1

PROBLEM STATEMENT Industries within the SADC region are struggling to address the problem of resource consumption and waste generation and also conform to prevailing environmental legislation as well as emerging green markets. One such industry is the Beef Corporation Ltd (BeefCo) whose major environmental concerns are water and air pollution. There was a lack of understanding of the Cleaner Production concept which should have assisted the company to identify and address these concerns whilst meeting its business interests. CASE SITUATION BeefCo is a large meat producing company. The company was established in 1957 and is situated along a major river in a commercial capital. The main products of the company include cut beef, steak, beef sausages, pork, pork sausages, ham sausages, polony, dripping (fats), minced meat, and by products which are sold locally, and hides and skins which are sold internationally. The raw materials are basically cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats. They are mainly sourced from cattle ranches and local farmers. Other main production inputs are, water, diesel and electricity. In its daily operations BeefCo makes an extensive use of resources such as water and energy. Large volumes of water are used for cleaning equipment and floors. The wastewater contains blood and some meat trimmings. The processing of by products produces bad smell resulting in air pollution particularly when processing decomposed material. Energy is used for cooling purposes as well as for the production of hot water and steam. People living around the company have for a long time complained about the bad smell that is attributed to the activities of the company. Wastewater from the companys processes contains blood, fat, pieces of meat, extracts of manure and stomach contents. This wastewater has a high Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and fatty matters (oils). During the period between January to August 1999, the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant had average values of BOD and fatty matter of 603 mg/l and 1744 mg/l respectively. These values are above the City Assembly trade effluent limits of 400 mg/l for BOD and 200 mg/l for fatty matter. The company pays on average US$711 per month to the City Assembly in fines as a result of noncompliance to trade effluent limits. Abattoirs are identified as large water consumers. Large volumes of water are used for cleaning equipment, floors and meat products. BeefCo uses approximately 1929 cu. m of water per month. Average specific water consumption during period under review was about 3102 litres per head of cattle and 935 litres per pig and approximately 8990 litres per tonne of by-product. The water consumption was very high compared to best available technologies which use about 1000 litres per cattle and 300 litres per pig. (UNEP, 1999)

Energy consumption was also high. The company obtained heat from a boiler that used diesel oil as the source of energy. A lot of energy was wasted from steam due to leaks, uninsulated pipes and other hot surfaces. Approximately 350 Giga Joules (GJ) of heat energy was lost during the period under consideration. This was an equivalent of approximately 750 litres of diesel per month. This translated to an expenditure of US$667 per month. It was the companys wish and ambition to remain profitable while accounting for the environmental impacts of its activities. This challenge required a solution that would enable BeefCo to maximise its economic gains. It was against this background that the company in conjunction with the Southern African Network for Training and Research on the Environment (SANTREN), carried out a Cleaner Production Assessment in order to answer three basic questions:

Where were the waste emissions generated ?(source identification). Why were those waste streams generated? (cause evaluation). How could those streams be avoided ? (option generation).

STAKEHOLDERS The activities of BeefCo were influenced directly or indirectly by its various stakeholders. The company's stakeholders could be split into two categories as follows: Internal: Top Management decision-making and commitment with respect to adoption and implementation of CP activities. Section Managers eg. Audit Assistant, Production Supervisor, Stores Supervisor, Electrical and Refrigeration Supervisor, Stock Holder, Accounts Clerk. Production Staff who are involved in resource usage and waste generation. Waste treatment and handling staff e.g. in wastewater treatment plant and the byproduct processing plant. External Shareholders - owners of the company. Responsible government ministries these are policy formulating bodies. Local Authority i.e. the City Assembly enforcement of legislation on environment. External Assistance Providers external consultants from SANTREN. Consumers both local and international (whether products are produced following set acceptable standards) Community affected by emissions and other wastes generated. Chamber of Commerce and Industry an umbrella body for industries. International Donor Organisations DANIDA provided project funding and also involved in capacity building.

Academic and Research Institutions e.g. SANTREN promoting CP activities in the SADC region. Waste Hauliers City Assembly responsible for collection, treatment and disposal of waste.

CLEANER PRODUCTION CASE STUDY PROCEDURE In carrying out this case study the CP procedure as illustrated in Figure 1 below was followed.

Planning and Organisation

Pre assessment

Assessment Feasibility Implementation & Continuation

Figure 1

Overview of CP Procedure

PLANNING AND ORGANISATION As one of the steps in the Cleaner Production Assessment procedure, the objectives of the planning and organisation phase were to: obtain management commitment to the project; set CP project goals; inform and create understanding from all involved parties; organise company project team. SANTREN consultants visited BeefCo several times to obtain management commitment for participation in the project. During the first meting, the objectives of the project, the basic principles of CP and possible benefits for the company were explained to management. The General Manager of BeefCo showed great interest and expressed his total commitment to the project and promised to cooperate.

The discussions with the company resulted in the establishment of a project team comprising external consultants and members of staff of BeefCo. There were seven members from BeefCo consisting of the General Manager, Production Supervisor, Electrical and Refrigeration Supervisor, Stores Supervisor, Stock Holder, Accounts Clerk and Audit Assistant while five members were from SANTREN. The project team was taken through a short training session for one day. The objective of the training was to inform and establish a common understanding amongst the team members on what Cleaner Production was all about and how it could be applied within the company. The contents of the training included: an introduction to CP, an introduction to waste minimization assessment, CP benefits, assessment team, collecting and compiling data, identifying candidate waste streams, site inspection, evaluation and selection of waste minimization techniques, final report, implementation and evaluation, and conducting periodic reviews and update assessments. CLEANER PRODUCTION PRE-ASSESSMENT Before the full assessment, a cleaner production pre-assessment for the plant was carried out with the aim of setting the plant-wide CP goals, develop process flow charts, evaluate the general inputs and outputs and selecting an audit focus. This involved walking around the entire processing plant in order to gain a sound understanding of all the processing operations and their interrelationships. At this stage it was not considered appropriate to list all the unit processes in fine detail. Instead the plant was broken up into processing areas. The project team identified four main processing areas: beef processing, pork processing, beef products processing and pork products processing. Besides the four main processing areas, the following processes were also identified: by-products, hides processing, steam supply system, cooling system, and wastewater treatment. The general flow diagram of the plant is shown in Figure 2. The site inspection revealed the following main problems: High usage of water; Running hoses; Uninsulated steam pipes and steam-water mixers; and Steam leaks. After observing the problems and evaluating the general inputs and outputs, the project team set the following Cleaner Production goals: to reduce current water consumption and to reduce current steam energy losses. By studying the processing operations and asking questions around the plant, it was possible to identify the areas in the plant where wastewater and energy losses were generated. The areas which were selected for cleaner production assessment focus to achieve the goals above were the beef processing, and the steam supply system.

Final Product (Pork) Pork Products Processing

Lairages Pig

Pig Slaughter & Dressing Hall

Chiller Storage

Final Products

Steam Generator

Cooling System Beef Products Processing

Lairage Cattle

Cattle Slaughter & Dressing Hall

Chiller Storage

Final Products

Final Product (Beef) Gut Content Storage By-Products Processing Hides Processing Treated Hides

Landfill Disposal

Water Treatment

City Sewer Figure 2General Process Flow Diagram THE CLEANER PRODUCTION ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS Once the main processing areas which generated wastewater and energy losses had been identified, process flow diagrams were constructed for each area. This involved a more detailed study of each processing area and identification of process inputs and outputs. Figures 3 and 4 show the process flow diagrams for these areas.

Live animal
Lairages

Live animal
Water, Electricity, Cartridges Water, Electricity

Stunning
Unconscious animal Sticking Bleeding Slaughtered animal

Wastewater, Spent Cartridges

Blood, Wastewater, Cattle heads

Water, Steam

Dressing
Dressed animal

Wastewater, Hides/skins Offals, Tail hair, Liver & heart Fat , Cow heels Wastewater, Reject (to by-products or buried)

Water, Electricity

Washing Splitting Inspection Sides (Carcass)

Water, Meat- marking ink

Weighing

Grading
Carcass

Wastewater

Electricity, Water, Ammonia

Chiller
(Storage) Chilled carcass

Wastewater

Meat Processing Department

Slicing

Wastewater, Sawdust Saw dust Sliced meat Dispatch

Figure 3

Beef Processing Flow Chart

Water at room temperature ( 24 oC) Diesel (fuel oil) Electricity Steam Generator (Boiler) Heat, Noise, Air emissions (CO2, NOx, SO2)

Cattle Slaughter and Dressing Hall

Pig Slaughter and Dressing Hall

By-Products Cooking Vessels

Beef and Pork Products Processing

Wastewater Treatment

City Sewer Steam Hot condensate Figure 4 Steam Supply Flow Diagram

Water stream Wasterwater

DEFINING PROCESS INPUTS AND OUTPUTS The input and output information were collected in the plant simultaneously even though the audit procedures describe these as discrete steps. While conducting the in-plant survey and collecting the input and output information, the investigating team noted down any areas of inefficient operation and any opportunities for waste reduction. These opportunities have been described in the Waste Reduction Measures section. Much of the quantitative data for these flow charts were not available, because of lack of in-process monitoring. Some of the data used in the assessment were estimates calculated from the aggregated figures basing on the capacity of unit processes and usage while some of the data were calculated after taking measurements. The input and output information was therefore recorded as aggregate for processing areas as opposed to specific units. Ideally, all inputs at each specific unit process were supposed to be determined either by direct measuring during the case study or from process monitoring

records. There were no resources and time available to carry out the direct recording, neither were there any specific records available. The inputs and outputs for the areas understudy are shown in flow diagrams in Figures 3 and 4. CURRENT LEVELS OF WASTE REUSE Wastewater was not generally reused at the plant except wastewater used in the defrosting of chillers. There is however, a high level of reuse of by-products. By-products such as blood, meat products unfit for human consumption, bones, offals, meat trimmings and fat are processed for animal feed. Fat called tallow is extracted and is used in soap making. Quantifying Process Outputs Beef processing outputs were identified (Figure 3). Much of the quantitative data for these outputs were not available because of lack of in-process monitoring. Some of the data used in the assessment were estimates calculated from the aggregated figures basing on the capacity of unit processes and usage and measurement of waste masses, volumes and concentrations. Aggregate input and support figures are shown in the figure below. Input and output figures for beef processing Cattle (6562 units)

Water 17891.3m3 Cartridges, (6562) Electricity, Steam 993.6Mt

Cattle Slaughter House

Water 17953.4m3 Hoofs 26248 units Heads 6562 units Internal organs (93.9-156.4Mt)

Beef 972.14Mt Accounting for wastewater flows and concentrations. All wastewater streams were identified and sampled. The investigation was performed during the period between January to August 1999 in order to cover a full range of operating conditions. Most of the wastewater from unit processes is drained into the City Assembly sewer system after wastewater treatment process. Figure 2 outlines the wastewater streams. The study highlighted areas where water consumption could be reduced.

Documenting waste stored or hauled off site for disposal. Solid waste stored or hauled off site for disposal included grass bedding (not quantified) manure trimmings (washed during cleaning). undigested foods from throat (not quantified) Solid waste sold heads (6562/year) hoofs (26248/year) hides (6562/year) - exported MATERIAL BALANCE Assembling unit process input and output information The material balance study was done by first assembling complete input and output data as given in unit process flow charts i.e. the receiving area, stunning, sticking and bleeding, flaying, evisceration and splitting and chilling and dispatch. Preliminary Material balances. Receiving area Company trucks bring the cattle to the receiving area. After unloading the cattle in the receiving area, trucks are cleaned and disinfected while the cattle are inspected. The cattle are kept for about 12 hours before slaughter. They are not fed but are given a lot of water. Process Figure Live cattle

Water Disinfectant Grass bedding

Receiving vehicle cleaning inspection

Manure wastewater Grass bedding

Live cattle

10

Material Balance Inputs Live cattle: 6562 units Water: (not quantified) Grass bedding: not quantified STUNNING, STICKING & BLEEDING Live cattle are led into the stunning box using an electricity charged rod called prodder. Some water is splashed over the cattle to make electric shock more effective. The cattle is then stunned by gunstroke in the head. The unconscious cattle is hoisted and dragged into a rectangular enclosure with concrete walls about 30 cm high adjacent to the stunning box. Then it is killed by cutting the throat with a steam-sterilized knife. The cattle is left to bleed for approximately ten minutes. Process Figure Cattle Outputs Live cattle: 6562 units Wastewater: not quantified Grass bedding: not quantifies

Water Catridges Steam

Stunning Sticking Bleeding

Blood, Head, Wastewater Undigested foods.

Carcass (Dead cattle) Material Balance Inputs Unconscious cattle: 6562 units, not weighed before slaughter Water: not quantified Steam: not quantified Catridges: 6562 units Outputs Dead cattle: 6562 units Wastewater: not quantified Blood: approx. 98430 litres Heads: 6562 units Undigested foods from throat: not quantified

11

FLAYING (DRESSING), EVISCERATION AND SPLITTING Using a rail hoist the bled cattle is taken to a dressing table where the carcass is flayed and its internal organs removed. Four to five people are used to flay one carcass, a process that takes 3 to 5 minutes. The objective of flaying is to remove the skin and gain access to the internal organs in order to remove them, a process called evisceration. Access to the internal organs is achieved by opening the abdomen with a knife. Steam is used for sterilizing knives and heating water for cleaning hoofs. Afterwards, the carcass is split into two halves using an electric saw and then inspected by an official from the Department of Veterinary Services. Thereafter it is graded and weighed. Process Figure Carcass

Steam, Water, Electricity

Flaying Evisceration Splitting

Blood, internal organs (intestines, liver etc), hide, trimmings, hoofs, steam wastewater.

Flayed, Eviscerated and Split Carcass

Material Balance Inputs Outputs Carcasses: 6562 units, not weighed before Half split carcasses:972.14Mt splitting Wastewater: not quantified Steam: not quantified Blood: not quantified and negligible Electricity Internal organs: 93.9 - 156.4 Mt Trimmings: not quantified Hides: 6562 units Hoofs: 26248 units.

12

CHILLING AND DISPATCH After weighing and grading the carcasses are chilled for a least 12 hours in a chiller set at 2C. Thereafter they are dispatched either to Sales Department or Processing Department or further stored at -12C. Water is used to clean and defrost the chiller. The wastewater goes into the reservoir for reuse and some goes into the sewer when the reservoir overflows. Process Figure Half split carcasses

Water Electricity Ammonia

Chilling Dispatching

Wastewater Ammonia (leaks)

Chilled half split carcasses Material Balance Inputs Beef 972.14Mt Water, not quantified Ammonia, not quantified Electricity not quantified STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM Another area that was studied was the steam supply system. The steam supply system is used to provide steam for boiling, heating and sterilisation. Quantifying Process Outputs The steam is produced in a boiler and transferred through pipes to machines and steam/water mixers. The boiler uses diesel fuel and on average it consumes 47,800 litres per annum. Water at ambient temperature is fed and from calculations using the boiler

Outputs Chilled beef - approximately 972.14Mt Wastewater - not quantified Ammonia due to leaks (not quantified)

13

capacity and the period the boiler is run, the amount of water used was found to be approximately 248,400 litres per annum. Process Figure
Water (at room temp. 24C)

Diesel (fuel oil) Electricity

Steam supply (Boiler)

Noise and Heat Air emissions (C02, N0x, S02)

Steam Material Balance Inputs Diesel (0.51% sulfur) 40,646kg (47,800 litres) Outputs Energy content 1866.27 GJ Carbon dioxide (C02 ), not quantified Nitrogen oxides (N0x ), not quantified Sulfur dioxide (S02), not quantified temp) Steam 374,000 kg

Water (at ambient 248,400 litres 1 kg of oil = 1.176 litres of oil (0.85 kg/I ) 1 kWh = 3.6MJ (BP Southern Africa Typical Characteristics, 1999) ACCOUNTING FOR WASTEWATER AND ENERGY LOSSES During the study it was discovered that no condensate was returned to the boiler for re-heating. In the cattle and pig slaughterhouses, steam was directly used in heating water in steam/water mixers and was eventually discharged into the sewer system. All the steam except that lost due to leaks turned back into water and discharged into the wastewater treatment plant and the nearby stream. Some of the pipes were not insulated. A total of approximately 80m and 100m of 50mm diameter and 25mm diameter pipes respectively were not insulated. The surface temperatures of the pipes and the temperature of the steam at source were measured in order to calculate the heat energy losses. The rate of condensate flow and its temperature were also measured to determine the heat energy losses through the condensate. Steam leakage points were also noted. A total number of eight steam leakage points were noticed. Insulation of steam pipes and other hot surfaces. About 80m of 50mm diameter pipe to the by-products and about 100m of 25mm diameter pipe to the pig and cattle slaughter houses and the kitchen were not insulated. Assuming an average of 3 hours and 276 days of steam running the total energy loss through natural convention is a bout 72.68 GJ an equivalent of 1816.53 litres of diesel oil. In other words about 1816.53 litres of diesel was lost

14

through energy loss in uninsulated pipes (sample calculations are shown in Appendix B). The steam/water tank mixer in cattle slaughterhouses was not insulated. The total surface area of the tank was 6.283m2. Energy loss due to evaporation and natural convection was approximately 27.15GJ per annum, an equivalent of 695.38 litres of diesel oil. Utilization of condensate The condensate was not returned to the boiler. The condensate was discharged at about 100C at a rate of about 6 litres/minute. This means that both energy and water were wasted. Energy loss through 1000 litres of lost condensate represents 8.7 kg of diesel oil at a condensate temperature of 100C. An estimate of 248,400 litres of condensate per annum was an equivalent of 3253.8 kg of diesel or 3774.4 litres of diesel lost. There was also a total loss of about 374,000 litres (374 m 3 ) of water. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC CONCERNS The following environmental and economic concerns were observed during the assessments in the unit processing areas. Receiving Area Koala A considerable amount of manure was produced in this area. If this is not properly washed down into the sewer, it may drain into the adjacent public water course and hence lead to water pollution. Stunning, sticking and Bleeding Wastewater Most of the blood went straight into the blood tank awaiting processing into blood meal. In most cases the water used to clean the bleeding area went into the blood tank. This increased the time and heat energy required to evapolate the water during blood cooking. Some of the wastewater containing blood as a result of cleaning the floor went straight into the sewer. Water wastage A lot of water was used in cleaning the sticking and bleeding area and also washing hands and equipment such as knives. Energy wastage Since sterilization was done using steam, a lot of energy was used in generating the steam the boiler was usually on for at least two hours everyday. A lot of steam was lost during sterilization due to indiscriminate opening of the steam valve.

15

Flaying, Evisceration and Splitting Energy and water wastage Sterilization of knives was done using steam and as a result a lot of heat was lost. There was also high water consumption during cleaning of hoofs, carcasses, offals and the floor area. Wastewater Trimmings that were washed during cleaning of the floor found their way into the sewer system resulting in high BOD. Chilling and Despatch Energy wastage The chillers were under-utilized resulting in high usage of energy. Ammonia leakage The recharging of refrigeration plant with ammonia indicated that ammonia leaked into the atmosphere.

WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES (CP OPTIONS)

From the information accumulated from the waste audit and observations that were made while investigating the plant in detail, a number of waste reduction and efficiency improving measures, were identified. These are split into four unit processing areas in beef processing, wastewater treatment plant and the steam supply steam. (a) Receiving area Koala

From the studies at the receiving area, it was noted that water consumption needed to be checked. Use of hosepipes with pressure controlled spray guns would reduce the water usage considerably. (b) Stunning, Sticking and Bleeding

A lot of water was used in cleaning the sticking and bleeding area, and also washing hands and equipment such as knives. Water usage in this area could have been minimized through good housekeeping to ensure that taps were not left open longer than was necessary. Cleaning of the area could have been effected through use of hose pipes with pressure controlled spray guns. In addition, the bleeding area should have been constructed in such a way that the blood collected into some container in the form of a trough rather than splashing in a wide area which would have had to be cleaned using large amounts of water.

16

Energy wastage was observed through the steam that was lost during sterilization due to the indiscriminate opening of the steam valve. Good housekeeping measures could have reduced this wastage. In addition, sterilization of knives and other equipment should have been carried out using standard sterilization equipment. Blood needed to be separated from other wastes such as water in order to get quality blood for the blood meal and to reduce energy requirements and time during the cooking of blood. (c) Flaying, Evisceration and Splitting

Sterilization of knives in the flaying, evisceration and splitting area was done using steam, and as a result, a lot of heat was lost. There was also high water consumption during cleaning of hoofs, carcasses, offals and the floor area. Sterilization of knives and other equipment should have been carried out using standard sterilization equipment. To reduce energy wastage it was important that the steam/water mixer tank be covered with a lid and insulated. Usage of water during cleaning of the floors could have been greatly reduced by removing blood, trimmings and other remains using rubber brushes. Every drain should have had a strainer to enable removal of bigger particles. (d) Chilling and Dispatch

When production was low some coldrooms should have been switched off, and all carcasses kept in one coldroom irrespective of ownership. This could have been facilitated by improving on identification and security system. The central cooling system could have been replaced with unitary cooling systems to allow shutdown of some coldrooms when not needed. All leaks should be attended to on routine basis. (e) Wastewater Treatment system

Most of the blood from sticking and bleeding went straight into the blood bank awaiting processing into blood meal. In most cases the water used to clean the bleeding area went into the blood tank. This increased the time and heat energy required to evaporate the water during blood cooking. Some of the wastewater containing blood as a result of cleaning the floor went straight into the sewer.

17

Trimmings that were washed during cleaning of the floor in the flaying and splitting found their way into the sewer system resulting in high BOD loadings on the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant received the bulk of the wastewater generated at the site, including WC flushings and sludge. Wastewater treatment at the site consisted of the following stages: - screening, grit removal, primary sedimentation, biological treatment, and secondary sedimentation. All unit processes for wastewater treatment plant operated satisfactorily except the biofiltration process where the arms did not rotate. It was recommended that these be attended to in order to facilitate the efficient operation of the plant, particularly with respect to biological treatment of the wastewater. The effluent had high levels of BOD5. Between January to August 1999, the average recorded BOD5 was 603mg/l. This was higher than the recommended limit of 400mg/l (City Assembly). The fatty matter (oils) in the effluent was also very high. The average value during this period was 1744mg/l against the recommended limit of 200mg/l. (City Assembly). With the biofiltration plant not functioning normally (the rotor arms did not rotate) the wastewater treatment plant was unlikely to perform at its optimum. The payment of discharge penalties due to high levels of BOD5 was clear evidence of sub-optimal performance of the plant. Although the wastewater treatment plant was an end-of-pipe technology, its optimal performance was important in reducing the level of BOD5 in the effluent. If the biofiltration process were made to operate normally, the BOD5 in the wastewater would have been greatly reduced. Discharge penalties through violation of discharge standards would have been avoided thereby reducing operation costs. (f) Steam Supply System

Oil handling It is very important to avoid oil spills, and if they occur, they need to be cleaned up properly. Oil spilling can cause serious pollution of soil and water. One litre of oil contaminates 100,000m3 of water, rendering it unfit for drinking (UNEP, 1999). Steam leakage Steam leaks should be repaired as soon as possible when identified. Insulation of hot surfaces Insulation of hot surfaces is a cheap and very effective way of reducing energy consumption.

18

Through proper insulation of hot surfaces (pipes) the heat losses will be reduced by 90%. Often the payback period for insulation is less than 3 years. Utilization of condensate Heat exchanger pipes in the steam/water mixers in the pig and cattle slaughterhouses should be used. Steam condensate from the heater exchangers and by-products machine should be returned to the boiler. The payback period for such a system would be short considering that 1m3 of lost condensate represents 8.7kg of oil at a condensate temperature of 100C. There is also some saving in water consumption. Proper operation of the boiler The efficiency of boiler depends on how well the boilers are operated. If the air/fuel ratio is wrongly adjusted the incineration will be poor, causing more pollution and/or poorer utilization of the fuel. Proper operation of the boiler requires proper training of employees. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION ON CP OPTIONS The objective of this step was to select and prioritise the cleaner production options for further study. A satisfactory number of waste reduction options were generated. The options were screened and priotised on the basis of availability, suitability, environmental effect and economic feasibility using the checklists for availability, suitability, environmental effect and economic feasibility given in Appendix A. The obvious no and low cost options were recommended for implementation without carrying out feasibility studies. Some of the obvious no and low cost options which required simple feasibility studies have been presented in the proceeding sections. A further extensive feasibility study was recommended for the wastewater treatment plant.

FEASIBILITY STUDIES
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS Following the preliminary evaluation, the following CP options were identified for simple feasibility studies. (a) Water consumption in cattle slaughterhouse

Since automatic on-off water valves were not readily available, a simple design of control valve using Conventional Gate Value could have been used.

19

This arrangement would involve connecting a galvanized pipe 25mm, 0.5m long to a hosepipe and the gate valve and another small piece of galvanized pipe 25m long with a nozzle. The user would hold the galvanized pipe piece to open or close the valve. The user would not have to travel a distance to open or close the valve, as was the case. Therefore free running of water would have been reduced. Water would come out of the nozzle at a higher pressure and this would have facilitated the cleaning operation, reducing the water usage even further. The cost of installing such a system for 17-water outlet points was US$110.00. Subject to verification, it was assumed that this system should have been able to reduce water consumption in the cattle slaughterhouse by 50%. Cattle slaughterhouse Total number of cattle slaughtered 562 Total water consumption 17,891m3 Number of water outlets 14 Total cost of installing new valves US$92.00 Current average water consumption 2859 litres/cattle Equivalent cost US$2.6 50% reduction in water consumption 1430 litres/cattle Equivalent cost US$1.3 Savings US$1.3 Number of animals to pay back the cost of 68 cattle installation Total savings assuming the same number of animals US$8252.00 were slaughtered/year After slaughtering 68 cattle and 46 pigs, the cost of installation would be covered. (b) Energy conservation Steam Pipe Insulation

Insulation of steam pipes with fiberglass material was considered. At the time of the study the total length of uninsulated steam pipes was 180m (i.e. 80m of 50mm diameter and 100m of 25mm diameter pipes). Cost of insulating 100m x 25mm Cost of insulating 80m x 50mm Total cost of insulating material Labour cost (32 man hours) Total cost (With reference to Appendix B) Current loss of energy due to uninsulated pipes only is Equivalent of diesel Equivalent cost of diesel US$1004.00 US$1444.32 US$2448.34 US$23.18 US$2471.52 72.68 GJ 1816.53 litres US$1070.00

20

Assuming the constant saving of US$1070/year was cash inflow and interest charge (discount) rate on capital is 36% (current bank savings rate), the Net Present Value would be as follows:Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cash Flow Out (US$) In (US$) 2471.52 1070.00 1070.00 1070.00 1070.00 1070.00 1070.00 Present Value of Income 786.76 578.50 425.37 312.77 230.00 169.10 Expenditure less income (US$) 1684.76 1106.26 680.89 368.12 138.12 -30.98

The Net Present Value of a six years period was US$30.98. The cost of the project to insulate the steam pipes would be covered after five years. This period could be much lower if the increase in cost of fuel over this period was taken into consideration. (c) Condensate Utilization

Utilization the condensate would have involved installing a system to collect the condensate and return it to the boiler for reuse. The materials required included a plastic tank, pump and motor, heat exchange pipes, drain pipe, return pipe, valves and Tjunctions. Total material cost Installation cost (labour) Running cost (for one year) Total cost (With reference to Appendix B) Savings for reuse of 248400 litres of condensate (or 2506.85 litres of diesel equivalent) Savings from reuse of water 374m3 Total savings/year Pay back period US$1755.00 US$82.00 US$95.00 US$1932.00

US$1476.25 US$335.55 US$1811.80 1year and 1 month

21

APPENDICES APPENDIX A CHECKLIST FOR OPTIONS FEASIBILITY STUDY Availability Is the cleaner production option available Can you find a supplier who can supply you with the necessary equipment or input material Do you know an advisor who can help you develop an alternative? Has the cleaner production option already been applied elsewhere? If so, what are the results and experiences. Environmental Effect What is the anticipated environmental effect of the option? How big is the estimated reduction in the waste stream or emission? Will the option affect public or worker health? If so, what is the magnitude of these effects in terms of toxicity and quantity (positive/negative) Suitability Does the option fit in with the way your company is run? Is the option in line with your company's product? What are the consequences of the options for your internal logistics, throughout time and production planning Does the option require adjustments in other parts of the company? If so, what adjustments? Does the change require additional training of staff and employees? Economic Feasibility What are the anticipated costs and benefits from implementing the option? Can you estimate the required investment Can you make an estimate of the benefits, such as reduction of environmental costs, reduction in wastage and/ or improving the quality of the product?

22

APPENDIX B SAMPLE CALCULATION ON HEAT LOSS FROM UN-LAGGED PIPE Natural Convection Pipe Surface Temperature = 116C Room Temperature = 28C For horizontal pipes, Nu = 0.527(Pr) (Pr + 0.952) (Gr) Coefficient of cubical expansion, = 1 = 1 T 28 + 273 At T = 389K (16 + 273) Pr 0.69 Gr = g d3 V2 From Table v = 2.454 x 10-5 m2/s Gr = 1 x 9.81 x (116 28) x (0.0605)3 = 10.55 x 105 301 (2.454 x 10-5)2 substituting Nu = 0.527 (0.69) (0.69 + 0.952) (10.55 x 105) = 23.88 Nu = hd = 23.88 K Heat transfer coefficient h = 23.88 x 3.276 x 10-5 0.0605 = 0.0129 kW/m2K k for air at 389 = 1 . 301K

heat loss per metre length Q = hA(tw t) = 0.0129 x 103 x x 0.0605 x 1 (116 28) = 215.76W Total loss = 17.26 kW For 80m length of un-lagged pipe Assuming 3 hrs of running/day for 276 days in a year 3 x 60 x 60 x 276 = 2.98 Mega sec. Energy loss = 2.98 x 106 x 17.26 x 103 = 51.44 GJ Energy loss from a 33mm diameter pipe = 21.34GJ Therefore total energy loss from un-lagged pips = 72.86 GJ From the calorific value of diesel 45.29 MJ/kg Energy equivalent of diesel oil = 1604kg of diesel x 1.17

23 = 1861.53 litres of diesel