9420.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7.4 Assumptions used for Economic Analysis PLANT TYPE Salmon cannery (also processing roe . herring in spring) EXISTING EFFLUENT TREATMENT DISCHARGE TYPE DISCHARGE FEES Annual water consumption Fine screening (600 ~m) 1. Discharge to GVS&DD 2. Discharge to the environment 1. Discharge to GVS&DD $0.27/kg TSS, for TSS >200 mg/L $0.13/kg BOD, for BOD >200 mg/L 2. Discharge to the environment $9.20/tonne TSS (assumed effluent TSS: 70 mg/L) $13.90/tonne BOD (assumed effluent BOD: 100 mg/L) m 3 /year 235,000 Annual wastewater discharge m3/year 211,500 Water cost $/m 3 0.25 Existing maximum daily effluent m3/day ‘ 5000 discharge Maximum daily effluent discharge after m 3 in-house modifications /day 2500 Annual interest rate (for amortization of equipment) \ % 8 Amortization period years \ 5 Operating costs of DAF $/m 3 0.50 Operating cost of screens $/m’ o 101
Table 7.4 Assumptions used for Economic Analysis (continued) EVALUATED MODIFICATIONS Assumed Reduction of , Effluent Water Modification Contaminant Consumption Concentration [%] [%] Replacement of the 600 um screens with 500 ~m 5 0 screens; Replacement of the 600 pm screens with 150 ~m 20 0 screens; Installation of DAF (without improved screening); 80 0 In-house modifications without upgrading of the o 50 treatment system; In-house modifications and replacement of the 5 50 600 pm screens with 500 ~m screens; In-house modifications and replacement of the 20 50 600 Pm screens with 150 pm screens; and In-house modifications and installation of DAF 80 50 (without improved screening). $156,000 to $169,000. Installation of DAF without prior in-house modifications would result in more than twice the annual expenditures of any of the previously discussed changes. Due to the smaller equipment requirements, the annual expenditures for DAF during the amortization period is reduced if in-house modifications are carried out first. After the amortization period the lowest annual expenditures would be expected for inhouse modifications and installation of finer screens, followed by in-house modifications alone. These modifications would result in a reduction of the annual expenditures by a factor of at least two, compared to the expenditures which would be required if the status’ 102 - — —
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 112 and 113: Table 7.3 Expected Efficiency of Wa
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?