Clean
Technologies
in
U.
S.
Industries:
Focus
on
Food
Processing
Executive
Summary
Acronyms
Industry
Background
Environmental
Issues
and
Regulations
Clean
Technology
Developments
Future
Trends
References
TABLES
Table
1:
Key
Organizations
in
the
Food
Processing
Industry
Table
2:
Typical
Rates
for
Water
Use
for
Various
Industries
Table
3:
Clean
Technology
and
Pollution
Prevention
Services
1.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
report
gives
a
brief
overview
of
the
state
of
the
U.
S.
food­
processing
industry,
with
an
emphasis
on
its
efforts
to
incorporate
pollution
prevention
and
clean
technologies
into
its
processing
operations.
The
report
is
not
intended
to
be
a
thoroughly
comprehensive
industry
guide
or
study.
Rather,
it
was
written
as
guidance
material
for
those
who
are
seeking
general
information
about
the
U.
S.
foodprocessing
industry
and
its
use
of
technologies
and
processes
that
reduce
or
prevent
pollution.

The
United
States
is
the
largest
consumer
and
producer
of
"
processed"
food
products
in
the
world.
The
U.
S.
food­
manufacturing
stage
is
dominated
by
large­
scale,
capital­
intensive,
highly
diversified
corporations.
There
are
more
than
17,000
food
manufacturing
facilities
in
the
United
States.
The
top
20
manufacturers
combined
gross
more
than
the
next
80
manufacturers
and
more
than
the
next
101­
500
manufacturers
in
total
sales.

The
U.
S.
food­
processing
industry
accounts
for
approximately
26%
of
the
food­
processing
output
of
the
world.
Food
quality
standards
in
the
United
States
are
recognized
as
some
of
the
toughest
in
the
world.
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(
FDA),
and
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
enforcement
agencies
have
helped
ensure
a
high
level
of
quality
and
safety
for
food
products
to
the
U.
S.
consumer.
Because
the
United
States
is
a
world
leader
in
food
processing,
it
follows
that
many
of
the
major
technological
innovations
in
the
industry,
including
those
in
clean
technologies
and
processes,
occur
in
the
United
States.
The
term
"
clean
technologies"
is
defined
as
"
manufacturing
processes
or
product
technologies
that
reduce
pollution
or
waste,
energy
use,
or
material
use
in
comparison
to
the
technologies
that
they
replace."

The
food­
processing
industry
has
special
concerns
about
the
health
and
safety
of
the
consumer.
It
should
be
noted
that
some
of
the
technologies
outlined
in
this
report
target
both
human
health
and
environmental
pollution
issues.

Key
resources
used
by
the
food­
processing
industry
include
the
following:

Water.
Traditionally,
the
food­
processing
industry
has
been
a
large
water
user.
Water
is
used
as
an
ingredient,
an
initial
and
intermediate
cleaning
source,
an
efficient
transportation
conveyor
of
raw
materials,
and
the
principal
agent
used
in
sanitizing
plant
machinery
and
areas.
Although
water
use
will
always
be
a
part
of
the
food­
processing
industry,
it
has
become
the
principal
target
for
pollution
prevention,
source
reduction
practices.

Raw
Materials.
Abundant
and
productive
agricultural
sources,
conducive
climate
conditions,
and
modern
technologies
are
all
important
factors
for
providing
the
U.
S.
food­
processing
industry
with
ample
and
high
quality
raw
materials.
For
the
most
part,
food­
processing
facilities
are
located
close
to
their
agricultural
source.

Energy
Use.
Compared
to
other
industries,
for
example,
metal
fabrication
and
pulp
and
paper,
the
food­
processing
industry
is
not
considered
energy­
intensive.
Facilities
usually
require
electrical
power,
which
is
supplied
by
local
utilities,
to
run
food­
processing
machinery,
but
fossil
fuel
use
is
low
to
nonexistent.

Key
environmental
issues
for
the
U.
S.
industry
include
the
following:

Wastewater.
Primary
issues
of
concern
are
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD);
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS);
excessive
nutrient
loading,
namely
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
compounds;
pathogenic
organisms,
which
are
a
result
of
animal
processing;
and
residual
chlorine
and
pesticide
levels.

Solid
Waste.
Primary
issues
of
concern
include
both
organic
and
packaging
waste.
Organic
waste,
that
is,
the
rinds,
seeds,
skin,
and
bones
from
raw
materials,
results
from
processing
operations.
Inorganic
waste
typically
includes
excessive
packaging
items,
that
is,
plastic,
glass,
and
metal.
Organic
wastes
are
finding
ever­
increasing
markets
for
resale,
and
companies
are
slowly
switching
to
more
biodegradable
and
recyclable
products
for
packaging.
Excessive
packaging
has
been
reduced
and
recyclable
products
such
as
aluminum,
glass,
and
high
density
polyethylene
(
HDPE)
are
being
used
where
applicable.

Clean
technologies
described
in
this
document
include
the
following:

 
Advanced
Wastewater
Treatment
Practices.
Use
of
wastewater
technologies
beyond
conventional
secondary
treatment.
 
Improved
Packaging.
Use
of
less
excessive
and
more
environmentally
friendly
packaging
products.
 
Improved
Sensors
and
Process
Control.
Use
of
advanced
techniques
to
control
specific
portions
of
the
manufacturing
process
to
reduce
wastes
and
increase
productivity.
 
Food
Irradiation.
Use
of
radiation
to
kill
pathogenic
microorganisms.
 
Water
and
Wastewater
Reduction
(
Closed
Loop/
Zero
Emission
Systems).
Reduction
or
total
elimination
of
effluent
from
the
manufacturing
process.

Of
these
technologies,
the
ones
that
the
United
States
is
most
readily
adopting
or
most
likely
to
adopt
in
the
future
include
advanced
wastewater
treatment
practices,
improved
packaging,
and
water
use
reduction.
Hazard
Analysis
and
Critical
Control
Point
(
HACCP)
regulations
are
expected
to
be
fully
implemented
within
the
next
two
to
three
years
and
will
force
a
majority
of
U.
S.
food­
processing
companies
to
improve
sanitary
conditions
further
within
their
facilities.
The
strengthening
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
and
concerns
over
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act s
(
RCRA s)
solid
waste
disposal
issues
will
continue
to
drive
the
industry
closer
to
"
sustainable
development."
Historically,
U.
S.
investments
are
driven
by
cost­
effectiveness,
regulatory
mandates,
consumer
demand,
and
public
interest.
This
trend
is
expected
to
continue
as
the
industry
moves
into
the
twenty­
first
century.

ACRONYMS
ATF
Bureau
of
Alcohol,
Tobacco,
and
Firearms
BOD
biochemical
oxygen
demand
CAA
Clean
Air
Act
CERF
Civil
Engineering
Research
Foundation
CWA
Clean
Water
Act
EPA
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPCRA
Emergency
Planning
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
FDA
Food
and
Drug
Administration
FOG
fats,
oils,
and
greases
FSIS
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service
HACCP
Hazard
Analysis
and
Critical
Control
Point
HDPE
high
density
polyethylene
HM
hazardous
materials
HTST
high
temperature,
short
time
HW
hazardous
waste
NPDES
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
NSWMA
National
Solid
Wastes
Management
Association
P2
pollution
prevention
POTW
Publicly
owned
treatment
works
PPA
Pollution
Prevention
Act
RCRA
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
RO
Reverse
Osmosis
SRI
Steel
Recycling
Institute
SSOP
sanitation
standard
operating
procedures
TRI
Toxic
Release
Inventory
TSS
total
suspended
solids
UF
Ultrafiltration
U.
S.
United
States
US­
AEP
U.
S.­
Asia
Environmental
Partnership
USAID
U.
S.
Agency
for
International
Development
USDA
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
USD
United
States
dollars
UV
ultraviolet
WWW
World
Wide
Web
2.
INDUSTRY
BACKGROUND
2.1
Description
and
History
Many
factors
working
in
unison
have
helped
the
food­
processing
industry
in
the
United
States
become
a
leader
in
the
domestic
and
international
marketplace.
Abundant
and
productive
agricultural
sources,
along
with
natural
isolation,
helped
the
industry
thrive
domestically.
Competition
during
the
nineteenth
century
from
foreign
rivals
was
minimal
due
to
high
transportation
costs
and
continual
European
conflicts
in
the
late
1800s
and
early
1900s.

Inexpensive
farmland,
conducive
climate
conditions,
European
agricultural
techniques,
as
well
as
modern
technological
advances
were
all
important
factors
in
promoting
the
supply­
side
economics
of
the
U.
S.
agricultural
system.
The
establishment
and
growth
of
a
middle
class
in
the
United
States
helped
create
the
demand
side
and
economic
competition
for
quality
food
products.
Together,
both
supply
and
demand
economic
factors
helped
facilitate
the
success
of
the
U.
S.
food­
processing
industry.

Today,
the
principal
global
competition
in
the
food­
processing
industry
for
the
United
States
comes
from
Canada,
Europe,
and
South
America.
The
primary
growth
markets
for
U.
S.
products
include
Asia,
Eastern
Europe,
and
South
America.

The
four
food­
processing
sectors
that
this
report
will
focus
on
are
(
1)
fruit
and
vegetables,
(
2)
meat,
poultry,
and
seafood,
(
3)
beverage
and
bottling,
and
(
4)
dairy
operations.
All
four
are
spread
throughout
the
United
States.
Some
general
discussion
of
specialty
food
manufacturing
and
packaging
will
be
noted
but
not
to
the
extent
of
the
above
sectors.

2.2
Industry
Demographics
According
to
the
United
Nations 
Centre
on
Transnational
Corporations,
the
U.
S.
food­
processing
industry
accounts
for
approximately
26%
of
the
food­
processing
output
of
the
world.
The
U.
S.
food
manufacturing
stage
is
dominated
by
large­
scale,
capital­
intensive,
highly
diversified
corporations.
There
are
more
than
17,000
food
manufacturing
facilities
in
the
United
States.
The
industry
has
undergone
a
consolidation
during
the
past
fifty
years;
in
1947,
there
were
approximately
34,000
food­
processing
facilities.
The
four
leading
sellers
of
food
and
tobacco
products
operate
on
average
8­
9
plants
nationwide.
The
top
20
manufacturers
combined
gross
more
than
the
next
80
manufacturers
and
more
than
the
next
101­
500
manufacturers
in
total
sales.

Table
1
provides
a
listing
of
some
of
the
largest
companies
and
organizations
for
each
food­
processing
subindustry.
It
is
intended
to
be
used
as
a
point
of
reference,
rather
than
a
comprehensive
list.

Table
1:
Key
Organizations
in
the
U.
S.
Food­
Processing
Industry
Organization
Headquarters
World
Wide
Web
Address,
if
available
FOOD­
PROCESSING
COMPANIES
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Campbell
Soup
Camden,
NJ
www.
campbellsoups.
com
H.
J.
Heinz
Company
Pittsburgh,
PA
NA
Dean
Foods
Chicago,
IL
www.
libertydairy­
deanfoods.
com
Dairy
Schreiber
Foods,
Inc.
Green
Bay,
WI
www.
sficorp.
com
Mid­
American
Dairymen
Inc.
Springfield,
MO
NA
Dean
Foods
Chicago,
IL
www.
libertydairy­
deanfoods.
com
Beverage
and
Fermentation
Anheuser
Bush
St.
Louis,
MO
www.
budweiser.
com
Philip
Morris
Richmond,
VA
pminfo.
yrams.
nl
Adolf
Coors
Golden,
CO
www.
coors.
com
The
Coca­
Cola
Company
Atlanta,
GA
www.
cocacola.
com
Pepsico
Somers,
NY
www.
pepsico.
com
Meat,
Poultry,
and
Seafood
IBP,
Inc.
Dakotah
City,
NE
www.
ibpinc.
com
Con
Agra
Omaha,
NE
NA
Tyson
Foods,
Inc.
Springdale,
AR
www.
tyson.
com
Specialty
Nestle
U.
S.
A.,
Inc.
New
Milford,
CT
www.
nestle.
com
RJR
Nabisco
East
Hanover,
NJ
www.
rjrnabisco.
com
EQUIPMENT
MANUFACTURERS
Food
Processing
Machinery
and
Supplies
Association
Alexandria,
VA
www.
fpmsa.
org
Process
Designers
and
Consultants
Brown
and
Root
Houston,
TX
www.
b­
r.
com
Fluor
Daniel
Irvine,
CA
www.
fluordaniel.
com
The
Haskell
Co.
Jacksonville,
FL
www.
thehaskellco.
com
Hixson,
Inc.
Cincinnati,
OH
NA
Lockwood
Greene
Engineers
Inc.
Spartenburg,
SC
NA
McCarthy
St.
Louis,
MO
www.
mccarthybldrs.
com
McClier
Chicago,
IL
www.
mcclier.
com
McDermott
International
New
Orleans,
LA
www.
mcdermott.
com
The
Stellar
Group
Jacksonville,
FL
www.
tsgjax.
com
PROFESSIONAL
TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS
AND
RESEARCH
INSTITUTES
American
Frozen
Food
Institute
McLean,
VA
www.
affi.
com
American
Meat
Institute
Washington,
DC
www.
meatami.
org
Center
for
Byproducts
Utilization
Milwaukee,
WI
www.
uwm.
edu/
dept/
cbu/
1cbu.
html
Delaware
Department
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Control
Dover,
DE
www.
es.
inel.
gov/
program/
regional/
state/
delaware/
delproc
html
Department
of
Food
Science
and
Technology
Corvallis,
OR
www.
orst.
edu/
dept/
foodsci
Food
Industry
Research
at
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
Washington,
DC
www.
oit.
doe.
gov/
access/
locator/
food
The
Food
Processors
Institute
Washington,
DC
NA
Food
Processing
Machinery
and
Supplies
Association
Alexandria,
VA
www.
fpmsa.
org
Institute
of
Food
Science
and
Technology
College
Station,
TX
www.
ifse.
tamu.
edu
International
Dairy
Foods
Association
Washington,
DC
www.
idfa.
org
National
Solid
Waste
Management
Association
Trenton,
NJ
www.
publicsector.
com/
states/
nj/
trade/
n/
nation050.
htm
NCSU
Food
Science
Program
Raleigh,
NC
www.
bae.
ncsu.
edu/
bae/
programs/
extension
Pacific
Northwest
National
Laboratory
Richland,
WA
www.
pnl.
gov
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
Washington,
DC
www.
usda.
gov:
80/
agency/
fsis
U.
S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
Washington,
DC
www.
vm.
cfsan.
fda.
gov:
80/~
lrd/
foodteam.
html
2.2.1
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Food­
Processing
Sector
The
fruit
and
vegetable
food­
processing
sector
in
the
United
States
is
geographically
located
around
large
agricultural
producing
regions.
Before
transportation
advancements
and
refrigeration
techniques
made
it
possible
to
ship
large
amounts
of
raw
material
quickly
and
cheaply,
food­
processing
facilities
were
constructed
close
to
their
agricultural
source.
Quite
simply,
it
was
logical
to
process
and
package
perishable
products
close
to
their
agricultural
source.
Shipping
costs
and
the
risk
of
product
spoilage
continue
to
make
it
advantageous
to
build
facilities
near
agricultural
regions,
but
it
should
be
noted
that
processing,
preparation,
and
packaging
of
fruits
and
vegetables
improve
transportability
and
extend
the
shelf
life
of
these
perishable
products.

The
primary
steps
in
processing
fruits
and
vegetables
include
(
1)
general
cleaning
and
dirt
removal,
(
2)
removal
of
leaves,
skin,
and
seeds,
(
3)
blanching,
(
4)
washing
and
cooling,
(
5)
packaging,
and
(
6)
cleanup.
The
primary
foreign
competition
comes
from
other
countries
in
the
Western
Hemisphere.
2.2.2
Meat,
Poultry,
and
Seafood
Sector
In
the
United
States,
there
are
more
than
4,000
slaughter
and
processing
plants
for
the
meat,
poultry,
and
seafood
sector.
These
processing
plants
are,
with
the
exception
of
seafood
plants,
located
in
isolated
rural
agricultural
areas.
Sections
of
the
United
States
with
adequate
grain
supplies
and
water
resources
are
areas
in
which
livestock­
processing
plants
predominate.
Over
the
past
fifty
years,
facilities
have
consolidated
to
incorporate
"
total"
processing
capabilities.
Rendering
and
processing
have
been
combined
into
one
facility.

The
primary
steps
in
processing
livestock
include
(
1)
rendering
and
bleeding,
(
2)
scalding
and/
or
skin
removal,
(
3)
internal
organ
evisceration,
(
4)
washing,
chilling,
and
cooling,
(
5)
packaging,
and
(
6)
cleanup.
The
principal
U.
S.
companies
for
livestock
processing
are
listed
in
Table
1.
For
meat
processors,
no
sizable
foreign
competition
exists
in
the
U.
S.
market.

2.2.3
Beverage
and
Fermentation
Sector
The
soft­
drink
and
brewery
companies
are
controlled
by
a
few
large
diversified
corporations.
Both
markets
have
regionalized
smaller
companies,
but
for
the
most
part
four
to
five
corporations
control
more
than
70%
of
all
sales.
This
sector
follows
a
system
of
territorial
franchising.
Operating
facilities
are
distributed
throughout
the
United
States,
and
geographical
areas
are
not
a
factor
as
for
fruit
and
vegetables.
Population
centers
and
water
resources
are
the
primary
location
considerations.
Accessibility
of
rail
and
interstate
trucking
are
also
important
for
facility
locations.

The
primary
steps
in
processing
beverages
are
(
1)
raw
material
handling
and
processing,
(
2)
mixing,
fermentation,
and/
or
cooking,
(
3)
cooling,
(
4)
bottling
and
packaging,
and
(
5)
cleanup.
The
principal
foreign
competition
for
the
U.
S.
brewery
sector
comes
from
Europe,
Canada,
and
Mexico
and
for
the
soft­
drink
sector
from
Canada.

2.2.4
Dairy
Sector
The
dairy
sector
can
be
divided
into
two
basic
segments:
fluid
milk
and
processed
milk
products.
U.
S.
dairy
production
is
expected
to
remain
fairly
constant
in
the
coming
years.
Production
of
fluid
milk
(
with
the
exception
of
skim
milk)
and
butter
has
steadily
decreased
over
the
past
10
years,
while
specialty
items
like
yogurt
and
ice
cream
have
forged
ahead.
The
number
of
dairies
within
the
United
States
has
decreased
due
to
consolidation,
but
the
overall
level
of
output
has
remained
constant.

Facilities
tend
to
be
located
in
areas
of
the
United
States
with
traditional
European
cultural
ties
to
dairy
operations
as
well
as
adequate
grain
and
water
resources.
Typically,
raw
milk
is
moved
by
truck
to
a
milk
processing
center
when
the
processing
center
is
not
at
the
same
location
as
the
livestock
operation.
Fluid
milk
competition
from
international
sources
is
almost
nonexistent
due
to
fluid
milk s
short
shelf
life,
whereas
foreign
cheese
and
dry
milk
product
competition
comes
from
Canada,
New
Zealand,
and
Europe.

All
processed
milk
products,
which
include
cheese,
butter,
ice
cream,
and
yogurt,
originate
from
fluid
milk.
The
primary
steps
in
processing
are
(
1)
clarification
or
filtration,
(
2)
blending
and
mixing,
(
3)
pasteurization
and
homogenization,
(
4)
process
manufacturing,
(
5)
packaging,
and
(
6)
cleanup.
2.3
Use
of
Natural
Resources
Water
Traditionally,
the
food­
processing
industry
has
been
a
large
water
user.
Water
is
used
for
several
purposes:
a
principal
ingredient,
an
initial
and
intermediate
cleaning
source,
an
efficient
transportation
conveyor
of
raw
materials,
and
the
principal
agent
used
in
sanitizing
plant
areas
and
machinery.
Table
2
shows
typical
rates
of
water
use
for
various
food­
processing
sectors.
An
abundant
and
inexpensive
source
of
water
is
a
requirement
for
success
in
the
food­
processing
industry.
This
coincides
with
the
same
need
for
water
resources
in
agricultural
farmland
activities.

As
mentioned
above,
the
food­
processing
industry
utilizes
water
to
meet
its
individual
day­
to­
day
needs.
Fifty
percent
of
the
water
used
in
the
fruit
and
vegetable
sector
is
for
washing
and
rinsing.
The
meat
processing
sector
has
minimum
requirements
set
by
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
on
the
amount
of
water
required
to
clean
poultry
products.
Water
is
the
primary
ingredient
in
products
for
the
beverage
and
fermentation
sector,
and
dairies
utilize
water
as
the
standard
cleaning
agent
for
process
machinery.

Table
2:
Typical
Rates
for
Water
Use
for
Various
Industries
Industry
Range
of
Flow
gal/
ton
product
Fruits
and
Vegetables
Green
beans
12,000­
17,000
Peaches
and
pears
3,600­
4,800
Other
fruits
and
vegetables
960­
8,400
Food
and
Beverage
Beer
2,400­
3,840
Bread
480­
960
Meat
packing
3,600­
4,800
Milk
products
2,400­
4,800
Whiskey
14,400­
19,200
Reference:
Metcalf
and
Eddy s
Wastewater
Engineering:
Treatment,
Disposal,
and
Reuse
3rd
ed.,
1991
Although
water
use
will
always
be
a
part
of
the
food­
processing
industry,
its
reuse
and
subsequent
generation
of
wastewater
have
become
the
principal
targets
for
pollution
prevention
practices.
Water
used
in
conveying
materials,
plant
cleanup,
or
other
noningredient
uses
are
the
main
areas
of
potential
reduction
being
considered
by
the
entire
food­
processing
industry.

Raw
Materials
Traditionally,
food­
processing
facilities
have
been
located
close
to
their
agricultural
source.
For
these
facilities,
there
is
usually
one
chief
raw
material
that
makes
up
the
largest
percentage
of
the
final
food
product s
composition.
The
exception
to
this
is
the
beverage
sector,
which
is
the
most
similar
to
a
true
"
manufacturing
industry,"
that
is,
one
in
which
the
product
is
created
from
a
combination
of
raw
materials.
The
same
can
be
stated
for
specialty
food
products.
Confectionery,
baked
goods,
and
other
luxury
products
involve
much
more
elaborate
manufacturing
processes.
Typically,
specialty
food
processing
uses
less
water
and
utilizes
base
materials
that
have
been
preprocessed
before
they
enter
their
specialty
production
process.

Energy
Use
Compared
to
other
industries,
for
example,
metal
fabrication
and
pulp
and
paper
making,
the
foodprocessing
industry
is
not
considered
energy­
intensive.
Facilities
usually
require
electrical
power,
which
is
supplied
by
local
utilities,
to
run
food­
processing
machinery,
but
fossil
fuel
use
is
low
to
nonexistent.
In
some
cases,
natural
gas
is
used
to
operate
facility
boilers.

2.4
Waste
Streams
of
Concern
All
four
food­
processing
sectors
within
this
report
view
"
wastewater"
as
the
primary
area
of
concern.
Food­
processing
wastewater
can
be
characterized
as
nontoxic,
because
it
contains
few
hazardous
and
persistent
compounds
such
as
those
regulated
under
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency s
(
EPA s)
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
listing.
With
the
exception
of
some
toxic
cleaning
products,
wastewater
from
food­
processing
facilities
is
organic
and
can
be
treated
by
conventional
biological
technologies.
Part
of
the
problem
with
the
food­
processing
industry s
use
and
discharge
of
large
amounts
of
water
is
that
it
is
located
in
rural
areas
in
which
the
water
treatment
systems
(
i.
e.,
potable
and
wastewater
systems)
are
designed
to
serve
small
populations.
As
a
result,
one
medium­
sized
plant
can
have
a
major
effect
on
local
water
supply
and
surface
water
quality.
Large
food­
processing
plants
will
typically
use
more
than
1,000,000
gallons
of
potable
water
per
day.

Wastewater
The
five­
day
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD
5)
value
is
used
as
a
gauge
to
measure
the
level
of
treatment
needed
to
discharge
a
wastewater
safely
to
a
receiving
water.
The
BOD
for
all
foodprocessing
wastewater
is
relatively
high
compared
to
other
industries.
A
high
BOD
level
indicates
that
a
wastewater
contains
elevated
amounts
of
dissolved
and/
or
suspended
solids,
minerals,
and
organic
nutrients
containing
nitrogen
and
phosphorus.
Each
one
of
these
constituents
represents
a
particular
contaminant
of
concern
when
discharging
a
wastewater.

Publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTW)
that
receive
food­
processing
wastewater
with
BOD
5
values
greater
than
250
to
300
mg/
L
typically
will
add
an
additional
surcharge
for
treatment.
Any
company
is
subject
to
fines
by
either
the
state
and/
or
federal
environmental
enforcement
agency
when
they
are
discharging
to
a
receiving
water
and
exceeding
their
permitted
BOD
5
discharge
level.
In
the
past,
wastewater
disposal
costs
were
a
minor
operating
expense.
In
today s
climate,
due
to
increased
enforcement
of
discharge
regulations
and
escalating
POTW
surcharges,
many
food­
processing
facilities
are
taking
steps
to
either
reduce,
recycle
(
or
renovate),
and/
or
treat
their
wastewaters
before
they
discharge
them.

Another
contaminant
of
food­
processing
wastewaters,
particularly
from
meat­,
poultry­,
and
seafood­
processing
facilities,
is
pathogenic
organisms.
Wastewaters
with
high
pathogenic
levels
must
be
disinfected
prior
to
discharge.
Typically,
chlorine
(
free
or
combined)
is
used
to
disinfect
these
wastewaters.
Ozone,
ultraviolet
(
UV)
radiation,
and
other
nontraditional
disinfection
processes
are
gaining
acceptance
due
to
stricter
regulations
on
the
amount
of
residual
chlorine
levels
in
discharged
wastewaters.

The
pH
of
a
wastewater
is
of
paramount
importance
to
a
receiving
stream
and
POTW.
Biological
microorganisms,
used
in
wastewater
treatment,
are
sensitive
to
extreme
fluctuations
in
pH.
Companies
that
are
found
to
be
the
responsible
polluter
are
fined
and/
or
ordered
to
shut
down
operations
until
their
pH
level
meets
acceptable
values.
Wastewater
discharge
values
that
range
from
5
to
9
on
the
pH
logarithmic
scale
are
usually
acceptable.
Low
pH
values
are
more
damaging
to
a
receiving
stream
and
POTW
biological
treatment
process.

Solid
Waste
Solid
waste
from
food­
processing
plants
are
especially
high
in
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
content.
Most
solid
wastes
can
be
processed
into
valuable
byproducts
that
are
resold
as
fertilizer,
animal
feed,
and
other
useful
products.
A
past
barrier
to
byproduct
resale
has
been
converting
the
byproduct
into
useful,
marketable
material.
The
addition
of
coagulants
to
food­
processing
wastewaters
makes
much
of
the
solid
waste
sludge
unsuitable
for
animal
feed.
If
a
receiving
company
would
not
take
the
untreated
byproduct
waste
"
as
is,"
the
food
processor
was
responsible
for
converting
it
into
a
useful
product
for
sale.
Typically,
this
was
not
done,
and
the
solid
waste
was
disposed
of
by
conventional
means.
A
growing
trend
(
see
sections
4
and
5)
is
the
principle
of
"
zero
emissions,"
which
relies
on
a
network
of
companies
utilizing
one
company s
waste
streams
as
another
company s
raw
materials.

Air
Emissions
Air
emissions
are
not
a
major
concern
for
the
food­
processing
industry.
With
the
exception
of
breweries,
most
operations
emit
low
process
air
emissions.
Most
operations
typically
utilize
electric
power
and
rarely
emit
harmful
compounds
to
the
environment
during
normal
production
operations.
Air
emissions
from
biological
treatment
processes
have
become
an
area
of
concern,
but
a
relatively
minor
one
compared
to
wastewater
issues.

2.4.1
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Waste
Streams
Wastewater
and
solid
wastes
are
the
primary
area
of
pollution
control
within
the
fruit
and
vegetable
food­
processing
industry.
Their
wastewater
is
high
in
suspended
solids,
and
organic
sugars
and
starches
and
may
contain
residual
pesticides.
Solid
wastes
include
organic
materials
from
mechanical
preparation
processes,
that
is,
rinds,
seeds,
and
skins
from
raw
materials.
For
the
most
part,
solid
waste
that
is
not
resold
as
animal
feed
is
handled
by
conventional
biological
treatment
or
composting.
The
total
amount
of
material
generated
is
a
function
of
the
amount
of
raw
material
moved
through
a
facility,
for
example,
for
a
given
weight
of
apples
processed
comes
a
set
amount
of
peel
and
seed
waste.

The
fruit
and
vegetable
sector
is
seasonal
for
a
majority
of
products,
and
the
wastewaters
vary
according
to
the
specific
raw
material
being
processed.
Some
larger
facilities
retool
each
season
and,
therefore,
handle
several
different
types
of
foods.
Attempts
to
decrease
solid
waste
streams
have
not
been
an
area
of
great
development
for
pollution
prevention
opportunities
and
clean
technologies.
Pretreatment
opportunities
intended
to
reduce
the
amount
of
raw
materials
lost
to
the
waste
stream
have
been
an
area
of
clean
technology
development.
For
the
most
part,
the
majority
of
clean
technology
advances
and
research
have
been
in
reducing
the
volume
of
wastewater
generated
in
food­
processing
operations.
Wastewater
generation
has
been
directly
correlated
to
total
waste
load
(
i.
e.,
pounds,
not
concentration).

Most
fruit
and
vegetable
processors
use
traditional
biological
means
to
treat
their
wastewater.
Advancements
in
the
degradation
chemistries
of
pesticides
have
aided
in
reducing
their
quantities
and
toxicity
in
process
wastewater.

2.4.2
Meat­,
Poultry­,
and
Seafood­
Processing
Waste
Streams
Meat,
poultry,
and
seafood
facilities
offer
a
more
difficult
waste
stream
to
treat.
The
killing
and
rendering
processes
create
blood
byproducts
and
waste
streams,
which
are
extremely
high
in
BOD.
These
facilities
are
very
prone
to
disease
spread
by
pathogenic
organisms
carried
and
transmitted
by
livestock,
poultry,
and
seafood.
This
segment
of
the
food­
processing
industry
is
by
far
the
most
regulated
and
monitored.
Inspectors
for
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(
FDA),
USDA,
EPA,
and
local
health
departments
all
keep
a
watchful
eye
on
meat,
poultry,
and
seafood
facilities.

Waste
streams
vary
per
facility,
but
they
can
be
generalized
into
the
following:
process
wastewaters;
carcasses
and
skeleton
waste;
rejected
or
unsatisfactory
animals;
fats,
oils,
and
greases
(
FOG);
animal
feces;
blood;
and
eviscerated
organs.
The
primary
avenue
for
removal
of
solid
waste
has
been
its
use
in
animal
feed,
cosmetics,
and
fertilizers.
These
solid
wastes
are
high
in
protein
and
nitrogen
content.
They
are
excellent
sources
for
recycled
fish
feed
and
pet
food.
Skeleton
remains
from
meat
processing
are
converted
into
bonemeal,
which
is
an
excellent
source
of
phosphorus
for
fertilizers.
FOG
waste
(
typically
from
industrial
fisheries)
is
used
as
a
base
raw
material
in
the
cosmetics
industry.

2.4.3
Beverage
and
Fermentation
Waste
Streams
Wastewater
and
solid
waste
are
the
primary
waste
streams
for
the
beverage
and
fermentation
sector.
Solid
wastes
result
from
spent
grains
and
materials
used
in
the
fermentation
process.
Wastewater
volume
of
"
soft
drink
processes"
is
lower
than
in
other
food­
processing
sectors,
but
fermentation
processes
are
higher
in
BOD
and
overall
wastewater
volume
compared
to
other
food­
processing
sectors.

2.4.4
Dairy
Waste
Streams
A
majority
of
the
waste
milk
in
dairy
wastewaters
comes
from
start­
up
and
shut­
down
operations
performed
in
the
high­
temperature,
short­
time
(
HTST)
pasteurization
process.
This
waste
is
pure
milk
raw
material
mixed
with
water.
Another
waste
stream
of
the
dairy
sector
is
from
equipment
and
tankcleaning
wastewaters.
These
waste
streams
contain
waste
milk
and
sanitary
cleaners
and
are
one
of
the
principal
waste
constituents
of
dairy
wastewater.
Over
time,
milk
waste
degrades
to
form
corrosive
lactic
and
formic
acids.
Approximately
90%
of
a
dairy s
wastewater
load
is
milk.

3.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
AND
REGULATIONS
Federal
environmental
regulation
(
i.
e.,
EPA)
combined
with
FDA
and
USDA
have
helped
ensure
a
high
level
of
quality
and
safety
for
food
products
for
the
consumer.
EPA
and
state
governments
enforce
environmental
issues
pertaining
to
the
food
industry,
whereas
FDA
and
USDA
enforce
health
issues.
These
health
organizations
have
a
greater
effect
than
environmental
regulations
on
the
way
business
is
done
in
the
food­
processing
industry.

FDA
is
part
of
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
and
is
responsible
for
ensuring
the
safety
and
wholesomeness
of
all
foods
sold
in
the
United
States
except
for
those
under
the
purview
of
USDA.
FDA s
authority
includes
all
alcoholic
beverages
under
7%
alcohol
level,
dairy
products,
and
seafood
products.

USDA
enforces
standards
for
wholesomeness
and
quality
of
fruits,
vegetables,
meat,
poultry,
and
eggs
produced
in
the
United
States.
USDA
enforces
these
standards
through
inspections
of
all
facets
of
the
production
of
food
products.
USDA
issues
its
approval
before
such
items
can
be
sold
to
the
U.
S.
consumer.
FDA
is
part
of
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
and
is
responsible
for
ensuring
the
safety
and
wholesomeness
of
all
foods
sold
in
the
United
States
except
for
those
under
the
purview
of
USDA.
FDA s
authority
includes
all
alcoholic
beverages
under
7%
alcohol
level,
dairy
products,
and
seafood
products.
The
Bureau
of
Alcohol,
Tobacco,
and
Firearms
(
ATF)
handles
alcoholic
beverages
greater
than
7%
total
alcohol.
These
agencies
work
with
state
and
local
governments
to
ensure
the
quality
and
safety
of
food
produced
within
their
jurisdictions.

Environmental
Standards
Various
federal
environmental
regulations
and
statutes,
such
as
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
or
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
Pollution
Prevention
Act
(
PPA),
and
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
have
changed
the
way
processing
facilities
handle
food
products
and
dispose
of
their
waste.

The
CWA s
increasingly
stringent
regulations
for
discharging
wastewater
are
the
primary
regulatory
drivers
for
the
food­
processing
industry.
RCRA
regulations
typically
apply
only
to
solid
waste
disposal
issues,
and
the
Superfund s
Emergency
Planning
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA)
has
had
only
minor
impact
on
the
hazardous
material
handling
and
waste
generation
practices
of
the
foodprocessing
industry.

During
the
1990s,
pollution
prevention
(
P2)
and
clean
technologies
have
come
to
the
forefront
in
reducing
and
controlling
the
environmental
effects
created
by
food­
processing
facilities.
The
policy
set
forth
in
the
PPA
of
1990
outlines
a
systematic
approach
for
efficiently
reducing
pollution.
The
following
is
a
passage
from
this
act:

.
.
.
pollution
should
be
prevented
or
reduced
at
the
source
whenever
feasible;
pollution
that
cannot
be
prevented
should
be
recycled
in
an
environmentally
safe
manner,
whenever
feasible;
pollution
that
cannot
be
prevented
or
recycled
should
be
treated
in
an
environmentally
safe
manner
whenever
feasible;
and
disposal
or
other
release
into
the
environmental
should
be
employed
only
as
a
last
resort
and
should
be
conducted
in
an
environmentally
safe
manner.

Most
federal
and
state
regulations
and
statutes
are
typically
met
with
resistance
from
private
industry.
Conversely,
the
PPA s
pollution
prevention
principles
and
the
subsequent
development
of
clean
technologies
have
been
viewed
as
ways
to
provide
cost
savings
and
sometimes
even
improve
product
quality,
while
simultaneously
improving
public
relations
for
companies
and
industries
that
aggressively
pursue
their
implementation.
Pollution
prevention
has
proved
to
be
an
effective
means
of
reducing
compliance
and
treatment
costs
for
food­
processing
manufacturers.

Pollution
prevention
and
clean
technologies
are
meant
to
focus
on
a
multimedia
(
i.
e.,
air,
water,
and
land)
approach
to
reducing
waste.
As
mentioned
earlier,
air
emissions
from
wastewater
treatment
activities
are
not
a
major
source
of
concern
for
the
food­
processing
industry.
Solid
waste
and,
more
important,
wastewater
discharges,
however,
tend
to
dominate
activity
for
implementing
pollution
prevention
advances.
Unless
located
in
a
remote
area,
most
food­
processing
facilities
pretreat
and
discharge
wastewater
directly
to
a
POTW.
When
a
facility
discharges
to
the
environment,
they
are
required
to
have
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
as
mandated
in
the
CWA.

EPA
is
looking
for
several
ways
to
promote
voluntary
pollution
prevention.
The
PPA
lacks
the
regulatory
powers
needed
to
force
companies
to
implement
pollution
prevention
practices
into
their
production
processes.
Agencies
are
exploring
ways
to
write
more
flexible
permits
to
allow
companies
to
make
process
changes
without
having
to
resubmit
a
lengthy
permit
modification.
Environmental
agencies
are
encouraging
pollution
prevention
by
doing
such
things
as
reducing
the
cost
of
a
permit
or
extending
the
compliance
schedules
for
companies
that
are
proactive
in
pollution
prevention
practices.

Health
Standards
USDA s
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service
(
FSIS)
has
issued
a
new
set
of
rules
for
poultry
and
meat
processors.
The
new
procedures
are
the
first
stage
of
the
implementation
of
USDA s
final
rule
on
Pathogen
Reduction:
Hazard
Analysis
and
Critical
Control
Point
(
HACCP)
Systems,
also
known
as
the
"
Mega­
Reg."
HACCP
regulations
replace
an
inspection
system
based
on
sight
and
smell
with
scientific
methods
that
require
meat­
processing
facilities
to
reduce
harmful
pathogens
and
bacteria.
HACCP
will
be
phased
in
slowly
because
of
debate
on
how
it
should
be
accomplished.
The
changes
will
also
include
new
regulations
for
seafood
facilities.
Previously,
seafood
products
were
not
regulated
by
USDA,
but
by
FDA.

The
new
rules
require
processing
facilities
to
develop
a
written
set
of
sanitation
standard
operating
procedures
(
SSOPs)
and
inspect
their
plants
every
day
to
ensure
that
pre­
operational
sanitary
conditions
are
met.
Poultry
slaughter
plants
are
required
to
check
samples
for
E.
coli
every
eight­
hour
shift.
Results
of
these
inspections
and
the
written
SSOPs
must
be
available
to
USDA
inspectors.
Corrective
action
against
failed
inspections
can
range
from
on­
the­
spot
cleanups
to
possible
shut­
down
of
operations
until
the
facility
meets
the
requirements
of
HACCP.

4.
CLEAN
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENTS
Because
wastewater
generation
is
the
industry s
biggest
area
of
concern,
the
following
clean
technologies
focus
on
source
reduction,
recycling,
reuse,
and
treatment
of
wastewater.
Clean
technologies
are
defined
in
this
report
as
"
manufacturing
processes
or
product
technologies
that
reduce
pollution
or
waste,
energy
use,
or
material
use
in
comparison
to
the
technologies
that
they
replace."

The
food­
processing
industry
has
special
concerns
about
the
health
and
safety
of
the
consumer.
It
should
be
noted
that
some
of
the
technologies
outlined
in
the
report
target
both
human
health
and
environmental
pollution
issues.

Common
source
reduction
methods
employed
at
most
plants
include
improving
good
housekeeping
practices,
making
process
modifications,
substituting
more
environmentally
friendly
raw
materials,
and
segregating
waste
streams.
Some
simple
cost­
effective
means
of
achieving
source
reduction
include
installing
automatic
shut­
off
valves,
using
low­
flow
or
air­
injected
faucets/
spray
cleaners,
switching
from
chemical
caustic
peeling
processes
to
mechanical
peeling,
and
converting
from
water
to
mechanical
conveyance
of
raw
materials
through
a
production
line.
Resources
for
implementing
some
of
these
processes
and
products
are
listed
in
Table
3.

Table
3:
Clean
Technology
and
Pollution
Prevention
Services
Organization
Headquarters
World
Wide
Web
Address,
if
available
Membrane
Applications
Osmonics
Inc.
Minnetonka,
MN
www.
osmonics.
com
LCI
Corp.
Charlotte,
NC
www.
systematx.
com/
lcihome.
htm
Rochem
Separation
Systems
Inc.
Torrance,
CA
NA
U.
S.
Filter
Sturbridge,
MA
www.
usfilter.
com
Ion
Exchange
Resins
Dayton
Water
Systems
Dayton,
OH
NA
Dow
Chemical
Midland,
MI
www.
dowchem.
com
Dupont
Willimgton,
DE
www.
dupont.
com
Rohm
and
Haas
Philadelphia,
PA
www.
rohmhaas.
com
UV
Light
Disinfection
Systems
Safe
Water
Solutions
Brown
Deer,
WI
www.
safewater.
com
Ultra
Tech
Systems
Hopewell
Junction,
NY
ny­
bizness.
com/
hudson/
ultratec.
htm
Centrifuge
Systems
Alfa
Laval
Separation
Inc.
Warminster,
PA
www.
alfalaval.
com
Sensor
and
Manufacturering
Equipment
Resources
and
Pollution
Prevention
Services
Food
Processing
Machinery
and
Supplies
Association
Alexandria,
VA
fpmsa.
org
Case
Western
Reserve
University
Cleveland,
OH
www.
cwru.
edu
Lehigh
University
Lehigh,
PA
www.
eecs.
lehigh.
edu/
Research
Infood,
Inc.
Raleigh,
NC
www.
rec@
unity.
nscu.
edu
4.1
Advanced
Wastewater
Treatment
Practices
Description.
Advanced
wastewater
treatment
is
defined
as
any
treatment
beyond
secondary
(
or
that
are
of
concern.
Typically,
pathogens,
suspended
solids,
dissolved
solids,
nitrogen,
and
phosphorus
are
removed
in
advanced
wastewater
treatment.
The
following
is
a
listing
of
some
technologies
being
used
in
advanced
wastewater
treatment.

 
Membrane
applications
 
Disinfection
 
Charge
separation
 
Other
separation
practices.

Membrane
applications
focus
on
separating
water
from
contaminants,
using
semipermeable
membranes
and
applied
pressure
differentials.
In
generic
terms,
they
work
like
window
screens
that
let
air
but
not
insects
and
other
larger
objects
pass
through.
The
smaller
the
screen
holes,
the
smaller
the
objects
need
to
be
to
pass
through.
Pressure
is
applied
to
reverse
the
natural
equilibrium
between
the
clean
water
and
wastewater.
The
basic
principle
of
natural
equilibrium
is
that
the
clean
water
tends
to
migrate
to
the
wastewater
side
to
equalize
the
concentrations
across
the
membrane.
Mechanical
pressure
is
used
to
force
water
molecules
from
the
wastewater
side
to
the
clean
water
side
and,
thus,
a
"
high­
tech"
filtration
of
the
wastewater
occurs.
In
the
past,
the
energy
needed
to
apply
the
pressure
and
the
fragility
of
the
membrane
surface
made
use
of
these
alternatives
economically
unjustifiable.

There
are
varying
degrees
of
membrane
filtration.
Microfiltration,
ultrafiltration
(
UF),
and
reverse
osmosis
(
RO)
are
the
current
membrane
systems
used
commercially.
The
filtering
capabilities
of
each
(
i.
e.,
ability
to
filter
based
on
contaminant
particle
size)
decreases
respectively.
Microfiltration
is
only
recommended
for
removing
particles
from
0.05
to
2
microns
in
size,
UF
is
used
for
particles
and
suspended
solids
from
0.005­
0.1
microns,
and
RO
is
used
for
particles,
suspended
solids,
and
dissolved
solids
in
the
Angstrom
range
(
e.
g.,
molecular
weight
above
200).

Problems
with
membrane
applications
include
biofouling
of
the
membrane
and
fragility
of
the
membrane
surface.
Toxic
synthetic
compounds
can
oxidize
the
surface
of
the
membrane,
thus,
destroying
it.
New
innovations
in
membrane
technology
have
advanced
the
"
cleanability"
and
reuse
of
membranes.
The
use
of
stainless
steel
and
ceramic
materials
for
membranes
has
greatly
improved
their
use
in
advanced
wastewater
treatment.

Sanitary
conditions
have
always
been
a
concern
for
food
products
created
in
the
manufacturing
process.

In
recent
years,
they
have
also
become
a
requirement
of
wastewater
effluent.
As
for
water
treatment
practices,
disinfection
through
chlorination
has
been
the
quickest
means
of
disinfecting
wastewater.
Disinfection
has
come
under
criticism
due
to
chlorination
byproducts
and
toxicity
concerns
that
residual
chlorine
pose
to
aquatic
life.
The
two
principal
means
of
disinfecting
wastewater
without
using
chlorination
are
ozone
disinfection
or
UV
disinfection.
Ozonation
works
on
the
same
principle
as
chlorination
but
leaves
no
residual
in
the
treated
wastewater
and
does
not
produce
the
magnitude
of
disinfection
byproducts
that
chlorination
produces.
UV
disinfection
is
even
more
environmentally
friendly
than
ozone
but
requires
more
space
and
cleaner
wastewater
to
be
effective.
Both
technologies
require
high
capital
and
operating
costs.

Charge
separation
involves
separating
uncharged
water
molecules
and
charged
contaminants,
such
as
nitrogen
compounds,
and
phosphates
(
i.
e.,
NH
4
+,
NO
2
­,
NO
3
­,
and
PO
4
­

3).
Electro­
coagulation
is
starting
to
be
an
economical
way
of
removing
charged
particles
from
wastewater,
utilizing
charge
separation.
Ion
exchange
is
widely
used
to
filter
wastewater
through
cationic
and
anionic
resins
to
remove
the
wastewater s
charged
ions
of
concern.
Ion
exchange
replaces
the
waste
particles
with
a
donor
ion
from
the
resin.
The
resins
eventually
reach
a
capacity
at
which
all
the
ions
have
been
replaced
or
exchanged.
Spent
resin
is
typically
recycled
by
the
resin
manufacturer.
Problems
with
using
ion
exchange
are
that
it
requires
monitoring
for
breakthrough
contamination
and
pH
fluctuations
can
greatly
affect
the
removal
rates
of
specific
ions
(
e.
g.,
a
pH
greater
than
9.3
makes
ammonium
removal
inefficient).
Also,
resins
remove
ions
selectively,
meaning
the
greater
the
charge
differential
from
neutrality,
the
greater
the
exchange
attraction
between
the
resin
and
the
charged
contaminant
(
e.
g.,
Ca+
2
will
be
removed
before
NH
4
+).

Other
separation
practices
include
using
centrifugal
and
gravity
mechanisms
to
separate
and
remove
contaminants
from
a
wastewater.
Air
flotation
systems
use
diffused
pumped
air
to
lift
suspended
solids
and
FOG
wastes
to
the
surface
of
a
wastewater
for
removal.
Skimmers
and
mechanical
devices
are
then
employed
to
separate
waste
from
the
surface.
Problems
with
using
either
of
these
methods
include
capital
costs
to
modify
current
treatment
processes,
and
increased
operational
energy
costs.

With
the
exception
of
centrifugal
and
gravity
separation,
all
these
advanced
treatments
require
a
wastewater
influent
that
is
low
in
turbidity.

Benefits.
Studies
have
shown
that
membrane
applications
can
be
less
energy
intensive
than
evaporation
and
distillation
operations
and
take
up
less
space.
The
technology
gives
better
control
of
the
process
effluent.
Unlike
chemical
precipitation,
membrane
technology
does
not
produce
a
sludge
disposal
problem,
but
it
does
produce
a
concentrated
brine
solution.

The
main
benefit
of
disinfecting
wastewater
is
that
it
improves
and
protects
water
quality
of
and
aquatic
life
in
the
receiving
water.
Similar
to
membrane
applications,
ion
exchange
does
not
produce
a
chemical
sludge
and,
like
disinfection,
it
protects
the
water
quality
of
a
receiving
water
and
decreases
the
nutrientloading
problems
that
cause
eutrophication
in
receiving
waters.

Electro­
coagulation
is
beginning
to
receive
attention
as
a
treatment
option
and
is
expected
to
increase
in
use
in
the
food­
processing
industry.

Centrifugal
and
gravity
separation
processes
are
placed
before
any
of
the
preceding
advanced
operations.
This
ensures
that
a
cleaner,
less
turbid
wastewater
reaches
these
advanced
operations.
As
stated
earlier,
the
recovered
FOG
is
a
resalable
byproduct.
Use
of
any
of
these
advanced
processes
improves
the
final
wastewater
effluent
quality
and
also
increases
the
likelihood
of
recycling
a
renovated
process
water.

Status
of
Use
in
the
United
States.
The
number
of
food­
processing
facilities
using
advanced
treatments
has
nearly
tripled
in
the
past
10
years.
This
trend
is
expected
to
continue
because
of
increasing
restrictions
on
wastewater
discharge
from
federal
and
state
agencies.
The
strengthening
of
the
CWA
provides
an
incentive
to
utilizing
these
advanced
wastewater
treatments.

4.2
Improved
Packaging
Description.
Solid
waste
disposal,
decreasing
available
landfill
space,
and
consumer
pressure
have
caused
food­
processing
manufacturers
to
reevaluate
their
use
of
packaging.
Excessive
packaging
has
contributed
to
an
overabundance
of
solid
waste
and
an
ever­
growing
dilemma
of
what
to
do
with
it.
In
1970,
typical
tipping
fees
for
solid
waste
disposal
were
US$
0.75/
ton.
Today,
costs
may
reach
US$
100
to
US$
200/
ton.
By
2000,
those
figures
are
expected
to
rise
to
US$
500/
ton
in
some
areas
of
the
country.

The
Steel
Recycling
Institute
(
SRI)
and
the
National
Solid
Wastes
Management
Association
(
NSWMA)
reported
that
recycling
of
common
industrial
packaging
has
increased
dramatically.
In
1988
only
15%
of
all
steel
cans
produced
were
recycled.
In
1992,
41%
of
all
steel
cans
were
recycled;
this
number
has
increased
by
approximately
20%
since
that
time.
According
to
NSWMA,
almost
95%
of
all
steel
cans
produced
are
for
food
and
beverage
operations.

Recent
in­
house
packaging
changes
at
Tyson
Foods
and
other
food
manufacturers
have
included
use
of
plastic
liners
in
corrugated
boxes
within
a
plant,
use
of
high
density
polyethylene
(
HDPE)
plastic
totes,
and
substitution
of
foam
food­
packaging
containers
for
ones
made
from
materials
free
of
chlorofluorocarbons.
Tyson
Foods
has
also
created
an
incentive
program
to
get
feedback
from
employees
on
how
to
reduce
packaging.
One
change
that
was
implemented
was
redesign
of
an
entrée
dinner
dish
that
saved
approximately
1,175,289
pounds
of
packaging
per
year.

In
the
past
ten
years,
consumers
have
demanded
more
environmentally
friendly
packaging.
Public
pressure
has
even
reached
the
fast­
food
industry.
For
instance,
McDonalds
has
greatly
reduced
the
use
of
styrofoam
in
their
food
products.
Food
packaging
suppliers,
however,
agree
that
until
public
pressure
or
federal
regulation
mandates
new
packaging
materials
and
techniques,
the
industry
will
continue
to
remain
"
customer"
driven.
Packaging
suppliers
state
that
they
do
not
sell
to
a
consumer,
but
rather
to
the
people
that
sell
to
the
consumer.
As
a
result,
it
is
difficult
for
a
packaging
company
to
come
up
with
new
and
innovative
products
because
they
first
have
to
convince
food
processors
that
consumers
will
like
the
packaging
changes.

Benefits.
In
some
cases,
the
benefit
of
changing
packaging
is
lower
costs,
but,
in
most
cases,
the
cost
is
either
the
same
or
slightly
more.
Typically,
it
is
only
advantageous
to
change
packaging
from
a
"
goodwill"
standpoint.
Food
manufacturers
who
effectively
advertise
their
packaging
as
more
environmentally
friendly
quickly
gain
an
advantage
over
their
competition
and
improve
their
public
relations
image.

Additional
benefits
from
implementing
packaging
changes
are
decreasing
the
ultimate
solid
waste
disposal
amount
and
decreasing
possible
future
liabilities
that
a
package
might
cause,
that
is,
leaching
problems
in
landfills.

Status
of
Use
in
the
United
States.
Both
federal
and
state
regulations
are
directed
at
landfill
owners
and
operators
but
will
affect
food
companies
down
the
line
as
disposal
restrictions
prohibit
and/
or
increase
costs
for
wastes
being
landfilled.
Food­
processing
companies
are
slowly
switching
to
more
biodegradable
packaging
products.
Excessive
packaging
has
been
reduced
and
recyclable
products
such
as
aluminum,
glass,
and
HDPE
are
being
used
where
applicable.

4.3
Improved
Sensors
and
Process
Control
Description.
Automation
is
being
used
more
frequently
in
the
food­
processing
industry.
In
the
past,
concerns
about
reliability
and
high
capital
cost
slowed
the
technology
transfer
of
automated
machinery
to
the
food­
processing
industry.
Improvements
in
technology
and
reductions
in
costs
have
now
made
analytical
sensors,
PC
interfaces,
and
closed­
loop
control
systems
more
attractive.
These
types
of
automated
products
allow
the
user
to
improve
efficiency,
control
the
process
of
raw
material
inputs,
and
control
the
amount
of
wastes
generated.
Sensors
can
be
used
to
control
process
temperature,
humidity,
pH,
flow
rates,
and
contamination
levels.

Automation
has
been
used
for
years
in
the
specialty,
beverage,
and
dairy
sectors,
but,
until
recently,
it
has
not
been
used
to
a
great
extent
in
the
fruit­,
vegetable­,
and
meat­
processing
sectors.
The
technology
has
advanced
to
the
point
that
computers
can
now
be
used
for
assessing
conditions
that,
in
the
past,
only
workers
could
assess.
Artificial
intelligence
was
the
phrase
coined
in
the
1980s
to
describe
the
capabilities
of
these
new
pieces
of
equipment.
Sensors
are
capable
of
characterizing
physical
properties
of
processing
materials.
Subjective
properties,
such
as
appearance,
taste,
aroma,
and
texture
as
well
as
physical
properties
such
as
size,
shape,
texture,
and
color,
are
all
possibilities
for
automated
assessment.

Benefits.
Use
of
automation
further
reduces
the
chance
of
human
error
in
manufacturing
processes.
Automation
improves
speed
and
accuracy
in
measuring
process
variables
and
also
reduces
labor
costs.
Through
the
use
of
automation,
workers
can
dedicate
their
time
to
other
more
pressing
production
issues.
Automated
equipment
makes
real­
time
data
available
to
plant
personnel
without
interrupting
the
production
run.

Status
of
Use
in
the
United
States.
A
majority
of
facilities
in
the
United
States
are
operating
their
production
lines
with
outdated
equipment.
As
with
other
aspects
of
the
food­
processing
industry,
only
when
industry
realizes
the
economic
benefits
of
a
clean
technology
investment,
will
they
convert.
A
new
wave
of
cost­
effective
automated
products
is
continuing
to
become
available,
but
the
best
chance
of
implementing
these
types
of
technologies
is
when
building
new
facilities.
Bottlenecks
and
other
problems
are
less
likely
to
occur,
and
management
is
more
open
to
utilizing
new
technologies
during
a
facility s
early
design
phase.

4.4
Food
Irradiation
Description.
Food
irradiation
involves
applying
low­
dose
radiation
to
fruits,
vegetables,
meats,
and
other
food
products.
Irradiation
kills
deadly
foodborne­
illnesses
such
as
E.
coli,
salmonella,
and
other
harmful
pathogens.
The
irradiation
process
extends
the
shelf
life
of
food
products
and
can
change
rejected
meat
products
into
approved
products
by
killing
the
pathogens
that
caused
them
to
fail.
Also,
low­
dose
radiation
inhibits
sprouting
or
ripening
of
food
products.

There
are
drawbacks
to
using
this
technology.
The
public
is
wary
of
applying
radiation
to
consumable
food
products,
and
irradiation
does
not
kill
or
breakdown
harmful
toxins
that
are
left
on
food
products.
Concerns
about
taste
and
reduced
nutritional
value
have
for
the
most
part
proved
unwarranted,
but
application
of
the
radiation
dose
may
taint
some
pork
products
if
they
are
at
a
high
temperature
when
irradiated.

Benefits.
Using
food
irradiation
can
decrease
the
water
needed
for
rinsing
and
cleaning
food
products
and
decreases
the
chances
of
pathogens
tainting
the
products.
The
cost
for
irradiation
is
low
(
on
the
order
of
pennies
per
pound)
and
takes
a
relatively
short
exposure
time
to
kill
the
pathogens
of
concern.
Critics
say
food
processors
and
food
service
operators
are
looking
to
irradiation
as
an
"
easy
way
out"
of
stringent
adherence
to
HACCP
procedures.

Status
of
Use
in
the
United
States.
Currently,
there
are
no
irradiation
chambers
in
food­
processing
plants.
Foods
are
transferred
to
commercial
irradiation
sites
for
application.
Food
that
is
irradiated
must
be
labeled
as
such,
and
most
food­
processing
companies
are
hesitant
to
sell
their
products
with
such
labeling.
Further
scientific
studies
will
be
needed
if
irradiation
is
to
be
used
up
to
its
potential.
U.
S.
public
perception
is
not
favorable,
but
the
forecast
for
food
irradiation
is
that
it
will
gain
in
acceptance
within
the
next
10
years.

4.5
Water
and
Wastewater
Reduction
(
Closed
Loop/
Zero
Emission
Systems)

Description.
An
increasingly
viable
option
for
companies
is
the
"
zero­
discharge"
system.
Many
foodprocessing
facilities
are
looking
to
pretreatment
options
that
can
help
reduce
the
amount
of
lost
product.
Once
a
part
of
the
food
product
is
lost
to
a
waste
stream,
it
represents
a
decrease
in
product
utilization
and
an
increase
in
treatment
costs.
A
large
capital
expenditure
and
a
customized
treatment
solution
are
required
to
handle
a
zero­
discharge
option.
Furthermore,
the
uniqueness
of
the
various
food­
processing
operations
makes
it
impossible
to
find
"
off­
the­
shelf"
treatment
designs
to
fit
a
user s
needs.

A
more
plausible
approach
is
that
of
achieving
zero
emissions.
As
noted
earlier,
the
"
zero
emissions"
strategy
relies
on
a
network
of
companies
utilizing
each
other s
waste
streams.
The
strategy
is
a
more
economically
efficient
system
than
a
"
closed
loop"
because
the
waste
products
do
not
have
to
be
fully
treated.
Although
facilities
are
moving
toward
decreased
effluent
quantities,
material
mass
balances
still
dictate
that
process
residuals
such
as
sludges
will
require
management
and
possibly
off­
site
disposal.

Benefits.
Both
zero
discharge
and
zero
emission
systems
achieve
better
effluent
water
quality
and
have
fewer
negative
impacts
on
the
environment.

Status
of
Use
in
the
United
States.
A
zero
discharge
or
emission
facility
is
a
lofty
goal.
U.
S.
industries
are
moving
toward
such
goals
but
it
would
be
unrealistic
to
have
a
total
zero
discharge.
Through
regulation
and
other
restrictions,
the
U.
S.
food­
processing
industry
is
expected
to
invest
more
time,
money,
and
effort
in
reducing
effluent
levels
and
contamination
to
the
lowest
economically
feasible
levels.
Market
consolidation
and
improved
communication
among
companies
will
help
foster
the
principle
of
"
one
company s
waste
is
another s
raw
material."

5.
FUTURE
TRENDS
Regulations
and
Standards
The
U.
S.
food­
processing
industry
will
continue
to
prosper
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Industry
standards
and
business
practices
will
continue
to
be
driven
by
both
regulatory
mandates
and
consumer
taste.
The
HACCP
regulations
are
expected
to
be
fully
implemented
within
the
next
two
to
three
years,
which
will
require
a
majority
of
U.
S.
food­
processing
companies
to
further
improve
sanitary
conditions
within
their
facilities.
The
strengthening
of
the
CWA
and
concerns
over
RCRA s
solid
waste
disposal
issues
will
continue
to
drive
the
industry
closer
to
"
sustainable
development"
principles
of
waste
reduction,
and
recycling.

International
standards
developed
by
the
Geneva­
based
International
Organization
of
Standardization,
called
ISO
14000,
represent
the
latest
attempts
to
provide
a
global
environmental
management
system.
ISO
14000
was
intended
to
help
organizations
manage
and
evaluate
the
environmental
aspects
of
their
operations
without
being
prescriptive.
The
International
Organization
of
Standardization
intends
to
provide
companies
with
a
framework
to
comply
with
both
domestic
and
foreign
environmental
regulations.
ISO
14000
contains
sections
calling
for
implementation
of
pollution
prevention
programs,
and
many
U.
S.
companies
are
evaluating
the
pros
and
cons
of
becoming
fully
certified
in
ISO
14001.
Furthermore,
EPA
is
talking
about
easing
reporting
requirements
for
U.
S.
companies
that
earn
ISO
14001
certification.

Industry
Trends
There
are
several
ongoing
trends
and
research
and
development
activities
apparent
within
the
foodprocessing
community
in
the
areas
of
pollution
prevention
and
clean
technology
implementation.

Solid
Waste
Reduction.
Companies
will
continue
to
look
at
ways
to
reduce
solid
waste
generation,
use
less
or
reusable
packaging,
and
use
biodegradable
packing
products.
Excessive
packaging
has
been
reduced
and
recyclable
products
such
as
aluminum,
glass,
and
HDPE
are
expected
to
continue
being
used
to
a
wider
degree
in
packaging
situations.

Mechanical
Versus
Chemical
Processing.
Companies
will
show
increased
consideration
for
using
mechanical
methods
for
food
processing
(
e.
g.,
the
fruit
and
vegetable
sector).
Mechanical
processing
can
be
used
to
perform
many
of
the
same
functions
as
chemical
processing.
The
costs
and
benefits
of
using
mechanical
versus
chemical
processing
will
be
further
quantified
to
aid
in
decision
making.

Pretreatment
Options,
Water
Conservation,
and
Wastewater
Reduction.
Pretreatment
opportunities
and
water
conservation
will
continue
to
be
principal
targets
for
pollution
prevention
source
reduction
practices
in
the
food­
processing
industry.
Pretreatment
options
look
to
minimize
the
loss
of
raw
materials
to
the
food­
processing
waste
streams.
Water
used
in
conveying
materials,
facility
cleanup,
or
other
noningredient
uses
will
be
reduced,
which
in
turn
will
reduce
the
wastewater
volume
from
food­
processing
facilities.
Wastewater
treatment
will
continue
to
be
the
pollution
prevention
treatment
focus
for
food­
processing
companies.
The
industry
will
continue
to
implement
advanced
innovative
techniques
to
lessen
the
environmental
impact
of
food­
processing
discharge
wastewaters.

To
succeed,
the
U.
S.
food
industry
will
have
to
continue
to
juggle
the
demands
of
consumers,
investors,
environmental
compliance,
as
well
as
competitiveness
of
both
the
domestic
and
global
marketplaces.

REFERENCES
Berne,
Steve.
"
Simplifying
sanitation,"
Prepared
Foods,
v166,
n3,
p80,
March
1997.

 
 
 
.
"
In­
plant
recycling:
responsible
manufacturing,"
Prepared
Foods,
v163,
n2,
p99,
Feb.
1994.

Brown,
Robert
H.
"
Poultry,
meat
industries
accepting
safety
rules,"
Feedstuffs,
v68,
n29,
p1,
July
15,
1996.

Conner,
John
M.,
Food
Processing:
an
Industrial
Powerhouse
in
Transition,
Lexington
Books,
Lexington,
Mass.,
1988.

Conner,
John
M.
and
William
Schiek.
1997.
Food
Processing:
an
Industrial
Powerhouse
in
Transition.
New
York:
John
Wiley
and
Sons.
Dessoff,
Alan.
"
New
meat
sanitation
regs
kick
in:
industry
keeps
an
eye
on
plant
operations,"
Food
Processing,
v58,
n3,
p60,
March
1997.

"
Handling
wastewater
well."
(
Special
Report:
Beating
the
Clock
on
Parts
Cleaning),
Tooling
&
Production,
v60,
n6,
p65,
Sept
1994.

Hanson,
David.
"
EPA
to
shift
focus
from
pollutants
to
industries,"
Chemical
&
Engineering
News,
v72,
n30,
p9,
July
25,
1994.

Katz,
Frances.
"
HACCP
regs
just
getting
started,"
Food
Processing,
v57,
n1,
p52,
January
1996.

Katzel,
Jeanine.
"
Managing
nonhazardous
solid
wastes,"
Plant
Engineering,
v48,
n11,
p42,
Sept.
1994.

Kuhn,
Ellen.
"
Putting
packaging
in
perspective,"
Food
Processing,
v57,
n7,
p60,
July
1996.

Madl,
Linda.
"
Efficient
waste,"
Food
Processing,
v58,
n4,
p88,
April
1997.

McCorkle,
Chester
O.
Economics
of
Food
Processing
in
the
United
States,
Academic
Press,
San
Diego
CA,
1988.

Rousseau,
Rita.
"
To
zap
or
not
to
zap:
irradiation
may
 
or
may
not
 
be
the
future
of
our
food
supply,"
Restaurants
&
Institutions,
v107,
n1,
p64,
Jan.
1,
1997.

Tchobanoglous,
George.
Wastewater
Engineering:
Treatment,
Disposal,
and
Reuse,
Metcalf
&
Eddy,
Inc.,
3rd
ed.
Revised
by
George
Tchobanoglous
and
Frank
Burton,
McGraw­
Hill,
NY,
1991.

Sheridan,
John
H.
"
Pollution
solutions,"
Industry
Week,
v243,
n7,
p32,
April
4,
1994.

Zuckerman,
Amy.
"
Don t
rush
into
ISO
14000,"
Machine
Design,
v68,
n1,
p38,
January
11,
1996.

Selected
publications
of:
Pacific
Northwest
National
Laboratory:
State­
of­
the­
Art
Report(
s)

National
Center
for
Food
Safety
&
Technology
(
NCFST)

U.
S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration,
Center
for
Food
Safety
and
Applied
Nutrition
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Food
Safety
and
Inspection
Service:
Background
Papers
The
1996
National
Poultry
Waste
Symposium
proceedings
North
Carolina
Cooperative
Extension
Service:
Water
Quality
&
Waste
Management
Reports
