9420.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7.3 Expected Efficiency of Wastewater Treatment Methods r Treatment Range of expected BOD removal efficiency [%] Low High Screening 5 10 600 pm Screens 500 pm Screens 7.5 15 150 pm Screens 15 30 DAF 80 90 7.3 Case Study 7.3.1 General Based on available file data, and information obtained from equipment suppliers, equipment costs for various modifications were calculated for a hypothetical fish processing plant. 7.3.2 Assumptions and Background Information The hypothetical fish processing plant is assumed to be a salmon cannery which also processes roe herring in spring. The plant is assumed to have 600 ~m screens, which are the most common form of effluent treatment in B.C. for large processing plants. Further, it was assumed that extensive in-house modifications would result in a 50% reduction of the water consumption and the BOD loading. Although it has not yet been demonstrated that these levels of reduction can be achieved in North American fish processing plants, these assumptions seem reasonable based on the results obtained by European processors who have implemented modifications according to the principles described in Section 5.2. The replacement of 600 pm screens with 500 and 150 ~m screens was assumed to result in a reduction of the effluent BOD of 5% and 20 %, respectively. Installation of DAF was assumed to reduce the effluent BOD by an additional 80 % when compared to the existing level of treatment. 99 *
- Two 1 2 Iischarge scenarios were considered: Discharge to a municipal sewer (assumed to be the GVS&DD) Direct discharge to the environment For discharge to the GVS&DD, the fee structure presently proposed by the GVRD, $0.27/kg TSS and $0.13/kg BOD for TSS concentrations and BOD exceeding 200 mg/L, is used. The fee to be paid for discharge to the environment was calculated based on the method described in the Provincial Permit Fee Regulation. According to this regulation, the maximum permitted daily discharge flow is multiplied by the TSS concentration and BOD of the effluent. Each is then multiplied by the number of days per year. The effluent TSS concentration and BOD are assumed to be 70 mg/L and 100 mg/L, respectively, as is the current practice for calculating permit fees if limits on these parameters are not set in the discharge permit itself. As operating costs of finer screens were assumed to be comparable to the costs of the existing 600 pm screens, and the implementation of in-house modification is not expected to result in additional operating costs, these added operational costs were assumed to be zero. The operating costs for DAF were assumed to be $0.50/m3 based on experience obtained from pilot plant tests. The volume of process water discharged, was assumed to be 90% of the water consumption. Equipment costs were assumed to be amortized in 5 years at an interest rate of 8 % The assumptions used in the economic analysis are summarized in Table 7.4. The result of the evaluations are shown in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 which, for comparison purposes, also present the cost accrued if no modifications are carried out. 7.3.3 Results and Discussion 7.3.3.1 Discharge to GVS&DD During the relatively short amortization period of five years, each of the evaluated modifications would result in a larger annual expenditure than maintaining the status quo. Of all modifications, the installation of 150 ~m screens would result in the lowest expenditures followed by the installation of 500 pm screens, and in-house modifications. The annual expenditures for these three modifications are fairly close, ranging from 100
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 108 and 109: conservation and the implementation
Page 110 and 111: In-house modifications can result i
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?