9420.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.4.3 Municipal and Regional Bylaws The discharge of wastewater from fish processing plants to municipal sewer systems is generally regulated by municipal or regional sewer use bylaws. Typically, these bylaws do not refer to such effluents specifically, but include general restrictions such as particlesize, total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease (O&G), and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) limits which must be met by all discharges. In the Greater Vancouver area, discharges to sewer are regulated by the GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 164. Fish processing effluents fall under the category of “non-domestic waste” and their discharge requires a permit if more than 300 cubic metres of effluent are discharged from a facility over any consecutive 30 day period. Effluent concentration limits in effect for discharge to sewer are shown in Table 2.4. At the time of the preparation of this report, the GVS&DD was in the process of developing a fee structure for the discharge of non-domestic waste. The 1992 rate structure proposal called for a surcharge of $0.27 per kilogram of TSS and $0.13 per kilogram of BOD discharged (GVRD, 1992). The fees are only proposed for TSS concentrations and BOD exceeding 200 mg/L which is typical of domestic sanitary waste. Table 2.4 GVS&DD Effluent Discharge Limits for Parameters Applicable to the Fish Processing Industry Parameter One-Operatlng-Day Two-Hour Composite Grab Composite Sample Sample Sample BOD 500 1000 2000 TSS 600 1200 2400 O&G 150 300 Source: GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 164 Notes: 1. 2. 3. All concentrations are in mg/L. One-operating-day Composite Sample’: A composite sample of the discharge consisting of equal portions of grab samples collected at consecutive one-hour intervals over the duration of the operating day. Two-hour Composite Sample: A composite sample consisting of equal portions of 8 grab samples collected at consecutive 15-minute intervals. 13
3 WATER CONSUMPTION AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 Water Consumption Water consumption depends upon a number of factors, including the species processed, applied water conservation techniques, processing technology and type of finished product. High water consumption was generally encouraged in the past to control plant sanitation. Recently, successful efforts have been made to decrease water consumption without compromising the plant sanitation (Sections 5.2.2 and 6.2). A review of water consumption rates reported in literature is presented in Table 3.1. Stone et al. (1981) reported that the amount of water used for each unit of production decreases as daily production increases. The same was observed and reported by NovaTec Consultants Inc. and EVS Environment Consultants (1994). A very high water consumption per unit of production that occurs on low production days is believed to be due to a high base line water consumption related to activities like equipment and plant cleanup. Water conservation techniques and modifications in processing technology can reduce water consumption significantly (see Sections 5.2). Implementation of water conservation techniques at fish processing facilities in Northern Europe resulted in up to 50% reduction of the water consumption (NovaTec Consultants Inc., 1993a). Water consumption is also a function of the type of species processed. The highest water consumption is reported for groundfish processing. It can amount to 154 L/kg (Table 3.1). The lowest water consumption is reported for oyster and clam processing, only 0.2 and 0.6 L/kg respectively (Table 3.1 ). Typical water consumption rates at fish processing facilities in B.C. are presented in Table 3.2. Water consumption at B.C. fish processing facilities generally fall in the range reported in literature (Table 3.1). However, when typical water consumption rates are compared with rates reported at facilities which implemented water conservation techniques, it can be seen that there is still considerable room for improvement. For example, water consumption at salmon processing facilities in Northern Europe that have implemented 14
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 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 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?