Blog Layout

Ravensdown Dosing System and Tank Replacement

Ravensdown

Dosing System and Tank Replacement

6 pH Maintained At All Times

Problem

The Ravensdown Dunedin plant would have periods of time where they would have to report low pH of their discharged stormwater. These low spikes were due to acid spills or run off being rinsed off by rain water into the storm water system. Ravensdown were not required by consent to pH correct this stormwater but felt it was part of their licence to operate and therefore responsibility to ensure only neutralised water was exiting the plant.

Solution

Initially, DETA developed the dosing design and then business case with local contractors. DETA worked to design the simplest possible solution that would achieve the brief of only pH neutral water exiting the site. DETA engaged with site staff from management to operations to ensure that all points of view were considered. The business case was submitted by Ravensdown and approved late in 2017. Upon approval of the business case DETA offered to complete the project as a turn key solution. This was beneficial to Ravensdown as it removed extra administration work required to track the project and send PO’s to contractors. DETA took full responsibility in procuring the required equipment and scheduling the contractor work. DETA worked with Ravensdown employees to oversee the commissioning and first week’s operation of the system to ensure the pH correction was working as required.

Outcome

The project was delivered on budget and had a smooth installation due to regular contractor communication. With a strong involvement from Ravensdown’s process engineers and buy in from contractors the sites stormwater has not dropped below a pH of 6 since the commissioning of the project. With continued results Ravensdown will be able to report positive water quality for the foreseeable future. As part of the project DETA also replaced the caustic tank with a HSNO certified one to meet ongoing HSE and compliance requirements.

 

A keyhole in the middle of a forest with trees surrounding it
23 Apr, 2024
In the wake of heightened global awareness about climate change, businesses are grappling with a delicate balance between corporate sustainability commitments and public scrutiny. The complexities surrounding sustainability disclosures are not new, however, concerns about unsubstantiated or misleading climate pledges have intensified. Instances of greenwashing have led to legal repercussions and regulatory crackdowns, underscoring the growing scrutiny surrounding corporate sustainability claims. Moreover, challenges related to the integrity of frameworks such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) have further fuelled scepticism about corporate climate action, prompting some companies to remain discreet about their environmental aspirations – helpfully termed green hushing. What’s the difference between greenwashing and greenhushing? Green washing involves the sharing of misleading information or unsubstantiated claims regarding a company's environmental practices or products. It typically manifests through clever marketing campaigns or superficial gestures that prioritise image over genuine sustainable process optimisation efforts. From ambiguous labels to exaggerated eco-friendly claims, green washing undermines consumer trust and dilutes the urgency of authentic sustainability actions. On the other side of the coin, green hushing operates in the shadows of corporate silence, emerging as companies opt to keep their climate targets under wraps to avoid accusations of greenwashing. It occurs when companies downplay or conceal their sustainability initiatives, fearing potential scrutiny or reluctance to be held accountable for their environmental impact. This reluctance to disclose genuine efforts stems from various reasons, including concerns about competitiveness, resource allocation, or simply a lack of understanding about the benefits of transparency. 
A windmill and a globe are balancing on a wooden scale.
23 Apr, 2024
New Zealand has slipped into the second recession of the past 18 months and with raising interest rates in an attempt to curb some of the highest inflation in the developed world, times are tough. Within this challenging financial climate, there is also an urgent requirement to innovate New Zealand’s energy systems to enable secure, reliable and affordable electricity supply while reducing emissions. Substantial investment is needed to get us where we need to be energy-wise – a need to generate an additional 530 MW per year until 2050 with the burden of these costs carried by energy users. Initiatives like the now-defunct Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) Fund in New Zealand and similar programs in Australia shone a light on the willingness of businesses to make change, but they also illuminated how capital-intensive the projects are. If the situation feels bleak, there is solution. While the government strategizes on a national level, locally you can take action. To save money and achieve ambitious sustainability targets, you need tight control of energy consumption and its cost. And you can only control them if you know what they are. Energy management: the key to unlocking change For both households and businesses alike, the current economic landscape requires saving and cost reduction – and this is where energy management comes in. Energy efficiency is the essence of cost-efficiency and effectiveness, optimising existing resources for long term economic advantage – arguably the antidote to challenging environmental and economic times.
by Alessandra Ward 19 Apr, 2024
DETA & Cheetham Salt - Decarbonisation Pathway
Show More
Share by: