9420.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Table 6.5 Cost Comparison of Various Modifications - Discharge to the GVS&DD 1 I I I Aditional I 1 Modifications I Capital lAmoRization Water I I costs I costs I costs I costs I I [$1 I [$lyr] I [$lyr] 1[ $Iyr] No Modifications i 01 01 01 58,750 500vm Screens 87,500 21,915 0 58,750 150pm Screens 123,250 30,869 0 58,750 DAF 754,700 189,019 105,750 58,750 In-House Modificationsonly 382,500 95,800 0 29,375 In-House - 500pm Screens 437,500 109,575 0 29,375 Modification - 150pm Screens 478,250 119,781 0 29,375 plus installationof - DAF 875,200 219,199 52,875 29,375 Discharge Fees [$lyr] 87,264 81,975 66,108 =YT=- Amotiization Period $1 r $1 r 146,014 146,014 162,640 140,725 155,727 124,858 6,341 359860 170,841 = 43,632 I 168,807 I 73,007 40,988 179,937 70,363 33,054 182,210 62,429 3,170 I 304,620 j 85,420 Table 6.6 Cost Comparison of various Modifications - Dkcharge to the Environment Aditional Annual Expenditures Modifications Capital Amortization Operating Water Discharge During After costs costs costs costs Fees AmortizationPeriod ml [$lyr] [$/yr] [$lyr] ~lyr] [$/yr] [$lyr] No Modifications o ‘o o 58,750 3,712 62,462 62,462 500HmScreens 87,500 21,915 0 58,750 3,712 84,377 62,462 150pm Screens 423,250 30,869 0 58,750 3,712 93,331 62,462 DAF 754,700 189,019 105,750 58,750 3,712 357,232 168,212 ‘In-House Modificationsonly 382,500 95,800 0 29,375 1,856 127,031 31,231 In-House - 500pm Screens 437,500 109,575 0 29,375 1,856 140,806 31,231 Modification - 150pm Screens 478,250 119,781 0 29,375 1,856 151,012 31,231 Ius installationof - DAF 875,200 219,199 52,875 29,375 1,856 303,306 84,106 See text for explanation. Assumed reductionsof effluent contaminant concentrationsand water consumptionare listed in Table 6.4.
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 114 and 115: Table 7.4 Assumptions used for Econ
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?