Enterprise Ireland Dairy Research October 2015 A Review of Wastewater Treatment Within The

A review of wastewater treatment within the
UK dairy sector
October 2015
Contents
1. Project Objectives
2. Research Methodology and Sample Profile
3. Executive Summary
4. Detailed Research Findings
a. The size of the market ‐ milk and wastewater volumes
b. Approaches towards the handling of wastewater
c. On site treatment, technology and financing
d. Off site treatment and associated costs
e. Expenditure on wastewater management
f. Key challenges from an industry perspective
www.lead‐edge.co.uk 2
The key project objectives are as follows:
Understand the dynamics of large dairy sites with respect to their
production and handling of wastewater
Review what practices are being pursued on those sites
Assess possible opportunities for Irish companies in offering
support for this sector
 Contact was made with key players operating in the UK dairy sector that were known to operate
large sites. Major companies approached included xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx and xxx.
 Typically EHS (Environmental, Health and Safety) managers and site engineers were the main
contacts with responsibility for wastewater matters.
 In total 36 sites were approached. Full interviews were achieved with 16 of these while partial
interviews with a further 4 sites.
 No respondents wished to remain anonymous although 4 were not interested in any further
contact with Enterprise Ireland regarding the project.
 This presentation provides an overall flavour of the feedback received and an illustration of the
approaches towards, and management of, wastewater across the UK’s largest dairy sites.
 Individual responses are contained in a separate spreadsheet that has been provided separately
to Enterprise Ireland.
2. Research Methodology and Sample Profile (cont.)
Slide removed on the grounds of confidentiality
2. Research Methodology and Sample Profile (cont.)
 Sites differ in their focus on particular dairy products.
 Only 28% sites were involved solely in the processing and production of milk.
 A third of sites were producing milk and other dairy products, just under a fifth (17%) cheese and
just over a fifth (22%) in dairy products other than milk.
What types of activites are undertaken at this site?
35% 33%
30% 28%
25% 22%
20%
17%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Milk only Milk and other dairy Cheese only Other dairy
products products (no liquid
milk)
 Many dairy sites also specialise in the production of more than one product.
 There is a positive relationship between milk processed and wastewater generated.
 The majority of sites report fairly stable annual wastewater volumes. Where peaks occur these
are most likely to be at Spring/Easter and Christmas.
 Treatment and discharge of wastewater is the most common solution adopted.
 Sites generating smaller quantities of wastewater (<400 cubic metres/day) prefer basic, and less
costly, approaches. These include pH correction and/or a single treatment solutions such as DAF
(Dissolved Air Filtration) and AD (Anaerobic Digestion).
 Sites that generate larger quantities of wastewater (>400 cubic metres/day) typically use
additional, and different, treatment solutions. MBR (Membrane Bioreactor) and RO (Reverse
Osmosis) are commonly employed in such circumstances.
 Investment in on‐site wastewater treatment appears sporadic.
3. Executive Summary (cont.)
 There is little interest in novel finance and operating approaches such as DBO/DBFO (Design Build
Operate/Design Build Finance Operate) for on‐site wastewater treatment. However, some sites
use external contractors to manage their on‐site treatment facilities.
 Around three quarters of sites pay an external water company to treat some or all of their
wastewater.
 Annual expenditure on wastewater handling and treatment equipment, as well as operating

expenditure, varies considerably although samples sizes were small:
o Over half (55%) of sites spent up to £50,000 on capital expenditure in the last 12 months
o A similar percentage spent up to £100,000 on operating expenditure.
 The UK dairy sector has a wide range of concerns about the future challenges with respect to the
handling of wastewater. Issues include:
o The ability of existing in‐house treatment plant to meet current/future standards.
o The quality/quantity of effluent being released.
o A desire to reduce the milk content of wastewater.
o The issue of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) of effluent.
4. Detailed Research Findings
a. The size of the market –
milk and wastewater volumes
The amount of milk processed and wastewater generated at individual sites varies
considerably
 Just under half of the sites reviewed process up to 500,000 litres of milk per day with a third up to
200,000 litres per day.
 Nearly half (47%) can be classed as ‘super’ sites processing in excess of 1 million litres of milk per
day.
How much milk would typically be
processed at this site? ‐ litres per day
30%
27%
25%
20% 20%
20%
15% 13%
10%
7% 7% 7%
5%
0%
<100k 101 ‐ 200k 201 ‐ 500k 501 ‐ 1m 1 ‐ 1.5m 1.5 ‐ 2m > 2m
The amount of milk processed and wastewater generated at individual sites varies
considerably (cont.)
 Just over half (53%) of sites generate up to 500 cubic metres of wastewater per day.
 Nearly 4 in 10 (38%) of sites generate in excess of 750 cubic metres of wastewater per day.
How much wastewater is typically generated
from this site? ‐ M3 per day
45%
40% 38%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15% 15% 15%
15%
10% 8% 8%
5%
0%
< 200 201 ‐ 500 501 ‐ 750 751 ‐ 1000 1001 ‐ 1500 > 1501
… although there is a positive relationship between both
 There is a positive relationship both milk processing and wastewater production.
 Smaller sites, <500,000 litres per day, typically generate <500 cubic m per day of wastewater.
 Larger sites generate more wastewater and have greater variability in wastewater volumes.
AWAITING NEW CHART FROM RACHEL
Annual wastewater volumes are largely stable
 The majority of sites have fairly stable wastewater volumes.
 Spring/Easter, and the run up to Christmas, are the times when peaks are typically seen.
Are there peaks and troughs in the generation of
wastewater from this site throughout the year?
80%
71%
70%
60%
50%
40%
29%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fairly stable Some peaks and troughs
b. Approaches towards the handling of wastewater
Treat and discharge to sewer is the most popular approach
 Around 7 out of 10 (69%) sites treat and discharge some or all of their wastewater to sewer.
 A further 31% treat and discharge some or all of their wastewater to controlled water.
 Discharge untreated (19%) and treat and recycle (19%) are much less popular practices.
Example of quotes
Discharge and treatment solutions vary by site
 Reliance solely on treat and discharge to sewer is popular with smaller sites.
 Larger sites typically look at multiple solutions. Treat and discharge to controlled water and treat and
recycle are both popular.
T re a t a nd
Milk D is c ha rg e to T re a t a nd
W a s te wa te r d is c ha rg e to T re a t a nd
Pro c e s s e d s e we r untre a te d d is c ha rg e to Ma in me tho d /s fo r o n-s ite tre a tme nt
(M3/d a y ) c o ntro lle d wa te r re c y c le (% )
(litre s /d a y ) (% ) s e we r (% )
(% )
Large sites
10,000 25* 100.0 No on-site treatment
are more
135,000 180 30.0 70.0 AD plant
200,000 200 100.0
complex
pH correction
300,000 239 100.0 DAF plant
200,000 350 100.0 DAF plant
150,000 380 100.0 DAF plant
750,000 450 1.0 99.0 MBR plant
700,000 * 500 no data
750,000 550 * 40.0 60.0 Reverse Osmosis plant
Small sites 360,000 740 100.0 No on-site treatment
focus on 1,000,000 850 100.0 DAF plant
treat and 2,000,000 1,000 60.0 40.00 DAF and MBR plants with recycling (RO)
discharge to 1,550,000 1,100 32.5 37.5 DAF and MBR plants with recycling (RO)
sewer 1,500,000 1,300 * 100.0 No on-site treatment
1,750,000 1,500 100.0 Reverse Osmosis plant
2,800,000 2,800 50.0 50.0 DAF plant, MBR plant under construction
no data no data 100.0 pH correction

no data no data 100.0 pH correction. AD plant under construction
c. On site treatment, technology and financing
DAF plants are the mainstay of on-site wastewater treatment
 DAF (Dissolved Air Filtration) plants are popular with all sites. Larger sites, 1,000 cubic metres per day
and above, also use MBR (Membrane Bioreactors) and RO (Reverse Osmosis) technologies.
 AD (Anaerobic Digestion) is another technology in use albeit on a limited basis.
Milk P ro c e s s e d W a s te wa te r
Ma in me tho d / s fo r o n-s ite tre a tme nt
(litre s / d a y ) (M3/ d a y )
135,000 180 AD plant

200,000 200 pH correction
300,000 239 DAF plant
200,000 350 DAF plant
150,000 380 DAF plant
750,000 450 MBR plant
700,000 * 500 no data
750,000 550 * Reverse Osmosis plant
1,000,000 850 DAF plant
2,000,000 1,000 DAF and MBR plants with recycling (RO)
1,550,000 1,100 DAF and MBR plants with recycling (RO)
1,750,000 1,500 Reverse Osmosis plant
2,800,000 2,800 DAF plant, MBR plant under construction
no data no data pH correction

no data no data pH correction. AD plant under construction
* - estimated
Example of quotes
Investment is taking place in both large and small dairies
 Investment in wastewater treatment is taking place across different sites using different
technologies.
Milk Pro c e s s e d W a s te wa te r Inv e s tme nt in T e c hno lo g y
(litre s / d a y ) (M3/ d a y ) la s t 5 y e a rs ? Imp le me nte d
135,000 180 yes AD plant (£ unknown)
200,000 200 no
300,000 239 no
200,000 350 yes DAF plant (£ unknown)
150,000 380 no
750,000 450 yes MBR plant (£ unknown)
700,000 * 500 no
750,000 550 * yes RO plant (£6 mn)
1,000,000 850 no
2,000,000 1,000 no
1,550,000 1,100 no
1,750,000 1,500 no
2,800,000 2,800 yes MBR plant (£3.5 mn)
no data no data no
no data no data no
* - estimated
There is no interest in DBO or DBFO arrangements for on-site wastewater
treatment facilities
 None of the sites with on‐site wastewater treatment have a DBO (Design, Build, Operate) or DBFO
(Design, Build, Finance, Operate) agreement with a third party.
 A number of companies do however use external companies to operate their facilities.
 Cost is an important explanation by those who have rejected the DBO/DBFO route.
d. Off site treatment and associated costs
Most sites sending wastewater off-site pay for its treatment although the amount
paid varies considerably
 Three quarters of sites that discharge wastewater off‐site are required to pay for treatment under
the Mogden charge pricing structure.
Are you required to pay a Mogden charge to your
local wastewater utility company?
80.0% 75.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
12.5% 12.5%
10.0%
0.0%
Yes No Don't Know
e. Expenditure on wastewater management
Capital expenditure shows greater variability than operating expenditure
 Annual capital expenditure by dairy sites shows some degree of variability although for many sites
annual investment is relatively low.
 Data from 9 sites shows that over half (55%) spent up to £50,000 on wastewater treatment in the
last 12 months with over three‐quarters spending up to £100,000.
How much is typically spent annually on capital expenditure
for handling wastewater generated at this site?
50%
44%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25% 22% 22%
20%
15% 11%
10%
5%
0% 0%
0%
up to £10,000 £10,000 to £50,000 to £100,000 to £250,000 to greater than
pa £49,999 pa £99,999 pa £249,999 pa £499,999 pa £500,000 pa
Capital expenditure shows greater variability than operating expenditure (cont’d)
 Operating expenditure shows more variability amongst the 9 sites reviewed although again with a
focus on smaller levels of expenditure.
 A third of sites spent up to £25,000 in the last 12 months with 55% up to £100,000. However, a third
of sites spent between £250,000 and £1 million on operating expenditure during this period.
How much is typically spent annually on operating
expenditure for handling wastewater generated at this site?
35% 33%
30%
25% 22% 22%
20%
15%
11% 11%
10%
5%
0%
0%
up to £25,000 £25,000 to £100,000 to £250,000 to £500,000 to greater than £1
pa £99,999 pa £249,999 pa £499,999 pa £999,999 pa million pa
f. Key challenges from an industry perspective
Dairies face a number of water and wastewater challenges
 Interviewees were asked about the key water and wastewater challenges they currently face.
 A varied set of responses were given. Key concerns were noted with
o the performance of in‐house treatment facilities
o the quality/quantity of effluent
o reducing milk content
o the COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) of effluent.
Leading Edge -
delivering a better understanding of customers and markets
01252 279990
www.lead-edge.co.uk

Enterprise Ireland Dairy Research October 2015 A Review of Wastewater Treatment Within The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enterprise Ireland Dairy Research October 2015 A Review of Wastewater Treatment Within The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A review of wastewater treatment within the

 There is a positive relationship between milk processed and wastewater generated.

 Treatment and discharge of wastewater is the most common solution adopted.

 Investment in on‐site wastewater treatment appears sporadic.

 Annual expenditure on wastewater handling and treatment equipment, as well as operating

no data no data 100.0 pH correction

135,000 180 AD plant

no data no data pH correction

25% 22% 22%

You might also like