excessive drying
of the peas resulted in skin breakage with resulting
cloudy brine and loss of product quality.
53
2)
Corn: IQB reduced blancher effluent between 77 and 99%.

There was no product quality loss except under high temperature pre-drying conditions where the product was
darker in color than the control.
3) Green Beans: An 86 to 95% reduction in blancher effluent

was obtained using IQB. Product quality was comparable
to pipe-blanched canned product except when pre-dried.
With pre-drying, sloughing was evident.
4) Lima Beans: Reductions up to 99% were accomplished in
the blanching operation using IQB. With drying, the loss
of skins seemed to impair product quality.
HEAT-COOL
SEQUENCE
FOR
TOMATO
PEEL
REMOVAL
A new process for commercial tomato peeling uses only heat and water,
both of which can be recycled.
amounts of heated caustic (lye).
Conventional peeling processes use large

Caustic is expensive and requires large
amounts of energy for its production.

The new process involves heating tomatoes with steam at about 315oC,
then cooling them in a water bath or spray. Each step lasts about 10 seconds, and the heat-cool sequence is usually conducted three times for a total
of 60 seconds.
TOMATO
Peels can then be removed mechanically.
PROCESSING
Tchobanoglous et al. (1976) studied the effects of some in-cannery process modifications on reducing water use and waste at Hickmott Foods, Inc.,
a small independent tomato cannery.
The nature and results of their in-plant
water pollution control efforts are summarized here.

Hickmott Foods, Inc. cans tomatoes in an 80-day operating season during
the months of July through October.
Except for a week or two at the beginning
and end of the season, canning is a continuous, 'round-the-clock operation.

To meet waste discharge requirements, the plant undertook a program of wastewater management to clean up its wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River.
Significant reductions in the wastewater flow rate and strength have been
accomplished by modifying various operations within the cannery production
area. These changes and their impact are discussed in this following section.
WASTEWATER
FLOW
REDUCTION
The two principal components of the wastewater produced during the 1973
54
and 1974 tomato canning seasons were the process water and the water from the
evaporators and retorts (see Table 9).
Water used in the production process
is derived primarily from the municipal water supply; the water used to cool
the evaporators and retorts is filtered San Joaquin River water.
Several steps were taken between 1973 and 1974 to reduce the quantity of
water used by the cannery and to reduce the wastewater flow rates.
The cool-
ing water was analyzed and found to be suitable for direct discharge to the
river (COD less than 50 mg/l) after cooling.
Eliminating the cooling water
from the waste stream reduced the flow requiring treatment from 3.1 million
gal/day to 1.14 million gal/day, while cannery production increased 20%.
The installation of four dry peel removal machines reduced the total
water needed for peeling from 306 to 124 gal/min. The quantity of peel sludge
produced dropped from 150 to 25 gal/min while cannery production increased 20%.
This reduced volume* of peeling sludge made it possible to isolate this material and process separately.
All low pressure-high volume washdown hoses were removed and a high pressure hose system with nozzles that shut off upon release was installed. This
change resulted in a washdown flow reduction of at least 80 gal/min (see Table
9). As low pressure hoses were usually left to run on the floor, the reduction was probably somewhat larger.
Some employees objected to the use of the
high pressure spray as it was harder to control, but they eventually became
accustomed to using these nozzles.
No degradation in the quality of the pro-
duct or plant sanitation was observed.

Cooling water discharge was reduced by 200 gal/min by reusing the retort
cooling water for can washing.
Besides reducing the amount of water to be
cooled before discharge to the river, the amount of river water that required
filtering and chlorination for use in the can washing system was also reduced.
ORGANIC
WASTE
REDUCTION
The quantity of raw tomato constituents present in the process wastewater was reduced from the 1973 to 1974 season by modifications in the peeling operation and floor waste management.
Dry Peeling.
The installation of four dry peel removal machines and mod-
ifications in the operation of the caustic peelers resulted in a reduction

in caustic chemical use and in the quantity of waste generated that required
treatment.
This was accomplished with no deterioration in product quality.
Dry caustic peeling, using rotating rubber discs to mechanically rub peel from
55
Table 9.
Daily Water Usage During 1974 Canning Season and Percent

Reduction Data Over 1973 Canning Seasonal
56
tomatoes dipped in sodium hydroxide, replaced the conventional water rinse
peeling operation.
Effective peeling was obtained with this method while
reducing the concentration of caustic in the peelers.
Through a combination
of reducing the peeler speed (resulting in more tomatoes per bucket but a
longer contact time with the caustic per tomato) and using mechanical peeling, it was possible to use a caustic solution of 7 to 10% in 1974 as opposed to an 18 to 20% solution in 1973.
This operation change resulted in
a reduction in caustic use (6.9 lbs/ton in 1974 as opposed to 11.7 lbs/ton

previously) and reduced other chemical requirements for neutralization of
the resulting wastewater.
As discussed later, reducing the pH value of the
caustic sludge can also make the possibility of product recovery more practicable.
Dry caustic mechanical peeling requires about 80 gallons of potable
water per ton of tomatoes as opposed to 720 gal/ton using conventional methods.
The 80 gal/ton which amounted to 24 gal/min of caustic sludge produced
in the operation is a small enough volume so that it can be disposed of in a

land spreading operation.
Eliminating this sludge from the waste stream re-
duced the BOD load on the water pollution control plant by 46%.
Floor Waste Management. Because tomatoes are, for the most part, a water
soluble fruit, the longer they remain on the cannery floor or in a wastewater
conveyance facility, the greater the amounts of tomato solids and juices contributing to the soluble COD and BOD of the wastewater.
If processing wastes
are picked up in solid form they can be fed to livestock or at least disposed
of as solid wastes.
Manual collection of large solid tomato parts was stress-
ed during the 1974 season.

ted down.
Gratings covering all floor drains were also bol-
Reliable solid waste per ton of data were not available for the
1973 season but it was estimated that considerably more solid waste was used
for cattle feed during the 1974 season.
This is waste that does not reach
the treatment facility as fine suspended matter or soluble organics.

FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS
THAT
WILL
LEAD
TO
REDUCE
WATER
USE
Because Hickmott Foods no longer processes sweet potatoes and asparagus,

daily water use could be reduced further by shortening the lengths of belts
on which peeled tomato products must travel.
This change would eliminate
about 50 gal/min of water now used for belt lubrication.
In turn, this would
reduce the peak water use in the cannery to between 750 and 800 gal/min.
This quantity is considered to be the minimum water use possible for maintaining sanitary conditions.
Heightened concern by the U.S. Department of Agri-

culture over the issue of machine mold may ultimately result in increased per
ton water use by Hickmott Foods.
IN-PLANT
WATER
RECYCLE
WITH
OFF-LINE
MUD
REMOVAL
With the advent of mechanical harvesting of tomatoes, tomato processors

noted an increase in the soil accumulations within fluming systems.
Most of
the soil accumulated in the initial flumes or bin dumps. Flow velocities
within the bin dumps were insufficient to scour settled soil solids from the
base. The resulting accumulation of soil in the bin dump eventually impaired
product flow and required processing downtime to remove.
There are two widely practiced procedures for alleviating the accumulation of soil in the bin dump.
The first is to employ a high overflow rate
from the bin dump, this overflow discharging to the plant's sewer system.
The second procedure involves processing downtime to drain off excess liquids
and to hand shovel the accumulated soil into an adjacent receptacle.
Several-adverse impacts result from the current procedure for handling
bin dump mud.
In the case of the high overflow rates, the excess water used
adds to the hydraulic surcharge to the sewer system from this seasonal industry. The high soil loadings discharged to municipal treatment systems result
in operation and maintenance problems.
As a consequence of the necessity for
periodically shutting down the bin dump to remove accumulated soil, the time
requirements for processing a given tonnage of tomatoes are extended, resulting in reduction of the plant's productivity. This, in turn, results in
further excess water use through the down-time period and for the additional
required clean-up and washdown.
During the 1974 processing season, a study by Wilson, et al. (1976) was
undertaken to evaluate alternative water recycle system configurations.
Bin
dump model studies were then undertaken in the spring of 1975 to develop design data on an efficient system for intercepting soil solids in the bin dump
and transporting them to a solids removal system without interfering with
product flow.
The objective of the '75 season tomato water recycle project was to demonstrate a water recycle system which when used in conjunction w ith a normal
bin dump operation, would significantly reduce the adverse impacts associated.
with current practices.
An essentially closed loop recycle system was employ-
ed. The recycled water was used to maintain adequate scouring velocities
within the bin dump without detrimentally affecting product flow. A solids
58
removal system was constructed within the closed loop to remove the settleable
solids and thereby prevent their accumulation within the bin dump. This recycle system was expected to eliminate excessive water use related to high bin
dump overflow rates, as well as those rates related to clean-up down-time and
extended operational period for processing a given tonnage of tomatoes.
The researchers investigated four modes of operation aimed at minimizing
wastewater-related costs.
These modes comprised the following:
conventional cleaning, without water recycle

conventional cleaning with water recycle
disc cleaner with water recycle
disc cleaner with recycle and chemical coagulationflocculation.
Water consumption and total solids balances were made on each mode. The conclusions of the study are discussed below.
CONCLUSIONS
Not surprisingly, the daily average tonnage of tomatoes processed increased substantially with disc cleaning and water recycle, as compared with the
conventional system.
An increase of 26% in the tonnage of tomatoes processed
was realized with the disc cleaner combined with water recycle and chemical
flocculation.
These increases in the daily tonnage of tomatoes processed may
be primarily due to the virtual elimination of solids accumulation in the

dump tank with consequent impaired product flow. No incident of temporary
shutdown of shift operation for dump tank clean-up was encountered during the
modes of operation with water recycle.
With respect to the water consumption, the following findings were established in this study:
1) The majority of daily water usage was operational (48-61%),
followed by clean-up (31-44%) and filling (6-8%). There
were no significant variations in percentage usage in the
In all modes of operation,
various modes of operations.
approximately 7% was filling; approximately 55% operational; and approximately 39% clean-up.
2) A 26% decrease in the average total daily water use was
realized when disc cleaner, combined with water recycle and
chemical flocculation relative to the conventional system,
was applied.
3) A decrease in the average unit water consumption rate relative to counter-current flow conventional cleaning, occured when water recycle measures were applied. A 41%

decrease in average unit water consumption rate was realized when the disc cleaner, with water recycle and chemical
flocculation (164 gal/ton), was applied relative to the
conventional system (278 gal/ton).
With respect to the total solids balances, the following conclusions
were drawn:
1)
With the water recycle measures implemented, the soil solids removed from the dump tank per tonnage of tomatoes
processed were significantly reduced; the soil solids lost
to the sewer per tonnage of tomatoes processed were reduced
substantially.
2)
The estimated soil solids incoming to the plant per unit

weight of tomatoes processed ranged from 10 to 20 lbs/ton,
and averaged 13 lbs soil solids per ton of tomatoes processed. The total soil loaded was estimated from the sum
of soil solids which were collected from the dump tank,
lost to the sewer, and removed from the sludge thickener.
It appeared that the amount of soil reaching the plant
varied considerably, depending on the type of soil in
which the tomatoes were grown, the moisture content of
the soil in which the tomatoes were harvested, and the
method of tomato harvesting.
3)
Efficient clarification of the thickener overflow required surface loading rates of less than 1,000 gpd/ft2.
Approximately one-half of the gravity settleable soil
solids overflowed from the thickener at surface loading
rates of 2,000 gpd/ft2.
Using performance parameter values found in this study, it was demonstrated that installation and operation of an in-plant water recycle system
with off-line mud removal, would result in about a 50% savings in the total
annual wastewater-related costs.
For the 35 tons tomatoes/hr plant evaluated
in this study, annual savings would amount to about $47,000.

References
1)
Liptak, B. G.
Food Processing Wastes.
Environmental Engineer's Handbook.
Volume I - Water Pollution. 1974.

2)
Loehr, R. C.
ches.
3)
Agricultural Waste Management, Problems, Processes, Approa-
1974.
LaConde, K. V. and C. J. Schmidt.
In-Plant Control Technology for the
Fruits and Vegetables Processing Industry.
Proceedings Seventh National
Symposium on Food Processing Wastes. EPA-600/2-76-304. December, 1976.

4)
Robe, K., associate editor.
Low-cost, total recycling of wash water.
Food Processing. December, 1977.

5)
Dry Caustic Peeling of Clingstone Peaches, Capsule Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Industrial Demonstration Grant with Del Monte
6)
Corporation.
EPA Technology Transfer.
Smith, T. J.
Dry Peeling of Tomatoes and Peaches. Proceedings of the
Sixth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes. EPA-600/2-76-224.

December,
7)
1976.
Changes in Organic and Inorganic Constituents of
Hoehn, R. C. et al.
Wash Water Upon Recycle in a Prototype Leafy-Greens Washer. Proceedings

of the Seventh National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes. EPA/600-276-304.
8)
December, 1976.
Heat-cool sequence for tomato peel removal. Picks and Packs. Technical
Notes for the California Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry. Cooperative Extension, University of California.
9)
Tchobanoglous, G.
March, 1978.
Wastewater-Management at Hickmott Foods, Inc. Pro-
ceedings of the Sixth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.

EPA-600/2-76-224. December, 1976.
10)
Wilson, G. E. et al.
moval.
Wastes.
11)
Tomato Flume Water Recycle with Off-Line Mud Re-
Proceedings of the Seventh National Symposium on Food Processing

EPA-600/2-76-304. December, 1976.
Liquid Wastes from Canning and Freezing Fruits and Vegetables. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Water Pollution Control Research Series.
12060 EDK 08/71. August, 1971.
12)
Mercer, W. A.
Conservation and Recycling of Water and Other Materials.
Food Industry Week Conference.
Proceedings Waste Management and Pollution
Control. 1971.
13)
Kamm, R. et al.
Evaluating New Business Opportunities from Food Wastes.
Food Technology, June, 1977.
61
F&V SPNOFF/RECYCLING & REUSE OF FD PROC WW
RECYCLING
AND
REUSE
OF
PROCESSING
WASTEWATERS
Sources
of
Potable
Water
Water can be obtained from two sources, surface reservoirs or

streams, and underground reservoirs or streams.
by a municipality or by a private party.
These sources can be tapped
If a food processor's water comes
from a municipal supply system, the water's quality is the responsibility

of the municipality.
But, a food processor who supplies his own potable
water comes directly under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Food processing plants must use water that is of potable quality.
Potable water must also be used for cleaning all equipment which contacts
the foods.
Water must meet Federally established quality standards in

However, the standards set by any given
order to be classified as potable.
state may be even more strict than the Federal standards.
For this reason,
a food processor must know exactly what qualities the state expects of a
Please turn to Chapter 5 of the Core
processing plant's water supply.
Manual entitled By-products, Reuse and Recycling for more information on

this topic.
However, in some cases, it is possible to have multiple-use or
reuse of water as discussed in the following.

Introduction
to
Recycling
and
Reuse
This section explores several aspects of recycling and reusing food

processing wastewaters.
It is meant to give you an overview of the factors
affecting wastewater reuse and recycling.

Keep the following basic concept in mind with regard to reusing
wastewater.
Reusing wastewater basically involves collecting the effluent
from one or more unit processes, and then using that effluent as the
influent for other unit processes.
The key to wastewater reuse lies in
matching the effluent from one unit process with the influent requirements
of another unit process.
The "matchmaker" must be careful to take into
account the effluent's quantity and quality when examining the source
requirements of prospective processes.
62
Legal Aspects of Water Reuse
Water rights and related laws are under nationwide review. Scientists, economists and lawyers are evaluating current and future use of out
water resources; constitutional rights as well as individual state laws may
be involved before the present systems of water regulations can be applied
to multiple-use water.
Reusing water is not a new concept.
Published data estimate that 60
percent of the population presently reuses water. The intake water supply
pipe of one city is often downstream from the discharge sewage pipe of
another metropolis, and coastal municipalities have no choice but to commingle supply and wastewaters when tidal conditions return the sewage
effluents into the water supply storage reservoir.
The use of interstate
streams is not only subjected to the laws of each user state but is also
under regulations and control by federal authorities.
Two basic systems of water law in the United States include riparian
and appropriation.
Generally, those areas with abundant water supplies use
the common-law doctrine of riparian rights. Areas sparse in water resources found the first users and statutory prior appropriation doctrine
more suitable.
Unfortunately, there are also some states that use combina-
tions of both systems with regional special interpretations.

Pollution abatement programs have generally classified state waters
according to use and thus have established standards of quality in accordance with these objectives.
It seems only prudent that the processor
should consult the stream classifications and standards that govern water
purity in the state within which wastewater is to be reused.
Public Health Aspects of Wastewater Reclamation
Decision to reuse renovated wastewater for human consumption or in
processes that normally require potable water (i.e., food processing), must
be equated with potential health risk and hazards. The U.S. Public Health
Service in a policy statement believes that renovated wastewater is not
suitable for drinking water when other sources are available.
Reclamation Methods
Water is absolutely necessary in food processing, and by practicing
conservation, reuse and recycling, the amount of liquid waste and conse-
63
quently the pollution load from food processing operations can be reduced.
Reduction of water use through reuse of the same water can pay significant
dividends in improving a waste disposal situation. Water reuse is beneficial because water is no longer a free commodity; it costs money to
procure water; it costs money to pump water; and it costs money to dispose
of water.
Food processing waters cannot be reused indiscriminately. Their
recirculation in contact with food products must allow satisfactory product
and plant sanitation.
To offer more specific guidance in the use of
reclaimed waters, NCA offered the following recommendations:

o The water should be free of microorganisms of public health
significance.
o The water should contain no chemicals in concentrations toxic or
otherwise harmful to man, and no chemical content of the water
should impose the possibility of chemical adulteration of the final
product.
o The water should be free of any materials or compounds which could
impart discoloration, off-flavor, or off-odor to the product, or
otherwise adversely affect its quality.
o The appearance and content of the water should be acceptable from
an aesthetic viewpoint.
As an example of the possibilities for water reuse, a survey was
made in a tomato and vegetable packing plant.
The effect of water reuse
was measured in terms of the percent reduction in water use per ton of
product processed.
With no water reuse in can cooling, product washing, or
other operations, water use totaled 3,340 gal/ton of product.
When product
wash waters were recirculated, water use was reduced by 16%. Recirculation
of can cooling water added a 22% reduction.
In the case of vegetable pro-
cessing these water reuses allowed a total water use reduction of 38%. When
tomatoes were being processed, reuse of the excess water from the
evaporative condenser system to wash product allowed a total overall
reduction of 45% in water use/ton of product.
Water is best saved by reducing its rate of consumption. Industries
that routinely monitor their water usage and their waste effluent flows
have been able to reduce the in-house uses of water by as much as 50%.
Unfortunately, some water managers consider renovated wastewater to be
acceptable only as a last resort alternative.
Such attitudes obscure the
64
real importance of wastewater as being potentially the most economical
choice available as a source of water.
Wastewater treatment and renovation can exist in varied forms. Direct
reuse occurs in canneries when counterflow untreated streams are used
stepwise.
Clean water is piped into the cooking areas where, following
use, it flows to blanching operations.
Having fulfilled its service here,
it discharges to water-conveying canals and finally to incoming washing

troughs where it removes filed detritus from fruits and vegetables.
Spent water handling can be simplified by segregating wastes into
appropriate categories.
The commingling of fluids into common sewers
complicates reuse and reclamation programs.

wastewater is to establish the objectives.
The first task in reusing

A water demand inventory should
be taken to determine usage amounts with quality levels of purity.

Subtotals of departmental (industrial plant sections) use should add to the
total documented need required for the site.
The dairy industry (Fig. 14) collects salvaged condensed milk vapors
from vacuum pan evaporators and uses them for boiler water feed and for
plant cleaning wash water.
Inline turbidity meters monitor the salvaged
condensate and divert contaminated milk and water vapors to the sewer in
case of a malfunction.
Salvageable Food Fractions
Food wastes found in water can consist of particulate matter, dissolved solids and fats - either as an emulsion or in a free-floating state.
Both the food and the water quality have an influence on deciding whether
or not the salvaged fractions gathered from wastewater are suitable for
human or animal consumption.
If wastes are channeled into sewer lines,
these materials become a treatment burden, at some cost to a waste treatment system.
Obviously, processes that reclaim human food-grade materials
must meet sanitary standards.
By-products for animal foods are continu-
ously being upgraded; thus, it may be prudent to furnish reasonable

duplication in nonhuman food production of those techniques used in human
food processing.
Food as particulate matter is often separated from liquids by settling, screening, skimming, or centrifuging.
Automated continuous processes
suitable for cleaning in place are most attractive (as contrasted with
65
Fig. 14.
Recovery of milk vapors in powdered milk production. The milk
evaporator functions much like steam generaged in boiler.
Because the
vacuum pan is subjected to a high vacuum through the air ejector system,
milk boils at low temperature that rarely climb higher than 15OoF. Milk
vapors change back to water, which collects against the cold condenser
tubes.
Vacuum increases linearly to maximum with lowest temperature thus
vapors flow from A to B to C.
Malfunctioning milk evaporators tend to
foam, carrying over milk solids; hence, an inline turbidity meter

safeguards the condensate purity for the salvaged water reuse.
66
batch methods) for both short-term and long-term goals. Careful planning
with well-defined objectives is required to create resources from wastes.
Toward the end of this text you will find a section entitled "By-Product
Recovery Use."
This section outlines some commodity-specific recovery
schemes.
Recovery of Chemicals
While cleaning chemicals in waste matter often cause toxicity and poor
performance of the biological treating processes, they also represent a BOD
demand.
For example, surfactants or common acid detergents produce 0.65 lb
BOD5/lb of substance.
Table 10 shows the BOD demand of selected substances,
cleaners and sanitizers.

Liquid detergents, sanitizers and other analogous products can be
handled in bulk in a series of vessels.
These materials may then be piped
to reservoirs that can store and feed the cleaning solutions. Clean-inplace (C.I.P.) circuits can be designed to reuse fluids that are circulated
by pumping through pipelines, bulk tanks, storage reservoirs and other
media.
Final uses of captured liquids include floor cleaning or use as the
fluidizing liquid in sludge pumping.

Heat Recovery
Flow measurements are also necessary because the temperature alone is
not adequate to reflect the magnitude of potential heat recovery.
Waste-
waters should be grouped according to purity and temperature, and the

hot-test water should be without dilution to avoid heat dissipation. Steam
condensate is returned to the boiler by deaerators because the water is
soft as well as hot.
Sometimes a water demand may be satisfied by preferential water makeup, where the idea is to use all the salvage water first with fresh water
supplied only when the other sources are exhausted.
Water Reuse
Water reuse may be adopted with economical advantage when:
o there is insufficient water available locally to maintain
an open circuit system all year 'round.
o valuable by-product materials can be economically recovered from
the treatment processes.
67
68
o treatment cost of recycling water is less than the initial
cost of water, plus the cost incurred in discharging the
effluent into the sewer.
o cost of treating the effluent to a required standard is
such that, for a little extra investment, the water quality
can be made suitable for recycling.
The practice of water reuse can be divided into sequential reuse,
recirculation without treatment and recirculation with treatment.
Sequential reuse is the practice of using a given water stream for two or
more processes or operations before final treatment and disposal, i.e., to
use the effluent of one process as the input to another.
Recirculation is
the practice of recycling the water within a unit process or group of

processes.
A combination of these practices will probably be required for
an optimum reuse scheme.

Table 11 indicates some of the cannery operations in which water may
be reused indiscriminately.
Its recirculation in contact with food
products must allow for satisfactory plant and product sanitation.

In an effort to optimize industrial water use and wastewater management, emphasis is now being given to decreasing the quantities of water
used and the contaminants introduced during use.
Alternatives available
for volume and pollutant reduction include water conservation, good

housekeeping, waste stream segregation, process modification and water
reuse.
Historically, little consideration was given to water reuse because of
its abundance in nature and because it was considered to be hazardous due
to bacterial contamination.
Contamination potential shows that, in washing
fruit, unless 40% of the water is exchanged each hour, the growth rate of
bacteriological organisms becomes extremely high. In order to overcome
this, other means of control, such as chlorination, must be used. When
chlorination is discontinued, the bacterial count more than doubles. As
soon as chlorination is resumed, the bacterial counts are again brought
under control.
Water conservation can be achieved through counterflow reuse systems.
Figure 15 outlines a counterflow system for reuse of water in a pea
cannery. At the upper right, fresh water is used for the final product wash
before the peas are canned, and from this point the water is reused and
carried back in successive stages for each preceding washing and fluming
69
F&V SPNOFF/WATER USE & REUSE
70
Fig. 15. Four-stage counterflow system for reuse of water in a pea cannery.
Key:
A. First use of water; B. Second use of water; C. Third use
of water; D. Fourth use of water; E. Concentrated chlorine

water.
71
operation. As the water flows countercurrent to the product, the washing
and fluming water can become more contaminated; therefore, it is extremely
important (Fig. 15) to add chlorine in order to maintain satisfactory
sanitation.
At each stage, sufficient chlorine should be added to satisfy
completely the chlorine demand of the organic matter in the water.
With
this arrangement, satisfactory bacteriological conditions should exist in

each phase of the washing and fluming program.
Water Conservation
There may be several operations in a food processing plant where water
is wasted continuously, thus causing an overload to subsequent collection
and treatment systems.
Consideration should be given to steps that can be
taken within a plant to conserve water, thus enabling the liquid waste
disposal system to operate more efficiently and thereby reduce water
pollution.
As an example of water conservation methods the steps possible
in a food processing plant include 1) using automatic shutoff valves on all

water hoses to prevent waste when hoses are not in use (a running hose can
discharge up to 300 to 400 gallons of water/hour), 2) using low-volume,
high-pressure nozzles rather than low-pressure sprays for cleanup,
3) avoiding unnecessary water overflow from equipment, especially when not
in use, and providing automatic fresh water makeup valves, 4) avoiding
using water to transport the product or solid waste when the material can
be moved effectively by dry conveyors, and 5) reducing cooling water flow
to the minimum to accomplish product cooling.
Recently, it was determined that by controlling the pH of fruit
fluming waters by the addition of citric acid, it was possible to reduce
the water use without an increase in bacterial numbers. A pH of 4 will
maintain optimum conditions with cut fruit, such as peaches.
The system
not only reduces the total volume of water required and therefore the
amount of wastewater discharged, but also increased the product yield as a
result of decreasing the loss of solids from leaching of sugar and acids.
Consequently, there is a reduction in the total pounds of organic pollutants in the wastewater.
Another advantage is improved flavor and color of
the canned fruit because of better retention and soluble solids.

Another water conservation method is using the closed loop systems on
certain processing units, such as a hydrostatic cooker-cooler for canned
72
product.
The water is reused continuously, fresh makeup water being added
only to offset the minor losses from evaporation.
Closed loop systems not

only conserve water but also reclaim much heat and can result in significant economic savings.
It is not possible to describe all the concepts and ramifications
inherent in various food processing industries to reduce water and waste
loads while at the same time maintaining product quality. Many factors
determine the final effectiveness of proper water use. For example,
tomatoes spray-washed on a roller belt where they are turned are almost
twice as clean as the same tomatoes washed on a belt of wire mesh construction.
Also, warm water is approximately 40 percent more effective in
removing contaminants than the same volume of cold water.

A delicate balance exists between water conservation and sanitation.
there is no straightforward or simple formula to obtain the least water
use.
Each case and each food process has to be evaluated with the
equipment used in order to arrive at a satisfactory procedure involving

water use, chlorination and other factors, such as detergents.
Elimination of Water Use
Eliminating water in certain unit operations in turn eliminates
attendant problems of treating the wastewaters, which were generated by
those operations.
Wherever possible, food should be handled by either a
mechanical belt or pneumatic dry conveying system.
If possible, the food

should be cooled by an air system rather than by a water cooling system.
Recent studies by the National Canners Association in comparing hot air

blanching of vegetables with conventional hot water blanching show that
both product and environmental quality were improved by using air. Blanching, used to deactivate enzymes, produces a very strong liquid waste.
For
a pea processing operation, this small volume of wastewater is estimated to

be responsible for 50% of the entire wasteload BOD; for corn, 60%, and for
beets with peelings, 80%.
Preliminary results show a reduced pollution
load, while at the same time providing a product quality improvement in

terms of nutrients, vitamins and mineral content.
Waste Stream Segregation
Waste segregation involves the separation of waste streams according
to their wastewater load.
Noncontaminated streams offer the possibility of
73
being discharged directly to receiving bodies of water, whereas contaminated waste streams have to be treated.
As a general rule, all plants should be provided with three water
discharge systems, namely 1) storm and cooling water, 2) sanitary waste,
and 3) industrial waste.
The stormwater system should receive all surface and storm runoff.
This system can also be used for discharging uncontaminated waters, such as
cooling waters, that require no treatment prior to discharge. Although it
is desirable to keep uncontaminated wastewater out of the treatment plant,
the cost of installing separate collection systems for small, isolated
streams may be so high that by-passing the treatment plant becomes uneconomical.
The sanitary system should collect the wastewaters from all washrooms
and shower rooms.
For most industrial plants it is desirable to send these
wastes to a municipal plant for treatment, rather than to treat them

individually.
Process Modification
One alternative available for eliminating or reducing the wastes
created during processing involves the modification or elimination of the
step or steps which are producing the wastes. For example, since the
peeling process is one of the greatest sources of wastes in most fruit and
vegetable processing plants, efforts have been directed toward modifying
the peeling process so that the peel waste can be removed without using
excessive amounts of water.
One recent process modification, is the "dry"
caustic peeling process for potatoes.
In conventional steam or hot lye
peeling processes, potato peels may contribute up to 80 percent of the

total plant wastewater BOD.
The new dry caustic vegetable peeling method
collects peels and caustic as a dry and semidry residue, thus preventing
their entrance into plant wastewaters.
Dry caustic peeling is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 4.

A Summary
Reuse of wastewater is the utilization of a process waste stream one
or more times before it leaves plant boundaries.
This can be accomplished
by piping the wastewater from one unit to another, by treating or diluting
74
effluents before reuse in other units, or by combining a few or all effluents, treating them and reusing the water.
Incentives for water reuse involves the possibilities of reduction of
wastewater treatment costs and raw water costs.
Although lower waste
treatment costs currently provide the major savings from reuse, in some
areas the supply of acceptable raw water is decreasing, the price is
rising, and reduced raw water usage may provide a significant incentive in
the future.
The typical plant considering reuse seldom plans to completely
eliminate wastewater discharges since this would usually require very

extensive modifications.
The important standard for economic reuse is that
an unused makeup process water can be replaced by a lower-quality water

without harming the process.
So, reuse schemes should always be considered
in planning for pollution abatement.

Ultimate requirements for water pollution control may be completely
closed systems from which no discharges are permitted, and use of fresh
water is only required as makeup for evaporation losses.
Closed water
systems as the final goal of pollution research has long been an ideal.
Even though total reuse may not be legally required, it may be a viable
alternative to meeting stringent discharge regulations.
Possible steps for proceeding toward an intermediate or total reuse
system are:
o Determine the effluent qualities and quantities and
makeup requirements for plant units. A waste stream
survey is a must for such an analysis.
o Study the lowest-cost treatments needed for various
effluents to reach the required qualities of secondary
users. Trends have been toward treatment of combined
waste streams. Segregation of waste streams may offer
better reuse possibilities.
o Reduce wastewater volumes by increased maintenance and
equipment modifications can reduce flows significantly.
o Study the effects of reuse on existing treatment equipment
because water reuse generally results in a lower volume,
more concentrated waste stream.
Commitment to total reuse requires an economic justification
covering the expected future costs of fresh water and ultimate waste
disposal.
In some areas of the world, the cost of fresh water is rising
75
and the cost for ultimate disposal may gradually decrease as technology
improves.
The key to inexpensive reuse is volume reduction. The total-
reuse will be able to economically treat only a small waste stream for
total removal of contaminants.
The decision of whether to implement total reuse will be set by a
comparison of costs of raw water and water treatments with and without
discharges.
These include: water supply; treatment required before use of
fresh water; waste treatment required before discharge; treatment required

for use of reused water; plant modification to accept lower quality or
higher temperature reused water; extra piping and control valving; loss of
flexibility due to integrated water system.
A total reuse plan should begin at the individual process units, since
In certain cases it may even be more
it will affect their operation.
economical to modify a process so that it requires little or no water.
The
economics of total reuse will vary from plant to plant.

References
1) Mercer, W. A. 1971.
Conservation and Recycling of Water and Other
Materials. Food Industry Week Conference. Proceedings Waste

Management and Pollution Control.
2) Liptak, B. G. 1974.
Environmental Engineer's Handbook. Volume I -
Water Pollution.
3) Morresi, A. C., et al. 1978.
for Wastewater Reuse.
Cooling Water and Boiler Possibilities
Industrial Wastes, March/April.
76
F&V SPNOFF/BY-PRODUCT RECOV & USE
BY-PRODUCT
RECOVERY
AND
USE
Introduction
Food processing plants inherently tend to generate significant
quantities of waste material.
Frequently, the waste is believed to have
potential nutritional or industrial value, thereby representing a possible

basis for a new business opportunity.
But turning these beliefs into new
business is often a complex technical and economic problem. Extracting the

critical business and engineering parameters for decision making requires
an analysis of the economic, technological, and marketing factors involved,
as well as an ability to resolve problems arising from these factors.
This section presents some recovery schemes by fruit and vegetable
processors to transform hitherto waste products into useful by-products.
This idea of recovering by-products from waste has been "catching on"
throughout the food processing industry, but many of these recovery schemes
have not been published.
The examples that follow are not meant to
represent a full-scale review of the state-of-the-art.

SCP
From
Potatoes
A northern Maine potato processor is helping develop a new process

of single cell protein (SCP) production as a part of the answer to meeting
stricter wastewater discharge standards.
the cutter deck in potato processing.
These plants reclaim starch from
Wash water solids, after sand-filter
screening and dewatering, go to the "tate meal" dryer for drying and
subsequent sale as animal feed.
Up to 16% of such solids are added to
normal silage to provide the same amino acid level as other conventiona
protein sources.
This system is said to be best applicable to wet food processing
operations, where high concentrates of soluble solids with a corresponding
high level of biological oxygen demand (BOD) are present. Estimated
protein output is one pound of protein for every 2 pounds of dissolved
solids converted to SCP yeast.
expected production.
The higher the BOD, the greater the
77
Size of treatment system is another consideration. Where a land
disposal operation takes many acres, and even a settling pond, with primary
and secondary treatment plants taking nearly as many acres as do
conventional activated sludge water treatment systems, the SCP system fills
the corner of a warehouse, taking up little more space (about 2,000 sq ft)
than the processing equipment that comprises the unit, less than one
hundredth the space occupied by any of the more traditional systems.
Scrap
Potato
to
Molasses
At one Ore-Ida Foods vegetable processing plant a study revealed

that converting scrap potato to molasses would raise the value of those
wastes by a factor of seven; converting to alcohol would increase the value
by a factor of thirteen.
However, both options were rejected in favor of
simpler sugar production and starch recovery because of a smaller capital

investment and a-more stable market.
Peel Sludge to Puree
A California tomato processor attempted to recover causticallyremoved tomato peels as an edible by-product.
The processing plant was
losing about 120 tons of tomato constituents per day in the form of caustic
peeling sludge.
A test run was conducted to investigate the feasibility of
recovering the tomato peeling sludge, after acidifying it, as products.

The flow scheme used is shown in Figure 16. The quality of the puree made
from a 1:1 blend of acidified caustic peeling sludge and fresh crushed
tomatoes was judged to be good by the NCA with respect to both flavor and
appearance.
The quantities of acid required to lower the pH value of the
caustic juice were kept to a minimum by operating the peelers at 8%

caustic.
Further studies are being conducted to establish whether this
method can be accepted cannery practice.
If this peel recovery scheme can
be proven to be safe, the tomato processor would be able to recover and

additional 4 tons/hr of usable tomato material, reduce the plant waste loss
from 16% to 6%, and cut the volume of sludge that must be hauled for
disposal by one-half.
78
Figure 16.
Flowsheet for proposed recovery of waste peeling sludge.
79
BTU's From Olive Pits
Every weekday at Lindsay Olive Growers plant, Lindsay, CA, about 27
tons of pits pour from the ripe olive-pitting machines. This continues
seven or eight months a year.
Disposal was an expense, whether hauled to
the county disposal site, or to nearby orchards for use as roadbed

material.
The Lindsay plant ran tests and found that the pits, although half
water, yielded nearly 400 BTU of heat per wet pound.
This potential heat
could supply part of the 450,000 lb of steam per day needed in the
two-shift plant operation.
After considering all the possibilities, and in
view of fuel shortages in the future, the president of Lindsay Olive

Growers and the Board of Directors gave the go-ahead to use the pits as
boiler fuel.
A furnace in use for burning wet sawdust was studied and adapted to
Lindsay needs.
bed unit.
The diagram and caption show the details of the fluidized-
Briefly, wet pits fall through a swirling-flame, vapor-removal
section into a fluidized bed of sand heated to 1,400F. A gas flame heats
the sand at start-up; after two to three hours, the pits themselves furnish
the 1,400oF heat, and the burners shut off.
The fluidized-bed furnace started up in January, 1977 with minimum
mechanical difficulties.
It is capable of burning a wide assortment of
agricultural wastes, such as peach and apricot pits, and almond shells from
nearby plants.
Pits furnish about 25% of the steam used by the plant. The cost of
hauling and disposing of pits is eliminated. There is no soot produced at
the high burning temperatures and no air pollution problem.
Payout on the installation through savings of fuel and haulage costs
is difficult to determine because of the rapidly r ising cost of fuel oil,
but the unit is expected to make a good profit.
80
References
Dry Caustic Peeling of Clingstone Peaches. Capsule Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Industrail Demonstration Grant with Del Monte
Corporation.
EPA Technology Transfer.
Forwalter, J., Associate Editor. 1978.
Turns 3000 ppm food processing
waste into by-product, cuts sewage charges.

Maintenance.
Sanitation and
Food Processing, May.
Heat-cool sequence for tomato peel removal. 1978. Picks and Packs.
Technical Notes for the California Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Industry.
Cooperative Extension, University of California, March.

Changes in Organic and Inorganic Constituents
Hoehn, R. C. et al. 1976.
of Wash Water Upon Recycle in a Prototype Leafy-Greens Washer.

Proceedings of the Seventh National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes.
EPA/600-2-76-304, December.
Kamm, R. et al. 1977..

Wastes.
Evaluating New Business Opportunities from Food
Food Technology, June.
LaConde, K. V. and C. J. Schmidt. 1976.
In-Plant Control Technology for
the Fruits and Vegetables Processing Industry. Proceedings Seventh

National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes. EPA-600/2-76-304,
December.
Liptak, B. G.
1974. Food Processing Wastes. Environmental Engineer's
Handbook. Volume I - Water Pollution.

Liquid Wastes from Canning and Freezing Fruits and Vegetables. 1971. U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Pollution Control Research
Series.
12060 EDK 08/71, August.
Loehr, R. C. 1974.
Agricultural Waste Management Problems, Processes,
Approaches.
Mercer, W. A. 1971.
Materials.
Conservation and Recycling of Water and Other
Food Industry Week Conference. Proceedings Waste
Management and Pollution Control.

Morresi, A. C. et al. 1978.
Wastewater Reuse.
Industrial Wastes, March/April.
Pratt, M., Editor. 1977.

Recovery.
Cooling Water and Boiler Possibilities for
AE Update.,
Food Processing Plant Wastes: The Economics of

Agricultural Engineering, December.
81
Robe, K., Associate Editor. 1977.
Low-cost, total recycling of wash water.
Food Processing, December.

Robe, K., Assistant Editor. 1977.
Lindsay turns wet olive pits into
profit, uses wastes to furnish 25% of plant steam requirements.
Food
Processing, May.
Smith, T. J. 1976.
Dry Peeling of Tomatoes and Peaches. Proceedings of
the Sixth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.

EPA-600/2-76-224, December.
Tchobanoglous, G. 1976.
Wastewater Management at Hickmott Foods, Inc.
Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.

Wilson, E. G. et al. 1976.
Tomato Flume Water Recycle with Off-Line Mud
Removal. Proceedings of the Seventh National Symposium on Food

Processing Wastes.
82
F&V SPNOFF/WW TREATMENT
W A S T E W A T E R
T R E A T M E N T
Pretreatment
The pretreatment of food processing wastewaters is commonly
associated with discharges to a municipal waste treatment system.
The
degree of pretreatment required of the food processor is determined by the

specified discharge limitations defined in the municipal sewer use
ordinance. These limitations focus on wastewater characteristics which
have, historically, caused either a hazardous condition for the waste
treatment plant operators or have been responsible for detrimental
influences on the waste treatment system's operation and waste removal
efficiences.
Another factor which has identified pretreatment as a necessity when
discharging to a municipal waste treatment facility is the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. of 1972 which requires that before any grant is
approved to a municipality for facility expansion or improvement, the EPA
must be assured that provisions are made to prevent the municipal system
from receiving pollutants that would inhibit the operation of the municipal
treatment works, or that would pass through the system untreated.
Therefore, if the municipality receives a federal grant, the food processor
may be required to provide some form of pretreatment if the waste being
discharged, "as is", to the municipality is judged detrimental to the
system and modifications are indicated.
However, EPA has noted that fruit
and vegetable processing wastes are amenable to municipal treatment.

Discharging of fruit and vegetable process wastewaters to a municipal
sewer system and the possibility of requiring a pretreatment system are
quite probable realities for the fruit and vegetable processing industries.
Screening is one form of pretreatment often required by municipal sewer use
ordinances.
Other forms of pretreatment required by these ordinances could
be flow equalization, neutralization, and soil removal.
In addition to
meeting the municipal ordinance requirements, pretreatment may help to

reduce sewer use costs and accommodate production increases without
exceeding discharge limitations (i.e., suspended solids).
83
Alternatives
It is an obvious economic fact that before any food processor
undertakes the task of building a pretreatment facility for discharge to a
municipal sewer, pays a municipal charge for wastewater treatment, or
builds a complete treatment plant for discharge to a receiving stream that
he must initiate in-plant waste saving practices, along with water
recycling and reuse measures.
Another consideration is the restrictions
that are placed on the food processing wastewater discharge. Principal

limitations focus on substances that may be toxic, cannot be adequately
treated or stabilized, or materials which cause obstruction to flow in the
sewers.
While toxic substances are not commonly associated with fruit and
vegetable type process waste streams, certain wastes are present that are
not amenable to treatment and can cause obstruction and maintenance
requirements.
These troublesome wastes include those that contribute large
quantities of suspended solids or alkalinity to the waste treatment

facility.
Thus, some form of isolation and pretreatment of the waste
stream becomes necessary prior to discharge to this facility.

The third consideration the food processor must address is to the
strength and volume of his processing wastewater.
These parameters are
influenced by the fluctuation in production volumes and production facility

expansion programs.
As these activities take place, increasing waste loads
can occur which could, and frequently do, reduce the ability of the
municipal's waste treatment system to adequately treat the added waste.
Should this happen with regularity, then the food processor may be faced
with a problem of pretreatment or supporting a municipal waste treatment
plant modification or expansion program.
In either case, careful economic
considerations will need to be reviewed.
Since the food processor knows
what his sewer costs are, he can calculate the cost of the added sewage
treatment load and determine whether the projected cost could better be
handled by pretreatment or financially supporting a municipal expansion
program.
Cost Considerations
Inherent in modification or expansion of a municipal's waste treatment facility is the federal requirement (if federal grant money is used)
that should these activities include treatment capacity for industrial
wastewaters, then some form of industrial cost recovery system must be
84
established.
Much of this cost recovery activity is accomplished through
the use of a surcharge system keyed to specific wastewater parameters.

Common parameters used are BOD strengths, suspended solids and the fats,
oils and grease category.
Surcharge systems vary, and no one can predict whether pretreatment
can be justified economically until costs are evaluated. A surcharge
system should be based upon an evaluation, by the city's consulting
engineer, of the cost of the elements of the municipal treatment plant
necessary to accomodate the flow, remove the suspended matter, and treat
the other ingredients of the industrial wastewater to the required levels
all on a unit basis (cost per pound of constituent).
Many surcharge systems start with a flow base rate and apply multipliers for concentrations of any or all such ingredients as BOD, suspended
solids, and grease.
As an example, the flow base rate charged to all sewer
users may be 50 percent of the water bill, including flow from private
water supplies.
Then, taking BOD as an example, assume that 250 mg/l has
been established as a bottom base for surcharges. Then a multiplier might

be applied for BOD between 250 and 500 mg/l, and a higher multiplier
between 500 and 1,000 mg/l.
Another set of multipliers might be appl ied
for suspended solids, another for grease, others for other factors. These
multipliers are then added together to establish a single multiplier to be
applied to the flow base charge to arrive at the total bill.
An example of the cost formulation as developed by the Federal EPA and
used as a general guideline is as follows:
Ci=voVi+boBi+soSi
where Ci = charge to industrial users, dollars per year
V O = average unit cost of transport and treatment chargeable to
volume, per gallon
bo = average unit cost of treatment, chargeable to BOD, dollars
per pound
s o = average unit cost of treatment (including sludge treatment)
chargeable to suspended solids, dollars per pound
V i = volume of wastewater from industrial users, gallons per year
B i = weight of BOD from industrial users, pounds per year
S i = weight of suspended solids from industrial users, pounds per
year
85
Note:
The principle applies equally well with additional terms

e.g., chlorine feed rates) or fewer terms (e.g., voVi only).
The terms bo and so may include charges (surcharges) for concentrated

wastes above an established minimum based on normal load criteria.
Inasmuch as it is an objective of the guidelines to encourage the
initiation and use of user charges, this general method of allocation is
both preferable and acceptable.
Since this guideline was published before enactment of the act, it
serves only as an indication of possible procedures.
No guidelines
pursuant to the act have been developed at this time. However, the
decision to provide extensive pretreatment for discharge to a municipal
sewer system or to separate and treat the plant's wastewater should be
based upon a thorough, after-tax analysis of the costs involved.
Evaluating Needs
After the plant has been surveyed completely, and all possible waste
conservation and water reuse systems have been identified, the necessary
pretreatment system must be designed and the cost estimated. Those parts
of the treatment attributable to flow (such as grease basins and dissolved
air flotation) should be totaled and reduced to a cost per 1,000 gallons.
Similar breakouts in cost per pound can be carried out for grease,
suspended solids, and BOD.
Then each major in-plant expense for waste conservation and water
recycle and reuse can be evaluated, based on the estimated reduction in
flow, BOD, suspended solids, and grease.
From such data, priorities can be
established for each in-plant waste-conservation measure suggested in the

survey.
Pretreatment Processes:
Pretreatment can cover a broad range of
wastewater processing elements, including flow equalization, screening,

gravity separation of solids and floatables, dissolved air flotation,
chemical treatment as an adjunct to gravity separation or flotation, and
biological treatment such as aerated lagoons or some other form of
biological treatment.
Before any pretreatment is considered, an adequate survey should be
made, including flow measurement, composite sampling, and chemical
analysis, to determine the extent of the problem and the possibilities for
pretreatment.
Analyses may include BOD, suspended solids, suspended
86
volatile solids, settleable solids, pH, temperature and FOG. A permanent
flow-measuring and composite-sampling arrangement are warranted if sampling
is done regularly to determine municipal surcharges.
Most common pretreament practices will include flow equalization,
neutralization and the separation of floatables and settleable solids. In
some instances lime and alum, ferric chloride, or a selected polymer may be
added to enhance separation.
Paddle flocculation may follow alum and lime
or ferric chloride additions to assist in coagulation of the suspended

solids.
Separation may be accomplished by gravity or by air flotation.
Screening, which could include vibrating, rotary or static type screens,

may precede the separation process and may also be used to concentrate the
separated floatables and settled solids.
These various systems will be
discussed under separate headings.

Flow equalization and neutralization are important in reducing
hydraulic loading and correcting pH deficiencies if needed in the waste
stream.
Equalization and neutralization facilities consist of a holding
tank, aeration capability for mixing, and, pumping equipment designed to

reduce the fluctuations of waste streams as well as a means to adjust pH.
These facilities can be economically advantageous whether the industry is
treating its own wastes or discharging into a city sewer after some
pretreatment.
The equalizing and neutralization tank will store wastewater
for recycle or reuse, or to feed the flow uniformly to treatment facilities

throughout the 24-hour day.
The tank is characterized by a varying flow
into the tank and a constant flow out.
Lagoons may serve as equalizing
tanks or the tank may be a simple steel or concrete tank, often without a
cover.
Removal of floatables and suspended matter will provide a satisfactory
means of reducing BOD concentrations.
Frequently this degree of treatment
will reduce the waste load sufficiently to comply with municipal sewer use
ordinance limitations.
If additional BOD removal is required, a study of
biological processes for pretreatment may be instituted, possibly in pilot

scale.
Several biological treatment systems have been successfully adapted
to the treatment of food processing wastes. These include the lagoon

arrangement, activated sludge, and land application.
87
Treatment
Alternatives
to
Meet
Regulations
In the treatment of fruit and vegetable processing wastewaters one

should be cognizant that these wastewaters often contain high concentrations of organics and suspended solids. These wastes are amenable to
municipal waste treatment processes but when treated separately possess
inherent treatment problems.
In most cases the processing wastes are
nutrient deficient, often lacking sufficient nitrogen and phosphorus

compounds essential to support adequate biological activity.
Table 12
presents a summary of BOD/Nitrogen/Phosphorus ratio relationships

associated with common fruit and vegetable commodity wastewaters.
For
adequate biological activity to proceed without limitation, the

BOD/Nitrogen/Phosphorus ratio should be at least 100/5/l, respectively,
expressed in mg/l units.
Thus an examination of Table 12 reveals that
nutrient supplements are needed for nitrogen and phosphorus.
Common
wastewater fortification practices utilize anhydrous ammonia and phosphoric

acid as N and P sources, respectively, with NaOH used to standardize the pH
of the pretreated raw wastewater stream.
In addition, the unit processes employed in commodity production may
produce an acid or alkaline effluent stream, resulting in fluctuations in
the pH of the final effluent.
Therefore, some form of neutralization is
needed to correct the pH of these waste streams to the compatible pH range

(6-9).
Treatment alternatives have been briefly mentioned in the pretreatment
section of this chapter.
If additional information is required for the
treatment alternatives mentioned, the reader is encouraged to refer to the

supplemental reference material provided in this manual series entitled
"Wastewater Treatment of Food Processing Effluents". Basically, the
treatment processes involve screening, sedimentation or dissolved air
flotation.
Perhaps the most commonly used process is screening. Screening may
employ vibrating screens, static screens or a rotary screen. In
pretreating specialty food processing waste streams, the vibrating and
rotary screens are the most frequently used. These screening systems are
used in a flow away (water in forward flow and passes through with solids
constantly removed from screen) mode of operation and can vary widely both
88
Table 12.
Available Nutrients Fruit & Vegetable Wastewaters.
89
in mechanical action and in mesh size.
Mesh sizes can range from 0.5 inch
in a static screen to 200 mesh in high-speed circular vibratory polishing

screens.
Screening systems may be used in combination (i.e., prescreen-
polish screen) to achieve the desired solids removal efficiency.

Sedimentation is another process form used to remove solids from the
wastewater influent.
Sizing of the detent on vessel and providing a
quiescent state for the raw wastewater are important design considerations.
Temperature variation of the wastewater is another important consideration
because of the development of heat convect on currents and the potential
interference with marginal settling particles.
Grease removal is also
accomplished with this unit process through removal of the surface scum.
A more complete treatment of the fruit and vegetable processing
wastewaters can be achieved through biological assimilation.
Frequently
used systems, after suspended solids removal, are: treatment in an anaerobic lagoon followed by an aeration lagoon and stabilization-polishing pond;
activated sludge system; aerated lagoon followed by a stabilizationpolishing pond; trickling filters, utilizing plastic media, and rotating
biological contractors; with land application used as an effluent polishing
technique.
Treatment
of
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Processing
Wastewaters
A number of waste treatment systems are available for treating fruit

and vegetable processing waste streams.
These systems are summarized in
Table 13 which defines the unit process, its order of use in the waste
treatment sequence and the expected waste reduction performances by these
unit processes.
Anaerobic Lagoons
Anaerobic lagoons may be used as a primary biological process in
order to reduce the organic and solids loadings on aerobic biological
processes which may be more expensive to operate. The lagoons are usually
2.4 to 6.1 meters deep with 3:l side slopes. In most cases, the detention
time is between 5-25 days and the lagoons are designed for high surface
loadings, 34 to 112 g,BOD5/day/m2.
90
Table 13.
Food Industry Wastewater Treatment Practices.
91
The operation depends on the activity of anaerobic bacteria which
degrade organic materials in the absence of oxygen to form organic acids,
methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide. The reaction is
relatively slow, with an optimum temperature of approximately 33 to 35oC.
However, there are a number of advantages:
1.
Low initial cost.
2.
Ease of operation.
3.
No energy consumption.
4.
Ability to handle shock loads.
5.
Low operation costs.
6.
Small land area requirement.
Odors may occur periodically but this problem can be minimized by good
management.
In some cases plastic covers of nylon, reinforced hypalon,
polyvinyl chloride or Styrofoam are utilized to retain heat and odorous

gases in the pond.
Anaerobic lagoons are particularly suitable for treating the high
strength biodegradable wastes characteristic of the fruit and vegetable
processing industry.
and suspended solids.
Anaerobic ponds have achieved 85% removal of BOD5

Typical values for BOD5 removal are given in
Table 14.
The ponds must be designed with sufficient sludge storage capacity
such that sludge removal is required only infrequently. Treatability
studies are recommended to assess sludge accumulation rates for design
purposes.
The anaerobic process can be enhanced by the construction of enclosed,
well mixed reaction systems.
The systems consist of flow equalization
tanks, anaerobic contact tanks (0.12 to 0.5 days' detention time), air or
vacuum gas stripping units, and a clarifier with sludge recirculation
pumps.
Loadings of 2.4 to 3.2 kg BOD5/day/m3 have been used with a waste
recycle rate equal to 30% of the average daily flow to achieve BOD5 and
suspended solids removals of 90 to 97%. Methane gas produced in the
process can be collected and burned.
The capital and operating costs are
high but the units are suitable for installations where odor emissions
cannot be tolerated and where insufficient land is available for the
installation of anaerobic ponds.
92
Table 14.
BOD5 Loadings and Removal Efficiencies - Anaerobic Lagoons.
93
Aerobic Lagoons
Aerobic lagoons or stabilization ponds are the most common
biological treatment system used in the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.
The type of lagoons used are seasonal retention ponds, aerobic
stabilization ponds, and aerated lagoons.
All these processes depend on
the action of aerobic bacteria on the soluble organics contained in the

waste streams.
The organic carbon is converted to carbon dioxide and bacterial cells.
Algal growth is stimulated by incident sunlight which penetrates to a depth
of 1 to 1.5 meters.
Photosynthesis results in the production of excess
oxygen which is available to the aerobic bacteria; additional oxygen is

provided by mass transfer at the air/water interface.
Aerobic stabilization ponds are 0.18-0.9 m deep to optimize algal
activity and are usually saturated with dissolved oxygen throughout the
depth during daylight hours.
The ponds are designed to provide a detention
time of 2 to 2O days, with surface loadings of 5.5 to 22 g BOD5/day/m2.

The ponds are usually multiple cell units operated in series to
eliminate the possibility of short circuiting and to permit sedimentation
of dead algae and bacterial cells.
The ponds are constructed with inlet
and outlet structures located in positions to minimize short circuiting due

to wind induced currents; the dimensions and geometry are designed to
maximize mixing.
These systems can achieve 80 to 95% removal of BOD5
and approximately 80% removal of suspended solids, with most of the

effluent solids discharged-as algae cells.
During winter periods the degree of treatment decreases markedly as
the temperature decreases and ice cover eliminates algal growth. In
regions where ice cover occurs, the lagoons may be equipped with variable
depth overflow structures in order that processing waste flows can be
stored during the winter.
An alternative method is to provide long
retention storage ponds; the wastes can then be treated aerobically during
the spring prior to discharge.
Aerobic stabilization ponds are utilized where land is readily available.
In regions where soils are permeable, it is often necessary to use
plastic, asphaltic, or clay liners to prevent contamination of adjacent

groundwater.
94
Typical BOD5 removal efficiencies for fruit and vegetable wastes
are given in Table 15.
Facultative Ponds
Facultative ponds are usually 0.9 to 1.8 meters deep. The processes
involved in aerobic stabilization ponds occur in the upper layers of
facultative ponds.
Anaerobic bacteria operate at depths greater than one
meter and are important in the degradation of organic compounds contained in

the suspended solids which settle to the bottom of the ponds. Seasonal
retention ponds belong to this category.
Detention times for facultative ponds range from 7 to 30 days at
surface loadings of 2.2 to 5.6 g BOD5/m2. Considerably higher organic
loadings and longer retention times are utilized in seasonal holding ponds
which are generally deeper than two meters.
Holding pond systems can generally produce an effluent of acceptable
quality for discharge to receiving streams (BOD5 and suspended solids
concentrations less than 30 mg/l and 70 mg/l, respectively). They are
particularly suitable for use in conjunction with other forms of treatment
such as spray irrigation, or as flow equalization basins prior to the
disposal of wastes to municipal sewage treatment works. The quality of
effluent from holding ponds treating various commodities is provided in
Table 16.
Aerated Lagoons
Where sufficient land is not available for seasonal retention or
aerobic lagoons, efficient biological treatment can be achieved by the use
of aerated lagoons.
Air is applied to these ponds by fixed or floating
mechanical aerators or by compressors through air diffusers located on the

bottom of the pond.
The ponds are between 2.4 and 4.6 meters deep, with 2
to 10 days retention time and achieve 55 to 90% reduction in BOD5.

There are two types of aerated lagoons in common use:
1.
Completely mixed (all solids are kept in suspension and only

aerobic oxidation takes place).
2.
Facultative-aerated lagoon (the contents of the pond only

partially mixed and suspended solids settle to depths where
anaerobic decomposition occurs).
95
Table 15.
BOD5 Loadings and Removal Efficiencies - Stabilization Ponds.
96
Table 16.
Effluent Quality - Holding Lagoons.
97
Loading rates for aerated lagoons vary considerably and are determined by
rigorous laboratory or pilot scale testing carried out on the raw waste.
Specific BOD removal rates for given commodities in an aerated lagoon
under completely mixed conditions are given in Table 17. Aerated lagoons
achieve good BOD5 removal.
Levels of suspended solids in the effluent
are usually high and therefore aerated lagoons are usually followed by
quiescent settling to reduce the concentration of solids.
Trickling Filters
Trickling filters, utilizing plastic media in columns 4.5 to 6.0
meters high, have been used in the treatment of high strength fruit and
vegetable wastes (3000 to 4000 mg/l BOD5). High liquid recirculation
rates and forced air circulation are used to achieve BOD5 removals up
to 90%.
Wastewater is distributed by rotating arms at constant rates onto the
top surface of packed columns of plastic media. A biological film is
formed on the media and cellular material periodically sloughs-off when the
thickness becomes sufficiently great that oxygen transfer cannot occur
throughout its depth and anerobic conditions develop. Underdrains located
beneath the column transport the effluent to settling tanks where the dense
sludge is separated from the liquid effluent.
A portion of the effluent is
recirculated to seed the process with biological cells and to promote

consisten sloughing.
General design criteria for trickling filters are as follows:
roughing filters may be loaded at rates of 4.8 kg BOD5/day/m3 filter media
and achieve BOD5 reductions of 40-50%; high rate filters achieve BOD5
reductions of 40-70% at organic loadings of 0.4 to 4.8 kg BOD5/day/m/3
standard rate filters are loaded at 0.08 to 0.4 kg BOD5/day/m3 and achieve
BOD5 removals greater than 70%.
Both high rate and roughing filters
are normally followed by additional treatment.
In general they are used to
reduce the loading on subsequent treatment processes because of cost and

ease of operation.
Limited data shown in Table 18 are principally from
pilot plant operations.

Activated Sludge
In an activated sludge treatment system, an acclimatized, mixed,
biological growth of microorganisms (sludge) is contacted with organic
98
Table 17.
NOTE:
BOD5 Removal Rate Constants and Efficiencies - Aerated Lagoons.
Fraction of BOD5 removed = (1 - kt)-'
99
Table 18.
BOD5 Loadings and Removal Efficiencies - Trickling Filters.
100
material in the wastewater in the presence of excess dissolved oxygen and
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus).
The microorganisms convert the
soluble organic compounds to carbon dioxide and cellular material.
Oxygen
is obtained from applied air which also maintains adequate mixing. The
effluent is settled to separate biological solids and a portion of the
sludge is recycled; the excess is wasted for further treatment such as
dewatering.
Activated sludge systems utilized in the fruit and vegetable industry
are the extended aeration types: that is, they combine long aeration times
with low applied organic loadings.
days.
The detention times are three to ten
The suspended solids concentrations are maintained at high values to
facilitate treatment of the high strength wastes.

It is usually necessary to provide nutrient addition, pH control and
flow equalization prior to the activated sludge process, to ensure optimum
operation.
BOD5 and suspended solids removals in the range of 95-98%
have been achieved, using similar processes for many fruit and vegetable
wastes.
However, pilot or laboratory scale studies are required to
determine organic loadings, oxygen requirements, sludge yields, sludge

settling rates, etc. for these high strength wastes.
The following information required for the design of activated sludge
systems can be obtained from bench or pilot scale experiments:
1.
BOD5 removal rate data.
2. Oxygen requirements for the degradation of organic material

and the degradation of dead cellular material (endogenous
respiration).
3.
Sludge yield, determined from the conversion of soluble

organics to cellular material and the influx of inorganic
solids in the raw waste.
4. Solid/liquid separation rate; the final clarifier would be

designed to achieve rapid sedimentation of solids which
would be recycled or further treated.
3
A maximum surface
settling rate of 16.5 m /day/m has been suggested

for fruit and vegetable waste.
Activated sludge systems used in the fruit and vegetable processing
industry may be batch ("fill and draw") or continuous flow.
The activated
sludge reactors and clarifiers are often lined earthen basins rather than
concrete or steel tanks, the former involving lower construction costs.
101
These systems are more difficult to operate than lagoon systems or
trickling filters but can consistently produce a specified effluent
quality.
They are particularly suited for use in locations where there is
limited land available.
However, operational power costs and operation and
maintenance costs are relatively high.

Typical design criteria and operating conditions for activated sludge
systems treating fruit and vegetable wastes are as follows:
- activated sludge concentration 2,000 - 4,000 mg/l
- organic loading 0.1 to 0.5 kg BOD5/kg microbial solids,
- aeration time 16 - 48 hours, dependent on organic loading and
sludge age requirements,
- depth 3.0 - 6.1 meters (2.1 m minimum),
- return sludge rate 25 - 100% of plant inflow rate.
Rotating Biological Contactors
The use of rotating biological contactors is relatively new in North
America but has been utilized in Europe for a number of waste treatment
applications.
BOD5 reductions up to 90% have been achieved with multi-
stage units on citrus and apple processing wastes.

Rotating contactors consist of closely spaced flat parallel disks
mounted on horizontal shafts which rotate at 1 to 6 rpm perpendicular to
the direction of waste flow.
The disks are partially submerged in the
wastes and a biological film consisting of a mixed population of bacteria,

fungi and protozoans develops on the surface of the disks. The biological
film is alternately contacted with the waste and with the atmosphere for
oxygen exchange.
The rotational motion maintains solids in suspension and
entrains air in the liquid effluent.
As the biological growth increases, a
portion of it separates from the disks and is settled in a clarifier.

The organic loading required for 90% BOD5 removal is specific to
the waste being treated.
A high degree of treatment is possible since the
contactors are designed to provide plug flow and the bacterial growth
changes with distance along the contactor.
The contactors may be used
subsequent to roughing treatment such as anaerobic or aerated lagoons; a

number of contactors in series may be used without roughing treatment.
Biological contactors can cope with fluctuating loadings and can
provide consistently good quality effluent.
They are relatively simple to
102
operate, require little maintenance and consume relatively little energy.
At the present time, economic consideration of high capital cost detract
from their widespread use.
References
CH2M Hill, Corvallis, Oregon. 1976. Wastewater Treatment - Pollution
Abatement in the Fruit and Vegetable Industry. Prepared for Food
Processors Institute and Sponsored by Office of Technology Transfer,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Dornbush, J. N., D. A. Rollag and W. J. Trygotad. 1976. Investigation of
an anaerobic-aerobic lagoon system treating potato processing wastes.
IN Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium on Food Processing
Wastes. EPA - 600/2-76-224, p. 3, December.
Hemphill, B. W. and R. G. Dunnahoe. 1977. Improved Biological Treatment
of Food Processing Wastes with Two-Stage ABF Process. IN Proceedings
Eighth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.
EPA-600/2-77-184, p. 235, August.
Mulyk, P. A. and A. Lamb. 1977. Inventory of the Fruit and Vegetable
Processing Industry in Canada - A report for Environmental Canada,
Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Mulyk, P. A. and A. Lamb, of Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. 1977.
Review of Treatment Technology in the Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Industry in Canada.
Economic and Technical Review Report EPS
3-WP-77-5, Water Pollution Control Directorate.

Steffen, A. J. 1973. In-Process Modifications and Pretreatment Upgrading Meat Packing Facilities to Reduce Pollution, #l. EPA
Technology Transfer Seminar Publication, October.
Steffen, A. J. 1973. Pretreatment of Poultry Processing Wastes Up-grading Poultry-Processing Facilities to Reduce Pollution. #2. EPA
Technology Transfer Seminar Publication (EPA - 625/3-73-OOl), July.
Stephenson, J. P. and P.H.M. Guo. 1977. State-of-the-Art Review of
Processes for Treatment and Reuse of Potato Wastes. Economic and
Technical Review Report EPS 3-WP-77-7, Water Pollution Control
Directorate.
103
L A N D
D I S P O S A L
Introduction
Food processing wastewaters have been applied to the land through
engineered systems for more than 25 years.
Major interest began in the
late 1940's with the objective being primarily waste disposal. Since
then, a wide variety of food processing wastewaters has been applied to
the land.
Many of the earlier installations were loaded on the basis of
successful experience elsewhere, without regard for differing soil and

drainage characteristics.
As a result of this oversight, many systems
failed and land treatment systems began to acquire a poor public image.
Today's PL 92-500 "zero discharge" goals, however, coupled with improved
understanding of the capabilities and limitations of soil systems have
renewed the interest in using land application.
A 1964 survey resulted in the identification of 844 systems applying
food processing wastewater to the land.
Pennsylvania had the most systems
(143) followed by Wisconsin (141) and California (131). In 1972 as a

result of surveys and studies by the American Public Works Association
(APWA) and Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., data on more than 84 operating systems
were collected.
These reports serve as the basis for much of the
information presented here.

This information is not meant to stand alone as the final work on the
subject of land applied fruit and vegetable processing wastes.
Its
purpose is to provide a commodity-specific perspective of the suitability

of land application systems for the fruit and vegetable processing
industry.
Wastewater
Quality
and
Pretreatment
Requirements
Wastewater Characteristics
The characteristics of food processing wastewaters that must be
considered with regard to land treatment include BOD and COD, suspended
solids (SS), total fixed dissolved solids, nitrogen, pH, temperature, heavy
metals, and the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). These characteristics vary
widely among food processing wastes applied to the land.
104
BOD and COD.
The ratio of BOD to COD is a measure of a
wastewater's biodegradability.
Most food processing wastewaters are
readily degradable and exhibit a high BOD to COD ratio. Most soils are
highly efficient biological treatment systems. So, liquid loading rates
for land treatment operations are usually governed by the water holding
capacity of the soil rather than by the organic loading rate.
This
operational independence from BOD loading can be a distinct advantage of

land treatment systems over conventional systems in treating high-strength
wastewaters.
There are limits, of course, to the organic loading that can
be placed on the land without stressing the soil system. The effects of
organic overloads on the soil include damage to or killing of vegetation,
severe clogging of the soil surface, and leaching of undegraded organics
into the groundwater.
Defining the limiting organic loading rate for a
system must be done on an individual site-specific basis.
However,
rule-of-thumb rates have been developed based on experience.
A maximum BOD
rate of 200 lb/acre/day has been suggested as a safe loading rate for pulp
and paper wastewaters.
A somewhat higher rate can normally be used with
food processing wastewaters containing a higher percentage of sugars rather

than starchy or fibrous material.
Substantially higher loading rates
(greater than 600 lb/acre/day) have been used on a short-term seasonal

basis for infiltration-percolation systems. For overland flow systems,
organic loadings in the range of 40 to 100 lb/acre/day have been used
successfully.
Suspended Solids.
Solids are generally the major source of
operational problems such as clogged sprinklers and clogged soil surface.

Pretreatment to remove solids will normally minimize these problems.
Nitrogen.
Nitrogen in food processing wastewaters is normally
not of major concern because it is usually present in such concentrations

that it is almost completely removed by bacterial assimilation or crop
uptake.
Notable exceptions are feed-lot, dairy, potato processing, and
meat packing wastes.
The latter have been found to contribute a
significant nitrate load to groundwaters.

pH. Wastewaters that have a pH between 6.0 and 9.5 are generally
suitable for continuous application to most crops and soils.
Wastewaters
with pH below 6.0 have been successfully applied to soils that have a large
105
buffering capacity. "Beware of applying caustic wastes before diluting or
neutralizing them.
High temperature wastewaters from cooking
Temperature.
operations can sterilize the soil and prevent growth of cover vegetation.
Heavy Metals.
metals.
The soil has a large capacity to adsorb heavy
Once this capacity is exceeded, however, the metals may be
leached to the groundwater (under acid soil conditions) or inhibit plant

growth.
Salt Loading-Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). The ratio of sodium
to other cations, primarily calcium and magnesium, can adversely affect
the permeability of soils, particularly clay soils. Wastewaters with a
SAR below 8 are considered safe for most soils. Sandy soils can tolerate
higher SAR values.
Pretreatment
Pretreatment is required in most cases to eliminate frequent
operating difficulties and avoid adverse effects on the terrain
environment.
Screening. Screening with rotary or vibration screens has been
almost universally employed as a form of pretreatment to separate coarse
solids from food processing wastewaters.
Such solids can cause serious
problems with wastewater distribution, particularly with spray

Fine screens at pump intakes or in-line screens in the
applications.
discharge piping have also been employed as an added precaution against

sprinkler nozzle clogging.
Lagooning.
The use of lagoons or settling ponds prior to land
application of industrial wastewaters has been prevalent.
Such lagoons
serve to remove silt and other suspended particles which may contribute to
clogging of the distribution system as well as hasten the clogging of soil
pore space.
This form of pretreatment is normally used when applying
wastewaters to vegetated fields by flood irrigation techniques.
This
practice does, however, tend to create noxious odors.

pH Adjustment.
Industrial wastewaters with sustained flows
outside the pH range of 6 to 9.5 should be neutralized prior to land

application if the site is to be vegetated. Wastewaters with widely
fluctuating flows can be self-neutralizing if an equilization basin is
106
provided prior to land application.
In other cases a continuous pH
control system may be necessary.

Cooling.
For wastewaters below 150F, application by sprinkling
normally provides sufficient cooling to protect vegetation and soil. Such

cooling may be enhanced by the use of sprinklers that produce small spray
droplets or that have large spray diameters. Wastewaters with temperatures much above 150F generally should be cooled prior to spraying if
vegetation is desired.
Nutrient Addition.
Nutrient addition in the form of nitrogen or
phosphates may be necessary for nutrient deficient wastes unless the

fields are adequately fertilized.
Land
Treatment
Processes
Land application systems for treatment and disposal of food

processing wastes are normally categorized into three types of systems
based on differences in the interaction of the wastewater with vegetation
and soil.
These three catagories are referred to as (1) irrigation, (2)
overland flow, and (3) infitration-percolation.
Selection of the type of
system at a given site is primarily governed by the drainability of the

soil because it is this property that largely determines the allowable
liquid loading rate.
Schematic diagrams indicating the major process
characteristics of each 'of the systems are shown in Figure 17. A summary
of the comparative characteristics of the three systems is presented in
Table 19.
Irrigation.
Irrigation is considered to include those systems
where wastewater is applied to land by either spray or surface techniques

at normal agricultural irrigation rates or somewhat in excess of those
rates.
in./day.
Liquid loading rates generally range from about 0.1 in./day to 0.6
At these loading rates, land requirements range from about 60 to
370 acres/mgd of wastewater, plus a buffer zone.

Within the food processing industry the most common method of liquid
waste disposal on the land is spray irrigation.
The availability of
suitable land, soil characteristics, cover crop, the wastewater, and

climatic conditions all affect this method of disposal.
Some irrigation
l07
Figure 17.
Land Application Approaches
108
Table 19.
Comparative Characteristics of Land Treatment Systems
*l acre inch = 27,154 gallons
109
systems operate with little or no run-off and remove practically all of
the pollutional load (Table 20).
Loamy, well-drained soil is most suitable for irrigation systems,
particularly where crop production is a major goal of the operation.
However soil depth of 5 feet above groundwater is preferred to prevent
saturation of the root zone.
Underdrain systems have been used
successfully to adapt to high groundwater or impervious subsoil

conditions.
The objective of most irrigation systems for food processing wastewaters is to maximize hydraulic loadings rather than crop production. The
result is that most systems use a water tolerant perennial grass as a
cover crop.
A few systems use higher valued crops, such as alfalfa or
corn, for cover vegetation, but these have only been successful when
standard irrigation practices have been followed.
Cover vegetation plays an important role in irrigation systems. This
is particularly true in spray application systems where the cover
vegetation prevents soil erosion and sealing of the soil surface due to
the battering action of water droplets. The root structure of cover
vegetation also aids in maintaining the infiltrative capacity of the
surface by expanding the soil and promoting dispersion of clogging
materials.
Plants are also largely responsible for removal of nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Removal of the organic materials in the
wastewater is accomplished primarily by microorganisms residing in the

soil.
A few systems employing surface application techniques, such as
border strip or ridge and furrow irrigation, do not use cover crops
because the wastewater is either toxic to plants or contains a high
suspended solids load that would be trapped by a cover crop at the head of
an irrigated strip.
Spray irrigation on slopes draining to lagoons appears to be very
successful and adaptable to soils which limit lateral movement of
underground water; 99% BOD reduction, total color removal, and 90% N and P
reduction may be expected.
In irrigation systems most of the applied wastewater is either
consumed through evapotranspiration or percolates through the soil to
become groundwater.
Evaporative consumption generally is equal to or
111
greater than percolation.
as surface runoff.
A portion of the applied wastewater may appear
Failure to adequately control this runoff is a common
source of problems at existing systems..

These 1970 figures show the percentages of canners and freezers of
the listed products disposing of effluents by irrigation in the
continental
U.S.:
Overland Flow
The overland flow technique is an adaptation of spray irrigation to
impermeable or poorly drained soils.
The technique was pioneered in 1954
by the Campbell Soup Company at Napoleon, Ohio, and was studied in depth
at the Campbell installation at Paris, Texas.
Until recent studies with
municipal wastewaters were performed, its application had been restricted

to the food processing industry.
Overland flow differs from spray
irrigation primarily in that a substantial portion of the wastewater

applied is designed to run off and must be collected and discharged to
receiving waters, or in certain cases where wastewater is produced only
during part of the year, stored for deferred application.
An overland
flow system therefore functions more as a land treatment system than a

land disposal system.
Wastewater is applied by sprinklers to the upper two-thirds of sloped
terraces that are 100 to 300 feet in length, [see Figure 17(b)]. A runoff
collection ditch or drain is provided at the bottom of each slope.
Treatment is accomplished by bacteria on the soil surface and within the
vegetative litter as the wastewater flows down the sloped, grass-covered
surface to the runoff collection drains.
Ideally, the slopes should have a
grade of 2 to 4 percent to provide adequate treatment and prevent ponding

or erosion.
The system may be used on naturally sloped lands (such as the
two Campbell Soup Company installations at Napoleon, Ohio, and Paris,
112
Texas) or it may be adapted to flat agricultural land by reshaping the
surface to provide the necessary slopes.
Higher liquid loading rates are possible with the overland flow
technique than with conventional spray irrigation. These rates may range
between 0.25 to 0.7 in./day, resulting in a land requirement of about 50
to 150 acres plus buffer zone for each mgd applied.
As mentioned previously, the system is especially suited to use with
slowly permeable soils such as clays or clay loams.
With this type of
soil very little water percolates to the groundwater. Most of it appears

as surface runoff or is consumed by evapotranspiration.
A cover crop is essential with the overland flow system to provide
slope protection and media for the soil bacteria as well as to provide
nutrient removal by plant uptake.
A water tolerant perennial grass such as
Reed canary grass or tall fescue has been found to be suitable to the high
liquid loading rates.
Infiltration-Percolation
Infiltration-Percolation systems are characterized by percolation of
most of the applied wastewater through the soil and eventually to the
groundwater.
The method is restricted to use with rapidly permeable soils
such as sands and sandy loams.
This type of system is normally thought to
be associated with recharge or spreading basins although in food

processing applications high-rate-spray systems have been used to provide
distribution of the wastewater.
In actual practice there is not a
definite division between irrigation systems previously described and

high-rate spray infiltration-percolation systems, but rather a complete
spectrum of operations with liquid loading rates ranging from 0.1 in./day
to 12 in./day.
For purposes of discussion, an average loading rate of 0.6
in./day is used as an arbitrary dividing point between the two types Of

systems.
At this minimum loading rate, infiltration-percolation
systems
would require about 60 acres plus a buffer zone for each mgd applied.
The use of recharge or spreading basins for treatment and disposal of
food processing wastewaters has been limited primarily due to the high
organic strength and high solids concentration of typical wastewaters.
These constituents clog the soil surface and make it difficult to maintain
consistently high soil infiltration rates.
113
Vegetation is essential in high-rate spray systems to protect the
infiltrative surface.
For spreading basins, cover vegetation would
normally not be used for wastewaters containing a high solids concentration

because it would tend to entrap solids and prevent satisfactory
distribution in the basin.
In infiltration-percolation systems, plants play a relatively minor
role in terms of treatment of the applied wastewater.
Physical,
chemical, and biological mechanisms operating within the soil are

responsible for treatment.
The more permeable the soil, the further the
wastewater must travel through the soil to receive treatment.
In very
sandy soils this minimum distance is considered to be approximately 15

feet.
Existing
Land
Treatment
Systems
The design and management as well as common operating problems of

the different types of systems described above are discussed through
description of several selected existing operations.
Irrigation Systems
Under the category of irrigation the two basic techniques of
wastewater application employed are spray irrigation and surface
irrigation.
Under spray irrigation, variations that have been observed
include solid set sprinklers, portable sprinklers, and tower spraying.

Surface techniques include border strip flood irrigation with or without
crops and ridge and furrow irrigation also with or without crops.
A selected list of spray irrigation systems handling a wide variety
of food processing wastewaters is presented in Table 20 along with the
major operating characteristics.
systems is presented in Table 21.
A similar list for surface irrigation

Typical systems employing each of the
various application techniques are described below.

Solid Set Sprinkler Irrigation.
An example of solid set spraying
is the system of the Idaho Supreme Potato Company in Firth, Idaho. The
distribution system is buried with risers spaced on 80-foot squares
discharging at 80 to 100 psi.
The spray fields are planted to a mixture of
Reed canary grass, meadow foxtail, and alta fescue with the yield of hay
115
being 5 tons/acre annually.
Potato washing wastewater passes through
vacuum filters with the mud going to lagoons and the filtrate to the spray
fields where it is mixed with screened wastewater from the potato peeling
and cutting operations.
The system is well managed with wastewater applied
in 12 hours followed by 8 to 9 days of resting in the summer.
The system
continues to operate during the winter with ice mounds building up to

heights of 5 feet.
The only change in operation is that spraying lasts for
24 hours followed by 16 to 18 days of resting.

Portable Sprinkler Irrigation.
The spray system at Tri Valley
Growers tomato processing installation near Stockton, California, is a good

example of a portable sprinkler system.
The spray field consists of 165
acres with 90 acres planted to water grass and 75 acres planted to Sudan
grass.
The sprinkler system consists of 16-inch portable aluminum mains
and 4-inch portable laterals with sprinklers on a 60-foot grid. Although

the system is portable, it is operated as a solid set system without moving
the laterals prior to the end of the season. Pretreatment of the
wastewater consist of coarse screening, holding pond for equalization and
sedimentation, plus in-line screens in the discharge lines of the spray
system pumps.
Prior to the addition of the 75 acres to the spray fields in 1973,
approximately 3 mgd of tomato processing wastewater was applied to 90
acres with each of nine lo-acre sections receiving full flow for
The resulting average liquid loading
approximately 3 hours at a time.
rate was in excess of 1.2 inches per day on a clay loam soil. This
application rate was far in excess of the infiltrative capacity of the
soil and the evapotranspiration demand of the cover crop. Therefore
approximately 30 percent of the applied water appeared as runoff. The
runoff was collected and channeled back to the pumping station for
recirculation over the system.
Runoff was not discharged to local
receiving waters because of particularly stringent discharge requirements

of 15 mg/l BOD and 15 mg/l suspended solids. The recirculated runoff,
therefore, accumulated and was actually stored on the field surface and in
the drainage ditches.
The flooded conditions that developed led to odor
and mosquito propagation problems.

the season and became quite tall.
The crop was allowed to grow throughout

This tall grass impeded drying of the
soil surface and produced sheltered habitat for mosquito breeding.
116
The flooded condition was partially relieved in 1973 by the addition
of 75 acres of spray field and regrading the existing 90 acres.
resulting loading rate was 0.67 in./day.
The
In addition, the cover crop was
harvested as part of the field management. Prior to harvesting, the field

was allowed to dry for a period of 7 days.
The grass was mowed and removed
as green chop in one cutting during the 1973 season.
For 1974, the
expected flow is 2 mgd as a result of the separation of cooling water and

the resulting application rate would be reduced to 0.45 in./day.
Tower Spray Irrigation.
A unique spraying system has evolved at
the Stokely-Van Camp installation at Fairmount, Minnesota. In the early

1950's a portable solid-set system was used, but the labor required to move
the laterals proved too expensive.
This system was replaced by a boom-type
center pivot irrigation rig which also was too demanding of labor for
maintenance.
Finally, a fixed tower system was designed with fog nozzles
operating at high pressure.
The system now operates successfully using
towers at 500-foot centers that are about 25 feet high.

Flood Irrigation.
An example of flood irrigation is the Idaho
Fresh Pak system at Lewisville, Idaho.
The land has been graded into
2.5-acre plots for border strip irrigation.
Potato-peel wastewater passes
through a vacuum filter and the filtrate is pumped 4.5 miles to the site.
In the summer, grass is grown and harvested for hay. In the winter the
50F wastewater melts the snow and ice and percolates into the soil. Some
odors exist and more land is being acquired by the company.
Ridge and Furrow Irrigation.
This form of irrigation has been
replaced, for the most part, by spray irrigation.
Whereas Schraufnagel
reported about 50 ridge and furrow systems in 1962, Sullivan reported only
one ridge and furrow system out of the 56 responding to the APWA
questionnaire.
That system was the Green Giant Company installation at
Buhl, Idaho, where corn-processing wastewater is screened and used as

supplemental irrigation water for corn.
Other systems reported in
existence by an APWA mail survey are five creameries in Wisconsin and three
food processing plants in Indiana.
Overland and Flow Systems. The overland flow systems described below
are examples of how the system may be adapted to different site conditions.
A list of existing systems with operating characteristics is presented in
Table 22.
117
Table 22 - Selected Overland Flow Systems
118
The Hunt-Wesson Foods cannery in Davis, California, employs the
overland flow technique to treat approximately 3.25 mgd of tomato processing wastewater from July through September, plus smaller volumes of
wastewater from other products during the remainder of the year.
The
system consists of a series of sloped terraces with collection ditches at

the toe of each slope.
The terraces were constructed on a slope of 2.4
percent with a length of 175 feet.
A considerable amount of earthwork was
required to form the slopes (over 300,000 cu yd) since the site was
originally flat agricultural land. The slopes were planted to a
combination of Reed canary grass, tall fescue, Italian rye grass, and
trefoil with the anticipation that Reed canary grass would eventually
dominate.
The distribution system consists of a solid set sprinker system
with risers spaced at lOO-foot intervals and 65 feet from the top of each
slope.
Spraying is preceeded by coarse screening. The application of
wastewater is controlled automatically by clock timers that actuate
pneumatic valves in the field. During peak season, however, the spray
rotation is controlled manually.
Infiltration-Percolation Systems.
tion-percolation,
Under the category of infiltra-
two methods of wastewater application are employed.
These are spreading basins or percolation beds and high rate spraying.
Tri Valley Growers' Plant No. 2 near Modesto, California, is one of
the few processing plants where classical spreading basins are employed
for infiltration-percolation.
A waste-flow of approximately 2.5 mgd is
generated from the processing of tomatoes, peaches, and pears with the
canning season normally extending from July through September.
The
infiltration-percolation site consists of 70 acres of spreading basins and

20 acres of wine grapes.
The grapes are irrigated with wastewater using
normal application rates with no adverse affects on grape quality. The

soil at the site is primarily sand and loamy sand.
The infiltration-percolation site is divided into one-acre basins.
Most of the basins receive wastewater from concrete-lined ditches equipped
with slide gates, while the remainder are served by a buried-pipe system
with flood valves.
This pipe must be flushed with fresh water after each
application to prevent release of odors.
The application schedule and
loading rates have been developed by trial and error, since each basin was
119
found to have a different percolation capacity. The differences are due
to hardpan layers in the subsoil.
This situation is a good example of why
subsurface soil conditions should be determined as part of a site

investigation for infiltration-percolation systems.
Applications range
from 50,000 to 500,000 gallons per acre depending on the basin. Each
application is followed by 7 to 10 days of resting. The applications are
regulated to achieve elimination of standing water within 24 hours of the
start of application.
This avoids both odor and mosquito problems.
During the summer no cover crop is used on the basins. After each
application the basins are disked to allow the soil to aerate and maintain
its infiltrative capacity. As the season proceeds, the infiltrative
capacity drops somewhat due to clogging by solids in the wastewater.
Following the canning season, the basins are planted to oats which are
harvested in the following spring.
The oats serve to take up some of the
nitrogen that was contained in the wastewater and held in the soil
structure, as well as to restore the infiltration capacity of the soil.
Costs
At present the availability of useful cost data on land treatment
systems is limited.
The cost data presented herein are based primarily on
the APWA report and are supplemented with information on a few systems in
California.
Spray Irrigation
Costs for selected spray irrigation systems are given in Table 23.
Construction costs include costs for pumping stations, force mains, land
preparation, and distribution systems, except as noted, and depend on the
year constructed as well as many local conditions.
Land costs have been
separated because of the ir variab ility and are presented in Table 24. In
addition to the cost of land when purchased, the estimated value of the
land in 1972 is included in Table 24.
In all cases the value of the land
is at least as high as when it was purchased and in several cases land

values have appreciated substantially.
The total capital cost is the sum
of the costs for land and construction plus easements, pretreatment

facilities, monitoring facilities, and administrative, engineering, and
120
Table 23.
Construction and Operating Costs for Selected Spray

Irrigation Systems
121
legal fees.
In the case of the Libby operation at Liepsic, Ohio, the land
for spray irrigation is leased.

Operating costs are also given in Table 23. The annual budget was
divided by the total annual flow to obtain the cost in cents per thousand
gallons.
The period of operation ranged from 4 months for the Green Giant
Company operation at Montgomery, Minnesota, to 12 months for the Gerber

operation at Fremont, Michigan.
Surface Irrigation
Costs for surface irrigation depend a great deal on the existing
topography.
Consequently the cost-of preparing the land for irrigation
must be balanced against the purchase price of the land. For example, the
Libby's system at Gridley did not entail any land preparation costs because
the fields were leveled previously for irrigation. However, the land cost
was $1,400 per acre.
On the other hand, for the California Canners and
Growers system at Thornton, costs for land preparation and the distribution
system totalled $450 per acre (total construction cost shown in Table 25).
Adding this to the land cost of $870 per acre yields a total of $1,320 per
acre at Thornton, as compared to the $1,400 per acre at Gridley. Of
course, many of the local conditions were different.
However, the
combination of land cost and land preparation cost is an especially

important consideration for surface irrigation systems.
Additional land
costs are given in Table 26.

The initial expenditure for a land application system is appreciably
lower than that for a biological wastewater treatment plant. The primary
investment of a land application system is the cost of land.
In the
midwest region of the United States, except for major metropolitan areas,
land prices vary from $400 to $1,500 per acre. Equipment and installation
costs are as high as $1,000 per acre, the major equipment expense usually
being the piping.
Four-inch aluminum pipe costs roughly $1.30 per foot,
and 6" spiral-wound steel pipe costs about $1.50 per foot, including
connections.
Operating costs include the cost of pumping, maintenance and
operation.
If the semipermanent system is used, two men are capable of
properly operating the system.

operator's attention.
The permanent system requires only one
122
F&V SPNOFF/LAND DISPOSAL OF F&V PROCESSING WASTEWATERS
Table 25 - Construction and Operating Costs for Selected

Surface Irrigations Systems
123
Overland Flow
Construction cost items for overland flow include earthwork,
pretreatment, transmission, distribution, and collection. Clearing of
land, grading of slopes, and planting is generally equal in cost to the
distribution system.
The available costs for distribution systems and land
preparation for two operating systems are given in Table 27. The operating
costs shown are total costs not including the return from the sale of hay.
The return on the sale of hay is approximately 8 to 10 percent of the total
annual operating cost.
Infiltration-Percolation
For infiltration-percolation
systems, the costs per gpd, as shown in
Table 28, are relatively low compared to spray irrigation.
Similarly, the
operating costs are lower due also to the high-rate applications and low
land requirements.
The only available land cost was $400 per acre in 1961
for the Hunt-Wesson system at Bridgeton, New Jersey.

Applicability
and
Potential
of
Land
Application
It is apparent from the descriptions of the various existing

systems that land application can be adapted to a wide range of soil types
and site drainage conditions.
One of the keys to a successful system is
to determine the site characteristics--soil type, soil drainage,

subsurface conditions, topography, and climatic conditions--and then adapt
the most suitable technique to them.
Equally important to successful
operation is conscientious field management to avoid stressing or

overloading the system.
Of particular interest to the food processing industry is the ability
of land application techniques to meet "zero discharge" requirements at a
reasonable cost.
As more food processing activity becomes centered in
rural areas the economic advantages of land application will become more
evident.
Land application, however, is not a panacea. Many uncertainties
still remain regarding long-term effects of wastewater on soils, plants,
and groundwater.
Research in this regard is being carried on at several
124
Table 27 - Construction and Operating Costs for Overland Flow Systems
Depends upon the period of operation.
125
locations.
Dr. Jay Smith of the USDA in Kimberly, Idaho, is conducting a
3-year study of land application of potato processing wastewaters in Idaho.

EPA has sponsored considerable research on overland flow.
The food processing industry has taken the lead in developing land
application as an economic alternative to conventional treatment method.
This is evidenced by the fact that over one-third of all the land
application systems in the United States serve the industry. Active
interest indicates that the industry will continue to be at the forefront
of future development.
References
Bogedain, F., A. Adamczyk, and T. J. Tofflemire. 1974. Land Disposal of
Wastewater in New York State. New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation.
Cole, L., B. Morris, and Wm. S. Stinson. 1977. Potato processor achieves
98+% BOD, 99+% suspended solids removal. Food Processing, Feb.
Crites, R. W., C. E. Pound, and R. G. Smith. 1974. Experience with land
treatment of food processing wastewater. Proceedings Fifth National
Symposium on Food Processing Wastes.
EPA.
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program.

references--Regulations, Guidance, Procedures.
Koo, R. C. J. 1976.
Back to the Tree, citrus processing plants use
wastewater for irrigation.

Liptak, B. G. 1974.
Water Research in Action. Vol. 1, No. 7.
Environmental Engineer's Handbook. Vol. I and III.
National Canners Association. 1971.
Liquid Wastes from Canning and
Freezing Fruits and Vegetables (12060 EDK 08/71).
126
F&V SPNOFF/DIRECT DISCH
DIRECT
DISCHARGE
Introduction
Fruit and vegetable processing plants that discharge wastewaters
directly to streams, bays, sounds, rivers, creeks and/or estuaries must
have a permit for this discharge as required under the NPDES permit program.
In most cases, even small plants that have septic tanks for process
wastewaters must also have a state or local permit.
Plants that use
non-discharge systems such as land disposal will also probably need a

permit. Permits for discharge or disposal are usually obtained from the
state environmental control agency.
Effluent
Guidelines
and
Limitations
Introduction
In response to widespread public concern about the condition of the
Nation's waterways, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
The 1972 act built upon the experiences of earlier
water pollution control laws.
The 1972 act brought dramatic changes.
What the 1972 law says, in essence, is that nobody - no city or town,
no industry, no government agency, no individual - has a right to pollute
our water.
What was acceptable in the past - the free use of waterways as
a dumping ground for our wastes - is no longer permitted.
From now on,
under the 1972 law, we must safeguard our waterways even if it means fundamental changes in the way we manufacture products, produce farm crops,
and carry on the economic life of our communities.
Congress declared that the objective of the 1972 law is "to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters."
- The law requires EPA to establish national "effluent limitations"
for industrial plants - including fruit and vegetable products plants. An
"effluent limitation" is simply the maximum amount of a pollutant that
anyone may discharge into a water body.
- By July 1, 1977, the law required existing industries to reduce
their pollutant discharges to the level attainable by using the "best
127
practicable" water pollution control technology (BPT). BPT was determined
by averaging the pollution control effectiveness achieved by the best
plants in the industry.
- By July 1, 1983, the law requires existing industries to reduce
their pollutant discharges still more - to the level attainable by using
the "best available" pollution control technology (BAT). BAT is based on
utilizing the best pollution control procedures economically achievable.
If it is technologically and economically feasible to do so, industries
must completely eliminate pollutant discharges by July 1, 1983.
- The law requires new fruit and vegetable plants to limit pollutant
discharges to the level attainable by meeting national "standards of
performance" established by EPA for new plants. A new plant must meet
these standards immediately, without waiting for 1977 or 1983. These new
plant standards may require greater reduction of pollutant discharges than
the 1977 and 1983 standards for existing plants. Where practicable, zero
discharge of pollutants can be required. However, for the fruit and
vegetable industry, the standards are equal to the most stringent 1983
standards, with allowance not granted for plant size.
- The law requires fruit and vegetable facilities that send their
wastes to municipal treatment plants - as almost half the do - to make sure
the wastes can be adequately treated by the municipal plant and will not
damage the municipal plant.
In some industries, discharges to municipal
plants may thus have to be "pre-treated." That is, the portion of the
industrial waste that would not be adequately treated or would damage the
municipal plant must be removed from the waste before it enters the
municipal system.
To date, the fruit and vegetable industry has not been
required by law to pretreat their wastewaters.

- The law does not tell any industry what technology it must use.
The law only requires industries to limit pollutant discharges to levels
prescribed by law.
- The law also says that if meeting the 1977 and 1983 requirements is
not good enough to achieve water quality standards, even tougher controls
may be imposed on dischargers.
- And while the law requires industries to meet the national discharge standards set for 1977, 1983 and for new plants, the law also allows
a state or community to impose stricter requirements if it wishes.
The
128
national standards are thus minimum requirements that all industries must
meet.
The key to applying the effluent limits to industries - including the
fruit and vegetable industry - is the national permit system created by the
1972 law. (The technical name is the "national pollutant discharge
elimination system," or NPDES.)
Under the 1972 law it is illegal for any industry to discharge any
pollutant into the Nation's waters without a permit from EPA or from a
State that has an EPA-approved permit program. Every industrial plant
that discharges pollutants to a waterway must therefore apply for a
permit.
When issued, the permit regulates what may be discharged and the
amount of each identified pollutant.
effluent from each plant.
It sets specific limits on the
It commits the discharger to comply with all
applicable national effluent limits and with any State or local

requirements that may be imposed.
If the industrial plant cannot comply
immediately, the permit contains a compliance schedule - firm target dates

by which pollutant discharges will be reduced or eliminated as required.
The permit also requires dischargers to monitor their wastes and to report
the amount and nature of wastes put into waterways.
The permit, in essence, is a contract between a company and the
government.
This combination of national effluent standards and limits, applied to
specific sources of water pollution by individual permits with substantial
penalties for failure to comply, constitutes the first effective nationwide
system of water pollution control.
Now what does all this mean to the fruit and vegetable industry? How
does one determine the NPDES permit limitations for a plant discharge into
a receiving stream?
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency prepared standards for fruit
and vegetable plants under the 1972 law.
many factors:
EPA did so, after considering
the nature of plant raw materials and wastes; manufacturing
processes; the availability and cost of pollution control systems; energy

requirements and costs; the age of size of plants in the industry; and the
environmental implications of controlling water pollution.
(For instance,
129
we would gain nothing if, in controlling water pollution, we created a new
air or land pollution problem.)
The proposed regulations were issued by EPA in March, 1974 and October
1975. Then, they were sent to the industry and other interested organizations for review and comments.
Federal Register.
They were made public by publication in the
Comments were submitted by companies and industry
organizations, by State agencies, and by Federal agencies.
EPA then
carefully analyzed the comments and made appropriate changes in the

standards.
Then, EPA issued the final standards for the plants to follow
in order to meet the requirements of the 1972 law.

The standards are contained in an official government regulation
published in the Code of Federal Regulations. This regulation is supported
by a detailed technical document called the "Development Document for
Interim Final and Proposed 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."
Subsequent regulations and amendments have been made over the last several
years.
In brief, here is what the regulation does:
- Sets limits on identified pollutants that can be legally discharged
by plants in the sub-categories of the fruit and vegetable products
industry.
- Zeroes in on the major fruit and vegetable industry pollutants, it
establishes maximum limitations for BOD and suspended solids that plants
can discharge during any one day, on an average over a thirty-day period,
and on an annual average based in terms of lbs pollutant that can be
discharged per 1000 lbs of raw material processed.
- Sets limits that can be met by using the "best practicable control
technology currently available" - the 1977 requirement.
- Sets more stringent limits that can be met by using the "best
available technology economically achievable" - the 1983 requirment (Table
29 for fruits and Table 30 for vegetables).
- Requires that the pH (acidity or alkalinity) of fruit and vegetable
plant discharges be within the range of 6.0 to 9.5.
- Establishes performance standards that new plants must meet without
waiting for 1977 or 1983.
For the fruit and vegetable industry, the new
132
plant standard is the same as the 1983 (BAT) standard for existing plants
except that the limitations for the large plants are the new source
standards regardless of plant size. However, regulatory officials shall be
consulted for up-to-date information.
- Does not require zero discharge of any pollutant by a fruit and
vegetable plant.
Zero discharge may be technically possible in the
industry, but the cost would be prohibitive for most if not all plants in
the industry.
- Does not tell companies what technology to use to meet regulations.
The standards only require fruit and vegetable companies to limit pollutant
discharges to the levels required.
In 1978, EPA reviewed the BAT standards in light of Section 304 (b)(4)
of the Clean Water Act which established "best conventional pollutant
control technology" (BCT).
BCT was intended to replace BAT. Congress
directed EPA to consider the:

. . . reasonableness of the relationship between the
costs of attaining a reduction in effluents and the
effluent reduction benefits derived, and the
comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such
pollutants from the discharge of publically owned
treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of
such pollutants from a class or category of industrial
sources
The fruit and vegetable processing industry was studied and
regulations were proposed in the August 23, 1978, Federal Register.
The
results of these studies lead EPA to concluded that BAT regulations were
found to be established from insufficient data and they were recommended to
be suspended.
Only the tomato and mushroom BAT regulations were found
acceptable for BCT.

Despite the voluminous amount of material available in regard to the
regulations, many fruit and vegetable processors will find they are facing
state regulations more stringent than the BPT, BAT or BCT standards.
When facing a permit situation, prompt contact with the proper regulatory
officials is recommended.
133
F&V SPNOFF/MUNC DISCH
MUNICIPAL
DISCHARGE
Introduction
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 have some subtleties that will increase
costs for your fruit and vegetable plants discharging to municipal systems.
The requirements for industrial cost recovery, user charges and sewer use
ordinances will surely affect many plants.
Probably almost 50% of the
fruit and vegetable plants now discharge to municipal systems. However,

with developing regulations and technologies, the future may find many more
plants discharging to municipal systems.
The sewer use ordinance as used is to refer to the "sewer ordinance"
defined as an instrument setting forth rules and regulations governing the
use of the public sewer system.
In most cases, the industrial cost
recovery and surcharges (user charges) may be a part of this instrument.

Little can be reported about industrial cost recovery as few municipalities
have imposed the same and an 18 month moratorium has been imposed in PL
95-217.
Surcharges will be treated as a section of the sewer use ordinance
although in reality some municipalities pass separate ordinances for user

charges.
Processors must ask themselves what is happening now and what will
happen in the near future.
Although charges for industrial wastes began as
early as 1907, as late as 1969 only about 10% of United States municipalities collected these charges.
Most municipalities did not have a stringent
sewer use ordinance until after 1960.
Most municipalities do not have one
in 1978 although state and federal pressure and encouragement will surely
force most municipalities to draft such an ordinance. Key questions that
must be asked by industrial dischargers is how they can get a reasonable
ordinance that gives both them and the city system protection -- them in
having sewage treatment, at a reasonable cost and the city in preventing
illegal or toxic discharges.
PL 92-500 and EPA require that municipalities institute industrial
cost recovery, a system of user charges and have a sewer use ordinance if
they obtain federal funds for water or wastewater facilities. However, one
must look carefully at exactly what is required.
were modified substantially by PL 95-217.
The initial requirements
134
Industry should assist in the development of a "practical and sound
regulatory ordinance fitted to local conditions".
Industry should want the
minimum number of restrictions that will protect the municipal system.

These restrictions should be technically sound and rigidly enforced.
Specific Requirements
Sewer use ordinances are largely a matter of local and state
jurisdiction.
However, many individuals have been to a town council
meeting and been told that "EPA insists and requires a 28 page document".
There is a difference in what each EPA Regional Administrator requires.
There are seven specific requirements for a sewer use ordinance if Federal
monies are received.
(1) 35.927-4
These include:
Prohibit new connections from inflow sources
into sanitary sewers.
(2) 35.927-4
Insure that new sewers and connections are

properly designed and constructed.
35.925-11
System of user charges paying proportionate

share of 0 + M.
(3) 35.935-13
X. (1976 a.)
User charge system must be incorporated.

Equitable system of cost recovery. Note - all
users pay user charge -- not just industrial
users.
(4) 4.2.2
(1976 a.)
Users shall be required to immediately notify

waste treatment plant of any unusual discharge
(flow or waste parameters).
(5) x.
(1976 a.)
Pretreatment of wastes that would otherwise be

detrimental.
(6) Appendix B. (f) 3)

(1976 a.)
User charges shall be reviewed annually to
(7) 35.905-6
Recovery from industrial users of the grant
assure 0 + M recovery.
amount allocable to the treatment of their
wastes.
Review of Proposed Sewer Use Ordinance

The best and perhaps the only time that industry can get input into
a sewer use ordinance is during the passage by the city council or the
135
sewer district board; i.e., the governing body.
Normally public hearings
are held but everyone must be most observant for the hearing notice.
The study of a proposed sewer use ordinance requires time and
expertise.
However, anyone can read and understand such an ordinance with
a little extra effort.

A description of some key parts of a sewer use ordinance can be found
in Table 31.
Each word and sentence can have a real meaning. Industry
management should not only ask the engineer or utilities director to

explain what they meant to say but insist that the ordinance have language
that clearly states the same.
For example, does "sample manhole" refer to
the manhole in the street or does it refer to a specially constructed box

with a wier, flow recorder, sampler and sample refrigerator that might cost
as much as $25,000.
Specific problems seen in ordinances for fruit and
vegetable plants have included:

- Holding tanks or flow equilization being required - where are you
going to. put the tank?
- Control manhole or sampling facility costing more than $25,000.
- Limitations or prohibitions on BOD, FOG, etc. i.e., BOD less than
300 mg/l, FOG less than 25 mg/l.
- Surcharge for industrial users only with other contributing
commercial customers not charged equally.
Specific review points when considering a sewer use ordinance should
include the following:
- What's it going to cost as proposed - after enactment?
- Are there defacto or real limitations prohibiting your discharge?
- Who is the boss?
- Who handles complaints and reviews decisions?
- Will samples be representative and who pays for sampling and analysis?
- Are there unrealistic limitations - pH, FOG, BOD5?
- Did you review the ordinance before enactment?
- Can you obtain split samples?
- Can you object to unreasonable results? If so, how?
Normally the ordinance is passed by a public body. This is industry's
best chance of getting a receptive audience. They can more easily obtain
changes then than later.
The procedures for obtaining changes are
presented in the "Municipal Discharge Spinoff".
136
Table 31.
Some Key Parts to A Sewer Use Ordinance
Definitions
All key words should be included in the

definitions. For instance: Does
representative sample mean a grab sample, an
average of 4 grab samples at 15 minute
intervals or a 24 hour, proportional composite
sample?
Resampling
Does the ordinance contain the specifics of

resampling if industry objects to a particular
sample? What are the costs of the resampling?
Mock Bill
A clause in a new ordinance can require the

city to sample for a period of 6-12 months to
perfect their techniques while billing you on a
"mock bill" which does not have to be paid. If
there are high charges, you have time to
institute in-plant changes or pretreatment.
Appeal Procedure
State law probably requires an appeal if an

action is considered unreasonable or injust.
However, if a procedure and time schedule for
appeal is not specified, an industry may find
themselves without water and sewer for an
extended period while court action is followed.
Responsible Person
The individual(s) responsible for

interpretation and enforcement should be
specified.
Everyone should be aware of any
interpretable decisions that might be made.
Representative Samples
(wastewater
characteristics)
What method(s) is specified for sampling? Is

the sample proportional to flow? What is the
frequency of the samples? Does each sample
period give a set of characteristics or are
sample periods averaged to determine wastewater
characteristics?
Waiver (Special Agreement)
Does the-ordinance have a special clause

allowing a contract or agreement between
industry and the municipality to allow
otherwise prohibited flows or concentrations?
Who okays such a pact ? Will you be able to get
one approved?
When in the event that

metered water does not
equal wastewater
There should be a clause allowing plant records

or metering or engineering studies to establish
a percentage of metered water which actually
leaves in the sanitary sewer which is sampled.
Thus a "fair" wastewater load can be established.
Pretreatment
When, who and how is pretreatment or flow

equilization required?
137
SEAFOOD SPNOFF/MUNC DISCH
Municipal Charges
Muni cipal charges for industrial plants include water, sewer,
surcharge (user charge) and industrial cost recovery.
Most municipalities
compute water and sewage charges as follows:

Water . . .
Based on water consumption metered into the plant.

Often on a declining block scale so that the cost/
unit decreases as you use more water.
Note that
the bill is usually in hundreds of cubic feet

(1 cu. ft. = 7.48 gal.).
Cost usually ranges from
$0.10 to $1.00 per 1000 gallons.

Sewer Charge . . .
Based on computed water charge and usually

represents 10 to 200 % of the water bill. Normally
100% is the most common figure seen in the
Southeast.
Surcharge . . .
Based most often on metered water consumption and a

parameter(s) measured in the wastewater. The most
common factor is BOD5 and usually charged at a
rate of $0.10 to $2.00 per pound for those pounds
in excess of normal sewage.
Similarly, the
suspended solids (TSS) load is also used. A

hydraulic load charge is sometimes included and is
often used as a "demand charge" especially for
seasonal operations.
Industrial Cost
Recovery . . .
Recovery by the grantee from the industrial users

of a treatment works of the grant amount allocable
(Rules &
to the treatment of wastes from such users pursuant
Reg. 35.905-6)
to section 204 (b) of the Act and this subpart.

(Note that ICR is under review and there may be
some changes.)
Surcharges
Surcharges are often included in a sewer use ordinance. However,
they may be included in a separate ordinance.
Surcharges are usually passed because of local government's problems
such as:
(1) Waste treatment costs are rising, (2) More treatment is being
138
required, (3) Loads are often increasing, (4) Property tax is already
overburdened, or (5) because the municipality has received federal funds
and is required to institute user charges.
Any food plant should keep careful records about their surcharge
bill.
A plant should keep up with the following in respect to their
surcharge bills:
- For which characteristics are you paying
- Do these vary widely
- Does your flow vary widely
- How does your bill compare with similar plants
Careful attention should be paid to the method the city uses for calculating the surcharge.
Careful attention should be directed toward the
sampling method, sample analysis procedures, flow measurement method and

the validity of the results.
A surcharge calculation involves flow
measurement, sampling, sample preservation, sample analysis, laboratory

calculation, and surcharge calculation.
cause an error in the surcharge bill.
An error in any of these will

However, remember that errors can be
in the plant's favor.

Conclusions
The lack of details is explained in part by the procedure a sewer
use ordinance follows.
As a normal rule, the person in charge of the waste
treatment works and planning presents an ordinance drafted by an

engineering firm for approval of the board or council. As the council
members feel incompetent to review and discuss the same, rapid passage is
the rule. Mr.
Rankine, an attorney, noted that it is the most important
matter that a sewer regulating authority can pass.

The fruit and vegetable industry is affected because for health and
sanitation, much cleaning and washing results in large amounts of organic
wastes which equate to BOD5.
Also, much of the raw material is wasted
in fruit and vegetable processing due to peeling and trimming.

The legal field of sewer use ordinance making is complex and ill
reported. Challenges are usually settled out of court and legal records and
precedents have not been established.
The best defense a plant has to a
badly drafted sewer use ordinance is a good lawyer and a friend(s) on the
body responsible for voting on the same.
Industries faced with bad ordi-
139
nances must rally their forces and present a united front.
City managers
should consult industry when they draft sewer ordinances.

A pact with the city fathers allowing specific exemption for your
wastes is a realistic alternative if an ordinance is in existence with a
clause for such a pact.
But, a fruit and vegetable processor should get
the best technical and legal advise before doing this.

In conclusion, your fruit and vegetable plants will probably face the
issues discussed herein within the next several years.
It would be to your
benefit to be ready to assist them in these most serious negotiations. You

must tell them to be alert to any indication that a sewer use ordinance is
being developed or revised.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The development of this program and the preparation of the
modules resulted from the collaboration of Drs. Roy E. Carawan, N.C.
State University, James V. Chambers, Purdue University, Robert R. Zall,
Cornell University and Roger H. Wilkowske, SEA-Extension, USDA.
Financial support which supported the development of this project and
the modules was provided by the Science and Education AdministrationExtension, U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C., and the Cooperative Extension
Services of North Carolina, New York and Indiana.
STAFF AND PART-TIME PARTICIPANTS
An Advisory Committee made up of individuals from the food
processing industry, equipment manufacturers, regulatory agencies and
the legal profession assisted in the planning and development of these
materials. The authors appreciate their advice and support.
Much of the information presented in these documents has been
gleaned from the remarks, presentations and materials of others. Their
cooperation and assistance is appreciated.
Ms. Torsten Sponenberg (Cornell University) provided support in
developing several modules and chapters. The authors appreciate her
interest, enthusiasm and dedication.
Ms. Jackie Banks (Cornell University) provided many hours of typing
and proof-reading needed to pull together the wide array of material in
the different documents. The authors appreciate her contributions.
Mr. V. K. (Vino) Chaudhary (Purdue University) provided support in
developing the materials on pretreatment and treatment.
Ms. Cindy McNeill (N. C. State University) provided support in the
preparation of the final documents.
Mr. Paul Halberstadt (N. C. State University) provided support in the
development of many of the modules. He also was the principal reviewer
and editor for these materials. The authors acknowledge his contribution
to this program.
Mrs. Gloria Braxton (N. C. State University) provided typing for
several of the modules.
Mrs. Judy Fulp (N. C. State University) served as secretary for the
project. She is primarily responsible for typing the materials in the many
modules. The authors deeply appreciate her invaluable contribution.
Only through her interest, dedication and hard work were the authors
notes turned into these documents.
Sets of the modules are available from:

Publications Office
N. C. Agricultural Extension Service
Ricks Hall
N. C. State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27650

Fruit and Vegetable Water and Wastewater Management: Spinoff On

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fruit and Vegetable Water and Wastewater Management: Spinoff On

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPINOFF ON

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WATER AND

EXTENSION SPECIAL REPORT No. AM-18E

WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE

WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

The main purpose of this FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WATER AND

This document is intended as a guide, in that

it attempts to provide broad coverage, but cannot be totally

Instead, it gives general

information on a wide scale, and then directs the reader to

In addition, this guide can aid in bringing together

representatives from the food industry and regulatory

This guide should be valuable not only to extension

The subject of this guide is the management and control of

In preparing this guide,

the committee has attempted to maintain a uniformity of

Therefore, the reader is advised to

The vast differ-

ences and complexities that exist in fruit and vegetable

The mention of manufacturers, trade names or commercial

Recognition of unit operations and, plant practices that

Understanding of the key elements in a water and waste

Identification of the key federal, state and local

Appreciation of the possible role of an extension

(1) role an extension specialist can play in

plant pollution problems, (2) components of an effective water and waste

role of management in processing water and waste control is explained.

practices include pretreatment, by-product recovery and/or treatment. The

State, federal and local regulations for pretreatment are

State and local requirements for discharge limitations to meet

NPDES permits or water quality criteria are listed and discussed.

The importance of proper sampling and analytical techniques are

The categories of processing

include canning, freezing, dehydrating, and pickling and brining.

Census of Manufacturers indicates there are over 3000 establishments in

The annual payroll in 1972

amounted to about $1.5 billion.

The industries have plants all over the United States,

but California has the heaviest concentration of production of fruit and

The largest supply for human consumption exists as ground or

subsurface waters with an 0.612% of the supply. Only a relatively small

Most water pollution laws are designed to protect the water in

granted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

In fact, the law, establishes a national goal to

eliminate pollutant discharges into navigable waters by 1985.

First a set of effluent limitations reflecting the

application of the "best practicable control technology currently

Subsequently, Congress in 1977, passed

Although the program was developed by and is

User charges and industrial cost recovery (ICR)

were required of those industries in municipalities that receive federal

Also, effluent limitations were established for publicly owned

treatment works (POTWS).

These increased standards require more costly

F&V SPNOFF/PROC PLANT SCHEMES

These flow charts will

Including flow charts for every fruit and vegetable commodity is

beyond the scope of this chapter.

The charts and accompanying texts were

taken from a publication by Soderquist.

The physical layout of a green bean processing plant

analyzed in the Soderquist study is presented in Figure 2.