MANUFACTURE OF FOOD PRODUCTS AND BEVERAGES # 34

Background:

Moss Aktiebryggeri AS produces beer, malt extract and pop/carbonated water. The company has 26 employees and has a turnover of 51 million NOK. In 1994, it was producing 2.0 million liters of beer and 2.9 million liters of pop/carbonated water. The products are bottled in recyclable bottles which are washed in an energy demanding process before reuse.

The main sources of air and water pollution are, (a) emissions primarily from the oil furnace which produces steam and heat and (b) effluents with a high organic content from the brewing of beer.

Cleaner Production Principle:

Process modification; Housekeeping.

Cleaner Production Application:

Economics were the driving force behind cleaner production application. Moss Aktiebryggeri AS will reduce their operational costs and the impacts on the environment.

In an effort to make the process more eco-friendly, the following cleaner production options were identified:  

1. Replace the oil steamboiler with an electric steamboiler to reduce the cost of energy, and have several small boilers at the site where the steam is used, instead of one large boiler.
2. Introduction of a system for monitoring energy consumption. This will make it easier to know where the energy is consumed. It is estimated that the company will reduce the energy consumption with 3-8% by using this system.
3. Introducing CIP (Clean-In-Place) cleaning system in the brewing section. It reduces the discharge of sodium hydroxide and reduces the energy consumption.
4. Reuse the extract from the production of malt extract, instead of using new feed water.
5. Utilization of malt dust, by mounting some simple mechanical installations which reduces the loss of dust from the process.
6. Reduce the length of the drainage pipe inside the storage tank. The volume of the beer left in the tank will be reduced.
7. Utilize the yeast as animal food. The liquid yeast is collected and treated with formic acid in some former storage tanks.
8. Changing routines for cleaning the tanks will reduce the consumption of sodium hydroxide and water.
9. Reusing of the hot water from the bottle washing machine in the bottle-box washing machine. The additional equipment  required is a pipe and a pump to transport the hot water

The technologies needed to implement all the above options are commercially available.

At the time of reporting of this case study, the status of implementation of the options was as follows:

Environmental and Economic Benefits:  

The environmental and economic benefits of each of the CP options listed above  as follows:

1. Changing from an oil steamboiler to an electric heated steamboiler and other actions recovered energy and reduced the heat loss from the steampipes, which are not insulated. These actions resulted in a reduction of oil consumption by 450 m³ oil/year, and a reduction of CO₂ emission by 1200 tons per year.
2. Introduction of a monitoring system for the energy consumption reduced energy consumption by 135 MWh.
3. Introducing CIP cleaning in the brewery section reduced the consumption and discharge of sodium hydroxide by 3450 liters/year, the energy consumption by 300 MWh and the water consumption by 1725 m³ / year.
4. Taking care of left over from malt extract production reduced the consumption of 15,000 liters of oil, 32,000 kg malt, 768 m³ of water and reduces the emission of CO₂ by 41 tons/year.
5. Utilizing malt dust reduced the discharge by 1500 kg malt and increased the production of beer by 10,500 liters/year.
6. Reducing the length of the drainage pipe inside the storage tank increased the production of beer by 40 m³/year, which would otherwise have been discharged to the sewer.
7. Utilizing yeast as animal food reduced the discharge of 13,600 liters of yeast to the sewer.
8. Changing cleaning routines reduced the consumption and discharge of sodium hydroxide by 1750 liters/year.
9. Reusing the hot water from the bottle washing, to clean the bottle-boxes, and using hot water as a heat source reduced the energy consumption with 1220 MWh/year and the water consumption by 30 m³ / year.

The costs involved and the payback period for each CP option suggested are provided below: 

Constraints:

None reported.

Contacts:

Moss Aktiebryggeri A/S

Act: Anna Helleve, Postbox 186 N-1501 MOSS

Norway

Tel : +47 69 25 25 40; Fax : +47 69 25 42 44

 

State Pollution Authority, Postbox 8100 Dep.

0032 OSLO, Norway

Tel : +47 22 57 34 00;

 

Advisor; Name and Address:

Oestfold Research Foundation, Institute for Pollution Prevention

Act: Mie Vold, P. O. Box 276

N-1601 Fredrikstad, NORWAY

Tel : +47 69 34 19 00; Fax : +4769342494

e-mail: stoe@telePost.no

Review Status:

The project was finished by May 1994 and written opinion organization report. This case study was submitted by: The Oestfold Research Foundation Institute for Pollution Prevention Box 276 1601 Fredrikstad Norway Tel : + 47 693 41 900 Fax : + 47 693 42 497 e-mail: auduna@telepost.no Contact: Audun Amundsen. The case study was edited by UNEP IE in May 1996. Subsequently, a formal technical review was carried out by Dr. Prasad Modak, Environmental Management Centre, Mumbai, India in September 1998.