Cleaner Production (CP) in Olive Oil Industry in Jordan

Transcription

1 Cleaner Production (CP) in Olive Oil Industry in Jordan Integrated Waste Management for the Olive Oil Pressing Industries in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan UNDP-MoEnv. Dr. Adnan I. Khdair, PM The 2 nd Arab Cleaner Production Workshop Amman, August 28-30, 2007 Results, Conclusion an Recommendations

2 Cleaner Production Definition The continuous application of an integrated preventive environmental strategy applied to processes, products, and services to increase overall efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the environment. United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) 3

3 Statistics: Mills In Jordan (2004) 112 olive mills Geographic Distribution: North Jordan (68 %) Mount Jordan (25%), South Jordan (7%), Traditional Mills (7%) Individual Owners (80%) Average prod.(2000 kg/hr) 4

4 Background Information Olive Mills generates: Olive Mill Wastewater (Zibar) Pomace (Jeft) & Earthly waste (leaves, stones,etc) Noise Odor Refinery generates: Odor (VOC) Gas Emissions (CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, CxHy. ) Oil wash water & Air control unit wastewater Soap

5 H

6 I

7 J

8 K

9 L

10 MN

11 MM

12 Background Information Olive Mills consumes large quantities of fresh water during normal production process OMW is the most polluting waste generated from mills OMW is among the strongest industrial effluents OMW characteristics: PH (Acidic 4.5) BOD (100g/l) COD (220 g/l) Phenols (Phytotoxic/anti-bacterial affect non-biodegradable) Residual oil (thin film on surface water reflect sunlight) Phosphorous (eutrophication) TSS, Color and Odor All OMW samples did not meet any of the National discharge Standards It is estimated that 1 m 3 of OMW is approximately times more powerful than 1 m 3 of domestic WW (Niaounakis, 2006) M3

13 THINK OF ALL FORMS OF WASTES AS POLLUTION (REGULATED OR NOT) M4

14 AND IF YOU CONTROL, TREAT, DISPOSE OF WASTES - IT COSTS YOU MORE MONEY! M@

15 Possible causes for waste generation Choice of Production Technology Technical Status of Equipment Product Specifications Choice & Quality of Input Materials Process Process Efficiency Management Planning & Information Systems Personnel Skills & Motivation Wastes & Emissions MH

16 The essential elements of Cleaner Production Continuous Services Humans Preventive Strategy for Risk Reduction Integrated (air, water, land) Products and Process Environment MI

17 Cleaner Production Includes: Source Reduction, Raw Material Substitution, Clean Technology, Preventive Maintenance, In-Process Recycling. MJ

18 Cleaner Production procedures The recognized need to minimise waste The first step Planning and Organization The second step Assessment Phase The third step Feasibility Analysis Phase The fourth step Implementation Successfully implemented CP projects MK

19 Process Assessment Phase Cold Water Hot Water Olives WASHINHG CRUSHING MECHANICAL PRESSING DECANTING Olive Oil Wastewater Press Cake Wastewater Press Olive Extraction (Traditional) ML

20 3N

21 3M

22 33

23 34

24 Cold Water Olives WASHINHG CRUSHING MALAXING DECANTING Olive Oil Wastewater Sludges Dual Phase Olive Extraction

25 Cold Water Hot Water Hot Water Olives WASHINHG CRUSHING DECANTING Press Cake Wastewater CENTRIFUGAL DECANTING of LIQUIDS CENTRIFUGAL DECANTING of SLUDGES Olive Oil Wastewater Olive Oil Wastewater Triple Phase Olive Extraction 3H

26 3I

27 3J

28 3K

29 3L

30 4N

31 Raw materials Water Energy Emissions Process Waste disposal Transportation Consumption Storage PRODUCT Transport Waste water streams Waste streams Input Output 4M

32 Material and energy balances Heat Power The Energy Balance Raw Materials The Industrial Process Products & Waste Cooling The Mass Balance 43

33 Input Output Analysis of the Different Oil Extraction Processes in Jordan Input Amount Output Amount T Olive Washing Water Energy 1000 Kg liters kwh Oil Pomace Wastewater Kg 500Kg 666 liters 3 Olive Washing Water Hot Water Added Energy 1000 Kg liters liters kwh Oil Pomace Wastewater Kg Kg 1500 Liters 2 Olive Washing Water Energy 1000 Kg liters kwh Oil Pomace Wastewater Kg 735 Kg liters 44

34 Typical olive oil extraction wastewater characteristics according to method of production in Jordan Parameter Range (average) 1 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) (46333) 2 Total suspended solids (mg/l) (37479) F Total Fermented Suspended Solids (mg/l) (1593) 4 Total Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/l) (35886) 5 Total phosphorous (mg/l)) (208) 6 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/l) (918) 7 ph (SU) (5.25) 8 BOD5 (mg/l) (24425) 9 COD (mg/l) (141355) 10 EC us/cm (7134) 11 Total Phenols (mg/l) (1201) 12 Fats and Oils (mg/l) (3373) 13 AB Total Chlorine (mg/l) Total potassium K (mg/l) (592) (3695) 4@

35 Typical olive oil extraction solid waste characteristics according to method of production Parameter Traditional 3-Phase 2-Phase 1 Moisture (%) Fats and Oils (%) Proteins (%) Ash (%) Kjeldahl Nitrogen (%) Phosphorous as P2O5 (%) Phenols (%) Potassium as K2O (%) Total Carbon (%) C/N Ratio C/P Ratio H

36 Environmental Evaluation of the Different Oil Extraction Processes. Process Traditional 3- Phase 2- Phase Advantages Low energy consumption Production of lowest moisture pomace Low water addition Low moisture pomace. Best Quality wastewater Lower amount of hot water consumption Lower amount of wastewater Disadvantages Worst quality wastewater Greater amount of wastewater Greater amount of hot water consumption High Energy consumption Greater amount of wet pomace. High energy consumption 4I

37 CP options Good Housekeeping Input Substitution Better Process Control Equipment Modification Process Technology Change On-site Recovery/ Reuse Production of Useful By-Product Product Modification 4J

38 The basic CP criteria for the establishment of an olive press are the following: Maximization of olive oil production. Minimization of by products (wastes) such as vegetation water and pomace. Maximum economical recovery of by products. Conservation of resources such as water and energy. Manage wastes at the source trying to avoid its occurrence. Minimization of environmental impacts due to olive cultivation, transportation, storage, and pressing. 4K

39 Source Reduction : Technology modification Options 1) Exchange between the Dual Phase and the Triple Phase systems 2) Another option is the two and a half oil decanter 3) De-stoning Olives before Malaxation.. An average of 50% reduction in added water and a consequent 50% reduction in generated wastewater. Added to that, an expected 1.5 X increase in the oil mill capacity and 50% reduction of solid (Pomace) due to destoning of olives. Also, stones can be used as animal feed or add to soil conditioner 4L

40 Water Conservation Options (Washing water recycling) By-Products (Pomace): 1) Use as Soil Conditioner 2) Use as Fuel 3) Other uses of Pomace include further oil extraction using solvents, adsorbent of heavy metals in water treatment plants, and as foodstuff for

41 @M

42 @3

43 @4

44 Housekeeping practices: Proper and faster cultivation, packaging, transportation, and storage of olives. Regular preventive maintenance of equipment at the olive press. Proper containment of pomace and wastewater to prevent any leakage to any parts of the environment. Proper collection of refuse and transportation to designated landfill. Proper packaging, storage, and transportation of olive oil and other products.

45 How can governments promote CP? Applying regulations Using economic instruments Providing support measures Obtaining external

46 @I Water Consumption Rate Water Water Water Water Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional 2 Phase Phase Phase Phase 3 Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Refinery Refinery Refinery Refinery Liter/Ton processed

47 Energy Consumption Rate 200 Kw/ton processed Traditional 2 Phase 3 Phase 2.5 Phase Refinery 0 Energy *Converted refinery s boiler 764,400 MJ energy to Kw rate based on 36.4 MJ/l of diesel oil (US DoE, 2004)

48 Effluent Generation Rate 2000 Liters/Ton processed Traditional 2 Phase 3 Phase 2.5 Phase Refinery 0

49 OMW Characteristics The following Table compares the: Actual Lab results for collected OMW samples from the 6 different olive mills and single wastewater sample from refinery WW parameter characteristics cited in different literature references NSEQ/Environmental Limit Value (ELV) for discharge into surface water

50 Pomace Generation Rate 80 % of processed olives Traditional 2 Phase 3 Phase 2.5 Phase 0 Pomace HN

51 Factors of Influence The composition of OMW and pomace are not constant both qualitatively and quantitatively. Factors of influence, collectively or individually, include: Seasonal and climatic conditions; Olive fruit composition; Harvesting time and technique; Storage time; and Olive oil extraction technique. Noise pollution fluctuation is influenced by the presence of noisy machinery % of Residual oil in WW is a factor of decanting system used (natural vs centrifuge) HM

52 Cleaner Production Options Cleaner Production is a cost efficient protective and preventative approach which aim to deal with the problems at their source, trying to avoid their occurrence The discussed cleaner production options on the National Scale include: Technology Replacement Clustering and Shift to Two Phase Technology Replacement of 3 phase decanters with 2.5 decanters Targeted modifications and adjustments Install water meters and water saving equipment OMW Holding tanks & pre-treatment system (lime+aeration+mixing) Fresh water treatment Install centrifuge machines in Traditional mills Good house keeping and Proper Hygienic Conditions H3

53 Feasibility Analysis 1- Technical feasibility 2- Environmental Feasibility 3- Economical Feasibility H4

54 Cleaner Production Option Clustering & Shift to Two Phase Technology (National Level) Objective Benefits Cost Substitution of: Traditional mills Three-phase mills In parallel encourage small individual mills to combine together and form a larger centralized mill (example each 3-5 small traditional mills combine together to form a single larger 2- phasemill) Reduction in water consumption since no water is added in the decanter. This creates a reduction of 36,000 45,000 t/year of water for 45,000 t/year of processed olives (Gurbuz et al., 2002) <=>?@ ABC>D@ EF@GH Reduce national OMW generation from a total of 200,000 m3/year to approximately 60,000 m3/year or by reduction by 65%. Future savings in wastewater treatment costs (range between 47% for aerobic treatment and 64% for Anaerobic/aerobic treatment and 68% for membrane process treatment (Gurbuz et al., 2002) Less labor is required Full replacement 600, ,000 as investment costs for every 5 traditional mills (assuming a 1:5ratio) or ranging from 120,000 to 134,000 per mill. Total cost for converting the entire Three phase traditional mills as investment costs figure to be million Each 2 phase decanter cost around 90,000 Additional cost for wet pomace drying in dryer kilns with small capacity could cost 100,000 to 125,000 with additional investment cost by no less than 20,000 to 25,000. H@

55 Shift to Two and Half Phase Technology (National Level) Installation of Centrifuge machines in Traditional mills (National & Mill Level) Substitution of all three phase decanters in 72 mills in Jordan Install after each press machine in Traditional mills not fitted with centrifuge machines to improve oil recovery efficiency Reduce water consumption need by 35-40% compared to its descendant three phase decanter (Alfa Laval). Reduction in OMW generation No major modification needed to existing system within three phase mills Reduction in residual oil discharged in wastewater Protection of aquatic marine life and water bodies quality from excessive residual oil Improve mill s oil recovery efficiency Similar capital and operation cost of typical 3-phase decanter which provides incentive for replacement- estimated to be around 70,000 or 5 million for replacing all three phase decanters in Jordan The cost of single centrifuge machine ranges between 20,000 and 25,000 depending on brand name, capacity and origin. HH

56 Install water monitoring and saving measures (National Level) Pre-treatment of OMW (National Level) Monitor and control water consumption in traditional mills which are characterized by excessive water consumption rates in Lebanon (in some cases 6 times higher than literature values) Pre-treatment using lime and aeration prior to final discharge as a preliminary measure on individual mill level to minimize pollution load (gaining popularity among small scale mills in Greece) Reduction in excessive water consumption in the production process with direct impact on preserving a vital natural resource, reducing OMW generation and reducing OMW pollution load through reduction in Phenol (water soluble) and residual oil concentration in generated OMW. Based on possible water savings amounting to 100,000 m 3 /year and an average cost of water of 150 cents per m 3, total annual savings in water could amount to about USD 150,000 <=>?@ ABC>D@ EF@GH Minimizing OMW pollution load: 100 % removal of o-diphenols which are highly phototoxic Removal of fatty compounds (95 %) which allows evaporation more easily (no more thin film on top layer) Removal of nutrients inhibiting the use of vegetable water as fertilizer 55 % COD reduction 25 % BOD reduction 60 % Nitrogen reduction 30 % Total solid s removal 70 % color removal ph neutralization Reduction in sludge formation Future savings in wastewater treatment costs The cost of a fully integrated water monitoring and saving system, depending on each mill s case by case, is estimated to be between $250 and $350. Payback period of the investment is on average 1.7 years Pre-treatment investment cost: Cost of lime = 15 $/m 3 Cost of Dosing system approximately $ 200 Cost of aeration diffuser system: approximately $ 500 Concrete holding tank with 2 days capacity approximately 200$/m 3 Total cost of pre-treatment with lime on national level of all annual generated OMW is approximately $4.2 million per year. Capital cost of installing lime dosing system and aeration system for all mills is estimated to be around $321,000. HI

57 Treatment Options on Individual Mill Level Majority of mills discharge their OMW without any treatment, Lack of knowledge, complexity and capital and operation costs for efficient treatment options are limiting factors, Literature review identified large number of options for treatment of OMW and several patented technologies for treatment. However, the majority of these options are not commercially used, No individual treatment option is capable of achieving efficient treatment results, The most common and cheapest treatment option identified is lagooning (natural evaporation), widely used in Greece, France, Tunisia, and Cyprus (Niaounakis, 2003), Most feasible treatment options evaluated: HJ

58 Treatment Technology Option Treatment Cost rate Total Cost on National Level Anaerobic treatment $/m 3 Cost: $5 $11.5 million/year Aerobic treatment Irrigation $/m 3 ( depending on storage + distance) National Level: Thermal evaporation $/m 3 Cost: $5.6$7.0 million/year 7-14 $/m 3 for a 5,000 m 3 /year capacity & $180,000 installation costs (or 56 evaporation plants) IJKBLMK@ N@OBPQ Operational Cost: $1,400/year Capital Cost = $10 million Operation Cost = $1.9 $3.8 million /year Natural evaporation < 0.03$/m 3 Capital Cost = $5.5$11 million (at $/m3 construction cost) for a proposed total of 56 large lagoons with 5,000 m3 capacity each Operation Cost = $8,400/year Aerobic Lime treatment 15$/m 3 Capital Cost = $321,000 installing 459 dosing & aeration systems without cost of concrete storage tanks Operational Cost = $4.2 million/year Membrane processes 40-50$/m 3 National Level = $11.2 $14 million/year HK

59 Treatment Option Number Capital Cost Operation Cost Z[\ Centralized Anaerobic Treatment Plants 12 Range between 45 and 150$/m 3 Equivalent to $12.6$42 million without the cost transportation Minimum land requirement for 12 large anaerobic treatment plants is estimated to be 134,400 m 2 (based on 0.48m 2 /m 3 ) with average land cost of 10$/m 2 total land cost needed = $1.4 million Range between 3.5 and 5 $/m 3 Equivalent to $980,000 $1.4million/year Centralized Thermal Evaporation Plants 12 Range between 35 and 50 $/m 3 Total cost on national scale: $9.8 $14 million without cost of transportation Minimum land requirement for 12 large thermal plants is estimated to be 70,000 m 2 (based on 0.25m 2 /m 3 ) with average land cost of 10$/m 2 total land cost needed = $7.0 million Range between 6.8 and 13.2$/m 3 Equivalent to $1.9 $3.7 million/year HL

60 Conclusion Some 180,340 tonnes of olives have been processed by the olive mills (2004 season) which produced approximately: 200,000 m 3 of OMW 7,868 tonnes of BOD 5, 25,267 tonnes of COD, 29,000 tonnes of Oil & Grease, 8 tonnes of phenols, 17,547 tonnes Total Suspended Solids, 73 tonnes of Phospohorous, and 83,109 tonnes of Pomace IN

61 IM