9420.pdf

quo had been maintained. For each treatment option the implementation of in-house
modifications always cuts the annual expenditures in half because water consumption
would be reduced by 50 %
The results obtained for the evaluation show that implementing extensive in-house
modifications as described in Sections 5.2 and 6 should be carried out as a first step to
both reduce water consumption and minimize contaminant loadings. Following these
modifications, the replacement of relative coarse screens (opening sizes of 600 ~m or
more) with finer screens (opening size as low as 150 ~m) may be installed to further
reduce the amount of contaminants discharged.
7.3.3.2 Discharge to the Environment
The overall results for the above hypothetical plant discharging to the environment are
similar to the results obtained for a plant discharging to GVS&DD. For example, the
installation of DAF would still result in the highest annual expenditures during and after
the amortization period (with or without in-house modifications). Also, not-implementation
of any changes would result In the lowest annual expenditures during the amortization
period. Due to the lower permit fees relative to GVS&DD fees, in-house modifications
would result in substantially higher expenditure than installing finer screens, or making no
changes at all.
With the exception of the DAF options, annual expenditures after the amortization period
relate mostly to water consumption and permit fees. As a result, annual expenditures for
scenarios without water reduction are similar to each, as are those with water reduction.
The use of assumed effluent contaminant concentrations to calculate permit fees as
currently practised by MOELP shows that processing plants derive no financial benefit
from discharging fewer contaminants. Any fee reduction would be solely associated with
a reduced permitted maximum daily discharge flow resulting from water conservation.
As in the previous case, fish processing plants discharging to the environment are
expected to benefit from implementing extensive in-house modifications. To further lower
contaminant loadings, finer screening may be employed, although with the present
practice of calculating permit fees no financial benefit could be realized for the processing
companies.
103