9420.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

conservation and the implementation of conservation measures. However, in the GVRD, declining block rates are expected to be phased out in addition to a substantial increase in the water rate, providing a powerful incentive for conserving water. Reducing water consumption also has the added benefit of reducing the cost of any endof-pipe treatment, as treatment systems can be designed for smaller flows which generally reduces the capital and operating costs. In addition, many water conservation measures also result in a reduction of the contaminant load. For example, European experience has shown, that a 50% reduction in the BOD load due to measures which also conserve water is possible. The implementation of water conservation and other in-house water and wastewater minimization measures is therefore strongly recommended as a first step towards reducing the contaminant load discharged from fish processing facilities. 7.2.6 Discharge Fees According to the B.C. Permit Fee Regulation fish processing facilities have to pay $13.90 and $9.20 per tonne of BOD and TSS discharged, respectively. The fees are generally based on an assumed BOD and TSS effluent concentration of 100 mg/L and 70 mg/L respectively, regardless of the actual effluent quality. The assumed BOD and TSS effluent concentrations are multiplied by the maximum permitted daily discharge flow and the number of days per year. If the permit lists the average permitted daily discharge flow and/or is for an operating period of less than one year, the average flow multiplied by the operating days listed in the permit are used for the calculations. The maximum and average permitted daily flows could be reduced by implementing in-house modifications as outlined in Sections 5.2 and 6. As an example of fees applicable to plants discharging to sewer, the rate structure proposed by the GVRD in 1992 was reviewed (GVRD, 1992). According to this structure, companies would be required to pay a surcharge for effluent exceeding 200 mg/L BOD or TSS. The proposed surcharge would be $0.27 per kilogram BOD and $0.13 per kilogram TSS. This rate structure was based on operating costs for primary treatment only, and that the GVRD is in the process of revising the originally proposed fee structure to include operating costs and debt service for secondary treatment as well. As a consequence, substantially higher rates (up to five times - pers. comm. with Ms. Christina Jacob of the GVRD) may be set. 95
7.2.7 Waste Disposal Waste ‘disposal options are an important consideration when selecting wastewater treatment options. As shown in Section 5.1.4, most offal generated in B.C. is presently sent to reduction or is used for pet/mink food. These uses would not be available for sludge generated by DAF, particularly if chemicals are used in the treatment. The only options left for this kind of waste would be landfilling, or comporting. As cost for both these waste disposal options is on a per-weight basis, sludge dewatering would probably be required to keep disposal costs low. However, this would further increase the capital and operating costs of wastewater treatment by DAF. Comporting facilities charge between $30 and $80 per tonne of offal. At the landfill of the City of Vancouver, normal tipping fees ($69/tonne) apply to fish waste with the added requirement that it must be possible to handle the waste with a front-end loader, and that the waste must be odour free, which generally requires the waste to be frozen. The problems of dealing with waste generated by wastewater treatment would be minimized by using in-house waste reduction measures. Also, screening is preferable to DAF, as the solids collected by screens are generally disposed of with other fish offal and may be sent to reduction plants. 7.2.8 In-house Modifications In-house modification to implement the methods outlined in Sections 5.2 and 6 for water conservation and wastewater minimization are considered the first step towards lowering the contaminant load discharged from fish processing plants. Plants can make use of a large number of low tech modifications to achieve these goals. Ideally, to make the most efficient use of money spent for new equipment or equipment modifications, a water and wastewater audit should be conducted first to determine the areas with the greatest potential for water conservation and wastewater minimization. As outlined above, these modifications may be associated with savings due to the following: ● ● ● ● lower water consumption; smaller contaminant load; smaller wastewater treatment systems (if required); and more efficient production methods. 96
Page 2 and 3:
Environment Canada Industrial Progr
Page 4 and 5:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEM’EN
Page 8 and 9:
5.4 5.5 BEST 6.1 6.2 6.3 5.3.4.2 Ot
Page 10 and 11:
Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Fi
Page 12 and 13:
Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Tabl
Page 14 and 15:
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Terms of Referen
Page 16 and 17:
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Genera
Page 18 and 19:
1992a). In 1990, approximately 70 %
Page 20 and 21:
Development of aquiculture (husband
Page 22 and 23:
REDUCTION PLANT Q \ \ PRINCE RUPERT
Page 24 and 25:
2.4 Review of Current Regulations 2
Page 26 and 27:
2.4.3 Municipal and Regional Bylaws
Page 28 and 29:
Table 3.1 Water Consumption Rates -
Page 30:
3.2 Wastewater Characteristics 3.2.
Page 33 and 34:
Table 3.4 Contaminant Concentration
Page 35 and 36:
3.2.2 Fish Processing Facilities in
Page 37 and 38:
Table 3.7 Production-based Contamin
Page 39 and 40:
which are permitted to grind and di
Page 41 and 42:
4 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY The five ma
Page 43 and 44:
---- ,,, ,,, > “\ - Y’ I r ----
Page 45 and 46:
VESSEL-HOLD WATER PACKERS AND RECIR
Page 47 and 48:
&& a- * I ---- ————-— --
Page 49 and 50:
4.4 Herring Processing 4.4.1 Genera
Page 51 and 52:
Raw shrimp are held on ice for abou
Page 53 and 54:
~ PRODUCT — WASTEWATER ----- WATE
Page 55 and 56:
-+ \ /’WATER’l \~uPPLY/ ‘T-
Page 57 and 58: 5 WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 5.1 Cu
Page 59 and 60: Information Grind and Discha Coarse
Page 61: Table 5.1 Permit Summary ———-
Page 64 and 65: offal with wastewater, which is the
Page 66 and 67: equipment clean and to flush offal
Page 68 and 69: Table 5.4 Solid Waste Generation at
Page 70 and 71: process water. However, different r
Page 72 and 73: 5.2.4 Contaminant Reduction Several
Page 74 and 75: Fine screening is generally used as
Page 76 and 77: to coagulate proteins, cooling and
Page 78 and 79: Table 5.6 Summary of FM Proceeding
Page 80 and 81: 5.3.4.3 Enhanced Gravity Settling T
Page 82 and 83: To the knowledge of the authors, on
Page 84 and 85: To the knowledge of the authors, no
Page 86 and 87: 5.3.6.2 Hydrocyclones Hydrocyclones
Page 88 and 89: Solid wastes generated by seafood p
Page 90 and 91: Table 5.10 Results of Applications
Page 92 and 93: 5.4.9 Bone Meal Experiment conducte
Page 94 and 95: The comporting operation consists o
Page 96 and 97: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Page 98 and 99: ● / use of finer mesh screens (do
Page 100 and 101: 7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 7.1 Review of t
Page 102 and 103: wholesale and landed values as a me
Page 104 and 105: 7.2 Processing Technology Treatment
Page 106 and 107: (~nuJ!WU Jo %) SONICINVl u) (9 I <
Page 110 and 111: In-house modifications can result i
Page 112 and 113: Table 7.3 Expected Efficiency of Wa
Page 114 and 115: Table 7.4 Assumptions used for Econ
Page 116 and 117: quo had been maintained. For each t
Page 118 and 119: All cost estimates involving DAF un
Page 120 and 121: meet toxicity limits. However, biol
Page 122 and 123: BIBLIOGRAPHY Aegis Management Servi
Page 124 and 125: Fukuda H. and H. Nakatani. Treatmen
Page 126 and 127: Johnson R.A. and S.M. Gallanger. Us
Page 128 and 129: NovaTec Consultants Inc.. Village o
Page 130: ( Takei M.. Treatment of Waste Wate
show all

9420.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?