DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR THE
FISH MEAL, SALMON, BOTTOM FISH, CLAM, OYSTER, SARDINE,
SCALLOP, HERRING, AND ABALONE SEGMENT OF THE
CANNED AND PRESERVED FISH AND
SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Russell E. Train
Administrator
Andrew W. Breidenbach, Ph. D.
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials
HI
o
Allen Cywin
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Elwood H. Forsht
Project Officer
September 1975
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
For sale by tho Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.0.20402 - Price $6.65
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents -the findings of an extensive study of the
fish meal, salmon, bottom fishy clam, oyster, sardine, scallop,
herring, and abalone segment of the canned and preserved fish and
seafood processing industry of the United States to develop
effluent limitations for point source and new source standards of
performance in order to implement Sections 30t(b) and 306 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ac% Amendments of 1972 (the Act) .
Effluent limitations are set forth for the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of the "Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available" and the "Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable" which must be
achieved by existing point sources by July 1, 1977 and July 1,
1983 respectively. The "Standards of Performance for New
Sources" set forth a degree of effluent reduction which is
achievable through the application of the best available
demonstrated control technologyf processes, operating methods or
other alternatives. The regulations are based on the best
identified primary or physical-chemical treatment technology
currently available for discharge into navigable water bodies by
July 1, 197"? and for new source performance standards. This
technology is generally represented by fine screens and air
flotation. The regulations for July 1, 1983 are based on the
best identified physical-chemical and secondary treatment and in-
plant control as represented by significantly reduced water use
and enhanced treatment efficiencies in existing systems, as well
as new systems. This technology is generally represented by air
flotation, aerated lagoons, or activated sludge.
Supportive data and rationale for development of the effluent
limitations and standards of performance are contained in this
report.
iii
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III INTRODUCTION 13
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 13
SCOPE OF STUDY 14
INDUSTRY BACKGROUND 15
INDUSTRIAL FISHES 28
FINFISH 33
SHELLFISH 49
IV INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 61
INTRODUCTION 61
FISH MEAL PRODUCTION 66
SALMON CANNING 77
FRSSH AND FROZEN SALMON 86
BOTTOM FISH AND MISCELLANEOUS FINFISH " }QQ
SARDINE CANNING 119
HERRING FILLETING 132
CLAMS 1 37
OYSTERS -|45
SCALLOPS 152
ABALONE 154
V WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 171
INTRODUCTION
FISH MEAL PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARAC-
TERISTICS 174
SALMON CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER .188
-------
Section Page
CHARACTERISTICS 188
FRESH/FROZEN SALMON PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 198
BOTTOM FISH AND MISCELLANEOUS FINFISH
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 204
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 227
HERRING FILLETING PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS . 234
CLAM PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 239
OYSTER PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 253
SCALLOP FREEZING PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 260
FRESH/FROZEN ABALONE PROCESS WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS 261
DETERMINATION OF SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA 274
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS ; 281
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF POLLUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE 281
ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL METHODS 296
PARAMETER ESTIMATION ANALYSIS 301
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 313
IN-PLANT CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND PROCESSES 313
IN-PLANT CONTROL RELATED TO SPECIFIC
PROCESSES 325
END-OF-PIPE CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND
PROCESSES 330
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
SUMMARY 377
' IX BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS 437
X BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS 443
V1
-------
Section Page
XI NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 449
XII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 455
XIII REFERENCES 457
XIV GLOSSARY 461
APPENDIX A; Bibliography - Air Flotation Use
Within the Seafood Industry 475
APPENDIX Bs Bibliography - Air Flotation Use
Within the Meat and Poultry
Industry 479
APPENDIX Cs List of Equipment Manufacturers 481
vli
-------
-------
FIGURED
Number .. . . Page
1 Total U.S. supply of fishery products 18
1960-1972
2 Location and commodities sampled in the
contiguous United States " 20
3 Alaska region locations and'commodities sampled 21
1 Northwest region locations and commodities
sampled 22
5 New England region locations and commodities
sampled ;* . 23
6 Mid-Atlantic region locations and commodities
sampled 24
7 Sulf region locations and commodities sampled 25
8 California region locations and commodities
sampled 26
9 Atlantic and Gulf menhaden landings, 1960-1971 31
10 California landings of Pacific sardines and
• anchovies 32
11 Alaska salmon landings by species 35
12 Distribution of the Pacific halibut 45
13 U.S. landings of halibut 19«7-1972 46
1ft U.S. production and imports of canned sardines
1960-1972 48
15 Oyster meat production by region 55
16 Comparison of raft and bottom grown oysters 55
17 California abalone landings 60
18 Typical large fish meal production process 57
19 Typical small fish meal production process 71
20 Fish meal process plot (with solubles plant) 73
21 Fish meal process plot (without solubles
plant) 75
1x
-------
Number * page
22 Fish meal flow ratios versus production level 80
23 Fish meal BOD5 ratios versus production level 81
24 Fish meal total suspended solids ratios versus
production level 82
25 Typical salmon canning process 83
26 Typical salmon by-product operations 87
27 Alaska salmon cannery size distribution 88
28 Northwest salmon cannery size distribution 89
29 Salmon canning process plot 90
30 Mechanized salmon flow ratios versus production level 92
31 Mechanized salmon BQD5 ratios versus production level 93
32 Mechanized salmon total suspended solids ratios versus
production level 94
33 Typical fresh/frozen salmon process 95
3ft Fresh/frozen salmon process plot 99
35 Hand-butchered salmon flow ratios versus production
level ' 102
36 Hand-butchered salmon BOD5 ratios versus production
level 103
37 Hand-butchered salmon total suspended solids ratios
versus production level 104
38 Typical New England ground fish process 106
39 Typical New England whiting process. 107
40 Typical Mid-Atlantic or Gulf finfish process 109
41 Typical fish flesh process ,111
12 Typical Pacific Coast, bottom fish process 112
43 Typical Alaska or Northwest halibut process 114
44 Conventional bottom fish process plot 116
45 Mechanized bottom fish process plot 117
-------
Number '
16 Conventional bottom fish flow ratios versus production
levels '"
HI conventional bottom fish BODfs ratios versus production
levels
123
US Conventional bottom fish total suspended solids ratios
versus production levels '24
19 Typical sardine canning process 127
50 Sardine canning process plot 129
51 Typical herring filleting process 134
52 Herring filleting process plot 136
53 Typical mechanized surf clam process 140
54 Typical hand shucked surf clam process .142
55 Conventional or mechanical clam process plot 144
56 Typical steamed or canned oyster process 148
57 Typical hand shuck oyster process 150
58 Fresh/frozen, steamed, or canned oyster process
plot 151
59 West Coast oyster flow ratios versus production level 156
60 West Coast oyster BOD5 ratios versus production level 157
61 West Coast oyster total suspended solids ratios versus
production level 158
62 East Coast oyster flow ratios versus production level 159
63 East Coast oyster BODS, ratios versus production level 160
61 East Coast oyster total suspended solids ratios versus
production level 161
65 Typical scallop process 163
66 Alaskan scallop process plot 165
67 Typical abalone process 167
68 Abalone process plot • , 169
69 Fish meal process time sequence of activities 175
x1
-------
Number Page
70 Fish meal process plot (with solubles plant)
intake and discharge 179
71 Log-normal formulas for the subcategory
mean and standard deviation 279
72 Chloride correction curves for COD
determination on seafood processing wastes 299
73 Finfish wastewater 20-day BOD vs 5-day BOD
scatter diagram 307
71 Shellfish wastewater 20-day BOD vs 5-day BOD
scatter diagram 307
75 Seafood wastewater 5-day BOD vs COD scatter
diagram 308
76 Industrial fish wastewater 5-day BOD vs COD
scatter diagram 308
77 Finfish wastewater 5-day BOD vs COD scatter
diagram 309
78 Shellfish wastewater 5-day BOD vs COD scatter
diagram 309
79 Schematic drawing of in-plant dry solids removal
system (Temco, Inc.) 324
80 Pneumatic unloading system (Temco, Inc.) 324
81 Alaskan physical treatment alternative,
remote plants with adequate flushing available 333
82 Increase in waste loads through prolonged
contact with water 334
83 Typical horizontal drum rotary screen 335
84 Typical tangential screen . 336
85 Typical screen system for seafood processing
operations 341
86 Typical dissolved air flotation system for sea-
food processing operations . 350
87 Dissolved air flotation unit (Carborundum Co.) 351
88 Removal efficiency of DAF unit used in Louisiana
shrimp study - 1973 results (Dominique, Szabo
Associates, Inc.) 353
xii
-------
lumber Pa9e
89 Air flotation efficiency versus influent COD
concentration for various seafood wastewaters 359
90 Typical extended aeration system for seafood
processing operations 361
91 Removal rate of filtered BOD in a batch aeration
reactor 363
92 Removal rate of unfiltered BOD in a batch
aeration reactor 364
93 Typical aerated lagoon system 369
94 Daily maximum and maximum 30-day average based on
log-normal summary data 376
95 Costs and removal efficiencies for alternative
treatment systems versus hydraulic loading 382
96 Operation and maintenance costs for alternate
treatment systems versus hydraulic loading 382
97 Capital costs and daily operation and mainten-
ance cost curves for a wastewater screening
system 383
98 Capital cost curves for a wastewater air flota-
tion system 384
99 operation and maintenance costs of an air flo-
tation system 385
100 Capital costs arid daily operation and. mainten-
ance cost curves for an aerated lagoon 386
101 Capital costs and daily operation and mainten-
ance cost curves for an extended aeration
system 387
102 Haste disposal costs for landfill or ocean
disposal 436
xlii
-------
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 July 1, 1977 effluent limitations 4
2 July lr 1983 effluent limitations 7
3 New source performance standards 10
U Disposition of landings, 1971 and 1972 16
5 Value of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 17
6 Supply of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 19
7 Production of industrial fishery products
1962-1972 27
8 Atlantic menhaden fishing seasons 27
9 1972 Pacific canned salmon packs and values 36
10 Processing season peaks for Alaska salmon and
halibut 37
11 Major species of Atlantic and Gulf bottom fish 41
12 Major species of Pacific bottom fish 42
13 U.S. landings of shellfish by species 50
m Scallop landings by species, 1963-1972 58
15 Relative importance matrix -- industrial fish
and finfish 62
16 Relative importance matrix —- shellfish 63
17 Pish meal waste load reduction using bailwater
evaporation 74
18 Summary of average waste loads from fish meal
production 76
19 Onit operation waste characteristics for fish meal
processing without a solubles unit (Plant A 3) 76
20 Fish meal process summary (discharge from
solubles plant only) 78
21 Fish meal process summary (without solubles
plant) 79
XV
-------
Number Page
22 Mechanically butchered salmon process summary 91
23 Annual production of Northwest fresh/frozen
salmon 98
2$ Daily peak production rates of Alaska fresh/
frozen salmon plants , 98
25 Hand butchered salmon process summary 101
26 Alaska bottom fish (halibut) process summary 118
27 Non-Alaska bottom fish size distributon , 120
28 Conventional bottom fish process summary 121
29 Mechanical bottom fish process summary 125
30 Waste load reduction using dry conveyor 130
31 Sardine in-plant fish transport water, storage area
to packing area \ ,131
32 Sardine canning process summary 133
33 Herring filleting process summary 138
31 Conventional clam process summary 146
35 Mechanical clam process summary 147
36 Steamed or canned oyster process summary j 153
37 West Coast hand-shucked oyster processing
summary 154
38 East and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster
processing summary "155
39 Scallop process summary 166
40 Abalone process summary 170
41 Fish meal production with solubles plant
material balance . 177
12 Pish meal production with bailwater material
balance 173
43 Menhaden reduction process (discharge) „ M2 180
44 Menhaden reduction process (discharge no
scrubber water) , M3 181
xv1
-------
Number : - - Page
45 Menhaden reduction process^ (discharge), MS 182
46 Anchovy reduction process (discharge without
' - scrubber) , A2 T;- "':': ''"': '-••.-.•• ' - 183
47 Fish meal production without solubles plant • ' '
material balance 185
48 Anchovy reduction process (discharge), Al 186
49 Anchovy reduction process (with air scrubber
water), A3 "-'.''• . |87
50 Salmon canning process material balance (butchering
machine) 189
51 Salmon canning process material balance (hand
butcher) '• " •";_'. * :-' ' ' 190
52 Salmon canning process, CSN2 - 192
53 Salmon canning process, CSN3 r- 193
54 Salmon canning process (with grinding) / CSN4 194
55 Salmon canning process (hand butcher), CSN5 195
56 Salmon canning process (hand butcher), CS6M 196
57 Salmon canning process (without fluming), CSN8 197
58 Fresh/frozen round salmon process material
balance 199
59 Salmon fresh/frozen process (round)r FSl 200
60 Salmon fresh/frozen process (round), FS2 201
61 Salmon fresh/frozen process (round)» FS3 202
62 Salmon fresh/frozen process (round), FS4 203
63 Conventional bottom fish process material
balance (with skinner) 207
64 Conventional bottom fish process material
balance (with descaler) 208
65 Percent recovery for New England ground fish 209
66 whiting freezing process material balance 2in
67 Recovery of fillets and fjLsh flesh from bottom
fish - ; ' 211
xvil
-------
Number Page
68 Halibut freezing process material balance 212
69 Ground fish fillet, process, 11 213
70 Ground fish fillet process, B2 214
71 Finfish process, FNF1 215
72 Finfish process, FNF2 216
73 Finfish process, FNFft 217
7tt Bottom fish fillet process, B4 218
75 Bottom fish fillet process, B5 219
76 Bottom fish fillet process, B7 220
77 Bottom fish fillet process, B8 221
78 Bottom fish fillet process, B9 222
79 Bottom fish fillet process, BIO 223
80 Bottom fish fillet process, Bll 224
81 Bottom fish fillet process, B12 225
82 Whiting freezing process, wl 228
83 Whiting freezing process, W2 229
84 Croaker fish flesh process, CFCl 230
85 Halibut freezing process, FRH1 231
86 Halibut fletching process, FFH1 , g32
87 Sardine canning process material balance 233
88 Sardine canning process, SA1 235
89 Sardine canning process, SA2 236
90 sardine canning process, SA3 237
91 Sardine canning process, S&ft 238
92 Herring filleting process material balance 040
93 Herring filleting process, HF1 241
91 Herring filleting process, HF2 242
xvlii
-------
lumber - Page
95 Herring filleting process, HF3 243
96 Surf clam canning process material balance 245
97 Surf clam meat process (mechanically shucked), FCL2 246
98 Surf clam meat process (mechanically shucked) , FCL3 247
99 Hand-shucked clam process material balance . 249
100 Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HCL1 250
101 Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HCL2 251
102 Clam fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HCL3 252
103 Steamed oyster process material balance 254
104 Hand-shucked oyster process material balance 256
105 Oyster steam process, SOI 257
106 Oyster steam process, SO2 258
107 Oyster steam process, SOV 259
108 Oyster fresh/frozen process, HSO2 262
109 Oyster fresh/frozen process fhand-shucked), HSO3 263
110 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HSO* 264
111 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HSO5 26i
112 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HSO6 266
113 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked) , HSO8 267
11<* Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HSQ9 268
115 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HS10 269
116 Oyster fresh/frozen process (hand-shucked), HS11 270
117 scallops freezing process, SPl 271
118 Scallops freezing process, SP2 272
119 Abalone fresh/frozen process material balance 273
120 Abalone fresh/frozen process, AB1 276
121 Abalone fresh/frozen process, AB2 277
xlx
-------
Number Pafle
122 Abalone fresh/frozen process, AB3 , 278
123 Summary of precision analysis for suspended
solids, GOD, and grease and oil 302
124 Summary of precision analysis for ammonia and
organic nitrogen 303
125 Summary of ammonia recovery precision analysis 304
126 Summary of grease and oil recovery precision
analysis 305
127 20-day BOD/5-day BOD ratio estimation for
finfish and shellfish wastewater 311
128 5-day BOD/COD ratio estimation for industrial
fish, finfish and shellfish wastewater 311
129 Typical composition of fish and shellfish
(portion normally utilized) 314
130 Recovery using 20-mesh screen for various
seafood commodities 317
131 Recovery of proteins with hexametaphosphate 3.18
132 Coagulation of proteins with SLS , 318
133 Typical fish meal process bailwater charac-
teristics 327
134 Fish meal stickwater characteristics 327
135 Northern sewage screen test results 338
136 SWECO concentrator test results 338
137 SWECO vibratory screen performance on salmon
canning wastewater 338
138 Tangential screen performance 339
139 Gravity clarification using F-FLOK coagulant 348
140 Results of dispersed air flotation on tuna
wastewater 343
141 Efficiency of EIMCO flotator pilot plant on
tuna wastewater 353
142 Efficiency of EIMCO flotator full-scale plant
on tuna wastewater 353
xx
-------
Number
Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on Gulf
shrimp wastewater 355
144 Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on Alaska
shrimp wastewater , 355
145 Efficiency of Carborundum pilot plant on
menhaden bailwater 356
146 Efficiency of full-scale dissolved air flotation
on sardine wastewater 356
147 Efficiency of full-scale dissolved air flotation
on Canadian seafood wastewater 357
148 Activated sludge pilot plant results 365
149 Efficiency of Chromaglas package plant on blue
crab and oyster wastewater 365
150 Removal efficiencies of screens for various
seafood wastewater effluents 373
151 Removal efficiencies of treatment alternatives 374
152 Estimated practicable in-plant waste water
flow reductions and associated pollutional
loadings reductions (1983 ajnd new source) , , 375
153 Estimated potential in-plant water and BOD
reduction 379
154 Treatment system cost equations 381
155 Water effluent treatment costs: fish meal
with solubles plant 390
156 Water effluent treatment costss fish meal
without solubles plant 391
157 Water effluent treatment costss Northwest
salmon canning - large 392
158 Water effluent treatment costss Northwest
salmon canning - small 393
159 Water effluent treatment costs: West Coast
fresh frozen salmon - large 394
160 Water effluent treatment costs? west Coast
fresh frozen salmon - small 395
161 Water effluent treatment costs; West Coast 396
xx1
-------
Number
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
fresh frozen salmon - large
Water effluent treatment costs;
fresh frozen salmon - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
fresh frozen salmon - small
West coast
West coast
Water effluent treatment costs: West Coast
fresh frozen salmon - small
Water effluent treatment costs? Non-Alaskan
conventional bottom fish - large
Water effluent treatment costs: Won-Alaskan
bottom fish - large
Water effluent treatment costs: NOn-Alaskan
bottom fish - medium
Water effluent treatment costss Non-Alaskan
conventional bottom fish - medium
Water effluent treatment costs:
bottom fish - small
Non-Alaskan
Water effluent treatment costss Non-Alaskan
conventional bottom fish - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
mechanized bottom fish - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
mechanized bottom fish - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
Non-Alaskan
Non-" Alaskan
conventional
conventional
conventiona1
conventiona1
mechanized
mechanized
mechanized
Page
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
-------
Number
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
clams - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
clams - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
claims - small
Water effluent treatment costs?
clams - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
hand shucked oyster - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
hand shucked oyster - medium
Water effluent treatment costs:
hand shucked oyster - small
Water effluent treatment costs;
hand shucked oyster - medium
Water effluent treatment costs:
or canned oysters
Water effluent treatment costs:
canning - large
Water effluent treatment costs:
canning - medium
Water effluent treatment costs:
canning - small
Water effluent treatment costs:
Non-Alaskan scallops
Water effluent treatment costs:
herring filleting
Water effluent treatment costs:
herring filleting
mechanized
mechanized
mechanized
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Eastern
Steamed
Sardine
Sardine
Sardine
non-Alaskan
Abalone
195
196
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Salmon Canning
and Alaskan Hand-Butchered Salmon
Incremental Water Effluent 'Treatment Costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Bottom Fish
Incremental Water Effluent Treatment costs
for Alaskan Segments - Alaskan Herring Filleting
Page
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
431
432
XX111
-------
Humber
197 ti'nergy consumption of alternative treatment
systems 433
198 Cost of construction and operation of a fish
deboning plant ', 434
199 Capital and operating costs for batch and con-
tinuous fish meal facilities 435
200 July 1, 1977 effluent limitations 440
201 July 1, 1983 effluent limitations 446
202 New source performance standards 451
203 Conversion Factors, aiglish to Metric Units 485
xxiv
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations guidelines
for existing sources and standards of performance for new
sources, the canned and preserved seafood processing industry
covered in this study was divided into 19 subcategories:
1) Fish meal processing
2) Alaskan hand-butchered salmon processing
3) Alaskan mechanized salmon processing :
1) West Coast hand-butchered salmon processing
5) West Coast mechanized salmon processing
6) Alaskan bottom fish processing
7) Non-Alaskan conventional bottom fish processing
8) Non-Alaskan mechanized bottom fish processing
9) Hand-shucked clam processing
10) Mechanized clam processing
11) West Coast hand-shucked oyster processing
12) Atlantic and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster
processing
13) Steamed/canned oyster processing
14) Sardine processing
15) Alaskan scallop processing
16) Non-Alaskan scallop processing
17) Alaskan herring fillet processing
18) Non-Alaskan herring fillet processing
19) Abalone processing
The major criteria for the establishment of the categories
were:
1) variability of raw product supply;
2) variety of the species being processed;
3) degree of preprocessing?
tt) manufacturing process and subprocesses;
5) form and quality of finished product;
6) location of plant;
7) nature of operation (intermittent vs. continuous);
and
8) amenability of the waste to treatment.
The wastes from all subcategories are amenable to biological
waste treatment under certain conditions and no materials harmful
to municipal waste treatment processes (with adequate operational
controls) were found.
A determination of this study was that the level of waste
treatment throughout the seafood industry is generally
inadequate, except for the fish meal production industry where
-------
there are several exemplary plants. At the present time many
plants in the contiguous states and almost all Alaskan plants
discharge solid and liquid wastes directly into the receiving
waters, others utilize coarse screening techniques to remove
gross solids from the effluent streams prior to discharge.
Technology exists , however, for the successful reduction of
respective wastewater constituents within the industry to the
point where most plants can be in compliance by July 1, 1977.
The 1977 limitations are based on technology which can be
utilized within the economic capability of the industry. For the
contiguous states the technology basis includes fine screening,
"good housekeeping" practices, and barging; for Alaska the
technology consists of fine screening and barging of solids in
non-remote areas, and comminutor or grinders in remote areas. In
addition to the aforementioned technology, the basis for the 1983
and new source performance standards includes physical/chemical
and secondary treatment and the adoption of in-plant controls as
represented by significantly reduced water use and enhanced
treatment efficiencies in existing systems, as well as new
systems. Because waste treatment, in-plant waste reduction, and
effluent management are in their infancy in this industry, rapid
progress is expected to be made by the industry in the next four
to six years,
The regulated parameters include total suspended solids, oil and
grease, and pH for the limitation based on screening systems; for
physical/chemical and biological systems, BODE5 is utilized also
as a regulated parameter. Particle size is the regulated
parameter for limitations based on comminuters or grinders.
-------
SECTION J.I
RECOMMENDATIONS :
Limitations recommended for process waste waters discharged to
navigable waters are based on the reduction of wastewater flows
and loads through in-plant housekeeping and modifications and the
characteristics of well operating screens, dissolved air flo-
tation units, aerated lagoons, and extended aeration systems.
Parameters designated to be of significant importance to warrant
regulation in this industry, are 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD-5), total suspended solids (TSS) , grease and oil (GSO) , and
pH. '
The effluent limitations based on the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPCTCA) are presented in Table 1;
the effluent limitations based on the best available technology
economically achievable (BATEA) in Table 2; and new source
performance standards, in Table 3.
-------
Subcategory
TABLE
JULY 1, 1977 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Parameter (kg/kkg or Ibs/IOGQ Ibs seafood processed)
BOD5 TSS :- Grease & Oil
Techno!oqy Daily Ttex 30- Daily Max 30- Daily Max 30-
. (BPCTCA) Max Day avfl Max Day avg Max Day avg
0.
p.
Q.
*,
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
Fish Meal
1, with solubles unit
2. w/o solubles unit
AK hand-butchered salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
AK mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
West Coast hand- butchered salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
AK bottom fish
1 . non-remote
2, remote
Non-AK conventional bottom fish
Non-AK mechanized bottom fish
Hand-shucked clams
H
B
H,S,B
Grind
H,S,B
Grind
H,S
H,S
H,S,B
Grind
HSS
H,S
H,S
4.7 3.5 2.3
3.5 2.8 -2.6
1.7
* ,* *
27
* * *
1.7
27 ,
3.0
* * *
- - 2.1
14
59
1.3
1.7
1.4
*
22
*
1.4
22
1.9
*
1.6
10
18
: o.so
" 3-2
0.20
*
27
*
0.20
27
' " 4.3
*
0.55
5.7
0.60
0.63
1.4
0.17
*
10
*
0.17
10
0.56
*
0.40
3.3
0,23
-------
Table } (cont'd) July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
X. Mechanized clams
Y. Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
Z. East & Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
AA. Steamed/Canned oysters**
AB. Sardines
w 1. dry conveying
2. wet flume
AC. AK scallops**
1. non-remote
2. remote
AD. Non-AK scallops**
AE. AK herring fillet
1. non-remote
2. remote
BODS
TSS
Grease & Oil
Technology
(BPCTCA)
H»S
H,S
H»S
H,S
H.S.6T***
H5SS6T***
H,S,B
Grind
H,S
s „ "
H,S,B
Grind
Daily Max 30- Daily
Max Day avg Max
90
37
- . 19
270
36
48
6.0
* * *
-r 6,0
•\; - ' "•
- ! - 32
* * *
Max 30-
Day avg
IS
35
15
190
10
16
1.4
*
1.4
24
*
Daily
Max
4,2
1.7
0.77
2.3
3.5
6.3
7.7
*
7.7
27
*
Max 30-
Day av<
0.97
1.6
0.70
1.7
1.4
2.8
0.24
*
0.24
10
*
-------
Table! (cont'd) July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
BOD5. TSS Grease & Oil
Technology Daily Max 30- Daily Max 30- Daily Max 30-
Subcategory (BPCTCA) Max Day avg Max Day avg Max Day avg
AF. Non-AK herring fillet H,S - - 32 24 27 10
A6. Abalone H,S - - 27 IS 2.2 1,4
H = housekeeping; S = screen; DAF = dissolved air flotation without chemical optimization;
B = barge solids; 6T - grease trap
*No pollutants may be discharged which exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimension
**Effluent limitations in terms of finished product
***Effluent limitations are based on treatment of the pre-cook water by screening
and skimming of free oil, and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
Table 2
July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter
(kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
Technology BOD5_ TSS
(BATEA) Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg.
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
0.
p.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Fish meal
Ak hand-butchered salmon
Ak mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
West Coast hand-butchered
salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
Ak bottom fish
Non-Ak conventional bottom
fish
Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish
Hand-shucked clams
Mechanized clams
IP
IP.S.B
IP.S.DAF.B
IP.S.B
IP.S.DAF
IP»S,DAF
IP,SSB
IP.S.AL
IP.S.DAF
IP.S
IP.S.AL
4.0
-
16
1.2
16
-
0.73
6.5
-
15
2.6
-
13
1.0
13
-
0.58
5.3
-
1.7
2.3
1.5
2.6
26
0.15
2.6
1.9
1.5
1.1
55
26
1.3
1.2
2.2
21
0.12
2.2
1.1
0.73
0.82
17
4.4
0.80
0.18
2.6
26
0.045
2.6
2.6
0.04
0.46
0.56
0.40
0.63
0.15
1.0
10
0.018
1.0
0.34
0.03
0.26
0.21
0.092
-------
Table 2 (Cont'd)
Proposed Ju^y 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter
J(kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
Y.
Z.
AA,
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oysters*
East Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters*
Steamed/Canned oysters*
Sardines
Ak scallops*
Non-Ak scallops*
Ak herring fillets
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Technology
(BATEA)
H,S
H,S
IP»S,AL
IP,S,DAF**
IP.S.B
IP,S
IP.S.DAF.B
IP.S.B
BODS TSS
Daily Max. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg.
37
. 19
67 17 56
36
5.7
5.7
6.8 6.2 2.3
23
35
15
39
10
1.4
1.4
1.8
18
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
1.7
0.77
0.84
1.3
7.3
7.3
2.0
20
1.6
0.70
0.42
0.52
0.23
0.23
0.73
7.3
-------
Table 2 (Cont'd)
Proposed July 1, 1983 Effluent Limitations
Parameter
(kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
AF.
A6.
Non-Ak herring fillets
Abalone
Technology
(BATEA)
IP,S,DAF
IP,S
BODS TSS
Daily Sax. 30- Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg. Max. Day avg.
6.8 6.2 2.3
26
1.8
14
Grease & Oil
Daily Max. 30-
Max. Day avg.
2.0
2.1.
0.73
1.3
IP = iri-plant process changes; S = screen; OAF = dissolved air flotation with chemical optimization;
AL = aerated lagoon; EA = extended aeration; B = barge solids
*Effluent Limitations in terms of finished product
**Effluent limitations based on DAF treatment of the can wash and pre-cook water,
and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
TABLE 3
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
BOD5 TSS
Daily ~Max 30- Dally Max 30-
Grease & Oil
Daily Max 30-
Subcategory
0.
P.
Q.
o R-
S.
T.
U.
V.
W,
Fish meal
Ak hand-butchered salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Ak mechanized salmon
1 . non-remote
2. remote
West Coast hand-butchered salmon
West Coast mechanized salmon
Ak bottom fish
1 . non-remote
2. remote
Non-Ak conventional bottom fish
Non-Ak mechanized bottom fish
Hand- shucked clams
Technology
IP
IP.S.B
grind
IP.S.B,
grind
IP.S.DAF
IP,S,DAF
IP,S,B
grind
IP,S,AL
IP.S.DAF
IP.S
Max Day avg Max nay avg
4.0 2.9 2.3 1.3
1.5 1.2
* * * *
26 21
* * * *
1.7 1.4 0.46 0.37
36 32 7.9 6.S
1.9 1.1
* * * *
0.73 0.58 1.5 0.73
9.1 7.4 3.3 2.5
55 17
Max
0.80
0.18
*
26
*
0.058
3.8
2". 6
*
0.04
0.68
0.56
Day avg
0.63
0.15
*
10
*
0.023
1.5
0.34
*
0.03
0.39
0.21
-------
Table 3 (Cont'd) New Source Performance Standards
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 "Ibs seafood processed)
Subcategory
X. Mechanized clams
Y. Pacific Cost hand-shucked
oysters**
Z. East & Gulf Coast hand-shucked
oysters**
AA. Steamed/Canned oysters**
AB. Sardines
AC. Ak scallops**
1. non-remote
2. remote
AD. Non-Ak scallops
AE. Ak herring filllets
1, non-remote
2. remote
BQD5_
Daily Max 30-
TSS
Daily Max 30-
Srease & Oil
Daily Max 30-
Technology Max
IP.S.AL 15
H,S
H»S
IP.S.AL '67
IP.S.DAF***
IP,S,B
grind *
IP.S
IP.S.B
grind *
Day avg
5,7
_
-
17
-
*
"
*
Max
26
37
19
56
36
5.7
*
5.7
23
*
Day avg
4.4
35
15
39
10
1.4
*
1.4
18
*
Max
0.40
1.7
0.77
0.84
1.4
7.3
*
7.3
20
*
Day avg
0.092
1.6
0.70
0.42
0,57
0.23
*
0.23
7.3
*
-------
Table 3 (Cont'd) New Source Performance Standards
Parameter (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 Ibs seafood processed)
BOD5
Dally Max 30-
TSS
Dally Max 30-
Srease & 011
Dally Max 30-
Subeategory
AF. Non-Ak
AS. Aba! one
herring fillets
Technology
IP, S, DAF
IP,S
Max
16
-
Day avg
15
_
Max
7.0
26
Day
avg
5.2
14
Max
2.
2.
9
1
Day
avg
1.1
1.3
IP = 1n-plant process changes; S = screen; DAF = dissolved air flotation without chemical
optimization; AL = aerated lagoon; EA = extended aeration; B = barge solids
*No pollutants may be discharged which exceed 1.27 on (0.5 Inch) 1n any dimension
**Effluent limitations 1n terms of finished product
***Effluent limitations based on DAF treatment of the can wash and pre-cook water,
and screening for the remainder of the effluent
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Section 301(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (the Act) requires the achievement by not
later than July !„ 1977, of effluent limitations for point
sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which are
based on the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available as defined by the E.P.A.
Administrator pursuant to Section 304 (b) of the Act. Section
301(b) also requires the achievement by not later than July 1,
1983, of effluent limitations for point sources, other than
publicly owned treatment works, which are based on the appli-
cation of the best available technology economically achievable
and which will result in reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as
determined in accordance with regulations issued by the
Administrator pursuant to Section 30** (b) of the Act. Section 306
of the Act requires the achievement by new sources of a federal
standard of performance providing for the control of the
discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest degree of
effluent reduction which the Administrator determines to be
achievable through the application of the best available
demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or
other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants„ Section 307 (b) and (c)
of the Act requires the achievement of pretreatment standards for
existing and new sources for introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works for those pollutants which are
determined not to be susceptible to treatment by such treatment
works or which would interfere with the operation of such
treatment.
*
Section 304 (b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish
within ofte year of enactment of the Act, regulations providing
for effluent limitations setting forth the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available and the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the
best control measures and practices achievable including
treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations,
operational methods and other alternatives. The regulations
developed herein set forth effluent limitations pursuant to
Section 30ft(b) of the Act for the fish meal, salmon, bottom fish,
clam, oyster, sardine, scallop, herring and abalone segment of
the canned and preserved fish and seafood processing point source
category. The effluent limitations for the shrimp, tuna, crab,
and catfish segment of the industry were promulgated in the June
26, 1974, Federal Register (39 P.R. 23134), and amended in the
January 30, 1975, Federal Register (40 F.R. 4582).
13
-------
Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within one
year after a category of sources is included in a list published
pursuant to Section 306 (b) fl) (A) of the Act, to propose
regulations establishing federal standards of performance for new
sources within such categories. The Administrator published in
th® Federal Register of January 16, 1973 (38 F.R. 162«) , a list
of 27 categories. Publications of the list constituted
announcement of the Administrator"s intention to establish, under
Section 306, standards of performance applicable to new sources
for the canned and preserved .fish and seafood point source
category, which was included in the list published January 16,
1973.
SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of this study is defined as the "remainder of the
industry" not included in the promulgated regulations covering
farm-raised catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna (39 F.R. 23134). The
species specifically mentioned are: oyster, lobster, clam,
bottom fish, the oily species such as menhaden, anchovy, herring,
and salmon. The "industry" to be covered by both phases is
defined as falling into SIC 2031, Canned and Cured Seafood, and
SIC 2036, Fresh and . Frozen Packaged Seafood. More complete
definitions of these two classifications as obtained from the
1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual are quoted below.
It was noted that SIC 2031 and SIC 2036, as defined in the
Department of Commerce 1967 Census of Manufacturers, Publication
MC67 (2)-20C, were changed to SIC 2091 and SIC 2092 respectively
in the 1972 S.I.C. Manual.
•SIC 2091 - Canned and Cured Fish and Seafoods
"Establishments primarily engaged in cooking and canning fish,
shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, and other seafood, including
soups; and those engaged in smoking, salting, drying or otherwise
curing fish for the trade. Establishments primarily engaged in
shucking and packing fresh oysters in nonsealed containers, or in
freezing and packaging fresh fish, are classified in Industry
2092.«
Canned fish, crustacea,
and mollusks
Caviar: canned and
preserved
Clam bouillon, broth,
chowder, juice;
bottled or canned
Codfish: smoked, salted,
dried, and pickled
Crab meat, canned and
preserved
Finnan haddie (smoked
Fish, canned
Fish egg bait, canned
Herring: smoked, salted,
dried, and pickled
Mackerel: smoked, salted,
dried, and pickled
Oysters, canned and pre-
served
Salmon: smoked, salted,
dried, canned and pickled
Sardines, canned
Seafood products, canned
14
-------
haddock)
Fish: boneless, cuzed
dried, pickled, salted,
and smoked
Shellfish, canned
Shrimp, canned
Soup, seafood: canned
Tuna fish, canned
SIC 2092 - Fresh or Frozen Packaged Fish and Seafoods
Seafood: fresh, quick
frozen, and cold pack
(frozen) —packaged
Shellfish, quick frozen
and cold pack (frozen)
Shrimp, quick frozen
and cold pack (frozen)
Soups, seafoods frozen
Crab meat, fresh: packed
in non-sealed containers
Crab meat picking
Fish fillets
Fish: fresh, quick frozen,
and cold pack (frozen)—
packaged
Fish sticks
Frozen prepared fish
Oysters: fresh, shucked
and packed in non-sealed
containers
The reduction of the oily species for animal feed, oils and
solubles is not included in either classification, but is
contained in this report. Therefore, the study encompassed the
following segments of the United States fishery industry:
1) All processes falling into either SIC 2031
2036 (2092), which are considered to
significant waste load? and
(2091) or
produce a
2) the reduction of oily species such as menhaden and
anchovy for fish meal, oil and solubles, including the
reduction of fish waste when processed at the same
facility.
Fish or shellfish which are canned or processed fresh or frozen
for bait or pet food were not included in this study unless the
operation was an integral part of a process covered by item
number one or two, above. The distribution of landings between
fresh and frozen human food, bait and animal food; canned human
food, bait and animal food; and cured and reduced fish for 1971
and 1972 is given in Table ft. It can be seen that the
disposition for bait and animal food is a relatively small
portion of the total.
INDUSTRY BACKGROUND -
The canned and preserved fish and seafood industry, including
industrial products, has been expanding, steadily from the early
days of drying and curing to the various technologies involved in
preserving, canning, freezing, and rendering of fishery products.
The characteristics of the industry have been influenced by
changing market demands and fluctuating raw product availability.
The total value of fishery products processed in 1972 from both
15
-------
Table 4. Disposition of landings,
1971 and 1972
Product
Fresh and Frozen:
Human food
Bait and animal food
Canned :
Human food
Bait and animal food
Cured :
Reduced to meal, oil,
solubles , etc . :
TOTALS
Average-
Lbs x 10b
1420
92
862
126
74
2266
4840
Average
Percent
29.3
1.9
17.8
2.6
1.6
' 46.8
100.0
16
-------
Table 5. Value of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 (1)
Item
Edible fishery products :
Finfish
Shellfish
Industrial fishery pro-
ducts :
Pinfish
Shellfish
Total :
Finfish
Shellfish
Domestic
1971
257
338
44
4
301
342
landings Imports
1972
278
380
40
6
318
386
1971
Million
483
404
187
N.A.
670
404
1972
dollars
498
735
261
N.A.
759
735
Total
1971
740
742
231
4
971
746
1972
776
1115
301
6 ;
1077
1121
Total
643
704
1074
1494
1717
2198
-------
CD
to
Q
JB
D
O
ft
g
H
H
CQ
16
8
0
DOMESTIC CATCH
I960
1964
1968
1972
Figure 1. Total U.S. supply of fishery products, 1960-1972 0)
-------
Table 6. Supply of fishery products, 1971 and 1972 (1)
<£>
Item
Edible fishery products:
Finfish
Shellfish
Industrial fishery pro-
ducts :
Finfish
Shellfish
Total:
Finfish
Shellfish
Domestic
1971
1509
891
2545
24
4054
915
landings
1972
Million
1432
878
2383
17
3815
895
Imports
1971
pounds ,
2967
615
3204
N.A.
6171
615
1972
round
3751
703
4589
N.A.
8340
703
Total -
1971
weight
4476
1506
5749
24
10,225
1530
1972
5183
1581
6972
17
12,155
1598
Total
4969
4710
6786
9043
11,755
13,753
-------
ro
o
I.SALMON
2.80TTOM FISH
3. RETAIL PACKAGING
4. OYSTERS
5.ANCHOVY REDUCTION
6, FROZEN ANCHOVY
7ABALONE
8.SEA URCHIN
9. JACK'MACKEREL
10. SPINY LOBSTER
II, MENHADEN
12. FIN FISH
13. CROAKERFISH CAKES
14. PICKLED HERRING
I5.CLAMS
16. SEA HERRING
IT. AMERICAN LOBSTER
18. WHITING
19. SARDINE
Figure 2. Locations and commodities sampled iii the contiguous United States.
-------
PETERSBURG
KETCH IK AN
I, SALMON
2. SCALLOPS
3,HAUWJT
4,HIT,RRIN3
Figure 3. Alaska region locations and commodities sampled.
-------
O
5
o
O
o
ni
1. BOTTOM FISH
2. SALMON
3. RETAIL PACKAGING
4. OYSTERS
Figure 4. Northwest region locations and commodities sampled,
22
-------
BOSTON
MASSACHUSETTS
I.BOTTOM FISH
2. SEA HERRING
3. LOBSTER
4. MENHADEN
5. WHITING
6.SARDINE
Figure 5. New England region locations and commodities sampled.
23
-------
I. CLAMS
2.0YSTERS
3.MENHADEN
4. PICKLED HERRING
3. FINFISH
Figure 6. Mid-Atlantic region locations and commodities sampled,
24
-------
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
I. FINFISH
E. CROAKER FISH CAKES
3. MENHADEN
Figure 7. Gulf region locations and commodities sampled.
25
-------
I. SPINY LOBSTER
2. AB ALONE
3. ANCHOVY REDUCTION
4. SEA URCHIN
5.JACK MACKEREL
6. BOTTOM FISH
7. FROZEN ANCHOVY
Figure 8, California region locations and commodities sampled.
26
-------
Table 7, Production of industrial
fishery products, 1962-1972 (])
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Fish
Meal
tons
312,259
255,907
235,252
254,051
223,821
211,189
235,136
252,664
269,197
292,812
285,486
Quantity
Fish
Solubles
tons
124,649
107,402
93,296
94,840
83,441
74,675
71,833
81,692
94,968
111,188
134,404
Marine
Animal
Oil
thousand
pounds
250,075
185,827
. 180,198
195,440
164,045
122,398
174,072
169,785
206,084
265,450
188,445
Value
Fish Meal,
Oil, and
Solubles
thousand
dollars
53,210
47,842
46,998
56,498
49,916
36,738
41,294
53,272
69,485
70,377
67,371
Table 8. Atlantic menhaden fishing seasons.
Area
Earliest Date
Peak•Months
Latest Date
North
Middle
South
May 25
May 16
March 23
July-August
July-September
June
October 20
November 19
December
27
-------
domestic and imported raw materials was a record $2.3 billiort ^
percent above the previous record reached in 1971 (Table 5). In
addition to the value of these processed products, the total
supply of fishery products increased in 1972, largely due to
greater imports (Figure 1 and Table 6). The per capita U.S.
consumption of fish and shellfish in 1972 was 5.5 kg (12.2 Ibs)
totaling 1.14 million kkg (1.25 million tons), up seven percent
from 1971 (1).
The seafood industry considered in this study was organized into
three general segments: industrial fishes, finfishes, and
shellfishes. General background material such as: species
involved, volumes, values and locations of landings, and methods
of harvesting and handling are discussed in this section. A more
detailed discussion of specific processes and wastes generated
will be found in Sections IV and V, which deal with industry
categorization and waste characterization, respectively.
Monitoring of individual processors included four months of
intensive study of the major seafood processing and fish
rendering centers in the contiguous United States and Alaska.
The general sampling locations are identified in Figures 2 and 3.
Selection of representative plants was based on several factors,
including: size, age, level of technology, and geographic
location. For the purpose of organizing the sampling effort, the
country was divided into seven regions: Alaska, Northwest, Great
Lakes, New England, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf, and
California. Maps of each region, excluding the Great Lakes,
showing the location of the plants monitored during this study
and the types of fish or shellfish commodities sampled are in
Figures 3 through 8. The Great Lakes region was not sampled
because of a lack of fish processing activity.
INDUSTRIAL FISHES
Industrial fishery products include such commodities as fish
meal, concentrated protein solubles, oils, and also miscellaneous
products including liquid fertilizer, fish feed pellets, kelp
products, shell novelties and pearl essence.
Only that portion of this industry, the reduction of anchovy and
menhaden, involving rendering fish to meal, oil and solubles was
specifically studied. The use of herring for meal is declining
because of the decline of the resource and because of its greater
utilization for direct human consumption. The use of alewives
for meal has been declining in recent years; however, the
utilization of this species may increase as demand increases and
the world supply of fish meal decreases. Table 7 shows the
volume and value of the meal, oil, and solubles products for the
last ten years. The value for 1973 is expected to have increased
dramatically due to the current fish meal shortage.
28
-------
With respect to the rendering of fish to meal, solubles, and
oils, the two most common species harvested for this purpose are
the Atlantic menhaden and the Pacific anchovy. These fishes and
the attendant reduction industry were considered to be important
from a pollution impact "viewpoint and were studied relatively
thoroughly.
Menhaden
Menhaden are small oily fish belonging to the herring familyff
Clupeidae, and members of the genus Brevoortia. Of this genus
only two species are important to the menhaden fishery. On the
Atlantic Coast B. tyrannus dominates, while on the Gulf Coast B.
patronus is more important. The fish are generally 12 inches in
length and weigh less than a pound. They are found migrating in
schools of 50,000 to 200,000 along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
Menhaden utilization in the United States preceeded the landing
of the pilgrims. The East Coast Indians planted corn along with
a fish called munnawhatteaug (menhaden) as a fertilizer. They
passed this technique on to the early settlers. The early 1800 »s
saw the organization of a number of small companies to supply
manhaden for fertilizer. In the 1850*s the first large-scale
reduction plants appeared on the New England Coast, and since
then the fishery has grown to a multi-million dollar industry.
Landings totaled 863,000 kkg (1.9ft billion Ibs) for 1972,
comprising HI percent of the total U«S. landings for that year.
Fifty-seven percent of the landings were from the Gulf of Mexico
with the balance from the Atlantic Coast (1) „
Landing statistics from 1950 to 1956 show that catches from the
Atlantic increased from 318,000 kkg (0.700 billion Ibs) to
699,000 kkg (1.54 billion Ibs), comprising 73 percent of the
catch in 1956, and since then have shown a general decline. The
Gulf fishery, on the other hand, has been.increasing, and first
exceeded the Atlantic in 1963, when MO,000 kkg (0.968 billion
Ibs) were landed. The Gulf fisheries have held their lead over
the Atlantic consistently since 1963 (Figure 9) (1).
Both Atlantic and Gulf menhaden are caught with purse seine nets,
the principal gear utilized by the industry since 1850. The
menhaden seine is 400 to 600 ra (1312 to 1969 ft) long, 25 to 30 m
(82 to 98 ft) deep with 3 to 6 cm (1.2 to 2.ft in.) mesh. A
typical operation consists of two smaller seine boats which
accompany a carrier vessel 20 to 60 m (197 ft) in length and
which has a hold capacity ranging from ft5 to 544 kkg (50 to 600
tons). Fishing generally takes place during the day within 60 km
(37 mi) of the reduction plant. A small plane is used to spot
concentrations of fish and direct the carrier boats to them. At
the fishing site a suitable school of menhaden is selected and
the seine boats dispatched. The boats.separate at the school and
each plays out its half of the net until the fish are enclosed.
The net is then joined and its perimeter reduced to concentrate
the fish. The carrier vessel comes alongside the net and pumps
29
-------
•the catch aboard. The catch is generally delivered to the
reduction plant within one day of landing. The holds of some
vessels are refrigerated, allowing the carrier to remain at sea
for longer periods.
The fishing season in the Atlantic runs from April to December.
Table 8 lists the typical seasons for the North, Middle and South
Atlantic.
The fishing season on the Gulf-coast runs from May to October
with peak months in July and August (2) .
Ninety-nine percent of the menhaden landed in the U.S. are
reduced for fish meal, oil, and fish solubles. The fish meal is
primarily utilized as a protein supplement in animal feeds. That
oil which is exported is used in shortening and margarine,
domestically it is used in protective coatings, lubricants,
medicinals, cosmetics and some soaps. A limited market exists
for fish solubles as a liquid fertilizer. They are also combined
with fish meal for use as animal feed.
Meal, oil, and solubles are extracted from the fish via a wet
reduction process. This process consists of cooking the fish
with live steam at about 2<*0°F. The cooked fish are then
pressed, separating the fish into press cake (solids) and press
liquor (liquid). The press cake is dryed, ground, and sold as
fish meal. The press liquor is clarified and the oil is
separated. The oil is then further refined, stored and shipped.
The de-oiled press liquor, known as stickwater, is usually
evaporated to about 50 percent solids and sold as fish solubles.
Anchovy
The northern anchovy (Enqraulis mordax) is a small pelagic fish,
averaging six inches in length at maturity, which is found in
large schools off the west coast of North America, Feeding on
plankton as well as small fish, the anchovy '
-------
TOTAL LANDINGS
ATLANTIC LANDINGS
— GULF LANOINBS
\
A
i960 1961
—I
1963
1964 1965 1966 1967 i968 1969 1970
—,—
1971
Figure 9. Atlantic and Gulf menhaden landings, 1960-1971 (1)
-------
WSHOWIS
MCtFIC MMHKS
OJ
fSi
Figure 10. 'California landings of Pacific sardines and anchovies (3)
-------
acceptance of the canned product, landings declined to 11,600 kkg
(19,400 tons) in 1957 and 4720 kkg (5200 tons) in 1958 (3).
Landings did not again exceed 4500 kkg (5000 tons) until, 1966
when, for the first time in over 40 years, anchovy were fished
mainly for reduction purposes (4). The major portion of the
anchovy harvest is now utilized by the reduction industry4 The
season quota for the industry is currently 104,000 kkg (115,000
tons) (1) .
The total adult biomass of anchovy has been estimated to be 4.1
to 5.1 million kkg (4.5 to 5.6 million tons), 50 percent of which
resides off California (4), The 1972 harvest of anchovy was
67,678 kkg (74,535 tons), up 41 percent from 1971 (1) .
Preliminary figures indicate the catch for 1973 was higher than
previous years (1) ,
Once caught, the anchovy are stored'in the boat holds, until they'
are pumped directly into the plant. Reduction of anchovy to fish
meal, oil and solids is essentially the same process as that
employed using menhaden.
FINFISH
The term wfinfish" is used in this section to refer to those
fishes (excluding shellfishes) which are processed for human
consumption. Included are pelagic species such as salmon,
herring, ocean perch, mackerel, etc.; and benthic species such as
halibut, flounder, cod, sole, etc. Finfish landings it) 1972
totaled 650 million kg (1432 million Ibs), which represented
about 30 percent, of the total landings for that year (1) .
As changes in species availability, consumer demand, and food
technology occur, the quantities of various types of fishes har-
vested and the methods of processing vary considerably. Over the
years the industry has shifted emphasis from salting, drying,
smoking, and pickling to freezing and canning as methods of pre-
servation. In most cases the fish are prepared by evisceration,
then reduction to fillets or sections, and subsequently
application of preservation technology. Each of the various
finfish processing industries considered during this study are
introduced below; a more detailed process description for each
appears in Section IV,
Salmon
One of the most important finfish processing segments covered was
the preservation of salmon by canning and freezing.
The first salmon cannery was located on the Sacramento River Is
California and produced 2000 cases in 1864. Soon canneries
appeared along most major river systems of the West Coast, Local
regulation of the fishery began in 1866. However, growing
33
-------
urbanization and resultant pressure on the salmon spawning runs
has significantly reduced the number of plants along the West
Coast. The largest segment of the fishery is now centered in
Alaska.
Five species of Pacific salmon are harvested in Alaska, Oregon
and Washington. This harvest comprised 8.4 percent of the total
United States landings and 16.1 percent of the relative value in
1972 (1) . Eighty-six percent of the salmon harvested in 1972
were caught in Alaska and were processed by 43 plants. Figure 11
shows the Alaska salmon catch by species for the past 15 years.
Most of the remaining 14 percent of the salmon harvest was landed
in Oregon and Washington, and processed by 20 plants. The 1972
Pacific salmon pack of 98,400 kkg (217 million Ibs) , down 43,300
kkg (95.4 million Ibs) from 1971, was one of the; poorest years on
record. The 1973 season in Alaska was less productive than the
1972 season; the 1973 Puget Sound season was also unimpressive.
Processing plants in Alaska are typically located in isolated
areas or in small towns, centers of production in Alaska include
Dillingham, Naknek, Chignik, Kodiak, seward, Petersburg, Wrangell
and Ketchikan. Most salmon processing in Washington takes place
in the Puget Sound area, and, in Oregon, around the mouth of the
Columbia River.
The salmon are most .often frozen and canned; relatively few are
sold on the fresh market. There, recently has been a trend toward
an increase in the volume of frozen salmon and a decrease in can-
ned salmon. The 1972 canned salmon pack is described by area and
species in Table 9.
Because of short seasons (Table 10) .and the large numbers of fish
to be processed, the plants in Alaska are typically larger and
operate longer hours than plants in Washington and Oregon.
Season peaks in Oregon and Washington are not as well defined as
those in Alaska; good fishing is available for longer periods of
time. Alaska salmon canning plants were observed to contain as
many as five lines (individual canning lines) and process "around
the clock" if enough fish were being caught. The freezing
operations were also often observed to be processing 24 hours per
day in Alaska.
Severe winters, foreign fishing pressure and "off" years have
greatly reduced the recent Bristol Bay red, (also called sockeye
or blue back) salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) runs. These fish
populations typically fluctuate on a five-year cycle. The
largest portion of the 1970 red salmon catch was harvested in
Bristol Bay with the main center of processing located at Naknek.
The red salmon average 2.3 kg to 3.2 kg (five to seven Ibs) at
maturity. The last "peak" year occurred in 1970, when over
68,100 kkg (150 million Ibs) were harvested. Only 22,200 kkg (49
million Ibs) were harvested in the U.S. in 1972. In addition to
Bristol Bay, other areas with good sockeye runs are Chignik,
Copper River, Fraser River (British Columbia) and the rivers
34
-------
CO
01
EL
3C 50
25 4.
REDS . •
PIHKS /V- i
CHUMS O 0
KINGS O d
SILVERS O+ + + *-*«
1996 1359 I960 1961 I9« 1963 1961 1965 f366 Be? »69 1965 1970 1971 I9T2 1973
Fiqure 11. Alaska salmon landings by species (1)
-------
Table 9. 1972 Pacific canned salmon packs and values (1)
OJ
o>
Alaska
Species
Red or
sockeye
Pink
Chum
Silver
or coho
King or
chinook &
steelhead*
TOTAL
Cases
x 1000
519.9
610.8
473
50.4
13.2
1,667.3^
Value ($)
x 1000
35,013
28,008
18,761
2,566
652
85,000
Washington
Cases
x 1000
107.6
12.8
52.8
9.5
7.6
190.3
Value ($)
x 1000
7,894
580
2,113
944
393
11,924
Oregon
Cases
x 1000
4.7
0.4
1.0
7.3
21.1
34.5
Value ($
x 1000
351
38
42
274
1,229
1,934
* Note that the steelhead is not truly a salmon? rather it is an anadramous rainbow trout,
-------
CO
SALMOf
HALIBU
a
PINK _
SOCKEYE
CHUM__
COHO
KING
f
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
!*+<
JUNE
t»*<
>+•+++<
JULY
!*•><
>**|
*•**•*•*
>+•••<
AUG
«**!
|»^
|**4
••••<*
K*-*^*-
SEPT
»^|
•^1
>**+*.
OCT
NOV
DEC
Table 10. Processing season peaks for.Alaska salmon and halibut (6)(7)
-------
flowing into Puget Sound. The red salmon cycle in the Fraser
River is typically a four year cycle. Many Eraser River fish are
harvested by U.S. fishermen before entering Canadian territorial
waters.
Pink, or humpbacked salmon CO. gorbuscha) range from Northern
California to the Bering Sea, but most are harvested in Central
and Southeastern Alaska and Puget Sound. These salmon peak
typically on a two-year cycle, with *large runs occurring in even-
numbered years. However, some areas may have runs of equal sizes
in successive years. In 1972, 22,200 kkg fi8.8 million Ibs) of
this species were harvested. Each fish at maturity weighs 1.4 kg
to 2.3 kg (three to five Ibs) .
Caught incidentally along with the red and pink salmon, over
18,600 kkg (41 million Ibs) Of chum, or dog salmon (O. ketaj were
harvested in 1972. This fish, like the pink salmon, ranges from
Northern California to the Bering Sea. Special late seasons for
gill netting the dog salmon are held in Alaska. Their average
weight is 2.7 kg to 3,6 kg (six to eight Ibs). Coho, or silver
salmon (O. kisutch) and the king, or Chinook salmon (P..
tschawytsgha) are caught mainly in Southeastern Alaska and along
the Oregon and Washington coasts, A well-known king salmon run
also occurs at Dillingham in Bristol Bay. The coho salmon caught
in 1972 totaled 2400 kkg (5.3 million Ibs) and the kings
harvested weighed 1500 kkg (3.2 million Ibs) «, King salmon
average 5.1 kg to 11.ft kg (12 to 25 Ibs), while coho salmon range
from 2.7 to ft.l kg (six to nine Ibs) at maturity.
Regulation of the salmon fishery is accomplished by employing
quotas (limiting the catch) and limitations on vessel and equip-
ment size and efficiency. Seasons in Bristol Bay are generally
set on a day-to-day basis with closures in peak years occurring
when the daily capacity of the canneries is reached. In "off"
years, closures are enforced when escapement is not adequate to
sustain the population. Central and Southeastern Alaska seasons
are set on a weekly basis. The Puget Sound red salmon fishery is
regulated by a bilateral commission involving the United states
and Canada, since many of the fish come from the Fraser River in
British Columbia. Seasons are set to provide proper escapement
levels in the other areas of Oregon and Washington, too.
Salmon are harvested primarily by three different methods:
trolling, purse seining and gill netting. Trolling involves four
to eight weighted lines fished at various depths. One or two men
handle the relatively small boats. Both artificial lures and
natural bait are used. Troll"harvested fish are dressed and iced
as soon as they are caught, allowing a boat to be at sea seven to
ten days at a time. Salmon caught in this manner are usually
frozen, but may be canned. High prices are paid for fish caught
in this manner, making trolling economically attractive. Coho
and king salmon are most often caught by the trolling method.
38
-------
The purse seine is a very effective harvesting method when fish
can be found congregated or schooled. The net is laid in a
circle with one end attached to the power skiff. Once the circle
is closed, the net is pursed at the bottom to prevent fish from
escaping. The net is retrieved by passing it through a power
block. Once the salmon are in a sufficiently small area, they
are bailed onto the boat. This type of net is used effectively
in Central and Southeastern Alaska, and in the Puget Sound area.
The last method, gill netting, can be fished from boats (drift
gill netting) or from shore (set gill netting). Both types catch
the fish by entanglement; nets are usually set across migration
routes. The nets are periodically "picked" so the fish can be
taken to the processing plant. This method is used primarily in
Bristol Bay.
A limited number of fish are also taken by Indians using traps
and fish wheels. These harvesting methods are illegal for all
but native fishermen.
Larger vessels, called tenders, usually bring the salmon from the
fishing grounds to the processing plant. Fishing boats coming
into the plant because of breakdowns and supply shortages also
deliver fish to the plant. It is more common for trollers to
deliver directly to the plant than seiners and gill netteirs.
Tenders using chilled brine can store the fish up to four days
without freezing. Dry tenders, which are rapidly becoming
obsolete, must return to the processing plants daily. A few
tenders ice their fish.
The salmon are unloaded from the vessels by means of either
air/vacuum, elevator, or bucket systems, conveyed into the plant
and sorted by species into holding bins, Salmon to be canned are
usually put through a butchering machine which removes the head,
tail, fins, a.id visceraj manual butchering is still practiced in
some plants. The cleaned salmon are inspected and conveyed to
filling machines equipped with gang knives which cut the salmon
into appropriate sized sections designed to fit the various sized
cans. The filled cans, which may be handpacked in some plants,
are then seamed and retorted. Other products, such as eggs and
milt, are retained for human consumption; heads, fins, and
viscera are either discharged or rendered into oil and meal.
Salmon to be frozen are beheaded and manually eviscerated before
a final cleaning in a rinse tank. Troll-caught fish are cleaned
at sea and need only beheading and rinsing. The fish are then
quick-frozen in blast or plate freezers at approximately -34°C (-
29°F). After glazing (covering of the fish with ice or a polymer
solution), which protects them from dehydration, the fish are
stored until export. Most frozen salmon are exported to Japan
and Europe.
Bottom Fish
39
-------
"Bottom fish," for the purpose of this report, refers to several
species of Atlantic, Gulf, or Pacific food fishes. The types of
fish included vary according to the geographic area and the
harvesting method employed. Also, depending on the locality,
different generic names are applied to these kinds of fishes.
The term "bottom fish" is used primarily on the West Coast. The
term "finfish" usually refers to those species of fish which are
caught together, are predominantly pelagic varieties, and are
primarily handled by plants located in the Middle, Southern
Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions. "Ground fish" refers to
varieties of fish that inhabit the North Atlantic region.
Bottom fish are ordinarily limited to the continental shelf,
living on or near the ocean bottom. On the East Coast the shelf
may extend (in places) , over 200 miles, while the West Coast is
characterized by a narrower shelf extending about ten miles.
These continental shelves provide a rich environment for the
proliferation of this fishery resource. United states landings
of classified species of bottom fish were 238,000 kkg (525
million Ibs) in 1972, which represents 35 percent of the total
landings of edible finfish for that year.
Individual plants may utilize both mechanical and conventional
means to prepare fish portions or whole fish for market. The
majority of the fish is frozen while the remainder is marketed
fresh.
With respect to the bottom fish found off the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts, more than 40 different species are harvested. Table 11
lists the species which constitute the majority of the landings.
The fishing season is open all year, with the peak occurring
during the summer months. Because of the infringement of foreign
fishing vessels, the ground fish industry in. the North Atlantic
is decreasing in size. However, recent legislative action has
been aimed at re-defining the limits of these rich fishing
grounds, and hopefully will result in an equitable distribution
of the catch among the various countries.
The Pacific Coast bottom fishery appears to be a relatively
stable industry at present. The current limits on the growth of
the industry are determined mainly by fishing conditions and
market demand. The peak season usually occurs during the summer
months; however, for most species, the season is continuous.
Table 12 lists average landings of the major Pacific bottom fish
species. Market demand is affected by consumer preference,
special seasons, and labor availability. Future expansion of the
industry will probably be dependent on an increased demand for
such products as fish protein concentrate or fish flesh.
Ground fish in the North Atlantic and bottom fish on the
Northwest Coast are harvested primarily by large trawlers. A
trawler is a boat equipped with a submersible net, termed an
otter trawl, which is dragged behind the boat at various depths
40
-------
Table 11. Major species of Atlantic
and Gulf bottom fish (1)
Species
Landings
1967-1971 average (kkg)
Flounder:
yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea)
blackback (Psuedopleuronectes
americanusl
other~~~
Ocean perch (Sebastes marinus)
Whiting (Marluccius bilinearis)
Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
Cod (Gadus morhua)
Mullet (Musel cephalus)
Seatrout:
gray (Cynoscion regalis)
other (Cynoscion spp.)
Pollock (Pollachius virens)
Croaker (Micropogon undulatus)
30,267
10,438
4673
27,545
24,646
23,892
23,325
14,482
2811
3230
4036
3126
41
-------
Table 12. Major species of
Pacific bottom fish
Species
Landings
1967-1971 average (kkg)
Flounders (numerous species)
Rockfishes (numerous Sebastes
species)
Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus)
Hake (Merluccius productus)
Red Snapper (Sebastes rubirrimus)
Cod (Gadus macrocephalus)
20,697
12,047
6194
6030
4811
2560
42
-------
depending on the types of fish pursued. The mouth of the net is
kept open by a cork line on top, a lead line on the bottom, and
"doors" (metal or wood planning surfaces) on the sides. The fish
are swept into the mouth of the net and accumulate in the heavily
reinforced rear portion, the cod end.
The smaller "finfish" fishery on the South Atlantic Coast and
Gulf Coast is harvested by various methods, depending on
locality. The otter trawl is the major method used in the Gulf.
Haul netting and pound netting are two methods regularly used
along the mid-Atlantic Coast; the third method is gill netting.
Haul netting is a form of beach seining in which a long net is
anchored to the shore, pulled out to sea, then circled around and
brought back into the beach. The area impounded by the net is
then shrunk by pulling the net onto the beach, and the trapped
fish are collected. The second method, "pound netting," involves
stringing a net perpendicularly to the shore and creating a
circular impoundment at the offshore end of the net. As the fish
swim into the net, they tend to follow it seaward until they
reach the impoundment, in which they are trapped.
Bottom fish processing primarily involves the preparation of
filleted portions for the fresh or frozen market. Whole fish and
fish cakes may also be prepared depending on the region and kind
of fish processed. The fish are delivered to the docks and, if
not previously done on the vessel, are sorted according to
species. Fish to be filleted are passed through a pre-rinse and
transported to the fillet tables where skilled workers cut away
the two fleshy sides. These portions are then either
mechanically or manually skinned prior to packaging. Whole fish
are run through a descaling machine, or may be descaled by hand,
and eviscerated. Most whole fish go directly to the fresh
market,
A relatively new process within the United States, utilizes
recently-developed flesh separating machinery to extract flesh
from fish. Frozen cakes and blocks are the end products.
Although new, the process holds much promise because it can
attain high yields, utilize previously ignored fish species, and
serve large markets. The foundation for this process was laid
when Japanese and German inventors created the prototype
machinery for extracting flesh from eviscerated fish without
incorporating bone and skin into the finished product. The
method of operation essentially is a shearing and pressing action
created by a rotating perforated drum bearing against a slower
moving belt that holds the fish tightly against the drum.
Halibut
Two species of halibut are harvested in the United States. The
Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglpssus>, which is harvested
off the Northeast Coast, comprised less than one percent of the
total halibut catch in 1972. The Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus
• 43
-------
stenolepis) is harvested from Northern California to Nome, Maska
(Figure 12). Alaska and Washington accounted for 69 and 31
percent, respectively, of the west Coast harvest in 1969.
Processing plants in Alaska are typically located in small towns
such as Sand Point, Kodiak, Seward, Juneau, Pelican, Sitka,
Petersburg and Ketchikan. The centers of production in
Washington are Bellingham and Seattle.
The halibut fishery was first conducted over the entire year,
with most of the catch occurring between March and October.
Season closures and catch limits were instituted in the early
1930*s when the stocks became severely depleted. The Pacific
halibut fishery is now regulated by the International Pacific
Halibut Commission (IPHC) to which the United Statesf Canada, and
Japan belong. It is the IPHC that does most research on and
regulation of the fishery. The harvest of the halibut in the
United States has been dropping in recent years (Figure 13) and
the 1974 halibut quota may be less than 30 million pounds for
both the United States and Canada combined (5). IPHC figures
estimate the 1970 annual loss to Canadian and American fishermen
at 3400 kkg (7.5 million Ibs). Japan and Russia harvested most
of their halibut while trawling for ocean perch and shrimp. As a
member of the Commission, Japan is supposed to return the cauqht
halibut to the ocean, but survival of these fish is poor (6).
Halibut fishing is effected with "longlines," which are composed
of numerous smaller units, called "skates," that are
approximately 457 m (1500 ft) long. Hooks and smaller lines
called "beckets" are attached to the skate at intervals ranging
between 4.0 m (13 ft) to 7.9 m (26 ft). The hooks are baited
with a variety of fish including salmon heads and tails, herring,
and octopus. The longlines {sometimes several miles in length)
are usually fished at depths of 82 m (270 ft) to 274 m (900 ft)
from four to 30 hours. Anchors are used to keep the longlines in
place and flags are used to mark the ends of the lines.
Once the halibut are brought on board the boat, they are imme-
diately butchered and iced. Some halibut are beheaded, others
are not. Depending on vessel size, 4.5 kkg (5 tons) to 36.3 kkg
(40 tons) of crushed or powdered ice is used on each trip. The
average length of a trip in Southeastern Alaska is 13 days,
whereas 20 to 25 days is common in the Alaskan Gulf (8).
After delivery to the processing plant the halibut may be either
frozen whole or reduced to skinned, boneless meat sections known
as "fletches.n Upon receipt at the docks, the fish are beheaded,
if they haven't been previously, the coelom flushed of ice, and
then the fish are graded according to size. Depending on the
plant, fish to be frozen whole are washed either manually or
mechanically and transferred to freezing tunnels which quick
freeze the fish at -45°C (-49°F). Further processing of the
halibut into portions then takes place after shipment to a retail
packaging firm. Processors that "fletch" the halibut grade them
into lots of under 27 kg (60 Ibs) and over 27 kq (60 Ibs); the
44
-------
105°
120°
135°
150°
165° 180° 165° 150° 135°
120°
105°
70'
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PACIFIC HALIBUT
MAJOR FISHING GROUNDS
150°
135°
Figure 12. Distribution of the Pacific halibut (8)
-------
CM
r-
a\
tl
,£»
•H
o
(0
tJl
d
•H
OT
CO
•-4
0)
•rH
CM
(«punod 01 X) S9NIONWT 1SWOO 1S3» 'S'H
46
-------
fish under 27 kg are frozen whole as previously mentioned. Those
fish greater than 27 kg are butchered to remove four fletches.
These sections are then trimmed, washed, and quick frozen.
Larger trimmings are marketed to be smoked, breaded, etc., and
the large fletches are usually distributed to institutional
outlets from which steaks are then cut.
Sea Herring
Atlantic herring {Clupea harenqus harengus) are one of the most
abundant food fishes in the North Atlantic, especially in the
Gulf of Maine. The Pacific herring {Clupea harengus ppllasi)
fishery has never been large and has been steadily declining
since 1952. The same is true of the Pacific sardine (Sardinops
caeruleus) , which has been on the decline since 19*18; commercial
landings ceased after 1919 in British Columbia, Washington and
Oregon (3) . A law was passed by the California legislature in
1967 establishing a moratorium on the taking of sardines in
California waters. No Pacific sardines have been -canned since
1968 (1) .
The canning of small, immature fish as sardines is the most
important use of Atlantic herring. The use of herring for
reduction to fish meal has declined as the resource declined and
as the value for direct human food increased. The filleting of
both the Atlantic and Pacific herring is a small but expanding
industry. Landings of sea herring in 1972 totaled 46,300 kkg
(102 million Ibs), up 17 percent from 1971 (1). The North
Atlantic harvest comprised 85 percent of the 1972 total; Maine
supplied well over half the sardines consumed in the United
States.
Sardines
The first United States commercial sardine canning operation was
established at Eastport, Maine in 1871 and the industry has
remained centered in that state. During the 1950's, the number
of canneries averaged about 45; however, because of decreasing
fish supplies, foreign competition, consolidation, and other
factors, the number of active processing operations has decreased
to 17 (10). Most of the plants are relatively old and are built
on piling over the water. Figure 14 shows the U.S. production of
canned sardines for the past 12 years.
Sardines are harvested by three methods: purse seine's, weirs,
and stop seines. Stop seines and weirs are used to trap the fish
while they are in a cove at high tide. When the tide starts to
recede the fish try to leave the bight and become entrapped in
the net.
After the fish are caught the scales are removed prior to
storing. The "pearl essence" from the scales is used in the
47
-------
O3
w
en
Q
a
D
O
ft
2
O
H
H
s
100
75
50
25
0
I960
1964
1968
1972
Figure 14. u.S. production and imports of canned sardines, 1960-1972
-------
manufacture of cosmetics, lacquers, and imitation pearls. The
fish themselves are salted down, layer by layer, to preserve them
while in the hold. The fish are usually pumped out of the boat
and transferred to refrigerated brine tanks for storage. They
are then flumed or mechanically conveyed to the cutting tables,
where the heads and tai ' s are removed. Depending on size, four
to twenty fish are hancl <;-•••* eked into the characteristic flat
sardine can. The fish are then precooked in a "steam box" for 30
minutes in the open cans. The cans are then removed, drained,
and oils or sauces are added, after which they are vacuum sealed.
The sealed cans are retorted to sterilize the product prior to
storage or shipment.
Herring Filleting
Sea herring fillets are produced on both the East and West
Coasts, with the processing centers located in Southeastern
Alaska and in Hew England„ The filleting operation is a
relatively recent development, having been used i;n New England
for only three years and having started in Alaska just last year.
The market for herring fillets is expanding; the future of this
new utilization method looks promising.
The fish are harvested and delivered to the processor in the same
manner as described,for the sardine canning operation. They are
passed through a machine which first removes the head, tail, and
viscera and then splits the fish into boneless sections or
fillets. The fillets are sorted, boxed, and frozen for export.
During the spawning season, the roe and milt are sometimes
recovered and exported to Japan and England, respectively,
SHELLFISH . ' ' '
The term "shellfish" in this report applies to those species of
marine animals belonging to the following phyla: 1) mollusea,
such as clams, oysters, abalonef scallops, :and conchs; 2) arth-
ropoda, such as lobsters; and 3) echinodermata, such as sea
urchins. Shellfish processing is practiced along much of the
U.S. coast, with both isolated and concentrated centers of
production. In 1972, 86,000 kkg (190 million Ibs) of edible
shellfish were landed in the U.S., with a value of 380 million
dollars (1). Table 13 summarizes the 1972 landings and values
for the most important shellfish species, statistics on landings
for clams, oysters and scallops are shown in weights of meats
excluding the shell. Landings for lobsters are shown in round
(live) weight.
Clams
The harvesting of clams accounts for about two percent of .the
volume of the landings in the U-S» seafood industry and 4.8
percent of the total value. The most important types are the
surf, hard, and soft clams.
49
-------
Table 13. U.S. landings of shellfish by species
en
o
1971
Species
Clams :
Hard
Soft
Surf
Other
Oysters
Scallops :
Bay
Calico
Sea
Weight (Ibs)
x 1000
17,216
11,829
52,552
1062
54,585
1455
1566
6264
Value {$)
x 1000
17,025
6467
6905
143
30,426
2428
783
8829
1972
Weight (Ibs)
x 1000
16,336
8769
63,441
554
52,546
479
1342
6995
Value ($)
x 1000
18,501
5252
7931
175
33,819
786
843
12,625
1967-1971
(average)
Weight (Ibs)
x 1000
16.206
11,680
51,010
1374
56,446
1574
1019
9386
-------
About 87 percent of the clam harvest occurs in the mid-Atlantic
region, with about 11 percent in New England and 2 percent in
other areas. Of the clams harvested in the mid-Atlantic region,
61 percent are surf, 20 percent hard, and 17 percent soft, with 2
percent being miscellaneous species (1} .
The surf clam (Spisula solidissina) , also known as bar, hand,
sea, beach, or skimmer clam, is found from the southern part of
the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the northern shore of the Gulf of
Mexico. Commercially harvested clams are found at depths of from
8 to 58 m (25 to 190 ft). The clams bury themselves to a depth
of about 15 to 20 cm (6 to 8 in.) in a a substrata of gravel,
sand, or muddy sand. Their size varies with geographic location.
In the most productive area, from Long Island to Virginia, the
clams range from 15 to 22 cm (6 to 8-3/4 in.) . The marketed
clams average 5 to 6 years in age; natural life spans are about
17 years.
Surf clams are harvested all year, weather permitting, for 8 to
12 hours per day, about 20 miles from shore, using a 1 to 2 m (3
to 6 ft) wide steel dredge. A hose pumping about 5700 to 11,000
1 of water per minute (1500 to 3000 gpm) breaks up the ocean
bottom in front of the dredge, enabling the clams to be loosened
and netted. A full dredge yields from 760 to 910 1 (25 to 30 bu)
(11) -
The processing of surf clams consists of three basic operations:
shucking, debellying, and packing. The clams are either
mechanically or hand shucked. Hand shucking operations generally
use a hot water cooker before removing the clam from the shell.
Mechanical operations use a steam cooker or a shucking furnace.
The meat is then removed from the shell by the use of a brine
flotation tank. The shells are stockpiled and utilized in
landfills or road construction or piled to dry for subsequent use
as media for shellfish larvae attachment.
The clams are often debellied manually, although there is a trend
to automate this operation. The viscera and gonads removed from
the surf clam are either dumped directly into the adjacent
receiving waters, or saved for bait or hog food. There are
several final products: fresh pack as whole clams, canned, and
frozen clams.
The several washing operations result in a high volume of
wastewater, especially in the mechanized plants.
Hard Clams
"Hard clam" refers to a quahog or quauhog (Meicenania mencenania
Venus meicenania, Cvprina islandica, Arlica islandica), butter
clam (Saxidonus nuttali) , and little neck clam (Papes staminea).
The hard clam, also known as cherry stone, chatter, little neck,
or round clam, is found from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the
51
-------
Gulf of Mexico with a few Pacific Coast locations; however, the
main centers of industrial activity are Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New York, North Carolina, Florida and Washington.
The adult clam is 5 to 10 cm (2-4 in.) long. It is found on
sandy, muddy substrata from the high tide line to depths of about
18 m (60 ft) and 24 to 46 m (80 to 150 ft) deep, three to twelve
miles off shore. The clam meat has a similar chemical
composition to oyster, but contains more protein per unit weight.
Manual means such as rakes, and oyster tongs are used . inshore,
whereas, power operated Nantueket-type dredges are used offshore.
The dredge acts as a multi-toothed plow, digging through the
bottom and scooping the shellfish into an attached bag.
Ocean quahogs are harvested all year and the clam beds, unlike
inshore areas, remain unmanaged. The clams arrive at the
shucking houses by truck 15 to 30 hours after being harvested.
They are then washed and shucked into metal colanders, washed,
weighed, and packaged. The operation is very similar to a manual
oyster shucking operation. The hard clams have a longer frozen
shelf life than the other clams; however, a few are sold fresh
for use in chowder (12).
Soft Clams
The soft clam (Mya anenonia) is located on the East Coast from
Labrador to North Carolina, with a few locations on the West
Coast. The economically important centers range from Maine to
Massachusetts and the Chesapeake Bay region. It is a small
industry which operates in conjunction with the oyster and blue
crab business. Clams are processed all year except during bad
weather, in parts of the summer when normal dieoff takes place,
and when water quality fails to meet state regulations.
In New England, where the soft clams are mainly intertidal, hand
forks or hand hoes are the dominant harvesting techniques. The
hydraulic dredge is used in the Chesapeake Bay area. The dredge
utilizes water pressure to disturb the bottom sediments and a
conveyer belt brings the clams from the 2,5 to 6 meter (8 to 20
ft) depth to the surface, where the mature clams are sorted out.
At the present time, about 21,000 cu m (700,000 bushels) are
harvested by 150 licensed dredgers per year in the Chesapeake Bay
area (13).
The number of clam beds is being reduced by a combination of
factors such as pollution from municipal and industrial wastes,
high temperatures, siltation, low salinity and dredging which has
stunted growth and led to high bacterial counts. The market
demand is increasing due to the increasing use of the surf clam.
Recent trends are toward further processing using breading and
for chowders,
52
-------
The processing of soft, clams is very similar to the processing of
hand shucked oysters. The entire clam is removed from the shell,
washed, fresh packed, and shipped for further processing since
they are rarely eaten raw. Those which are not fresh packed are
canned, sold in the shell, or used for bait by fishing boats.
Most plants are small, employing 8 to 30 shuckers (12) .
OYSTERS
The three species of oyster important in the United States are
the American, Eastern, or Virginia oyster (Cassostrea virginica) ,
the Japanese or Pacific oyster f Cassostrea giqass) , and the
Olympia or native oyster (Ostrea Igrida) . The eastern oyster is
found on the east coast of North America and on the Gulf Coast.
In the north it takes four to five years to reach a marketable
size of 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 in.) and less than one-and-one-half
years in the Gulf. Pacific oyster seed originates in Japan and
is planted along the West Coast. The shell is- elongated and
grows to 30 cm (12 in.) or longer. The Olympia oyster , native to
the Northwest, rarely exceed six cm (2.75 in.)
Oysters are marketed in the shell, fresh packed, steamed, smoked,
frozen, breaded, and in chowders and stews. A large amount is
utilized by restaurants. The shell is used commercially as
poultry food, in fertilizer, concrete, cement, Pharmaceuticals,
road construction, and as media for oyster larvae attachment.
Harvesting varies according to the area. On the West Coast, the
oyster seed used is sent from Japan annually and may be strung on
wires which are suspended from wooden racks, which are then
suspended in the water. After a year the wires are cut, allowing
the oysters to continue to grow on the bottom.
In New England, oysters are harvested by large suction dredges,
with most of the beds being privately owned and managed. In
contrast, only antiquated techniques are allowed by State law in
Maryland* s Chesapeake Bay. Harvesting occurs between September
15 and the end of April using hand tongs and sail dredging. In
Virginia, the season is from October to March on public grounds
and all year on beds leased from the State. Oysters are
harvested using a boat towing a. four foot wide dredge. The
dredge acts as a plow, digging through the bottom and scooping
the oysters into attached bags, In the southern states the
oyster flats are often exposed at low water and hand picking,
grabs, and hooks are most often used. Overall, dredges harvest
about 63 percent; tongs, about 36 percent; and forks, rakes, and
hand picking, the remainder.
The harvest of oysters in the tjnittel States by all methods totals
about 22,000 to 27,000 kkg (50 to 60 million Ibs) live weight.
About 80 percent of the total production is taken from the
Chesapeake Bay and Gulf Coast regions, with the largest volume
landed in the Chesapeake Bay, particularly in Maryland (15) .
S3
-------
Figure 15 reviews the history of oyster meat production in the
United States by region.
Aquaculture, using techniques developed by the Japanese, is being
used increasingly to raise production. It has been found that by
"artificially" optimizing conditions more oysters can be grown
per unit area of bottom, the growth rate can be doubled, they can
be grown in areas where the bottom is unsuitable, the quality of
the meat is improved, and predator loss is reduced. Figure 16
shows a comparison of the growth of raft and bottom grown oysters
at one location in New England. Today, Japan uses aquaeulture
nearly exclusively and harvests 21 kkg (23 tons) of meat per acre
per year; the United States averages about 2 tons per acre per
year.
There are several factors which will influence the oyster
industry in the future. The application of scientific techniques
must increase to raise production. Due to a shortage of workers
and high labor costs, mechanical shucking devices must be
designed. It may be possible to increase production by
developing hybrids which are faster growing, disease resistant,
better adapted to environmental conditions, uniform in size and
shape, and more prolific. Oysters are very sensitive to
environmental conditions. The number of acres from which oysters
can be harvested has been decreasing yearly and low cost foreign
imports have been cutting into the American market.
The process for hand shucked oysters is essentially the same,
regardless of species, plant size, or location. On the West
Coast, the oysters are unloaded from the boat at the plant by
hand or conveyor belt and washed by nozzles suspended above the
belt. On the East Coast, more of the oysters are trucked to the
plants. The oysters are then shucked, washed, and fresh packed
in jars or cans.
Oyster canning, in this country, is rapidly becoming uneconomical
due to the import of Japanese and Korean products. Broken
oysters are sometimes canned as stew. The oysters are first
cooked with spices and preservatives in large vats for 30
minutes. The meat is then added to the cans along with whole
milk and butter, sealed and retorted.
The steamed oyster process, which is used in the Middle Atlantic,
is considerably more mechanized than the hand shucked oyster
process. The oysters are first mechanically shucked to jar the
shells far enough apart to allow steam to enter during the
cooking. After steam cooking, the meat is separated using brine
flotation tanks, washed and packed into cans. The juice from the
steaming operation is added to the can before sealing. A small
number of oysters are also smoked. The shucked oyster is smoked
with apple wood or other hardwood species. The meat is then
placed in a glass or tin wi€h a small amount of vegetable oil and
sealed.
54
-------
I88O 90
30
40
SO
60 I»TO
125 T
ioo -•
25 -
\
\ / v CHESAPEAKE »*T
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
NEW ENGLAND
I8BO 90 1900 10
30 40
Figure 15. Oyster meat production by region (]8)
55
-------
70 ••
DIFFERENCE OF
20.46 mm.
DIFFERENCE OF
13.14 mm.
0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 H---I---I —' I 1 ' 1 ' ' ' 1 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJ JASOND
1957
1958
Figure 16. Comparison of raft-mnd bottom-grown oysters (is)
-------
Scallops
Four species of scallops are economically significant in the
United States: bay scallops (Aeguipecten irradians), calico
scallops (Pecten gibbus) , sea scallops (Placopecten gtagelanicus) ,
and Alaskan scallops fPla tinopecten carinus). In this report,
sea and Alaskan scallops will be treated collectively as sea
scallops. The total scallop harvest in the United States has
been steadily declining, with the 1972 landings being 21 percent
lower than the five year average. Table 14 shows the scallop
landings by species for the last 10 years.
Of the three species of scallops harvested in the United States,
sea scallops comprise the majority of the landings, constitute ru.
an average of 78 percent of the total catch for the 1968-1972
period. Bay scallop landings averaged 13 percent of the total
for the five year period. Calico scallops, a relatively new
resource, comprised the remaining 9 percent of the average catcK
from 1968-1972. The calico scallop fishery is centered in the
Cape Canaveral area of Florida and in North Carolina. Estimates
for the future indicate that all species are being harv 3ted
below the level of maximum sustainable yield, but calico scallops
are virtually untapped as a resource.
The 1972 harvest of calico scallops was less than one percent of
the estimate of the maximum sustainable yield. The calico
scallop is very temperature sensitive, which causes great
fluctuations in the harvest. The 1973 market was poor due to low
temperatures, with only about 1200 kg (2600 Ibs) of meat
obtained? however, January, 197ft was reported to be a very good
month (16) .
Scallop harvesting is usually accomplished by scraping the bottom
with iron dredges of varying design. Sea scallops and calico
scallops are usually found on sandy or rocky, bottoms at depths up
to 270 m (150 fathoms). Most dredging is,conducted 12 or more
miles from the coast, sea scallops are commercially harvested
along the Atlantic Cost from Maine to Virginia, with the larger
Alaskan species currently being harvested only in the Gulf of
Alaska. Calico scallop's inhabit; warmer waters, and are
commercially harvested from Noifth Carolina to the east coast of
Florida. Bay scallops reside in eel grass on sandy or muddy
flats of bays and estuaries along the Atlantic Coast from
Massachusetts to Florida. Harvest-ing i§ accomplished either with
dredges or with dip nets and rakes, and the scale of operation is
much smaller than that of sea scallops.,
Processing is similar for the §ea and bay scallops. To avoid
degredation scallops are hand shucked immediately after landing
on the vessel. The shell closing muscle is removed and placed in
muslin bags which are held on ice for shipment to the processing
plant, and the remainder of the organism is discarded overboard.
The processing of sea and bay seallopp involves only a washing
and freezing operation; hence, the effluent has a small waste
57
-------
Table 14. Scallop landings by
species, 1963-1972
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Bay
1517
1887
1859
1780
1097
1491
2114
1700
1455
479
U.S. Landings
Calico
M-M
,
872
1857
1410
89
199
1833
1566
1342
x 1000
Sea
19,939
16,914
20,070
15,975
10,243
13,818
9312
7304
6264
6995
Ibs
Total
21,456
18,801
22,801
19,612
12,750
15,398
11,625
10,837
9285
8816
Imports
x 1000 Ibs
13,397
16,175
16,495
16,712
13,461
14,581
14,322
16,830
17,387
20,820
58
-------
load. The calico scallop process involves a heating operation
which opens the shell to facilitate the shucking and
evisceration.
Abalone
Eight species of abalone are found off the West Coast of the
United States, four of which comprise the bulk of the commercial
catch. These are the red, pink, white, and green varieties:
Haliotus rufescens, H. corruqata, H. sorenseni, and H. fulqens,
respectively. The abalone range extends from Sitka, Alaska
through Baja, California; however, the commercially important
species are concentrated in the California area from Monterey to
San Diego.
Abalone are relatively large gastropods which are found from the
intertidal zone out to deep water. The shells of the harvested
animals range from about 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 in.).' Abalone feed
almost exclusively on macroalgae and thus, are concentrated in
and around areas where large amounts of these algae flourish.
Although utilized by the Indians for thousands of years, abalone
were not commercially collected until the early 1850's. Rapid
depletion of the resource soon prompted the passing of a law in
1900 making it unlawful to fish commercially for abalone except
in deep water. Figure 17 summarizes the history of abalone
landings in California.
Restricted to deeper water, various diving methods have evolved
from early Japanese "sake barrel" diving, to the hard hat method,
and to the present use of light-weight gear. However, California
commercial fish laws still require the diver to be supplied by a
surface air source, thereby excluding scuba gear from all except
the sport fishery. Divers operating in 8 to 24 m (25 to 80 ft)
of water measure their catch, then pry the abalone off the medium
and collect it in a mesh basket which is hauled aboard the boat
by the surface tender. The tender boat, which may serve one or
more divers, then transports the catch to a receiving area from
which it is trucked to the various processing plants.
At the processer the abalone are shucked; then the large foot
muscle is cleared of viscera and washed. The outer sheath of the
muscle is trimmed off, the head.portion removed, and it is then
sliced into several steaks. The steaks are pounded to tenderize
them before packaging and freezing. The usual product form is
either fresh or frozen steaks which may or may not be breaded at
the plant.
59
-------
Figure 17. California abalone landings (3)
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The objective of categorization is to organize the industry into
segments whose uniqueness and internal homogeneity suggest the
consideration of separate effluent limitations. The initial
categorization of the fish meal, salmon, bottom fish, clam,
oyster, sardine, scallop, herring, and abalone segment of the
seafood processing industry study fell along commodity lines.
The advantage of initial commodity categorization is that it
automatically segments the industry into relatively homogeneous
groups, in terms of: type and variability of raw product
utilized, manufacturing processes employed, wastewater
characteristics, typical plant locations, and (often) economic
stature, geographic regionalization, and production levels.
First, three broad groups of subcategories; industrial fish,
finfish, and shellfish, were established because of basic
differences in processes or species. Excluded were the four
commodities covered under a previous study (Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Catfish, Crab, Shrimp, and Tuna Segment of the
Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source Category,
June 1974, EPA-440/l-74~020-a). Since this study covered a large
number of commodities, the approach was to group the industry
into the "more significant" and "less significant" wastewater
sources to make the most effective use of the time and money
available.
Through preliminary contacts with the industry and with experts
close to the industry, a "relative importance matrix" was
developed. This matrix used four basic parameters to determine
an "importance score" for each of several seafood commodities.
These parameters were: 1) organic waste loading (kg BOD/day), 2)
flow (cu m/day), 3) number of plants, and H) season variability.
A score of "one" or "zero" was assigned to each element in the
matrix and a total score obtained for each commodity by adding
the individual scores. A high score indicated that a relatively
large effort should be exerted to characterize the waste from
that segment of the industry; and a low score, a relatively small
effort. Tables 15 and 16 show the results of the matrix analyses
for the finfish and shellfish commodities, respectively.
Consultants and other knowledgeable persons in the particular
industry, government organizations, and universities were con-
tacted to determine specifics about major processing areas,
identities of plants, typical processing operations, seasons, raw
products utilized, production rates, and treatment facilities.
Typical plants with processing operations that are commonly used,
and with average water use and production rates were identified.
61
-------
Table 15. Relative importance matrix-
industrial fish and finflsh.
Commodity
and
Process
Menhaden
reduction
Anchovy
reduction
Salmon
canning
Sardine
canning
Bottom/
misc. fin-
fish (con-
ventional)
Bottom/
misc. fin-
fish (mech-
anized)
Fresh/
frozen
salmon
Halibut
freezing
Herring
filleting
Fish
flesh
Load
(BOD/
day)
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
Flow
(volume/
day)
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
Size
(number of
plants)
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
Seasonality
: 0
0
1
1
: o
1
0
1
1
1
0
Score
3
2
4
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
62
-------
Table 16. Relative importance matrix—
shellfish.
Commodity
and
Process
Clam meat
(mech-
anized)
Clam meat
(hand
shucked)
Fresh/
frozen
oysters
(hand
shucked)
Steamed/
canned
oysters
Abalone
Scallops
Load
(BOD/
day)
1
0
0
1
0
0
Flow
(volume/
day)
1
1
0
1
0
0
Size
(number of
plants)
1
1
1
1
. °
0
Seasonality
0
0
0
0
0
1
Score
3
2
1
3
0
1
63
-------
The field investigations were organized on a regional basis by
locating areas where suitable plants and industries tended to be
concentrated. The number of locations, plants, and samples
required to obtain the desired information were determined with
the help of the importance matrix. It was estimated that there
were about eight commodities with potentially high pollutional
significance, about twelve commodities with potentially medium
significance, and several other commodities of minimal
signficance.
A maximum of 1000 samples was allocated for this study. The
commodities of greatest pollutional significance were
characterized more accurately (by investigating more plants and
taking more samples) than those .of lesser significance. About 60
to 70 space-time total effluent and unit operation samples were
budgeted for each of the most important commodities. The unit
operations samples would be used to estimate material balances
and to indicate areas where process changes could reduce the
waste load. Medium-importance commodities were budgeted about 30
to 40 space-time samples each of total effluent unit operations.
The commodities of minimal importance were budgeted about 100
samples total. As the study progressed and more information was
obtained, the emphases on certain commodities changed. Those
commodities producing less waste than anticipated were sampled
less frequently and those producing more, were sampled more
frequently. •
In addition to collecting water samples, the field crews kept
daily logs reporting on factors regarding the plant and its
environment.
All data were reviewed and final subcategorization made based on
the following major factors: 1) form and quality of finished
product (commodity); 2) manufacturing processes and unit
operations; 3) wastewater characteristics (particularly flow,
total solids, 5-day BOD, and grease and oil) ; and H) geographic
location (particularly Alaska or non-Alaska). Several other
factors, such as variability in raw product supply and
production, condition of raw product on delivery to the
processing plant, variety of species being processed, harvesting
method, degree of preprocessing, age of plant, water
availability, and amenability of waste to treatment were also
considered. It was determined that these other factors were
highly correlated with one or more of the major factors.
Variability of raw product supply and production is strongly
correlated with the type of product being processed and occa-
sionally with geographic location and production capacity.
For example, all operations producing canned salmon have highly
variable raw product supplies, with the variations being most
extreme in some parts of Alaska. This necessitates large pro-
duction capacities to allow utilization of the raw product during
the short time that it is available.
64
-------
The condition of the raw product on delivery to the plant is
generally related to the finished product and occasionally to
geographic location. Many shellfish typically arrive at the
plants fresh (e.g., clams, oysters, lobsters), seasonal vari-
ations within some commodity groups may change the wasteload;
however, the duration of this study and the frequent lack of
sufficient historical data bases made estimation of the quanti-
tative effect on the wastewater impossible. Qualitatively, raw
product condition variability within a commodity group is
considered to be a second order effect, which does not warrant
the establishment of separate effluent limitations.
The variety of species utilized in each commodity group is
usually limited to those which are quite similar. In general,
the processes which have the largest capacities and produce the
most waste have the fewest species. "Those which handle a large
variety of species, such as conventional bottom fish processes,
are typically smaller and utilize manual unit operations, which
produce lower waste loads. It was not considered necessary to
establish separate effluent limitations based on species when
they were processed in a similar manner and the waste load from
any one type was minimal.
Harvesting methods are generally similar within a commodity
group. Different methods only affect the condition of the raw
product and/or the degree of preprocessing. Therefore, this
factor does not have to be considered as a separate variable for
the establishment of subcategories.
The degree of preprocessing can be an important influence on
wastewater quality. However, this is included under the
consideration of the unit operations, which is one of the major
factors. The greater the degree of preprocessing, the fewer unit
operations are utilized in the processing plant.
The ages of the plants were considered to be minor factors in the
establishment of subcategories, since" similar unit operations are
generally employed in both old and new plants for a particular
type of process. Furthermore, the plant age seldom correlated
with the age of the processing equipment; to remain competitive
(in most subcategories) the processors must employ efficient, up-
to-date, well-maintained equipment. This factor tends to
standardize each subcategory with respect to equipment type and
(usually) age.
Raw water availability was not considered to be a factor for the
establishment of effluent limitations since the in-plant and end-
of-pipe control techniques recommended for the seafood industry
involve reductions in water use.
The quality of the raw water does affect the quality of the
effluent for some processes in certain regions and was considered
in the establishment of effluent limitations. For example, large
percentages of some waste loads in solubles plant effluents from
65
-------
fish meal plants are attributable to the poor quality of the
intake water.
Amenability of the waste to treatment is an important factor but
is included as part of the wastewater characteristics con-
siderations. In general, the wastewater from seafood processing
operations is amenable to treatment except for those cases where
strong brines or pickling or preserving acids are being
discharged. Even for these cases, dilution, although costly,
will allow the wastes to be treated in conventional systems.
Additional considerations in subcategorization were "production
capacity and normal operating level." By nature, the seafood
industry is an intermittent process (controlled by product
availability) and production capacity is governed by such
constraints as the type of processing equipment utilized
(especially manual versus mechanical) and the number of employees
available. The evidence developed during the monitoring phase of
this study indicates that waste load ratios based on production
within a subcategory is independent of plant size or operating
level as illustrated graphically in Figures 22, 23, 21, 30, 31,
32, 35, 36, 37, t»6, H7r 48, and 59 through 64. However, the
economic impact analysis indicates that the very small plants
within the non-Alaskan conventional bottom fish processing
subcategory, hand-shucked clam processing subcategory, Pacific
Coast hand-shucked oyster processing subcategory, and the East
and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster processing subcategory would
absorb a disproportionate economic impact than the larger
processors within these subcategories. Therefore, as specified
in the Federal Register notice, application of the regulations
depends on the size of the processing facility. ;
FISH MEAL PRODUCTION
The processing of Atlantic menhaden and Pacific anchovy into
meal, oil and solubles was considered to be one of the most
important segments of the seafood industry, in terms of its
significance as a wastewater source. A concerted effort,
therefore, was made to exhaustively characterize the effluents
and to obtain as much information as possible on methods of
wastewater control for the industry. A total of eight plants in
New England, the Middle Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico and
California were investigated and 191 unit operation and end-of-
pipe composite samples of the wastewater collected*
Process Description
A generalized process flow diagram for menhaden and anchovy wet
rendering is presented in Figure 18.
Menhaden are delivered to the plant in the holds of large carrier
vessels. Because of the volume of fish to be processed, the
industry munt employ fast, efficient means of unloading. A
GO :
-------
PROCESS FLOW
BAILWATER AND
VWSHWftTEH FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
AVAILABLE SURFACE
WATER
1
1
ROTATES
SCREENS
r'
WEIGH
i
i
COOK
i
HOLDINS BAILWATER
TANK . TREATMENT
A
1
SOLIDS
1
». HOLDING
BIN
J
I
- /C\ . .- OIL
4, .. . .„ - A/ ' POLISHING
* y «•
PRESS
PRESS
LIQUOR^ SOLIB^ , ^_ OIL ,., fc nil,
REMOVAL , 'SEPARATORS STORA8E
MKE | - - STICK
*
PR*
- -r
i
*ATER /"j"^ _w*2!iw'SLEB ^
STICKWATER J
STORAGE
TO SOL1PS
' f
Figure 18. Typical large fish meal production process.
67
-------
mechanized bailing system is generally used for this purpose.
The operation consists of filling the holds with water (usually
local estuarine water) and pumping the fish-water slurry with a
reciprocating piston pump. Plants usually employ from one to
three such pumps when loading 140 to 180 kkg (150 to 200 tons) of
fish per hour (2) . The pumps discharge over rotating or static
screens, which separate the fish from the bailwater. These
screens are generally followed by other (smaller mesh) rotating
screens which remove much of the remaining scales and small
pieces from the bailwater. The bailwater is then collected in
large holding tanks located below the screens. These tanks range
in capacity from 75 to 190 cu m (20,000 to 50,000 gal.).
As the bailwater is collected, it may be treated to remove
suspended solids, or it simply may be recirculated.. Treatment of
bailwater may be effected with centrifugal decanters or dissolved
air flotation units. Whether the bailwater is treated or not, it
is usually retained and recirculated throughout the unloading
process. The fish, once separated from the bailwater, are
weighed and collected in holding bins, referred to as "raw boxes"
in the industry.
Depending on plant location, anchovy are generally vacuum drawn
from the boat holds directly into the processing plant. Some
plants located inland transport the anchovy by tank truck. These
fish are flushed out of the truck with high pressure hoses. The
bailwater is normally recirculated, while the fish are dry-
conveyed to the weighing room. From the weighing room they are
conveyed to large holding bins from which they are augered into
the reduction facilities.
The first step in the rendering process is the steam cook. The
cookers are basically screw conveyers with steam injection ports
located along their lengths. They are generally 9.1 m (30 ft) in
length and 60 to 76 cm (21 to 30 in.) in diameter. The
temperature at the inlet of the cooker is about 110°C (230°F) and
at the outlet, about 116°C (2<*0°F). The retention time of the
fish in the cookers is about 10 to 15 minutes. Cooking is the
most critical stage in the process. The fish are cooked to
facilitate release of oil and water. Undercooking or overcooking
results in excessive oil in the meal and poor oil recovery (17).
From the cookers the fish proceed to a battery of screw presses
where the liquid and solid portions of the cooked fish are
separated. The screw presses contain rotating augers whose
flights progressively decrease in pitch along the major axis of
the press. This causes increasing pressure to be exerted on the
fish as they progress through the presses. Liquid passes out of
each press through a cylindrical screen with perforations of
decreasing diameter from 1.2 to 0.8 mm (0.05 to 0.03 in.). The
fish solids exiting the press contain about 55 percent moisture
and some oil. The press solids are referred to in the industry
as "press cake.11
68 '
-------
The press cake is next conveyed to dryers to remove most of the
moisture. Two classes of dryers are commonly used: direct
dryers and indirect, steam jacketed dryers. The former is the
more typical; however, indirect dryers are used in some plants.
In the direct dryer, heat is generated by a gas flame. The gas
from this combustion plus secondary air is passed, along with the
wet press cake, through large rotating drums. The temperature at
the entrance of the dryer is typically about 510°C (1000°F) and
at the outlet of the dryer is typically about 93°C (200°F).
Drying time is generally about 15 minutes. Hot air and vapors
are drawn through the dryer at about 450 to 700 cu m/min (265 to
410 cu ft/sec), depending on the dryer size. The flow of hot
air, fish meal, and vapor is passed through a cyclone which
separates the meal from the air flow. The hot air, vapors, and
volatiles from the dryers then pass through a scrubber system to
remove most of the entrained organic material. The scrubber off-
gases may then be recirculated to the dryer inlet and burned.
Steam jacketed dryers cannot reburn the vapors. This sometimes
necessitates the use of two scrubbers to reduce odors.
The meal is ground and stored for shipment. The liquid separated
in the pressing operation is referred to as press liquor. It
contains solid and dissolved fish protein, oil, fats, and ash,
The larger solids are separated from the mixture by the use of
vibrating screens and/or centrifugal decanters. The separated
solids join the press cake flow at the drying operation. Oil is
extracted from the press liquor by the use of centrifugal oil
separators. These devices operate in a continuous manner,
spinning the press liquor at a high velocity to effect a three
phase separation o£ solids, oil, and stickwater by nature of
their different densities. The oil produced in this process is
usually refined or polished by the reintroduction of water, known
as washwater. The oilwater mixture is then reseparated. This
polishing removes fish protein and solubles which cause
putrefaction of the oil during storage. The oil is then piped to
large storage tanks and held for shipment. The water separated
from the press liquor mixture contains dissolved and suspended
protein, fats, oil, and ash. This mixture is termed
"stickwater.11 As the stickwater is generated, it is piped to
large tanks and stockpiled, awaiting further processing. At some
plants it is joined there by the spent . unloading water
(bailwater) and washwater from oil polishing and from plant
washdown. Further processing of stickwater involves
concentration by evaporation. The stickwater is evaporated from
a consistency of five to eight percent solids to one of about H8
to 50 percent solids. Typical for the industry is the triple
effect evaporator, where a vacuum of about 0.87 atm (26 in. Hg)
is placed on the third body while the first body is supplied with
steam at 2 atm (absolute) and 1219C! (15 psig, 250°F) . The vapor
from this first body is used to heat, the second, and the vapor
generated in the second, in turn, heats the third. The first
effect will typically operate at ambient pressure (0 psig) and
100°C (212°F) with the second at 0.5 atm, 81°C (-7.5 psig,
178°F); and the third at 57°C, 0.13 atm (135°F, -12.8 psig). Two
69
-------
effects are sometimes used instead of three, and product flow
direction may be opposite to that of the vapor. In addition,
some plants operate with vapor from the first two effects feeding
the third.
i
The stickwater exits from the evaporators at about 30 percent
solids. From here it may enter one or two concentrators for
further evaporation to 50 percent solids. The concentrators
consist of steam-fed heat exchangers and evaporation bodies
evacuated to 0.09 atm (-13.4 psig)f termed "flash evaporators."
The stickwater, which has been evaporated to 30 percent solids,
enters the heat exchanger and, after heating to boiling temper-
ature, it enters the flash evaporator. The stickwater is re-
circulated between the heat exchanger and flash evaporator until
the proper concentration of solids is reached, at which point it
is drawn off and Dumped to the storage area.
A barometric condenser is used to place a vacuum on the evap-
orators. Condenser water is usually obtained from available
surface water and is pumped 9 to 12 m (30 to 40 ft) above ground
level and allowed to fall through the condenser and back to
surface level. This condenser water entrains vapor produced in
the last evaporator body and in the concentrators. The falling
water is collected at the end of this pipe in an open tank called
a "hot well." It is joined by evaporator condensate and is
directed to the plant1s outfall and discharged into nearby
surface waters. The solubles plant discharge typically has a
high flow (30,000 1/kkg; 7200 gal./ton) and low concentrations of
BOD and suspended solids (less than 100 mg/1).
Stickwater and fish solubles tend to deteriorate rapidly during
storage. This is usually prevented by adjusting the pH of the
stickwater or solubles to 4.5 with sulfuric acid. It may be done
before or after evaporation. If the stickwater is stored for a
considerable period without being evaporated, the pH is usually
adjusted before evaporation. The pH of the fish solubles
resulting from evaporation is then readjusted to 4.5. However,
if the plant can evaporate stickwater rapidly enough to avoid
extended holding periods, no pH adjustment takes place before
evaporation. After evaporation and pH adjustment, fish solubles
are stored in large tanks to await shipment.
Small plants with no evaporator discharge the bailwater and
stickwater, or barge them to sea. Some plants have sufficient
evaporator capacity to evaporate the stickwater while still
discharging the bailwater. Figure 19 shows the process flow
diagram for a typical small wet rendering facility with no
solubles plant. The discharge of stickwater and bailwater
represents a very high waste load with concentrations of BOD and
suspended solids typically in the tens of thousands (mg/1) and
flows of 1900 1/kkg (460 gal./ton) or greater.
Subcateqorization Rationale
70 I
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATEft FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
BAILWATER
1
PRESS LIQUOR
SOLIDS
REMOVAL
LIQUID
OIL
SEPARATOR
| OIL
OIL
STORAGE
SOLIDS
PRESS
PRESS CAKE
I
DR
i
I
i
i
DUST AIR SCRUBBER ,PFMT |
tUYFR
(WHFBF AVitt AIM F
. : 1
SMNp i
1
ST1CKWATEM •
BAG A
SHIP
EFFLUENT
Figure 19.Typical small fish meal production process.
71
-------
Regardless of the species being rendered, there are three general
types of discharges from a wet reduction process: evaporator
water, bailwater/washwater, and stickwater. In general, most
large plants discharge only evaporator water. Some medium-size
plants , evaporate the stickwater but discharge the bailwater, and
the smaller, older plants often discharge both stickwater and
bailwater.
A total of eight fish meal plants were investigated. Historical
information was also available from two of these plants prior to
installation of bailwater utilization systems. A total of 56
end-of-pipe composite samples and a total of 145 unit operation
samples were collected. Five of the plants were menhaden
reduction plants located on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and
three were anchovy reduction plants located in California.
Figure 20 shows a normalized summary plot of the wastewater
characteristics taken from all the fish meal reduction processes
with solubles plants. Five parameters: flow, BOD, suspended
solids, grease and oil, and ~ reduction are shown for each plant
sampled. The vertical scale is in inches with the scaling factor
shown at the bottom cjf the figure. The average value of the
parameter is at the center of the vertical spread with the height
of the spread representing one standard deviation above and below
the average. A plant code is shown at the bottom of each group,
where "M" indicates menhaden and "A" indicates anchovy. The
number in parentheses under the plant code is the number of flow-
proportioned, full-shift .composite samples taken from each plant.
The four plants on the left (M2» M3, M5r and A2) discharged water
only from the solubles plant while the three plants on the right
(Ml, M2H, and M3H) also discharged the bailwater instead of
evaporating it. It can be seen that the waste load from the
plants not discharging bailwater was generally lower. Plants M2
and M3 provided good examples of the reduction in waste loads
that can be achieved by bailwater evaporation. The codes M2H and
M3H represent historical data collected when both plants
discharged or barged bailwater, while the codes M2 and M3
represent recent data when both plants were treating and
evaporating the bailwater. Note that water use was not reduced
when the plants were modified; the flow reduction realized by
eliminating bailwater discharge was more than offset by the
necessary increase in condenser dropleg flow. Table 17 shows the
average waste loads both before and after bailwater treatment and
evaporation and the percent reduction obtained.
Figure 21 shows a summary of the waste loads from two plants
discharging both stickwater and bailwater. The waste loads were
on the order of 20 to HO times greater than those of the plants
utilizing evaporators.
Table 18 summarizes the average waste loads from plants with
three types of discharges: Solubles plant only, solubles plant
plus bailwater, and stickwater plus bailwater discharge. Table
72 '
-------
Figure 20. FISH MEAL PROCESS PLCT IhlTH SOLUBLES PLANT1 .
-------
Table 17. Fish meal waste load reduction
using bailwater evaporation.
Parameter
(kg/kkg)
Plant M2
Plant M3
Before After Reduction
Before After Reduction
BOD 5.9 1,7 71%
Suspended Solids 4.1 0.9 78%
Grease and Oil 3.0 0.5 83%
10
5.6
3.5
3.6
1.2
1.0
64%
79%
71%
74
-------
Figure 21. FISH MEAL PROCESS PLOT (WITHOUT SOLUBLES PLANTV
6.
5.
,
. :
,
•
. Q
. Q P
08 P
08 P
Q8 P
. 08 P
08 P
OB
03
03
08
. CB
Q8S
OBS
. G8S
. Q3SG
BSG
SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G
Ai
(3)
SYMBOL PARAMETER
Q FLCW
B 5 DAY 800
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS
G GREASE < OIL
P PRODUCTION
BS P
BS P
es P
BS
BS
BS
BS
es
3SG
BSG
SSG
SSG
BSG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G
G
Q
A3
(5)
SCALING FACTOR
1 INCH = 5000
1 INCH = 20
1 INCH = 20
i INCH = 20
1 INCH = 2
LVKKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TON/HR
75
-------
Table 18. Summary of average waste loads
from fish meal production.
Parameter Solubles
(kg/kkg) Plant
"T
Suspended solids1 1:. 0
BOD 2 . 9
Grease and oil 0.7
Solubles Plant Stickwater
and Bailwater and Bailwater
3.8 41
6.1 59
2.5 25
Table 19 Unit operation waste characteristics for fish meal
processing without a solubles unit (Plant A3).
Unit Operation
Stick water
(press liquor)
Scrubber water
Wash down •
Bail water
(single pass
Flow
1/kkg
(% of total ) i
842
(45%)
277
(15%)
. 24
. (IX.) ...
' 726
(39%)
BODS
kg/kkg
(X of total )
66
(93%)
• MX)
MX)
5
(7%)
TSS
kg/kkg
(X of total )
55
(94%) :
MX)
MX)
3
(6%)
G&O
kg/kkg
(% of total )
36
(95%)
<>!*)
MX)
2
(5%)
76
-------
19 summarizes the unit operation waste characteristics for fish
meal plants without a solubles unit.
It was concluded that the fish meal production industry should
constitute one subcategory with a provision for the July 1, 1977
limitations for plants without a solubles unit operation. The
exemplary plants treat, recycle, and evaporate the bailwater and
washwater; therefore, other plants with evaporators might be
required to modify their facilities and take similar action. The
older, smaller plants typically have no existing solubles plant
facilities to expand or modify for stickwater or bailwater.
Statistics from plants sampled in these two subcategories are
shown in Tables 20 and 21. The tables show the estimated
logrithmic-normal mean, the logrithims of the mean and standard
deviations, and the 99 percent maximum for each of several
selected summary parameters.
Because there is no apparent relationship or trend relating flow
ratios, TSS ratios, or BODJS ratios to production levels (see
Figures 22, 23, and 24}, it was assumed that the waste loads .per
unit of production are independent of production level.
SALMON CAHHING
The canning of Pacific salmon was, from the outset of this study,
considered to be an important segment of the industry, because ,of
the relatively large waste loadings, high flow rates, and large
number of plants. A total of eight plants, in two areas of
Alaska and two areas of. the Northwest, were investigated; 9.9
composite samples of unit operations or total effluent were
collected.
Process Description
Figure 25 shows the flow diagram for the typical salmon canning
process used in Alaskan and lower Western plants.
Vacuum unloaders, pumps and flumes, high speed elevators and
belts and winch-operated live boxes are the common methods of
unloading the salmon from the tender holds and transporting them
into the cannery. Water used to pump fish from the boats is
usually recirculated and discharged after the unloading
operation; however, this method is used at a relatively small
number of plants,
The salmon are sorted by species and conveyed into holding bins.
If the fish are to be held for some time before processing, they
are iced or placed in chilled brine.
A butchering machine is used by most plants to accomplish the
butchering operation. Many plants in the Northwest manually
77
-------
Table 20
FISH HEAl FfiOCEaS SUMMARY
CF SELECTED PARAMETERS
(SOLUBLES PLANT CISCHARGE ONLY)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TON/HR>»
TIME (HR/CAY)'
FLOW (L/SEC)«
CGAL/MIM*
FLOW RATIC CL/KKG)
(GAL/TCN)
TSS CHG/L)
(KG/KKG)
800-5 (MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND CIL (PG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH*
f£AN
33. d
22.1
242
3840
35000
8
-------
Table 21
FISH MEAL PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
(WlTHCtT SCLUELES PLANT)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TCN/HR)*
TIME (HR/OAY)*
FLOW (L/SEC)'
(GAL/MIM*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TCN)
TSS CMG/L)
(KG/KKG)
800-5 MG/L>
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND CIL CfG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH*
MEAN
7.60
15.7
13.1
208
1900
-------
70
60
50
o
X
Ol
o
I—
u_
40
30
20
10
4 6 8 10 12 14
Production kkg/day (XI00)
Figure 22
^*
Fish meal flow ratios versus production level
80
16
-------
5 i-
Ol
LTJ
Q
6.8 10 12
Production kkg/day (XI00)
Figure 23
14
16
Fish meal BODS ratios versus production level
81
-------
ra
2.5
2.0
Ol
^ 1.5
O
c/j
•o
c
Ol
Q.
t/l
1.0
0.5
\_
6 8 10 12
Production kkg/day (XlOO)
14
16
Figure 24
Fish meal total suspended solids ratios versus
production level
82
-------
PRODUCT FIG*
WAST£ WATER PLOW
WftSTE SQU0S FU>*
E HEftOS , MiLT, fiQE " S££ FIGURE 26)
I |
WATER, VISCERA
WATER. ME AT
TO S0UGS BlSPQSAt
Figure 25 Typical salmon canning process,
83
-------
butcher the better grades of silvers, chinooks, and
(occasionally) sockeye, or employ a manual butchering operation
in conjunction with mechanized butchering, since the more
laborious method is considered to produce a finer product. The
fish are marketed fresh, frozen, or canned, depending on demand.
The salmon are flushed from the holding bins and transported by
flume or elevator to bins where the mechanical eviscerator is
employed. The butchering machine removes the heads, tails, fins,
and viscera; the eggs and, sometimes, milt are manually separated
later. The "K" model butchering machine has a maximum capacity
of about 120 fish per minute. A scrubber is sometimes used
following the machine to clean more thoroughly the coeloms of the
fish. The fish then pass to "sliming tables," where each fish is
inspected for defects and rinsed, usually with warm water to keep
the worker's hands from getting too cold.
The manual butchering operation involves three steps. The fish
are first eviscerated, after which they are passed to another
table where they are cleaned of blood, kidneys and slime. The
head and fins are next removed if the fish are to be canned. The
cleaned fish are then transported to a set of gang knives. These
knives are located within the filler machine for the one-half-
pound lines and separately for the one-guarter-pound lines and
hand-packed product.
All can sizes can be manually filled; however, most of the salmon
is mechanically packed in one-half and one-pound cans. The hand-
packed cans are weighed as they are packed. Mechanically packed
cans go through a weighing machine which rejects the light-weight
cans onto a "patch table11 where workers add patch material
(supplemental meat) to bring them up to their proper weight. The
workers also remove bones and other material that may interfere
with the seamer, which closes cans using a vacuum pump or steam.
After seaming, the cans are washed, placed in cooler trays, and
loaded into the retorts. The four-pound cans are cooked for
about four hours, the one-pound cans for 90 minutes, the one-
half-pound cans for 60 minutes, and the one-quarterpound cans 'for
40 minutes at about 120°C (250°F). The cans are water cooled by
either flooding the retort, placing the cans in a water bath, or
spraying the cans with water. These cans are then further air-
cooled before casing and shipping. Many canneries do not employ
water cooling of retorted cans; they simply air-cool them. This
method requires more time (and, therefore, more space), but
reduces water consumption.
By-Froduct Operations
Further milt, roe, and head processing is an integral part of
many salmon canning plants. Figure 26 shows the typical
operations involved. Salmon milt is sometimes frozen and shipped
to Japan for further processing. The roe is agitated in a
84
-------
saturated salt brine before being packed in boxes. Salt is added
to each layer of eggs to aid in the curing process. Some eggs
are also sold for bait.
The heads are handled in a variety of ways. Some plants,
particularly those in Bristol Bay and Puget Sound, render the
heads for oil. Fish oil is then added to cans to improve the
quality of the finished product. Other plants grind and freeze
the heads, which are later processed for animal food. Whole
heads are sometimes frozen and used for bait or pet food. Some
plants grind the heads with the other solid wastes and discharge
them to the receiving waters. Most plants in the Northwest send
recoverable wastes to rendering plants for fish meal production.
SubcategorizationRationale
Since the salmon canning process is essentially the same from
plant to plant, the only major factor which may prompt further
Subcategorization is geographic location.
The salmon canning industry was subcategorized into Alaska and
Western regions because of the much greater costs and treatment
problems encountered in Alaska. Furthermore, due to the large
size range of the industry in both areas, the Alaska industry was
divided into three sizes and the Western industry into two sizes
for the purpose of costing control and treatment technologies.
Figures 27 and 28 depict the size distributions of the Alaska and
Western salmon canning plants, respectively (19). The infor-
mation is expressed in the form of histograros or probability
density functions. The vertical axis represents the number of
plants whose output falls in the range shown on the horizontal
axis, which is expressed as the average annual output in cases
from 1966 to 1970; for example, the data show that 15 plants in
Alaska produced between 0 and 20,000 cases annually. The
histograms are skewed to the right in a manner similar to a
theoretical log-normal density function« There is no obvious,
distinct grouping of plant sizes; however, the following
divisions were established to develop criteria which would
adequately cover the range:
Alaska salmon canning—large: greater than 80,000
cases annually;
Alaska salmon canning—medium: 40,000 to
80,000 cases annually;
Alaska salmon canning—small: fewer than 40,000 cases
annually;
Western salmon canning—large: greater than 20,000
cases annually; and
Western salmon canning—small: 20,000
85
-------
cases annually or fewer.
Figure 29 shows a summary plot, of the wastewater characteristics
of three salmon canning plants in Alaska (CSN2, CSN3, CSN4) and
four plants in the Northwest (CSN5, CSN6, CSN7, and CSN8) . CS6M
represents the manual butchering operation at plant CSN6. Codes
CS7H and CS8H represent historical data from the same plants as
CSN7 and CSN8, respectively. Two of the Alaskan plants sampled,
CSN2 and CSN4, are in the "small'1 range (less than H0,000 cases) ,
and one, CSN3 is in the "medium" range (40,000-80,000 cases).
Ml of the plants sampled in the Northwest are in the large range
(over 20,000 cases) .
It was noted that, in general, the waste loads from the plants in
Alaska were greater than those from the Pacific Northwest plants.
The main reason for this is that one Northwest plant (CSN5) did
all butchering by hand and two other Northwest plants (CSN6 and
CSN7) practiced a high percentage of manual butchering during the
sampling period, using the butchering machine only when large
quantities of fish arrived. The three salmon plants in Alaska
also ground their solids before discharge, which increased the
waste load. The waste load at CSN3 appears to have been higher
than average; however, this may have been due to the fact that
samples were taken from a sump where solids accumulated over the
sampling period. The historical information from plant CS8H was
obtained during a high production period when the butchering
machine was being used extensively. This data appears to be
lower and may be attributable to plant modifications accomplished
after the historical data was collected.
Table 22 shows summary statistics of the waste loads from all the
plants sampled which used the butchering machine exclusively
(CSN2, CSN3, CSN4, CSN8). The flow ratio was not included for
CSN8, as it was not considered to be typical because of flows
through butchering machines which were not processing fish.
These data provided the base which was used as the typical raw
waste load from salmon canning processes in both Alaska and the
West coast. Because there is no apparent relationship or trend
relating flow ratiqs, TSS ratios, or BODS, ratios to production
levels (See Figures 30,31, and 32) , it was assumed that the waste
loads tier unit of production are independent of production level.
The canning operations in the Northwest which hand butcher are
included with the fresh/frozen salmon subcategory, which is
discussed next, since the unit operations are similar except for
the canning operation, which does not increase the load by a
significant amount.
FRESH AND FROZEN SALMON
The processing of Pacific salmon as a fresh or frozen commodity
was considered to have smaller waste loads and wastewater flows
than the canning segment of the salmon industry. A total of six
86
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
ir=
(TO CAN FILL OPERATION)
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Figure 2§ .Typical salmon by-product operations
-------
15
w
u
SE
in
u
as
u
10 t
5 +
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
AVERAGE ANNUAL OUTPUT IN THOUSANDS OF CASES
Figure 27. Alaska salmon cannery size distribution.
-------
15 -•
oo
-------
Figure
SALHCN c*NNihG PROCESS FLCT.
0
Q P
C P
OB P
08 P
B P
B P
B
BS
S
SG
G
G
CSN2
m
B
8
B
a
a
B
B
8
6
B
S
S
S
S P
S P
Q S P
Q S P
0 S
Q S
S
s
s
s
G
CSN3
U)
c
a G
e G
e G
B G
B G
B G
OB GP
08 GP
08 GP
OB GP
QB &P
OB GP
CBSGP
QBSGP
QESGP
Q SG
Q SG
&
G
G
G
G
G '
CSN*
(6)
SYHBOL
0
B
S
e
p
0
0 P
C GP
Q P P
, p p
B P P
BS P 08 P
CSN5 CS6H
18) (6)
PARAMETER
FLOW
5 DAY BOO
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
GREASE AND OIL
PRODUCTION
C
•1 P
F
B P
S F
CSN6
C&J
P
P
B f
a F
CB F
C8 F
S
SG
G
C'SNT
<«.»
e
as
ces
es
BS
8S
es
ES
ES
s
s
F
P
F
P
f
P
F
P
F
P
F
F
F
CS7H
^k
B
a
c a
c a
C B
0 8
C B
0 B
C 3
B
B
B
B
B
BS P
BS
BS
BS
ass
OB5
B ass
E CBS
B Q3S
S
s
s
s
s
s
G
GP
CSN8 " CS8H~
(3) (6)
SCALING FACTOR
1 INCH =
i INCH =
i INCH =
1 INCH =
1 INCH =
10000
20
20
10
z
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TON/HR
-------
Table 22
MECHAMC4-LLV EUTGHEREO SAL^CN
PPOCESS SUMMARY
OF SfcLlCTEO PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION ITON/HR}*
TIME CHR/OAVI*
FLOW a/sec*'
-------
25
20
S 15
o
o>
Jxt
O
tZ
10
10 15 20
Production kkg/day
25
30
35
Figure 30
Mechanized salmon flow ratios versus production
level
92
-------
90
80
70
60
3 50
-^
O)
IO
§ 40
30
20
10
5 . 10 15 20 25 30 35
Production, kkg/day
.. ; , Figure 31
Mechanized salmon. BOD5 ratios, versus production
leyel
93
-------
01
Ai
ta
45
40
35
•f 30
O
to
"O
O)
1
-------
<£>
Ul
ROUND FISH
WATER, SLIME
TOODWT FLOW
WASTEWATCR FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
.TROLL DRESSED FISH
SOLIDS
COU.ECTEO *^
FOR PET FOOD
OPERATION
(WHERE AVAILABLE!
-------
plants in three areas of Alaska and one area of the Northwest
were investigated; 77 unit operation and effluent composite
samples were collected.
Process Description
Figure 33 shows the flow diagram for ,the typical fresh/ frozen
salmon process used in Alaska and Northwest plants. The
unloading of fish from boats in Alaska and the Northwest is
usually accomplished with a crane and bucket. In the Northwest,
fish also arrive by flatbed or semi-trucks from the coast or from
other ports in Washington and Oregon. To keep the fish fresh
during transport, they are packed in ice in wooden bins.
At the plant the fish are sorted by species, and when necessary,
by quality, and placed in metal or plastic totes, or gondola
carts. If the fish are to be kept until the following day, they
are iced.
There are three processes used in Alaska for freezing salmon.
The most common is to receive the fish in the round, and
subsequently to butcher them in the plant. Troll-caught fish are
dressed at sea and need only be beheaded and washed at the plant
prior to freezing. Some fish are also frozen "in the round,"
without butchering. Freezing "in the round" is common in peak
years, when the canneries cannot handle the large volume of fish,
and is expected to become more widely used in Alaska as labor
prices increase. Alaskan salmon frozen in this manner are later
further processed, usually in Oregon or.Washington. Few fish are
processed for the fresh market in Alaska.
Round salmon are butchered by hand on an assembly line basis.
The salmon is beheaded, the viscera removed and the kidney slit
and removed. Some plants use a semi-automatic beheader. The roe
and milt are separated from the viscera and processed in the
manner described in the "Salmon Canning" subcategory process
description. After butchering, the salmon are washed in a
cleaning tank to remove remaining blood, slime, and parasites.
In Alaska, the salmon are frozen at about -51°C (-60°F), then
glazed and packaged, or stored for shipping at -23°C (-10°F)„ In
contrast to Alaska, a significant portion of Northwest salmon are
marketed fresh, mainly to local retail outlets and restaurants
and {via air freight) to Eastern outlets.
Salmon are sometimes cured in brine. In this process the salmon
are butchered and split into halves, the backbones are removed,
and the fish are washed in a brine solution. Then they are
dipped in salt and packed into wooden barrels. When the barrels
are filled with salmon halves, saturated brine is added and the
fish are stored at about 2°C (36°F) to preserve the pack and
prevent oil loss.
96
-------
Subcategorization Rationale
Since the fresh/frozen salmon process is essentially the same
throughout the industry, geographic location was considered to be
the only major factor affecting suBcategorization.
It was decided that the fresh/frozen salmon industry be sub-
categorized into "Alaska" and "West Coast" regions because of the
greater costs and more serious treatment problems encountered in
Alaska. The size range of the industry is significant in both
regions; however, it is not as great as the range for salmon
canning.
Information on the size range of the industry in terms of annual
production is limited. Table 23 summarizes data obtained from a
study conducted by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (20)
involving Northwest fresh/frozen salmon plants.
For the purpose of costing control and treatment technologies,
Table 24 estimates the daily peak production rates for Alaskan
fresh/frozen salmon plants. Based on these figures and
observations made during the plant investigations, the dividing
line between large and small Alaskan and Northwest fresh/frozen
salmon plants was placed at 2370 kkg (2500 tons), of raw product
processed annually.
Figure 34 is a summary plot of the wastewater characteristics of
four fresh/frozen salmon operations in Alaska (FS1, FS2, FST1,
PST2) and three operations in the Northwest (FS3, FSft, FST3).
The code FS represents processes which butcher round salmon,
while the code FST represents the processing of troll-dressed
salmon, which have been eviscerated at sea. The four processes
in Alaska (FS1, FST1, FS2, FST2) fall into the "large" range,
while the three Northwest processes (FS3, FST3, FS4) are in the
"small" range.
It can be seen that the waste loads from the troll-dressed
processes were lower than those from the round processes and that
the waste loads from the Alaskan plants seem to have been
slightly higher than those from the Northwest plants. The waste
loads from all these operations, however, are relatively low,
with BOD'g less than 3 kg/kkg.
Since the unit operations, where most of the waste is generated,
are similai: for either the hand butcher fresh/frozen process or
the hand butcher canning process, they are included in one
subcategory. The average waste loads from the round fresh/frozen
processes (FS1, FS2, FS3, FS4) and from the hand butcher canning
process (CSN5, CS6M) are used to characterize both segments of
the industry.
It would not be efficient to further subdivide the industry into
"round," "troll dressed" and hand butcher canning processes with
the corresponding regulations and enforcement efforts required.
97
-------
Table 23 « Annual production of
Northwest fresh/frozen salmon.
Plant Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Raw Product Processed Annually
(kkg)
360
680
725
1815
2720
4535
(tons)
400
750
800
2000
3000
5000
Table 24 . Daily peak production rates of Alaska
fresh/frozen salmon plants (9)
Daily Peak Production Rate
Size (Kkg)(tons)
Large 80-110 90-120
Medium 45-70 50-75
Small 27-45 30-50
98
-------
Figure 3* .
SALMON PROCLSS PLOT.
6.
5.
*
•
*
9
*
,
t
,
3.
*
*
»
*
*
2.
«
*
t
*
*
i.
*
»
.
*
,
i
P
as P
es P
es P
PA;
FLCto
S DAY
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Q G
Q C-
Q SG
5 SG
Q SC-
Q SG
0 SC F
Q SC H
Q SG f
Q 5G P
0 SG P
08SG V
QBSG F
Q8SG S F
9Sfr S F
9 G Q S F
a GP QSSG
GP GBSG
P a G
P
P
FSU FST£
(6) (5)
S 1 1wi *""' T C* O
300^
SUSFcNOCO SOLI03
. < OIL
F-iCOUCTIOK
•
F
P
F
P
F
• P
9 F
3 P
8 F
BS F
BS P
3S
S
SG
G
&
Q
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PS
BS
es
esG
Q QBSG
F33
(91
SCALING
1 INCH = 10
t INCH =
I INCH = 3
1 INCH = 3
i INCH =
gc
F£T3
<2)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
B P
S P
8S P
es P
•BS
BS
BS
BS
G
G
G
0
C
F3<»
(%)
FftCTCR
GUI)
1
.5
.2
1
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TCN/h^
99
-------
The slight advantage of those plants processing mostly troll-
dressed fish was considered to be of little importance, since the
waste loads from any of these processes are relatively low.
Table 25 lists summary statistics of the waste loads from all
hand butcher salmon processes sampled. These were used to
determine the typical raw waste loadings from fresh/frozen salmon
or hand butcher salmon canning processes in both Alaska and the
West Coast. The flow ratio was not included for plant FSl, as it
was not considered to be typical.
Because there is no apparent relationship or trend relating flow
ratios, TSS ratios, or BOD5 ratios to production levels (See
Figures 35, 36, and 37), it was assumed that the waste loads per
unit of production are independent of production level.
Hand butcher salmon canning processes are typically small. The
plants sampled in the Northwest are considered to be large;
however, the hand butcher salmon line only averaged about 4.5
kkg/day (5 tons/day). This is much less than the ratio shown for
fresh/frozen salmon in Tables 23 and 21.
BOTTOM FISH AND MISCSLIANEOOS FINFISH
The processing of bottom fish (or groundfish) and finfish as
fresh or frozen commodities was considered to be an important
segment of the industry because of the large number of plants
engaged in this activity. The industry has wastewater flows and
loads which are quite variable, is located in all regions of the
country and encompasses a large range of sizes. Therefore, a
total of 20 plants in six regions of the country were
investigated. This included three plants in Alaska, six in the
Northwest, four in New England, two in the Middle Atlantic, two
in the Gulf, and three plants in California. A total of 207 unit
operations or effluent composite samples of the bottom fish
industry's wastewaters were collected.
Process Description
Although many species of fish are involved in several regions of
the country, the processing of bottom fish (or groundfish} and
finfish primarily involves the preparation of fillets or whole
fish for the fresh or frozen market. Most fillets are frozen in
blocks and processed later as fish sticks or portions. Whole
fish processing is also important for some species such as
halibut and the " larger groundfish. The amount of whole fish
processing varies with the species of fish, the region, and
market demands.
The processing descriptions below are organized by region, since
the species involved and the processing methods employed are
relatively uniform within each.
100
-------
Table 25
HAND 3UCHE.CED SALMON
PROCESS SUWPARY
OF StLCCTEO PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION ITON/MR1*
TINC
*
FLOW CL/SECI*
(GAL/MIN)*
FLOW RATIO (L/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
TSS (1G/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOO-5 IMG/LI
(KG/KKG)
GRtASE AND OIL (MG/Li
(KG/KKGt
PH»
LOG KC«MAL
MEAN MEAN
1.9i»
e.3«i
2.36
37.5
3960 6.28
976 6.88
305 i.72
1.21 0.188
534 6.28
2.11 0»7(|9
38. £ 3.6S
0.153 -1.88
€.73
LCG kORMAL
STO OEV
1.19
1.80
i.m
22.3
0.079
0.102
1:15
0.108
0.108
0.118
0.118
0,31,
99%
MAXIMUM
1240
1.70
686
2.72
50.8
0.202
PLANTS CSN5,CS61,F5l ,fS2 ,FS3 ,FS*.
* NOT£I THE OUTPUTS FCR THESi. PARAMETERS
ARE THE MIRPAt (UNMeIC»-T£C1
AN3 STANOARO OLWIATICN,
101
-------
8
o
J2 5
x
3
10 15 20 25
Production kkg/day
Figure 35
Hand-butchered salmon flow ratios
versus production level
102
-------
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
to
§ 2,0
1.5
1.0
0.5
5T , 10 15 20
Production kkg/day
Figure 36
Hand-butchered salmon BOD5_.ratios
versus production level
25
30
103
-------
3.5
3.0
2.5
cr»
a 2.0
T3
-------
1. New England Groundfish--Figure 38 shows the flow diagram for
a typical New England groundfish filleting process.
Fish arrive at the major processing centers, such as Gloucester,
Boston, and New Bedford, by truck and boat. The resource has
been declining in recent years; consequently, increasing numbers
of fish are being trucked from northern New England and from
Canada. Pish such as flounder and ocean perch arrive in the
round, while larger species, such as cod and haddock, are often
eviscerated at sea to minimize spoilage and maximize efficiency.
The fish are typically unloaded from boats {by hand) into boxes,
and then transported by forklift or dolly to the processing
areas. Some ice accompanies the fish and a certain weight
percentage is subtracted from the gross value to allow for this
when the fish are weighed. The fish are stored on ice in the
plant while awaiting processing.
Included in the plans to build a new fish pier in Boston is a
vacuum system to transport fish from the boat holds into
palletted bins. This will increase the unloading rate, while at
the same time decreasing the amount of contaminated ice."
The fish are filleted by hand. Plants employ from 3 to 25 filled
cutters. The fish will be descaled prior to filleting if
requested by the customer. Descaling is usually accomplished by
handj however, some descaling machines employ highpressure water
jets. The flow from these mechanical descalers is relatively
large and contains heavy waste loadings. Some plants use a
continuous brine flow to keep the fish moist and firm on the
filleting table, while other plants use an intermittent water
flow to clean the tables between species. The fillets may be
skinned manually (for special orders) except for various species
of flounder, which are passed through a skinning machine. The
skinning machine commonly used in New England is the German-made
Baader 17 skinner.
The prepared fillets are ^placed in a preserving dip tank
containing chilled brine with 10 percent sodium benzoate
solution. The fish are removed from the dip tank by hand or by,
inclined conveyor, manually packed into boxes, and stored in &
cooler. The great majority of groundfish are filleted and sold
fresh. Some of the larger species, which are sold to markets,
are handled whole, while those which are to be shipped longer
distances are frozen.
Plant washdowns typically occur only once per day, in the last 20
minutes to one-half hour of operation. Both chlorinated salt
water and fresh water are used. The solid material is typically
shoveled into bins and trucked to a nearby rendering plant.
During the peak lobster fishing period, carcases are often sold
for lobster bait.
A frozen-whole process used in New England for whiting is shown
in Figure 39. The whiting are taken from the boats in bushels
105
-------
ALTERNATE
METHOD
— '.I.:- fV-V.T£R FLOW
— WASTE VHjriS TUOW
r '
LHAN
OE • SCI
••.--I
SCALING
HEAOS.IiACKBOiiE, MC&T
^ _ _ _r"
.__ __..j_»r~
FT-.-
ICC MEU Vrtr
WOTR, :i"A!,E5
H»MO
FILLET
MACHINE
SKINNER
= -I imncnoN
I '.(:T1CLES •
ET ~ " ~ " '*j
------ J ,
WATER, PARTICLES^ I
1 BRINE, WRTIC.L
J
HAND PACK,
WEIGH 8 SWF J
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Figure ^ . Typical New England ground fish process,
106
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
HEADS
II
II
VISCERA
WATER, JUICES
SMALL PARTICLES
WATER, OR6ANICS
WATER, SCALES
WATER
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
I
EFFLUENT
Figure 39 .Typical New England whiting process,
107
-------
which hold between 80 kg and 100 kg (176 to 220 Ibs) of fish.
Each bushel is weighed prior to being emptied onto a conveyor
which transports the fish into the plant's holding bins. The
plants sampled each had a holding capacity of about 100 kkg (110
tons). The relatively soft flesh of whiting dictates care in
handling. Consequently, the fish are flushed from the bins by
high-pressure hose into sumps, from which they are transported by
inclined conveyor to the sorting and beheading area. The
beheading operation consists of lines of horizontal conveyors
with tt to 5 cm (1.8 to 2.0 in.) slots, into which the fish are
oriented manually by women standing along the line. The line
conveys the fish past a circular beheading saw. The heads fall
onto an inclined auger and are transported into a waiting truck.
The headless bodies are flumed into an inclined cylindrical
descaler which tumbles the fish, removing the scales and washing
them away with water sprays. The fish are then conveyed to the
eviscerating table where the remaining viscera are removed by
hand. All fins are left on the fish and the belly is not slit.
Usually 15 to 20 women manually eviscerate the fish, throwing the
viscera into flumes running along both sides of the "table, then
out to a main collecting sump. After evisceration, the fish are
boxed according to size and are quick frozen.
The whiting process uses a large amount of water and produces
relatively large waste loads. Most of the water comes from
fluming. It may be possible to replace the flumes with con-
veyors; however, it is claimed by the people in the industry that
fluming is the best method for .moving the fish, because of the
softness of their flesh.
The solids, including, heads, viscera, and screened solids, are
typically collected and trucked to a nearby rendering plant.
2. Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Miscellaneous Finfish-Figure 40 shows a
typical miscellaneous finfish process used in the Middle and
South Atlantic and Gulf regions.
The fish are received by boat or truck and unloaded by hand or by
vacuum. The fish are washed, sorted by species, and weighed. At
this point, some plants box, ice, and ship the whole fish to
markets or other, plants for further processing. Fish that are
processed at the originating plant are descaled manually or
mechanically, and then eviscerated or filleted. The whole fish
fillets are next packaged and shipped fresh or frozen. It was
observed that more fish were handled in the round or eviscerated
and frozen in these two regions than in New England. The solid
fish wastes, including heads, viscera, and carcasses, are usually
recovered for pet or mink food.
A relatively new process developing in the Gulf region is the
utilization of flesh separating machinery. The process holds
much promise because it can improve yields, utilize previously-
ignored fish species, and satisfy ready markets. These factors
tend to reduce operating costs and make the process economically
108
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTE WATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
GRINDER
SCALES
^ u ^ZZ 1 ^^
I)
SOLIDS DISPOSAL
EFFLUENT
Figure 40. Typical Mid-Atlantic ox Gulf finfish process,
109
-------
attractive. At present, few such operations are on-line, and
only one plant was sampled, this utilizing croaker on the Gulf
Coast.
The foundation for this process was laid when Japanese and German
inventors created the prototype machinery for extracting boneless
and skinless flesh from eviscerated fish. In one design, the
separation is effected through a shearing and pressing action
created by a rotating perforated drum bearing against a slower-
moving belt which holds the fish tightly against the drum.
Although one pass through the machine will produce a high flesh
yield, the carcasses can be recycled through the machine to
increase recovery. The flesh obtained is in a comminuted form
which is further processed by compressing it into blocks.
Occasionally, other materials are added to modify the flavor,
texture, or appearance of the final product. The actual
formation of the blocks, the machinery, and the binding agents
used are considered by the industry to be confidential. Thus,
the following description is general.
Figure tl shows a typical fish flesh process. The receiving
operations are similar to other fish operations; fish are brought
into the plant, dumped into wash tanks, sorted, then held prior
to processing. Scales, heads, fins and viscera must be removed.
This can be done manually, but automatic equipment is being
introduced into the industry to streamline the operation. After
dressing, the fish are passed through the flesh-separating
machinery. The solid wastes produced by the dressing and flesh
separating operations are collected and ground for animal feed.
Little water is involved in either operation, but that produced
is highly contaminated with blood, slime and small flesh
particles. The ground flesh produced is stored in bins, into
which other ingredients are added, after which the batch is
mixed. It is then formed into blocks, either by extrusion or
molding. The blocks, or cakes, as they are also called, are
placed on trays and rapidly frozen. The frozen blocks are then
processed further by cutting them into different sizes and
shapes, which are subsequently breaded and packaged. Clean-up
operations involve washing down the equipment with water and
detergents. The wastewater from such operations is high in
dissolved proteins, organics and detergents, as well as solid
particles of flesh and fish parts. In the one plant observed,
the clean-up lasted several hours, with the flow being greater
than that produced during processing and constituting the
greatest part of the effluent.
3. Pacific Coast Bottom Fish—Figure U2 shows the flow diagram
for a Pacific Coast bottom fish filleting operation, the most
common processing method. Some of the larger species, such as
the black cod, are processed whole; and a small demand in fish
markets exists for other whole fish.
The fish usually arrive by boat and are unloaded by hand. A few
plants are converting to the vacuum unloading system. The fish
110
-------
ir
ii
ii
TRASH FISH
HE ADS, VISCERA
II MUTILATED FISH
^ ''^ ' " —
II
II
I!
II
ii
ii
ii
PARTICLES .SKIN . CARCASSES
~" "" n""" ™
SAW DUST
CHLORINATE0 WATER, PARTICLES
TO SOLIDS
REDUCTION PLANT
EFFLUENT
Figure 41 . Typical fish flesh process.
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
W&8TEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
TO SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
SCALES
CARCASSES
SKIN
II
I!
II
II
II
II
SLIME. ,_WATER
MEAT, WATER
ORGANiCS, WATER
QRGANICS, WATER
TO BY-PRODUCT
RECOVERY OPERATION
EFFLUENT
Figure 42 . Typical Pacific Coast bottom fish process,
112
-------
are weighed and sent to the filleting tables; the larger plants
use a conveyor system for fish transport from the receiving room
to the filleting room. Some plants use manual or mechanical
descaling before filleting, depending on the ultimate product
form. The fish are spray-washed on the conveyor or washed by
hand as they are filleted. Water is available from a hose at
each filleting position and in many plants is flowing constantly,,
Most plants use mechanical skinners after filleting; howeverg
some skinning is done by hand and a few products require no
skinning at all. The fish are rinsed in a tank containing
preservatives and then packed for the fresh or frozen market.
Most of the solid waste from the Pacific Coast plants is ground
and bagged for the pet or animal food market.
Some halibut are processed on the Northwest Pacific Coast in
centers such as Bellinghani and Seattle. The methods of
processing are the same as described in the following discussion
on Alaska bottom fish.
4, Alaska Bottom Fish--The only species of Alaskan bottom fish
processed in any quantity at this time is halibut. Figure *J3
shows the, flow diagram for a typical halibut processing
operation.
Since the average length of a trip in Alaska ranges from 13 -to 25
days, the halibut are butchered at sea and iced. After receipt
at the- docks, the fish are beheaded, if this has not already been
done at sea, and the body cavity is flushed to remove ice. The
fish " are graded by size and then processed whole or fletched.
Smaller fish, "tinder alxrat 27 kg (60 Ifosy are . usually frozen,
while those greater in size are butchered to remove four large"
sections of; flesh called fletches,, Some plants in Alaska freeze
all sizes 'of fish, which are processed later in the Northwest*
The fish to be frozen whole are washed by spray or by hand and
quick-frozen. The waste loadings from this operation are
minimal. The sections of flesh from the fletched fish are
trimmed, washed, and quick-frozen. The larger trimmings are
marketed for smoking and breading. The edible cheeks are removed
from the heads, and are trimmed, washed, bagged and frozen.
The solid wastes in Alaska are used for bait or are discarded.
Subcategorization ^Rationale
Although there are many species and processing operations in the
bottom/miscellaneous finfish subcategory, only two factors were
considered to require further Subcategorization? geographic
location and degree of mechanization/water use. The bottom fish*
groundfishff and miscellaneous finfish industry was subcategoriz'ed
into "Alaska" and "non-Alaska1" regions because of the greater
costs and more complex treatment problems encountered in Alaska.
113
-------
— PRODUCT FLOW
— WASTEWATER FUOW
= = WASTE SQU0S FLOW
HEADS
CARCASSES
SKIN, TRIMMINGS
WATER,SLIME
WATER, ORGANICS
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL
WATER. SLIME
WATER,FLESH
MEAT, WATER
EFFLUENT
Figure 43.. Typical Alaska or Northwest halibut process.
-------
In Alaska, the only bottom fish industry of importance is
halibut. The problem is complicated by the fact that the
processing of halibut usually is practiced in conjunction with
other processes, such as fresh/frozen salmon processing.
With respect to non-Alaska regions, the bottom fish/finfish
industry was subcategorized into "conventional" and "mechanized11
processes, due to the increased water and waste loads associated
with the latter. A conventional process is defined as one in
which /the unit operations are carried out essentially by hand and
with a relatively low water volume. However, the conventional
process generally utilizes scaling and/or skinning machines. A
mechanized process is defined as one in which many of the unit
operations are mechanized and relatively large volumes of water
are used.
Figure 44 summarizes the wastewater characteristics for what are
considered to be conventional processing operations with little
or no mechanization. Figure 45 depicts a summary plot for what
are considered to be high-water-use mechanized processing
operations. In Figure 44 codes FRH1 and FFH1 refer to halibut
processing operations in Alaska; codes Bl and 2 refer to
groundfish plants in New England; codes FNF1, 2, 3, and 4, to
finfish plants in the Middle Atlantic and Gulf regions; codes B4»
5, 10, 11, and 12 refer to bottom fish plants in the Northwest;
and codes B7, 8f and 9 refer to bottom fish plants in California.
With respect to Figure 45, codes Wl and 2 refer to whiting plants
in New England, CFC1 to a fish flesh plant in the Gulf, and B6
and B6H to a bottom fish plant in the Northwest. Code B6H
represents historical data obtained for plant B6 (21).
The plants represented by codes FRHl and FFHl are considered to
be large halibut processing operations. The waste loads from the
halibut processing operations are relatively low, being of the
same order of magnitude as the Alaska fresh/frozen salmon
process. Table 26 shows summary statistics of the waste loads
from the Alaska halibut process. It is assumed that the waste
per unit of production is the same for plants in either the large
or small categories.
A relatively large size range exists for both the non-Alaska
conventional and non-Alaska mechanized portions of the industry,
with the mechanized portion being larger, on the average.
Information on the annual production of bottom fish is limited.
Based on studies conducted in the Northwest (20), and
observations made during this study, the following divisions were
made to break the industry into approximately equal-size ranges
for the purpose of costing control and treatment technologies.
The division between "large" and "medium" conventional plants was
set at 3630 kkg (4000 tons) of raw product processed annually and
the division between "medium" and "small" conventional plants was
set at 1810 kkg (2000 tons) of raw product processed annually.
The division between "large" and "small" mechanized plants was
set at 3630 kkg (4000 tons) of raw product processed annually.
115
-------
Figure 44 . CONVENTIONAX BOTTOH FISH PROCESS PLOT,
p
0
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
F .
P
P
Q P
Q S
Q S
Q S
Q S
Q SG
SG B
8SG 3
BSG
B 6 Q P
8 Q P
Q
6
F8H1 FFHt
C9> <3>
S
S
s
s
s
as
BS
BS
BS
08 S
Q P
SP
ai
(3»
s
s
s
s
s
Q S
Q S
S
S
s
s
as
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BSG
BSG
B S
P
32
Cf»
6
G
G
5
SG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
SG
SG
P
Q P
Q P
Q P
Q
FNFt
<*}
B
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BSG
BSG
BSG
QSSG
Q SG
Q G
Q 6
Q G
Q G
G
P
p
FNF2
<<»>
SYMBOL
Q
B
S
G
P
0
Q
Q
a
QB
QB
QB
QB
08
QB
QB
QB
QB
BS
BS
BS
- BS "
BSGP
SGP
S6P
6P
GP S P
GP QBS
P 08 S3
P QBS5
CBS P P 3
G
FNF3 FNFii, B<»
Ul (Si <4>
PARAMETER
FLON 1
5 DAY BOO 1
SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1
GREASE. AND OIL 1
PRODUCTION 1
P
08 f
QBS P
Q9S P
oascp
QBSS
BSG
B G
35
(SI
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
B
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS P
B G
G
87
(3)
S
BS P
as P
BS P
BS P
BSGF
BSGP
BSGP
BSG
QSSG
QBSG
Q G
G
G
G
G
G
G
98
(1)
S
a s
Q S
Q S
Q S
Q S
Q S
QBS
QBS
QBS
ass
as
BS
BS
BS
8S
SSG
SGP
GP
SP
B9
tz>
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
c •
Q
Q
Q
S
S
S
BS
as
s
s
,
p
p
p
p
&
310
t9t
S
S
S
SG
S
Q S
Q S
QBS
Q
f
P
P
811
(11)
S
S
s
BS
S
Q
Q
Bit
m
p
p
p
SCALING FACTOR
INCH s
INCH *
INCH s
INCH s
INCH s
6000
z
1
0.5
2
L/KKG
K6/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TON/HR
-------
Figure 45. MECHANIZED BOTTOM FISH PROCESS PLOT.
6.
*
*
*
5.
*
*
*
,
*
it.
*
*
*
*
*
3.
.
*
.
.
.
2.
*
*
*
.
*
1.
*
,
*
.
»
B
e
• 8
B G
B G
B G
e G
8 G
BSG
BSG
esc?
BSGP
• BSGP
BSGP
BSGP
esc?
QBSGP
Q SGP
G G
Q G
G G
G
N2
(?)
SYMBOL
Q
B
S
G
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
B P
B P
8 P
B
B
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
BSG
SG
Q SG
G SG
Q G
Q G
Q G
G
Nl
(5)
PARAMETER
FLOW
5 DAY BOO
B
B
B
G8
08
GB
GB
GB
08
OB
GB
G3SG
C SG
0 SG
0 SG
G SG
SGP
SGP
G
CFCi
IS)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
GREASE S OIL
PRODUCTION
. B
3
B
B
3
B
8
8
B
GB
GB
08
G3
S
SGF
SGP
SG
SG
SG
G
G
86
C%)
SCALING
1 INCH = 10
i INCH =
1 INCH s
i INCH =
1 INCH =
B
e
GB
OB
ce
08
ce
06
GB
OB
GB
GBS
,GBS ,
GBS
ces
GBS
GBS
CBS
GBS
GBS
es
S
S
' S
S F
S
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
66H
(6)
FACTOR
000 L/KKG
5 KG/KKG
5 KG/KKG
2 KG/KKG
2 TCK/HR
117
-------
Table 26
ALASKAN BOTTOM FISH
PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION*
(TON/HR)
TIME*
(HR/OAY)
FLOW*
(L/SEC)
(GAL/MIN)
Fi_0^ RATIO**
(L/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL**
(MG/L)
C KG/KKG)
PH* '
PEAN
4.38
5.13
6.94
110*
4530.
• 1080.
326.
- 1.48
396.
1.79
44.6
0.202
6.73
LOG NORMAL
MEAN
8.418
6.989
5.788
0.390
5.982
0.584
3.798
-1.600
LOG NORMAL
STD DEV
4.60
0-523
8.74
139.
0-907
0-907
0*318
0.318
0-216
0-216
1.310
1.310
99%
MAXIMUM
37500.
8980.
685.
3.10
656.
2.97
944.
4.27
PLANTS FRH1 »FFH1
* THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION* RESPECTIVELY
** THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVlATIONt RESPECTIVELY
118
-------
Table 27 indicates distribution within the selected size ranges,
of the plants investigated.
Although some variability was evident between the plants in the
"conventional" and "mechanized" subcategories, especially the
flow ratio and production parameters, the following observations
were noted. The waste loads (in terms of BOD, suspended solids,
and grease and oil) were four to five times greater for the
mechanized operations than the conventional operations. The
highly variable flow ratios for the conventional operations were
attributed mainly to the different methods of washing the fish
before processing. For example, the high flow ratio exhibited by
plant BiO was partially due to the fact that a high-velocity jet
spray was used to wash the fish as they were conveyed to the
processing lines. The historical flow ratio data at plant B9
were obtained from a flow meter which also serviced a restaurant.
The flow to the filleting tables at plant B2 was excessive in
relation to the same unit operation at other plants. Plant FNF4
flow ratio data were relatively high in comparison to other
bottom fish plants even though the other waste parameters were
low.
Since the waste loads were relatively low and were uniform for
all the conventional bottom/miscellaneous finfish processes, it
was reasonable to place them into one subcategory. Table 28
summarizes the waste parameters for the non-Alaska conventional
bottom/miscellaneous finfish plants. The flow ratios were not
included for B2, B9, BIO, and FNF4, as they were not considered
to be typical. Plant FNF3 was not included in the average
because only a small number of fish were being handled in the
round on the day the sample was taken, a situation which was
considered to be atypical.
Because there is no apparent relationship or trend relating flow
ratios, TSS ratios, or BOD5 ratios to production levels (See
Figures 46, 47 f and 48), it was assumed that the waste loads per
unit of production are independent of production levels.
The plants used to represent the mechanized bottom/miscellaneous
finfish process were two New England whiting plants (Wl, W2), a
fish flesh plant on the Gulf (CFCl), and a bottom fish plant in
the Northwest (B6, B6H), Plant B6 was included in the mechanized
subcategory because it used a mechanical sealer with high-
velocity water jets. Since this was the only sealer of this type
observed, and it contributed a high percentage of the waste load,
it could not be considered typical. Plant CFCl was also included
in the mechanized subcategory, since mechanical beheading and
eviscerating machinery was used. The waste loads for the two
whiting plants and the fish flesh plant were considered to be the
most representative of the mechanized segment of the industry and
are summarized in Table 29,
SARDINE CANNING
119
-------
Table 27 Non-Alaska bottom fish
size distribution.
Tgpe of Process
Size Conventional"Mechanized
Large
Medium
Small
FNF4, B8
B5, B7, B9,
PNP1, FNF2,
BIO, Bll, B12
Bl, B2, B4,
FNF3
Wl, W2, B6
CFC1
120
-------
Table 28
CONVENTIONAL 30TT0M FISH
PROCESS SUHHARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARI*KET£R
PRODUCTION (TON/HR)*
TIME CHR/OAYJ*
FLOW
FLOW
CL/SEC)'
CGAL/MIM*
RATIO CL/KKGJ
(GfcL/TCN)
TSS CMG/LJ
(KG/KKG)
800-5 CHG/L)
f KG/KKGI
GREA
PH*
SE AND OIL (HG/LJ
CKG/KKG)
LOG NORMAL LCG NORMAL
MEAN HEAN STO DE\I
1.7?
6.98
3.75
59. e
5240
1270
271
633
3.22
66.it
6.79
e.56
7.15
5.60
0.353
6.<»5
1.20
<*.20
-1.06
1.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
33
00
6
058
052
163
163
152
152
199
199
561
99X
MAXIMUH
5990
396
2.
901
105
0.
OS
72
553
PLANTS 61 ,62 ,e<* »a§ ,67 ,69 ,59 ,610 s
311 ,B1Z
* NOTF, I TH£ OUTPUTS FOR THfcSE
ARE THE NCRHAL (UNkElGHTECI K
AN3 STANDARD 0£VIATION» RtSPLCTIVLLY
121
-------
10 t-
8
o
•x
O
rr 4
0
f)
10 15 20 25
Production k.k.g/day
30
35
Figure 46
Conventional bottom fish flow ratios
versus production levels
122
-------
en
in
Q
O
CQ
10 15 20 25
Production kkg/day
30 35
Figure 47
Conventional bottom fish BOD5. ratios
versus production levels
123
-------
3.0
2.5
OJ
o>
I/I
•o
2.0
•o
0)
•o
-------
Table 29
MiCHANICAL eOTTCH FISH
PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETtR
PRODUCTION fTCN/HR)*
TIHE (MR/DAY)*
FLOW IL/SEC)'
(GAL/HIN)*
PLOW RATIO U/KKGI
(GAL/TON)
TSS CHG/LI
(KG/KKG)
800-5 f»1S/LJ
t KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL.. (MG/L)
fKG/KKGI
PH*
MEftH
«i,21
6.27
13.3
211
135CQ
32
-------
The canning of sea herring for sardines was considered to be an
important segment of the seafood industry from a waste impact
viewpoint due to its relatively large waste loads and flows and
its seasonal or variable nature. Four sardine canning plants
were visited in Maine; however, only two were sampled, as
considerable historical data were available from a study
conducted by the Maine Sardine Council (22). A total of 86 unit
operation and effluent composite samples were collected (or
otherwise made available) from the sardine industry.
Process Description
Figure 49 shows the flow diagram for a typical Maine sardine
canning plant. although the process varies somewhat from plant
to plant, it consists essentially of * the following unit
operations. • :
The fish arrive at the plant by boat or truck. Fish arriving by
boat are pumped out of the holds and transported to storage bins
by flume or dry conveyor. The water used is composed of
transport brine from the hold and tidal water of varying
salinity. This unloading water is usually discharged back to the
local tidal waters. Fish arriving by truck are flumed or
conveyed to storage tanks, or directly to the packing table.
Fish that are stored for significant lengths of time (one to two
days) are preserved by the addition of concentrated brine
solution to the storage bins. This is generally recycled through
refrigeration units to maintain low temperatures within the
tanks. The fish are removed from the storage bins by dip net, or
are flushed out with large hoses. Fish are then either flumed or
dry-conveyed to the cutting and packing tables.
The heads and tails are generally removed by hand; however,
cutting machines for packing fish steaks are now being used on a
limited basis. The size of head and tail portions removed
depends on the fish size. The cutting and packing table is
generally supplied continuously with fish, using a conveyor or
flume. Fish remaining at the end of the conveyor are returned to
the head of the line. All solid waste, consisting of heads,
tails, and rejects from the packing line, are transported by
water flume or dry conveyor to storage hoppers or directly to a
waiting truck. These solids are usually hauled to reduction
plants, where they are processed into fish meal or sold to
lobstermen for bait.
After packing, open cans of sardines are placed in racks which
are stacked onto special hand-trucks which are then rolled into a
steam box for precooking. The fish are precooked for about 30
minutes at about 100°C (212°F), then removed from the steam box,
drained and cooled to room temperature prior to sealing. This
operation partially cooks the fish and removes undesirable oils.
126
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
BA1UWATER
BLOOD,
JBRINE_W*TER _
SALT, ORGANICS"
_BELT_WASHER WATER
SLIME, ORGANICS
_COO_KINS WATER
STICKWATER
CUSHION WATER
OIL, FISH PIECES
OIL, SOAP, PARTICLES
EFFLUENT
Figure 49 . Typical sardine canning process,
127
-------
The liquid waste, or stickwater, generated represents one of the
most troublesome waste loads from the sardine operation.
The sardine cans are sealed by a machine which also adds oils
and/or sauces. After sealing, the cans are washed to remove any
oil or foreign substances which may have adhered to the can. The
wash operation employs a closed system which is emptied at the
end of the day's operation.
The sealed and washed cans are automatically loaded into vertical
retorts' which are partially filled with water to cushion the cans
as they enter. In the retort, the cans are cooked at about 113°C
(235°F) for one hour. If sauces, such as mustard or tomato sauce
are utilized, the cooking time may be reduced to 50 minutes.
after cooking, the cans are water-cooled in the retort to' a
temperature of about 52°C (126°P). The cans are then removed
from the bottom of the retort where they are washed again to
remove any spots. They are then conveyed to holding bins where
they are stored prior to manual casing.
SubcategorizationRationale
With the exception of dry versus wet transportation systems the
sardine canning process is essentially the same from plant to
plant and is located mainly in one geographical region, futher
Subcategorization was not considered necessary. However, the
1977 limitations provide for those plants with dry conveying
systems and for those plants with wet flume conveying systems.
The 1983 and new source standards are based on dry conveying
systems only. A relatively low number of sardine plants are
still operating; however, their sizes range widely. Of the 17
active processing operations, five were considered to be large
(over 55 thousand cases annually) for the purpose of costing
control and treatment technology, eight were considered, to be
medium (30 to 55 thousand cases annually) and four small (10) .
Ten of the 17 plants are located outside of population centers.
Figure 50 is a summary plot of the characteristics of four
sardine plants. Plants SA1 and SA2 were investigated during this
study. Information on plants SA2, SA3, and SA4 was obtained from
the Maine Sardine Council study (22). All four plants were in
the "large" size range.
Plants SA1, SA2, SA3, and SAH used dry conveyors to move the fish
from the holding bins to the packing lines. This should decrease
the flow and reduce the waste load (because it reduces the
contact time of the fish with the water) . Table 30 compares
flows and waste loads at plant SH2 before and ? after
implementation of the belt conveyor. Table 31 lists summary
waste characterization data obtained from the Main Sardine
Council study (22) for in-plant fish fluming.
128
-------
Figure 50 SARDINE CANNING PROCESS PLOT.
, GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
6 GP
8 GP
iSGP
8SGP
BSG
BSG
BSG
SG"
SG
SG
SG
Q
C
Q
Q
P
P
SP
GP
GP
G
QBS6
8SG
BSG
BSG
BSG
G
6
SAi
(8)
SYMBOL
SA2
(3)
PARAHETER
SA2H
(4)
SA3
(2)
SAI»
(5)
SCALING FACTCR
Q
B
S
G
P
FLCW
5 DAY BOO
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
GREASE < OIL
PRODUCTION
1 INCH = 5000
1 INCH * 5
1 INCH » 2
1 INCH = 1
1 INCH s 2
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TCN/HR
129
-------
Table 30 . Waste load reduction
using dry conveyor (Plant SA2).
Parameter Before After % Reduction
Plow ratio (1/kkg) 20,400 7590 63
Suspended solids (kg/kkg) 8.7 2.0 : 77
BOD (kg/kkg) 12.3 5.0 59
130
-------
TABLE 31
SARDINE IN-PLANT FISH TRANSPORT WATER,
STORAGE AREA TO PACKING AREA - (22)
Production
Fish Transport
Water Use
Flow Ratio
BOD5_
TSS
Oil & Grease
24.5
22.2
70,000
265,000
12,000
2,860'
1,400
16.7
500
5.96
120
1.43
tons/day
kkg/day
gal/day
Vkkg
1/kkg
gal/ton
mg/1
kg/kkg
mg/1
kg/kkg
mg/1
kg/kkg
131
-------
Table 32 summarizes waste loads statistics for the plants which
utilize dry transportation systems. The flow ratio from plant
SAl was omitted from the summary data because the unique fish
handling technology at the plant resulted in very low flows in
comparison to the other plants studied. It was assumed that the
waste load per unit of production is independent of production
level.
HERRING
The sea herring fillet processing industry is typified by large
flows and waste loadings; however, it was considered to be less;
important than the canning segment of the herring industry
because very few filleting operations exist in the United - States .
The market outlook is promising; therefore, two plants, one in
New England and one in Alaska, were investigated. In addition,
historical data from a plant in the Maritime region of Canada
were obtained, providing a total of 11 composite unit operation
and end-of-pipe samples.
Process Description
Figure 51 presents the flow diagram for a typical herring
filleting process, in New England, the herring are received from
boats or trucks and are pumped into the plant as a fish-water
slurry. The scales are removed using a descaler on the boat in a
manner similar to that used in the sardine industry.
The fish may be iced down before being flushed by high pressure
hoses toward an inclined conveyor, which transports them into the
processing room. German-made "Baader 33" filleting machines were
used for processing the herring at the plant visited in New
England .
In the Alaskan operation the herring were transported in bins and
processed using "Arenco" filleting machines, made in Sweden.
In the filleting machines, the fish are oriented into groves and
conveyed to a saw. The machines remove the heads, tails and
viscera and finally fillet the herring in one operation.
The differences observed between the Arenco and the Baader
filleting machines were:
1) The Arenco machine used two counter-rotating,
grooved wheels which partially eviscerated the
fish after beheading. This pair of wheels
became less effective as viscera accumulated
on them. This problem was reduced by
directing a high-pressure water stream onto
them during operation.
2) Instead of a single circular horizontal knife
132
-------
Table 32
SARDINE
PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
(TON/HR)
TIME*
(HR/DAY)
FLOW*
(L/seo
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO**
(L/KK6)
(GAL/TON)
TSS«*
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOD-5**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH*
5.14
6.78
10.6
168.
8690*
2080.
623.
5.41
1060.
• 9.22
201.
6.36,
9.069
7.641
6.435
1.689
6.967
2.221
5.301
0.555
0»946
1.42
•
3*25
0*275
0*275
0*811
0*811
0.412
0*412
0*588
0*588
16500*
3950.
4120*
35.8
2770.
24.1
789.
6.85
PLANTS SA1 fSA2 tSA3 »SA4
* THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION* RESPECTIVELY
»* THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
ANO STANDARD DEVIATION. RESPECTIVELY
133
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WATER, BLOOD , SCALES
IN SEASON
FAT.HEADS.SCALES.FINS.SKELETON
WATER , BLOOD, SOLIDS I
^.i
TO REDUCTION PLANT
OR
RECEIVING WATER
Figure 51. Typical herring filleting process,
134
-------
for slitting the underside (belly) of the
herring, the Arenco used a set of two
horizontal circular knives, which slightly
overlapped. The adjustment of the Arenco
machine was considered to be finer and tended
to reduce the number of improperly cut fish.
The freshly-cut fillets are flumed onto a sorting conveyor where
the poorly-cut fillets are separated and repaired manually.
Recycled fillets are returned to this conveyor to be again
sorted. The good fillets go to a boxing line where they are
placed in cartons which are subsequently adjusted for weight and
taped closed. The boxes are put onto racks and finally quick
frozen.
During spawning season the roe and milt, which are called
"spawn," are saved and shipped, respectively, to Japan and
England where they are considered delicacies. Production
increases as the size of the fish increases; yields of Q3 to 15
percent are expected during spawning season. Fillet yields
increase in the winter when no roe or milt are present. The fish
are generally the larger herring, being 20 to 25 cm (8 to 10 in.)
long.
The plant in New England flumed the heads, tails, viscera and
other solid wastes to a nearby rendering plant where the solids
were recovered and the water discharged. Therefore, no filleting
plant wastewater existed except the bailwater, which was
discharged. In Alaska the total effluent, including solid
wastes, was discharged. The waste flume from the New England
plant was sampled to obtain the characteristics of the effluent
as ±f it had been discharged instead of being sent to the
reduction plant.
Subcateqorization Rationale
Since the herring filleting process is essentially the same from
plant to plant and the number of plants is too small to separate
the industry into size ranges, geographic location was considered
to be the only factor requiring further attention in the
subcategorization process.
Figure 52 summarizes the characteristics of three herring
filleting plants. Plant HF1 is located in New England, plant HF2
in the Maritime region of Canada and plant HF3 in Southeastern
Alaska. Information on plant HF2 was obtained from a study
conducted by the Enviornmental Protection Service of Canada (23).
It was noted that the waste characteristics for all the plants
were similar. One difference was the relatively high flow ratio
observed at the Alaska plant. This high ratio is not considered
to be typical, since the investigation was conducted at the
beginning of the season and few fish were being processed. At
135
-------
Figure 52 . M£SPING FILLETING PROCESS PLOT.
6.
s as
5. s as
S BS '
S 8S
s es
s -is
BS as (
4, BS BS :
, S3 BS
es es
* BS
. e • as BS
5 8
3. e P a
3 P 3
8 P 8
P 3
. Q P 3
Q P
2. Q
-3 ;
t
G
.G P
. G P
*
*
SYMBOL
Q
i
S
G
P
G Q P
Q P
HFi HF2
(3) (2)
PARAMEHR
FLCW
5 DAY BOD
SUSPENDED SCLIOS
GREASE < OIL
PRODUCTION
1
1
1
.1
1
SCALING
HF3
(1)
FACTOR
INCH = 5COO
INCH = 1C
INCH = 5'
INCH = 5
INCH = 5
l/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TCN/HR
136
-------
low processing rates, water use is more independent of production
rate*
Table 33 summarizes statistics of the waste loads from all three
plants excluding the high flow ratio from the Alaska plant.
One relatively high grease and oil data point at the Alaskan
processing facility, resulted in a. distorted log normal
projection for the grease and oil daily maximum of 86.6 kg per
kkg of raw material, i.e., over 8 percent of the weight of raw
material. Since the typical fat composition of herring ranges
from 2 up to 11 percent of body weight, it would be unlikely for
78 percent or more of this fat to reach the waste water effluent
stream because a major proportion of the fat is contained in the
food product and waste solids. A comparison of the mechanically
butchered salmon processing raw waste load to the mechanical
herring filleting raw waste load indicates that TSS averages are
virtually identical, 20.3 kg/kkg for salmon and 20.9 kg/kkg for
herring filleting; the salmon BODJ5 waste load is higher, 50.8
kg/kkg for salmon versus 32.2 kg/kkg for herring filleting; the
salmon grease and oil average is also virtually identical to the
average for the New England herring filleting plant, 6.19 kg/kkg
for salmon versus 6.11 kg/kkg for New England herring filleting,
Because the one data point at the Alaskan herring filleting plant
appeared to be highly questionable in comparison to the other
available information, it was not used to determine a subcategory
average. Instead, the mechanical salmon process grease and oil
data was utilized to derive conclusions regarding effluent
limitations for the herring filleting process plants.
Clams
The processing of clams for fresh or frozen meat or for a canned
product was considered to be a moderately important segment of
the seafood industry because of the relatively large number of
plants engaged in this activity. The industry produces
wastewater flows and loadings which are quite variable and plant
sizes vary widely. Therefore, a total of eight processing
operations were investigated and a total of 38 unit operation and
end-of-pipe composite samples of the wastewater collected.
Although three important types of clams are processed (surf,
hard, and soft), only surf clam processes were sampled since
these are, by far, the most important, in terms of production and
wastes generated. Plants processing hard and soft clams were
visited and information on the processing methods was obtained.
Process Description
The process description for surf clams is discussed in detail
since it is the most important. The processing of hard and soft
clams is basically the same as surf clam processing, except that
higher percentages are handled manually.
137
-------
Table 33
HERRING FILLET
PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
LOG NORMAL
MEAN MEAN
LOG NORMAL
STD OEV
99%
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION*
(TON/HR) 5.92
TIME*
CHR/DAY) 5.11
FLOW*
(L/SEC) 19.6
(GAL/MIN) 310.
FLOW RATIO**
(L/KKG) ?020«
(GAL/TON) 1680.
TSS»*
(MG/L) 2970.
(KG/KKG) 20.9
BOD-5**
(MG/L) 4600*
(KG/KKG) 32.2
GREASE AND OIL**1
(MG/L) 924.
(KG/KKG) 6.49
PH* 6.66
8.856
7.428
7.997
3.036
8.433
3.474
1.87
6.46
2-70
19*8
313-
0*538
0*538
0*185
0*185
0*061
0*061
24600.
5890.
4570.
32.1
5300.
37.2
0.60S 3790.
0.605 26.5
PLANTS HF1 tHF2 ,HF3
» THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION* RESPECTIVELY
»* THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION. RESPECTIVELY
'Because the grease and oil data at the Alaskan herring filleting plant
was highly questionable in comparison to other available information,
it was not used to determine a subcategory average. Instead, the
•echanlzed salmon grease and oil data was utilized to derive the summary
data for the herring filleting process.
138
-------
The surf clam process consists of three basic operations?
shucking, debellying, and packing. Most plants produce frozen or
chilled clam meat which is shipped to other areas for further
processing into soup, chowder, or a canned meat product. Some
plants include a canning operation with the meat operation.
Shucking of the clam involves removal of the organism from the
shell and is accomplished either manually or mechanically,,
Mechanized operations are usually large and the manual operations
small.
Since more waste is generated in the mechanized operations, they
were investigated in greater detail. Figure 53 shows a typical
mechanized surf clam process including shucking, debellying, and
the three observed methods of packing. The figure also includes
an evaporated juice operation which is used in some processes.
The clams are unloaded from the vessels in heavy wire cages and
conveyed into the plant where they may receive a preliminary wash
before shucking. The washing is accomplished by a spray onto the
belt or by a reel washer. The reel washer is cylindrical, ranges
from 1 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) in diameter and 2 to 3.5 m (6 to 12
ft) in length and is usually made of stainless steel. Two basic
types of reel washers are in use: one is partially submerged in a
"V" shaped stainless steel tank filled with water; the other type
is suspended above the same type of tank, which in this case
serves as a drain for water sprayed from a perforated pipe within
the drum itself.
Heating the clams can be effected using a "shucking furnace,«
steam cooker, or hot water cooker. The shucking furnace, also
known as a shucking machine or the "iron man," is a large propane
furnace reaching temperatures from 625°C to 815°C (1160°F to
1500°F). A heavy metal chain belt transports the clams through
the iron man in 50 to 100 seconds, depending upon the internal
temperature.
The steam cooker method operates at 2 atm (15 psig) for one to
two minutes at a temperature of 132°C (270°F) . The liquid
generated is piped off and condensed for use as clam broth. The
condenser water may be recycled and used in the first washer.
The hot water cooker method immerses the clams in water at a
temperature of approximately 82°C (180°P) for one to two minutes.
This method is most typical in hand~shucked operations.
After heating, the clams are usually washed using one or more
reel washers. The meat is then removed from the shell, most
often by the use of a brine flotation tank. Occasionally a
hammer mill grinder or a shaker is used ahead of the flotation
tank to help separate the meat from the shell. Any meat still
attached to the shells is removed by hand and placed in a reel
washer which follows the shucking operation. Some operations
will repeat the last two steps; i.e., brine flotation, then
washing. The shells are stockpiled, and utilized in landfills or
139
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEVWTEB FLOW
WASTE SOUOS FLOW
T
*»<* .~.u
COOK
1 , , , I. I
* f
WASH _**NEi*A
i
TO ^JHiLLS BR|NC BRINE
LANOFILL. ^r: = — =^ — — — - — MFoMAingi —
SHELLFISH MEDIUM ««W*TOR
CONSTRUCTION, ETC 1 ^^
ORSAWCa
i ;
SKIMMER *«TER
TABLE
i
S«W£R, ^..MLLieS . __ __ _ ^.gj^y
| i
I WASH
| i
' SKIMMER -"""IS.
TABLE
HI
ll
ii
.|
CONDCNIEK MEAT
*»TE« 1
' 1 1
1
ewoKATON — — — — •«
1 MOTH COHcarrWnS
FR
CCZE 1
awce
SCAM
| „
TER ^.
!
.WATER ^ '
i
MINCE i
i
WASH
1
SKIMMER OHBAMIC8, WATER _fc_ ,
TABLE 1
JL
4y
PILL MD
'«" i
FREEZE t -
reW1T IkTiT
— — — — 1 ,„ „. ,
flOX 1 <
— — - ppri
Figure 53. Typical mechanized surf clam process.
140
-------
road construction, or piled to dry for subsequent use as media
for shellfish larval attachment.
At this point, the meats are belted or flumed across a "skimmer
table" to the debellying operation. A few plants fresh pack the
whole clams and ship them to other areas for further processing,
but this is not typical. The clam belly is usually removed
manually, however, this step is becoming automated in many
plants. The viscera and gonads removed from the surf clam are
dumped directly into the adjacent waters, ground and discharged
to the local sewer system, or recovered for bait or animal food.
Only the adductor muscles and the muscle tissue of the foot and
mantle edge of the clam continue on to the next washer, which may
be a reel washer, a circular jet washer, or an air blow washer.
The circular jet washer is a doughnut-shaped tub with tangential
nozzles on the bottom to create a strong circular current in
about 10 cm (4 in.) of water. A small opening allows a constant
overflow of clams. Air blow washers are large "V" shaped
stainless steel tanks. Air is bubbled the entire length of the
tank from the bottom through the smaller trough, agitating the
clams. In addition, an auger creates a current which helps to
clean and move the clams along.
After being washed, the clams normally pass over a skimmer table.
Depending upon the desired end product, the clams are then either
fresh packed as whole clams, or chopped or minced for further
processing.
Three methods of further processing of the minced clams were
observed: chilling or freezing, canning, and cooking for juice.
Little waste is generated by the chilling or freezing or canning
operations. When the clam juice is evaporated, the waste load is
increased, due to volatiles being entrained in the condenser
water.
Figure 54 illustrates the product and waste flow for a typical
hand-shucked surf clam process. The clams arrive by boat or
truck in wire cages holding about 32 bushels per cage. The clams
are belted through a spray washer and into a hot water blancher
which partially opens the clams. Residence time in the blancher,
which operates at about 80°C (176°F) is approximately twenty
seconds. The clams are next belted to a shucking table where the
meat is removed manually by prying the shell open and scraping it
with a knife. The meats are transported by bucket to a reel
washer where sand is removed. After the clams pass through the
washer, they are again put into buckets and taken to a debellying
and inspection table where the bellies and pieces of shell and
other extraneous matter that may be clinging to the clam meats
are removed by hand. The clam bellies are stored in barrels and
used for bait or animal food or simply discarded. The clam meats
are placed into a jet washer, as described previously, which
removes most of the remaining bits of sand and shell. From the
jet washer they pass onto a table with perforations (skimmer
141
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
SHELL
FOR 4ZZ —
LANDFILL,
CONSTRUTION.OR
SHELLFISH SUBSTRATA
BELLIES
TO SEWER, ^—
DUMPED.OR
USED FOR EEL BAIT
SAND .ORGANICS .WATER
EFFLUENT
Figure 54. Typical hand-shucked surf clam process,
142
-------
table) which drains most of the water and where more shell is
manually removed. From this table they pass into the second reel
washer for final cleaning. The washed meat is then either fresh-
packed or frozen.
The processing of hard and soft clams is similar to a handshucked
oyster process. The clam is shucked manually, washed and packed.
Hard clams have a larger frozen shelf life than other clams so
they are usually frozen. A few hard clams are also sold fresh
for chowder and some are sold in the shell. The soft clam is
usually fresh-packed and shipped elsewhere for further
processing. Some soft clams are also sold in the shell or used
as bait.
Some conchs are harvested along with clams and are often
processed in the same plant. In a typical operation, the meat is
manually separated from the shell and the viscera removed. The
meat is then washed, chopped and canned. Clam juice and salt is
added before canning. Conch shells in good condition are sold
for souvenirs. The remaining shells are discarded, like clam
shells, in landfills or road construction,
Subcategorization Rationale
Although there is a variety of clam processing operations, the
only factor which is considered to affect subcategorization is
the degree of mechanization.
A conventional clam process is defined as one where the unit
operations are performed essentially by hand and with a
relatively low water flow. A mechanized clam process is defined
as one where most of the unit operations are mechanized and
where, consequently, water flow is relatively high. Figure 55
summarizes the wastewater characteristics for both the
conventional and mechanized clam processes. Plants represented
by codes HCLl, 2 and 3 are conventional hand-shucking operations,
while plants FCLl, 2, 3 and CC12 are mechanized operations. Code
CCO1 represents a conch canning process, which is conducted in
conjunction with a clam canning operation. It can be seen that
the conventional hand-shucking operations contribute much lower
wastewater flows and organic loadings than the mechanized
operations.
The data from the three conventional plants are relatively
uniform; however, a greater range in the data from the mechanized
plants are evident. The plant with code FCIi shucked but did not
debelly the clams, resulting in lower waste loads. The plant
with code FCL3 was a highly mechanized plant with very high water
use due to considerable washing of the product. Plant FCL3 also
steam cooked the clams to facilitate shucking and condensed the
clam juice, leading to higher waste loads due to evaporator
condensate.
143
-------
Figure 55. CONVENTIONAL OR MECHANIZED CLAM PROCESS PLOT.
6.
*
*
5,
,
•
*
•
•
<»*
.
*
*
,
*
3.
*
.
*
*
*
2.
*
*
*
*
*
1«
»
•
*
*
,
0,,
• <
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S
S
G
S B GP
aa B &P G
B GP Q G Q G
P QB G S P QB G
Q BS
HCLl HCL2 HCL3 FCL1
(1) (<»> III CM
SYMBOL PARAMETER
Q FLOW
B 5 DAY BOD
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS
G GREASE < OIL
P PRODUCTION
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Q G
Q G
Q G
Q G
Q SG
QBSG
QBSG
BSG
BSG
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
S
B G
6 &
B G P
QB G
Q SG
S
S P
S P
FCL2 FCL3
<**} 15}
G
G
G
6
G
G
G
G
Q G
Q G
: Q G
G Q G
G Q
Q G Q
Q 6
Q G
Q G
Q G B
Q G S
8 G S
B S
BS S
S S
S P S
P S
P S
P
CCL2 CC01
171 13)
SCALING FACTOR
1 INCH *
1 INCH >*
1 INCH a
1 INCH s
1 INCH «
10000 L/KKG
10 KG/KKG
S KG/KKG
0.2 KG/KKG
10 TON/HR
144
-------
All the conventional clam operations were included in one
subcategory; all the mechanized clam operations were included in
another subcategory for the above reasons.
Table 3i» summarizes the waste parameters from the conventional
clam plants. The large standard deviation of suspended solids
was caused by the highly variable nature of the sand content in
the effluent, especially during washdown.
Table 35 summarizes the waste parameters from the mechanized clam
plants. Plant FCL1 was not included, since it was a hybrid
operation and did not include the debellying operation. Plant
CCL2 was not included because it utilized a manual debelling unit
operation.
OYSTERS
The processing of oysters for fresh or frozen meat or for a
canned product was considered to be . a moderately important
segment of the seafood industry due to the large number of plants
engaged in this activity. The industry uses both conventional
and mechanized techniques, which result in a wide range of
wastewater flows and organic loadings. In addition, plant sizes
vary widely. Therefore, a total of lfl processing operations were
investigated and a total of 99 unit operation and end-of-pipe
composite samples of wastewater collected.
Process Description
The processing of oysters consists of two basic operations:
shucking and packing. The oyster process is less complicated
than the surf clam process, since oyster viscera are not removed.
Most plants produce fresh or frozen meat, while some produce a
canned meat or canned stew.
Shucking of the oyster is accomplished using either manual or
mechanical methods, although manual operations are more
prevalent. Mechanized operations are generally large, while
manual operations range from very small to moderately large.
Since more waste is generated in the mechanized operations, these
were investigated in some detail. Figure 56 depicts a typical
mechanized process, referred to as the steamed or canned oyster
process, as observed in the Middle Atlantic and Northwest
regions. Unfortunately, the oyster canning season had not
started in the Gulf before the end of the sampling program;
therefore, no operations were investigated in that region.
However, the same species and same processing methods are
utilized in both the Gulf and Middle Atlantic regions.
The oysters arrive at the plant in wire cages and are conveyed
into the plant as needed, to two sequential drum washers. The
first washer cleans the oyster shells, and removes broken shell.
145
-------
Table 34
HAND-SHUCKED CLAM
PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION*
(TON/HR)
TIME*
(HR/DAY)
FLOW*
(L/SEC)
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO**
(L/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
CMG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BJO-5**
(M6/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
Pri*
MEAN
4.68
4.60
5.36
85.0
4S7Q.
1100.
2240,
10o2
1130.
5.14
31.7
6.145
6.99
LOG NORMAL
MEAN
8.427
6.998
7.716
2.327
7.026
1.638
3.457
-1.932
LOG NORMAL
STO DtV
ii64
2«01
2*06
32»7
0*618
0«618
0-749
0.749
0*321
0-321
0-579
0-579
99%
MAXIMUM
19300.
4620.
12900.
58.7
2380.
10.9
122.
0.558
PLANTS HCLl »HC|_2 tHO_3
* THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION RESPECTIVELY
** THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
ANO STANDARD DEVIATION* RESPECTIVELY
146
-------
Table 35
MECHANIZED CLAM
PROCESS SJWARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION*
(T0N/HR)
TIME*
(HR/DAY)
MEAN
8.44
7.38
LOG NORMAL LOG NOHMAL
MEAN STO DtV
5.03
0«283
99%
MAXIMUM
TIME*
(HR/DAY)
FLOW»
(L/SEC)
(6AL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO**
(L/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
TSS**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOD-5**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
PH*
7.38
67.4
1070.
19500.
4680.
325.
6.35
958.
18.7
23.6
0.461
6.79
9.880
8.451
5.784
1.849
6.865
2.929
3.163
-0.774
0*283
77.7
1230*
1.011
1.011
1.138
1-138
0*605
0-605
0.953
0.953
206000.
49400.
4610.
90.0
3920.
76.6
218.
4.25
PLANTS FCL2 »FCL3
» THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY
** THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
.AND STANDARD DEVIATION* RESPECTIVELY
147
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FUDW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
II
II
DIRT, DEBRIS,WATER
DIRT.OEBRIS,WATER
HOT WATER
WATER
BRINE
WATER
WATER
SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
TO SHELL PILE
EFFLUENT
Figure 56. Typical steamed or canned oyster process.
148
-------
seaweed, and other matter. The second washer has a different
pitch and serves to jar the valves far enough apart to allow
steam to enter during the cooking. Loose empty shells are
manually removed before the oysters are collected in retort
baskets. The oysters are steamed in retorts under pressure and
the resulting oyster juice or broth piped to a holding tank and
later condensed. After cooking, the meat is separated from the
shell manually or by brine flotation. One mechanized method uses
a specially designed drum washer called the "shucker". This
serves to mechanically separate the meat from the shell as the
drum rotates. Both the meat and the shell are collected in a
brine flotation tank where the buoyancy of the meats allows the
saturated salt solution to float them to a blow tank which
agitates and adds water to the product. The shells sink to the
bottom of the brine tank, where a belt collects them and deposits
them outside the plant. The meats go through a final drum washer
before being manually inspected. The oyster meat at this point
may be fresh packed in large cans, together with the condensed
broth, or canned and retorted. Some oysters are also smoked
prior to packing in jars or tins.
Figure 57 shows a typical conventional hand-shucked oyster
process as observed on both the East and West Coasts. The
oysters are shucked manually and usually fresh packed, although
some are breaded and some cooked for stew. The oysters arrive at
the plant by boat, barge, or truck and are conveyed into the
plant on a belt or in buckets. The shells may be washed to
remove most of the mud, and to facilitate shucking. Shuckers
open the shells manually by forcing the valves apart and cutting
the adductor muscle. The meat is put into buckets, washed on a
skimmer table and placed in the blow washer. The blow washer
typically holds about 300 liters (80 gal.) of water. For the
first 5 to 15 minutes air is bubbled through the washer; for the
following 20 to 50 minutes, overflow water is added to the tanks.
The oysters are dewatered on a skimmer table and then packed in
cans. A few operations bread and freeze the oysters, which adds
an additional waste load during washdown.
A few plants sort out the broken oyster pieces and can them as a
stew. This is a minor operation and occurs only once or twice
per week depending on the supply of pieces. The oysters are
first cooked in large vats for about 30 minutes, along with
pieces and preservatives. The meat is then rinsed and added to
the cans, along with milk and broth. The can is then sealed and
retorted.
Subcategorization Rationale
The only factors which were considered to affect subcategori-
zation of the oyster industry were the degree of mechanization
and geographic location. Figure 58 summarizes the wastewater
parameter statistics for all the oyster processes sampled.
Plants represented by codes HSOl through HSO6 were East Coast
149
-------
SHELL
TO SHELL PILE
Figure 57. Typical hand-shucked oyster process,
EFFLUENT
150
-------
58. FRESH/FROZEN, sitAHto, OR CAN-ieo OYSTER PROCESS PLOT.
5
fc
3
2
1
Q
Q
Q
Q G
Q Q
Q G
Q G
Q9 G
OS G
8 G
3 6
Q QB
08 GP S OB G
a a GP aa G s 8 G
tP 8 GP 09 GP S P P
0 S S P S P S
HS01 HS02 HSC3 HSO". HS05
(11 (31 {<•> (51 (?)
G
6
G
G
Q 6 G
Q ae
QB ' 8
QB G
QB G S
QS G
8SG P
BS P
HS06 HSOB
in 19)
G
8 G
a G
B s e
as a
G e .
GP Q
Q P Q
a
$ S
i S
H509 HS10
4»l C21
S
S
s
s
as
as s
as s
BS S
es s
as s
as s
as P s
es P s
as P s
QBS P S
QBSGP S P
QBSGP S P
G Q8SGP S P
G OBSGP BSGP
G Q8SGP Of 6
8 G QBSGP QB S
a QBSGP 0 5
6 BSGP $
Q S 8S6 G
0. S 8SG
P
HS11 SOI S02
{<•> 15) (7)
6 .
B
a
e
a
a
8
B
a
a
8
8
a
Q a p
86
&
G
G
GP S
S P
s - .
cot coz
m in
SVHBOt. PARAMETER SCALING FACTOR
Q
8
S
G
P
FLOW
S DAY 800
SUSPENDED SOLICS
GREASE AND OIL
PHOOUC fl ON
1 INCH *
t INCH B
1 INCH *
1 INCH *
S INCH *
50000 L/KKG
20 KG/KKG
SO KG/KKG
1 KG/KKG
0.5 TON/HR
-------
hand-shucked oyster operations; plants represented by codes HSO8
through HS11 were west Coast hand-shucked oyster operations;
codes SOI and SO2 represent steamed oyster processes; Code COl
represents a West Coast canned oyster operation; and CO2 a West
Coast canned oyster stew operation. It should be noted that the
production is expressed in terms of weight of the oyster meat
after shucking. The reason for this is that the measurement of
final product in this case is much more accurate, due to variable
amounts of loose or empty shells coming into the plant.
It was noted that the waste loads from the steamed and canned
oyster processes were higher than those from the hand-shucked
fresh/frozen operations. Therefore, it was decided that the
oyster industry be subcategorized into conventional hand-shucked
oyster processes and the more mechanized steamed or canned oyster
processes.
Table 36 summarizes statistics from the steamed and canned oyster
plants sampled, SOI and SO2, and historical data from plant SOV.
Plant SO3 was deleted from the subcategory average because the
raw material was prewashed before entering the plant. The data
from plant SOV represents a steamed/canned oyster process in the
Gulf Coast area. It was assumed that the waste loads per unit of
production were independent of plant size.
It also appears that the waste loads from the West Coast hand-
shucked oyster processes were somewhat higher than those from the
East Coast processes. This probably was due to the fact that the
West Coast oyster is larger and tends to "break up" easier during
handling. Therefore, the hand-shucked oysters were divided into
two subcategories : West Coast hand- shucked oyster processing and
East and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster processing.
Table 37 summarizes statistics from the Pacific hand-shucked
oyster plants sampled. Table 38 summarizes statistics from the
East Coast hand-shucked oyster plants sampled. However flow
ratio data from plants HS01 and HS06 were omitted because of
excessive overflows from the oyster blow tanks. It was assumed
that the waste loads per unit of production were independent of
plant size, because there is no apparent relationship or trend
relating flow ratios, TSS ratios, or BOD5 ratios to production
levels (See Figures 59 through
Since the size range of the hand-shucked oyster industry is quite
large, it was divided into three parts for the purpose of
determining treatment costs. Based on investigations made in the
field the large and medium- size ranges were divided at 300 tons
of finished product per year, and the medium and small ranges at
150 tons of finished product per year.
SCALLOPS
152
-------
Table 36
STEAMED/CANNED OYSTER
PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
NEAN
LOG NORMAL LOG NORMAL 99%
MEAN STD DtV MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION*
(TON/HR)
TINE*
(HR/DAY)
FLOW*
(L/SEC)
(GAL/MIN)
0.712
10.7
13.3
0.392
t
5.17
2.45
38.8
FLOW RATIO**
(L/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
TSS**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
BOD-S**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OlL*«
(MG/L) •"
(KG/KKG)
PH* • •
98200.
23500.
1580.
155.
624.
61.2
15.1
1*48
7.12
11.495
10 » 066
7»364
5.044
6. 435
4«115
2.715
0.395
0-476
0*476
0*234
0*234
0*887
0-887
0*180
0*180
•
298000.
71400.
2720.
267.
4930 .
484.
23.0
2.26
PLANTS 501
*S02
»SOV
* THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
AR£ THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
ANO STANDARD DEvIATIONt RESPECTIVELY
»* THE OUTPUT FOR Tt-ESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
STANDARD DEvIATIONt RESPECTIVELY
153
-------
Table 37
*I5T CCAST MNC SHUCKtJ CVSTCftS
ffcCCESi S
CF SfLtCHO
PRODUCTION ITON/H4I*
Tiff IM*/OA»»«
FLOW IL/SECt*
FLOW «*TIO (L/KK&I
TSS I1G/LI
(KG/KKGI
BOO-S MG/4.1
CKG/KKGI
GKEASE AND OIL <«G'U
PH»
«tA«
I.17«
r.ot
l.t-9
2C.9
f*SOO
IS30I
621
I*.?
*«:•
20. t
1.S5
6.C2
LOG NC«MAi. CCG NOKWAL
<(€AN STO OEV
».t«*
; t.S*
1.8*
16.6
it. 9 e.oir
••%« o.icr
«**S 0.019
l.fl 0.0ft
3.1? 0.010
3.3* 0.016
«.*»U 0.816
0.1*5
.*'-"o.
!
16100
11*80
3t.«
. **0
30.5
1.69
PLANTS HS09,hSOS,HSl9.HSll
• NOTet TH£ OUTPUTS
THESE
- .. ..-.. ..«„,_,. (UMMCIGl'TCCI »£AN
AND STANCASU CfVIATICN, RiSFtCTIWftV
154
-------
Table 38
LAST AND GULF CCAST hANC SHUCKcC OYSTERS
PROCESS SUMMARY
OF SELECTED PARAMTERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION (TON/HR)'
TIME CHR/9AY)"
FLOW IL/SEO*
(GAL/MIM*
FLOW RATIO IL/KKGI
(GAL/TCM
TSS CMG/L)
JKG/KKG)
800-5 CHG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL
-------
60
50
40
o
o
o
8
30
20
10
0.5 1.0 1.5
Production kkg/day
2.0
Figure 59
West Coast oyster flow ratios versus
production level
156
-------
2
O>
o
CO
30
25
20
15
10
t 1 1
0.5 1.0 1.5
Production kkg/day
2.0
Figure 60
West Coast oyster BODS ratios
versus production Tevel
157
-------
Cn
-a
«r-
"o
•o
O)
-o
O)
a.
IS
•M
O
50
40
30
20
10
0.5 1.0 1.5
Production kkg/day
2.0
Figure 61
West Coast oyster total suspended solids ratios
versus production level
158
-------
40
30
o
o
•o
os
I
sr
8.5
1.5
m*Jt
2.5
Figure ft
versus
-------
30
25
20
in
o
o
SO
IS
10
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Production kkg/day
Figure 63
East Coast oyster BODS ratios
versus production Tevel
2.0
2.5
160
-------
25 r-
20
rat
T5
O
C/7
"S
"O
c
(U
Q.
10
10
+->
O
0.5
1.0 , 1.5.-
.Production kkg/day
2.0
2.5
'..... .Figure 64
East Coast oyster total suspended solids
ratios versus production level
161
-------
The processing of scallops was considered to be less important
than clam and oyster processing, since the waste loads were lower
and fewer plants were in operation. A. total of three Alaskan
scallop processing operations were investigated and 13 unit
operation and end-of-pipe composite samples of wastewater
collected. The processing methods used for bay, sea and Alaskan
scallops are similar. The calico scallop is processed in a
different manner from the others; unfortunately, the 1973 harvest
of calico scallops was very poor and no operations were observed.
Process Description
The bay, sea and Alaskan scallops are processed for the fresh or
frozen market. The scallops are hand-shucked at sea to avoid
deterioration and the meat is iced and brought to the plant in
bags. Figure 65 shows the flow diagram for a typical scallop
process. After receiving the bagged scallops, the processors re-
ice and ship them to other processors or freeze them immediately.
In the plants investigated the scallops were either frozen in a
package or individually quick frozen (IQF) . The former involved
a prewash in a five to seven percent salt brine. In plants using
a fresh-water wash, a continuous flow was observed. The brine
tank wash is merely a holding tank,.with no flow, except for make-
up water and a complete recharge of the tank every eight hours or
so. From the wash tank, the scallop meats are belted to
inspection belts where debris and extraneous material are
removed. After inspection, the scallops are put into plastic
bags, weighed, boxed, and frozen in plate freezers. After
freezing, the boxes are placed into cartons and held for
shipment. The IQF- process is identical except that after
washing, the scallop meats are placed on a stainless steel mesh
belt and conveyed into a blast freezer tunnel. After rapid
freezing, the scallops are packaged and weighed, then packed in
cartons for storage. In some plants, the larger scallops are
first cut into smaller pieces before being frozen. A small
percentage of the scallops is processed for the fresh market, but
the vast majority is frozen in one form or another.
The calico scallop production began to become significant in
about 1967, with the development of patented machinery which
shucks and eviscerates the scallops automatically. In the past,
the machinery was sometimes installed on the dredging vessel and
the shucking operation done at sea; however, the processes are
now all land based. The typical unit operations used are as
follows (16). The scallops are piled on the dredge and unloaded
via conveyor belt to the plant. The live scallops are separated
from the loose shells by a shucker and conveyed through a heating
tunnel. The heat opens the scallop and loosens the adductor
muscle and visceral mass from the shell. The meat is then
separated from the shell using a shucker and brine flotation.
The meat then passes through a grinder-roller which removes
remaining viscera and is then washed, sorted, and packed. The
162
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
-— WASTEWATER FLOW
__ WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
WATER, DE8RIS
WATER, MEAT
DEBRIS
6FFLUENT
Figure 65• Typical scallop process.
163
-------
yield is quite variable, with the average being about eight Ibs
of meat from two bushels of shell stock.
Subcategorization Rationale
The only factor which was considered to influence subcate-
gorization of the scallop industry (excluding calico scallops)
was geographic location, since the processing operations are
essentially the same. It was determined that the processing
operations in Alaska be separated from those outside of Alaska
because of the greater costs. Figure 66 shows a summary plot of
the wastewater characteristics of two scallop processes in
Alaska. It was noted that the flows and waste loads were mini-
mal. Table 39 shows the average values of the wastewater
parameters for the two plants. There are no data for non-Alaska
operations, since the two Alaska plants were the only ones
sampled. Other plants were observed in the Middle Atlantic
region using essentially the same process; therefore, it should
be a good assumption that the waste loads would be similar.
ABALONE
The processing of abalone was considered to be relatively
unimportant from a wastewater control viewpoint, since the flows
and waste loads are small and because there are relatively few
plants. A total of three plants were investigated and 19 unit
operation and end-of-pipe wastewater samples collected,
ProcessDescription • .
Figure 67 shows the flow diagram for a typical abalone process.
The abalone are received at the plants in lots segregated
according to species and the diver who harvested them. After
unloading, the animal is removed from its shell with the aid of
an iron bar known as a "punch out" bar. The visceral mass is
separated from the large foot muscle which is then put into a
washer. Several types of mechanical washers are in use,
including a rotating drum type. The washwater is often re-
circulated and dumped at set time intervals. After washing, the
mouth and head sections are cut away and the foot muscles are
arranged on a large sorting table and allowed to rest. Before
further processing can be accomplished the muscle must sit for an
hour or more to relax. If the muscle is trimmed too soon after
shucking, it still retains a degree of excitability and is
difficult to handle.
Trimming follows the rest phase and is necessary to remove the
pigmented epithial lining of the muscle prior to slicing. The
mantel, the shell forming organ, is sliced off first, usually
with a mechanical slicer of, the type commonly used to slice
meats. Next, the epidodium, the pad covering the bottom of the
muscle, is sliced off with a mechanical slicer, and passed to a
164
-------
Figure 66. M.ASKAH SCKLUOV Pwxmss
SYH80L
Q
8
S
G
P
.--•: '.
G
G
G
86 8
B G
8 GP
G8 GP •
QB GP
QB GP
QB GP ''. :i jr .- -; S . :' . "
QB GP •< •••:•
QB &
QB G P
8-6 :.,.-;„«.<
B G ' .'••:'••• ----- , - '•
G
G
SG -i'
SG
' , SG '
- SG --•" .
G . • • ..^.> - •
G G
(6) III
PARAMETER SCALING FACTOR
FLOW i INCH * 5800 L/KKG
5 DAY BOO 1 INCH at!" KS/KK6
SUSPENDED SOLIDS: • , i 1 INCH * fl,,5 KG/KKG
GREASE < OIL 1 INCH = 0.1 KG/KKG
PRODUCTION 1-INCH s 8*5 TON/HR
165
-------
38
SCALLOP
PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION*
(TON/HR)
TIME*
(HR/DAY)
MEAN
1.26
8.63
LOG NORMAL LOG NORMAL
MEAN STO DtV
0*304
4.05
99%
MAXIMUM
FLOW*
(L/SEG)
(GAL/MIN)
2.55
<*0.5
PLANTS SP1 *SP2
* THE OUTPUT FOR TNE$£ PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED} MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY
*» THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARC THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION, RESPECTIVELY
3*48
55.2
FLOW RATIO**
1L/KK6)
(GAL/TON)
TSS*»
4MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
iOD-5*»
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
GREASE AND OIL**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
pH»
515*
325.
0.697
1460.
3.13
20.1
0.043
6.66
7.672
6.243
5.783
-0.360
7.296
1.142
3.003
^3.140
2*615
2*615
0.923
0*923
0*200
0*200
2*221
2*221
951000.
228000.
2790.
6.00
2330.
5.00
3560,
7.64
166
-------
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTCWATER FLOW
WASTE SOLIDS FLOW
SAND,KELP
VISCERAL PARTICIPATES. SSiffl, 3UME. KELP
TO SOLIDS DISPOSAL.
Figure 67 Typical abalone process,
167
-------
number of workers who complete the trimming manually. This last
step, known as "up-trimming," is necessary to remove the fascia,
a dark pigmented lining of the muscle. The trimmings are
collected to be canned or made into breaded abalone patties. The
abalone is then sliced and tenderized by pounding. Although
attempts have been made to automate the last step, no
satisfactory substitute has been found to replace the job of
manually pounding the steaks. The steaks are then packaged to be
sold fresh or frozen. Some steaks are breaded prior to freezing.
Subcatecrorization Rationale
Since the abalone process is a relatively small industry which is
located in one geographical area, it was determined to constitute
one subcategory. The abalone process plot of selected waste
parameters is shown in Figure 68. The summary statistics for the
three abalone processes sampled are shown in Table 40.
168
-------
Figure 68. ABALONE Process Plot
*
•
*
•
*
• •
*
*
•
*
*
• «
*
*
*
•
*
. t
*
•
*
*
*
3
3
3
3
8S 5
Q3S
Q3S
QdS Q
'3dS
sas 6
Q3S
03 S
UdS
SG G
SG
G
v» •
G
G
P
F
P
A 81 Ad 2
(•*) (1)
SYrttWL PftjiAHc-TLK
Q FLOW
8 5 UAY 300
i SUSPtHUtO FOLIOS
G 6><£ASL S Oil.
P PKOOUUTIOto
S
QflS
QBS
Q8S
aasG
QB G
06 G
G
G
P
Ad3
(3)
SCALING FAC
1 INCH = tjuuii
1 INCH = 10
1 INCH = &
1 INCH = 1
1 INCH = 0.2
TCR
L/KK&
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKb
TON/hR
169
-------
Table 40
ABALONE
PROCESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION*
(T.ON/HR)
TIME*
(HR/DAY)
FLOW*
(L/SEC)
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO**
CL/KKG)
(GAL/TON)
TSS**
(MG/L)
(KG/KK6)
BOD-5**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
6«£ASE AND OIL**
(MG/L)
(KG/KKG)
Pri*
HEAN
0*062
3.2i
0.542
8.59
39300.
9410.
282.
11.1
490*
19,3
28.3
1.11
7.11
LOG NORMAL
MEAN
10.57f
9.150
5.641
2.404
6.19S
2.958
3.343
0.106
LOG NORMAL
STD DEV
0*015
1.71= •
0*091
1.44
0.385 <
0*385 i
0*381
0*381
0*431
.0*431
0*291
0*291
' 99%
HAKIMUM
?63@0.
§31®.©,.
684*
.26.9
134H*
§2,6
55»8
2,19
PLANTS AB1
• AB2
>AB3
* THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION. RESPECTIVELY
** THE OUTPUT FOR THESE PARAMETERS
ARE THE LOG NORMAL (UNWEIGHTED) MEAN
AND STANDARD DEVIATION. RESPECTIVELY
170
-------
SECTION V
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION
A major effort in the Seafood Effluent Limitations Study involved
field investigation of the wastewater emanating from processing
plants in each segment of the industry. This was necessary
because the most recent previous study concluded that very little
knowledge of the character and volume of canned and preserved
seafood processing wastewater was available (24) .
The industry was characterized as follows: first, a preliminary
segmentation, as described in Section IV, was conducted and the
relative importance of these segments estimated; second, a
representative number of plants in each segment was sampled; and
third, the results of the field work were analyzed and final
subcategories established. The data from typical plants
belonging to each subcategory were then averaged to obtain an
estimate of the characteristics of that subcategory. These
estimates are referred to as the typical raw waste loads.
This section presents the results of the data analysis which was
performed on the wastewater information collected and used to
help establish the subcategories as discussed in Section IV. The
results are organized by commodity or process, in the same
sequence as Section IV. A brief introduction to each type of
process provides background information on when and where that
segment of 'the industry was monitored, and special sampling
technigjues, if any, which were required. The water and product
material balancfes are discussed to indicate the sources of
wastewater and the disposition of raw product to food and by-
product and waste for typical operations. The raw waste loadings
are discussed with special emphasis on major sources of water,
BOD, and suspended solid within the plant as well as end-of-pipe.
Sampling Procedures
Based on previous experience in examining wastes from the seafood
processing industries, the parameters considered to be most
important from the standpoint of waste control and treatment and
which could be obtained within the alloted time and economic
constraints were: flow, settleable solids, screened solids,
suspended solids, 5-day BOD, COD, grease and oil, organic
nitrogen, ammonia, pH, raw product input rate, and food and by-
product recovery.
The field crews were instructed to increase the sampling
frequency at point sources where the variation of the waste load
appeared to be greater. Estimates of the daily fluctuations in
the process were used to determine the duration of the sampling
171
-------
program at the plant. An attempt was made to increase the
duration at plants which showed higher variability from day to
day in order to obtain estimates with similar confidence
intervals.
Depending on the effluent discharge system, plant sampling was
accomplished several ways. For plants with a single point
source, a time flow-proportioned composite sample was taken over
the processing period each day by prpportioning according to the
previous flows. In cases where the effluent was discharged from
more than one point source, the individual discharge flows were
spatially composited on a flow proportioned basis to yield a
total-effluent sample. These total-effluent samples were then
time composited over the processing period. Some situations were
difficult to composite, such as, when two or more unit operations
made up a process, and were carried on at different times of a
processing day. These point sources were then sampled separately
and combined mathematically. The objective in all cases was to
make the final composite sample representative of the total
wastewater effluent discharged from the plant for that day of
production.
Since flow-proportioning was a vital step in the sampling
process, measurement of effluent flow rates were critical to the
representativeness of the ^ samples., several methods of flow
measurement were used by the field crews and are discussed in
Section VI. Also, since flow rates together with production
rates were the foundation upon which the waste load calculations
are based, several flow measuring techniques were often used in
conjunction to check accuracy. Production rates were determined
from the total volume of raw product processed during the day and
the length of the processing interval'. -After determination of
the flow rates, the effluent samples were taken. Every attempt
was made to obtain a well mixed representative • sample of the
effluent being discharged at the,time of sampling. The correct1
volume of effluent was taken from thje effluent stream at or near
'the point of discharge a.nd the temperature measured immediately.
The sample was then added to the sampling container, which was
stored in a cool place throughout thje day at the plant.
After preliminary field analyses for settleable solids and pH,
four one-liter samples were prepared as follows: one sample was
acidified to a pH of less than 2.0 and held at 4°C (40°F), one
sample was preserved with MO ppm of mercuric chloride and held
at 4°C (40°P), and two samples were frozen with no chemical
additions. When sufficient samples were obtained to make a
shipment, the two chemically preserved refrigerated samples, one
of the frozen samples, and the plastic bag containing the solids
from the screen from each composite sample taken, were packed in
styrofoam shipping cartons and air-freighted to an L analytical
laboratory in Portland, Oregpn where the remainder of the
parameters were measured. The seconcl frozen ;sample was retained
in storage locally for use in case of a lost shipment. Section
172
-------
VI of this report explains in more detail how the wastewater
parameters were measured and the"precisions involved.
DataRedaction ' , •;'
Several computer" programs, which proved to be very efficient
tools for analyzing and presenting characterization data, were
developed, " - -'• ' ' • _ • .,.;-:'.'". ' • •
The first program, designated PIAKT&V1, was used to calculate
arithmetic estimates of time averages, standard deviation, and
observed minimums and maximums of wastewater parameters from
individual plants. The input is arranged by the dates the
samples were collected and the points where the samples were
collected. Sample points were grouped together if they were
considered to be correlated, and grouped separately if
uneorrelated. -'The data from sample,.points which were considered'
to be correlated were composited'., by. .adding the waste loads from
each point for each'day "to obtain "daily., estimates of the total
load from these points. The data must be present from each
sample point on the same days in order to perform a correlated
calculation. The waste load for sample points where data was
collected infrequently (such as washdown) was considered to be
independent of waste load from other points. The average load
from each of the independent points was computed • over all days
and then added to 'the ...daily.average from the other points to
determine the overall average. A plant code corresponding to the
type of process and the name of the plant from where the samples
were taken was assigned to.the _output- from the; program to prevent
data from being related, to ,-a particular-.plant.' .-
ftn option to the PI&HTAVE program was OTITOP. The UNITQP option
calculated the loads from each sample point together with the
percent that the point contributed to the total effluent. This
information was used to develop the wastewater material balance
tables presented in this section and was very useful in helping
to determine where in-plant controls would be the most effective.
The next program, designated PRQSPLOT, was used to plot
arithmetic averages and standard deviations for five selected
parameters for up to 17 processing operations. This allowed the
data from selected plants to be visually integrated to help
determine if they were similar enough to include in one
subcategory. The codes for each of the plants plotted and the
number of samples used to develop the information are shown on
the horizontal axis below their respective characterization data.
The five parameters plotted are: flow, BOD, suspended solids,
grease and oil, and the production rate. The vertical scale is
in inches with the scaling factor given at the bottom of the plot
for each parameter. This plot allows the relative values of the
plant parameters to be easily compared. The mean of each
parameter is at the center of the vertical spread. The vertical
spread represents one standard deviation above and below the
173
-------
mean, hence, the wider the vertical,.spread the more variable the
data. These plots were used in Section IV to help determine how
the industry should be subcategorized and which plants should be
used to compute the average raw waste loads for each subcategory.
Once a decision was made on subcategorization, the data from the
selected plants in the subcategory were used by the next program
to compute and tabularize estimates of spatial averages (average
of the plant means) utilizing a log-normal transform, log-normal
means, log-normal standard deviations, and maximums for each
selected summary parameter. The plants used to determine each
spatial average are indicated by a code list at the bottom of the
table.
FISH MEAL PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The wastewater characterization data from the fish meal
production industry is organized into those facilities with
solubles plants and those without solubles plants, because of the
different sampling techniques and waste loads involved.
Fish Meal Production withSolubles Plant
Five fish meal processes with solubles plants were sampled on the
East, Gulf, and California Coasts. In addition, historical data
taken in 1972 was available from two plants in the mid-Atlantic
region (25). The field crews sampled the East 'Coast plants
during August and September of 1973 which was near, or at the
period of peak production. The 1972 data was taken during
November which was past the period of peak production. The data
from the Gulf and California was collected during October of 1973
when catches were intermittent and production was lower than
normal.
Since the solubles p^ant produces the majority of the wastewater
discharge, the sampling was centered around this aspect of the
plant's operation. As described in Section IV, the stickwater,
washwater, and bailwater generated in the pressing and drying
operations are held in storage tanks to await processing by the
solubles plant. As a result, the solubles plant operates out of
time phase with the rest of the plant. Figure 69 presents a
typical time sequence of activities showing periods during which
fish were being pressed and dried, periods of corresponding
solubles plant operation and the periods during which samples
were taken by the fiej,d crew at a plant in the mid-Atlantic. The
vertical axis presents activity (meal production, solubles plant
operation, or sampling! i-n ar» on-off fashion, without showing the
magnitudes. The figure shows that the pressing and drying oper-
ations for meal at this plant took place during the first six to
12 hours of a 21 hour period, with the solubles plant operation
extending over 30 to «*Q hour periods, depending on the volume of
fish processed and the capacity of the solubles plant. Sampling
174
-------
•si
en
FISH PRESSING AND DRYING OPERATION
ON _
OFF
SAMPLING PERIOD
SOLUBLES OPERATION
OFF
2 34
TIME (DAYSJ
Figure 69. Fish meal process time sequence of activities,
-------
occurred at. various times during solubles plant operation. The
basic assumption made was that the bailwater, washwater, and
stickwater processed by the solubles plant during a given period
resulted from the volume of fish processed just previous to the
solubles plant operation under consideration. The amount of fish
processed was then equally distributed over the solubles plant
operation period which followed allowing the waste loads to be
properly proportioned to the production levels. As a result, the
wastewater summary tables show long processing times and
relatively low production rates. It should be noted that these
are in terms of solubles plant operation and not fish pressing
and drying time. For cases where bailwater was being discharged,
the flow rate was determined by averaging over the period of
solubles plant operation so that the two waste loads could be
added properly.
Wastewater material balance
Table 11 shows the wastewater balance summary for plants with
only evaporator and air scrubber discharges (M3, A2) and Table 12
shows the wastewater balance for plants with evaporator and
bailwater discharges (M2H, M3H). It can be seen that the largest
flows by far are from the evaporator. Bailwater flows are
relatively small but contain substantial waste loads. Air
scrubbers can contribute a relatively large flow and contain
about the same concentration of wastes as the evaporators.
To determine how much of the waste load from the evaporator
originates in the process and how much is caused by poor quality
surface water, the evaporator intake, as well as the discharge
was sampled at four plants with the results plotted on Figure 70.
The plant codes with the suffix "I" correspond to data from the
intake's. The figure shows that while most of the BOD load is
caused by the evaporator process, very little suspended solids or
grease and oil was added. Tables 13 through 46 contain the plant
temporal data utilized for the subcategory summary. By examining
the plant averages for the intake and discharge water of plants
M2, M3, M5 and A2, it can be determined that the intake
contributes an average of only eight percent of the BOD, but 52
percent of the suspended solids and 78 percent of the grease and
oil
The waste levels from plants discharging bailwater are about
three to five times higher than from those evaporating the
bailwater.
The bailwater waste load concentrations are very high with
suspended solids and BOD exceeding 20,000 mg/1. The waste loads
are also high since the production rates are very high at fish
meal plants.
Product material balance
176
-------
Table 41. Wish meal production with solubles plant ma\ ^rial balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) evaporator
b) air scrubber
Total effluent average
M3, &2
', of Total
Flow
80 - 85%
15 - 20%
<> of Total
BOD
60 - 85%
15 - 40%
•51,000 1/kkg 3.7 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Products
a) oil
b) meal
By-products
a) solubles
Wastes
a) water
% of Raw Product
6-8%
20 - 21%
15%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
60 - 90%
10 - 40%
1.6 kg/kkg
56 - 59%
Average Production Rate, 540 kkg/day (600 tons/day)
-------
Table 42. Fish meal production with bailwater material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total % of Total % of Total
Unit Operation . Flow BOD Susp. Solids
a) evaporator >99% 17 - 48% 12 - 36%
b) bailwater
-------
Figure 70. Fish Meal Process Plant (with solubles plant)
Intake an-' Plscharge
6.
t
*
*
S.
.
*
*
. F
*
.
.
3.
.
t
*
*
.
2.
*
0
. Q
. C
. Q S
i. o s
SYH8CL
Q
a
S
G
P
P
8
g
BS
63
OS
as
BS
es
Q6SG
cesG
Q8SG
08SG
09 G
e G
E '
M2
(5)
Q
C
S Q
3GF C
SG
SG
SG
c
S
8
B
B
M3I
(5»
PARAMETER
6
8
p
8
e
es
BS
es
•' »W
BS
SS
8SG
esc
asG
8SG
SS6
8SGP
SG
SG
SG
SG
S
S *
S
5
f*3
<<*>
- e
B
e
e e
e c
B C
8
B
SG
SG
SG
SG
S6
SG
S
S
0 Q SG
C G G SG
G SG
SGP SGF
S SG B
e se
M5I H5 A2I
(9) (S) (<*>
e
B
e
B
B
B
es
BS
as
GBSG
Q SG
SG
SG
SG
G
G
P P
P P
A2
(<*)
SCALING FACTCfi
FLOW
5 C
AY 800
SUSPENDED SO
GRE
ASfc < OIL
LIOS
PRODUCTION
i INCH = 20000
1 INCH = 1
1 INCH = 0.5
1 INCH = 0.5
1 INCH = 20
L/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
KG/KKG
TCN/HR
179
-------
Table 43 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DA.Y
PLOW I/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
MEAN
73.3
22.2
415
6600
22500
5400
STD DEV
—
—
131
2080
7110
1700
MINIMUM
— —
20.0
235
3730
12800
3060
MAXIMUM
__
24.0
559
8870
30300
7260
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
39.0
0.879
75.3
1.70
147
3.30
23.6
0.532
5.46
0.123
8.36
0.188
7.75
42.6
17.3
0.389
49.9
1.12
59.2
1.33
9.33
0.210
2.55
0.057
3.90
0.088
0.320
1.45
23.8
0.536
27.7
0.625
84.1
1 .89
14.9
0.336
3.20
0.072
4.17
0 .094
7.30
41.1
PLANT M2
5 SAMPLES
60.5
1.36
138
3.10
210
4.72
35.0
0.787
8.47
0.191
13.9
0.313
8.75
44.4
180
-------
Table 44 . MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
(NO SCRUBBER WATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/S1C
(GAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
MIAN
32.0
23.2
282
4470
35000
8390
STD DEV
«,—
»-
4,02
63.8
500
120
MINIMUM
__
—
278
4420
34600
8300
MAXIMUM
—_
—
287
4560
35700
8560
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DBG C
28.0
0.981
88.1
3.09
196
6.86
25.0
0.876
4.20
0,147
2.32
0.081
6.20
39.7
22.7
0.794
41.8
1.46
83.9
2.94
10.4
0.366
3.74
0.131
0.803
0.028
0.228
0.321
15.9
0.555
26.8
0.937
86.7
3.04
13.8
0.485
2.24
0.079
1.78
0.062
5.90
39.4
PLANT
62.0
2.17
121
4.22
286
10.0
39.0
1.37
9.80
0.343
3.50
0.123
6.60
40.0
M3
4 SAMPLES
181
-------
Table 45 • MENHADEN REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/RR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW I/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/ 1.
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOB MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-K MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
9.23
18.3
40.3
640
17400
4160
8.18
142
__
22.0
0.382
178
3.08
303
5.26
19.8
0.343
2.99
0.052
1 .33
0.023
4.33
47.0
STD DEV
0.044
— ,
4.84
76.8
2040
489
19.5
338
—
17.5
0.304
31 .1
0.540
56.6
0.982
8.54
0.148
2.73
0.047
0.582
0.010
0.181
2.49
MINIMUM
9.15
14.0
36.1
573
15600
3730
0.276
4.78
— —
11.9
0.207
126
2.18
205
3.56
12.6
0.218
1.26
0.022
0.415
0.007
4.11
43.3
MAXIMUM
9.26
24.0
50.1
796
21500
5150
56.3
978
-.-
67.9
1.18
219
3.81
385
6.69
39.5
0.686
9.53
0.165
2.53
0.044
9.93
51.1
PLANT M5
9 SAMPLES
182
-------
Table **>. ARCHCVY
(DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TOW/®
Bl/DAY
FLOW L/SBC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KK6
(GAL/TeK)
MSJW STO DW MX
19,© 1.13
24.0 —
231 SS48 2
3670 87.1 3S
484OO 6O3 ' 471
116CO 145 114
serf, SOLIDS m,/L
RATIO L/KKQ
C
RATIO KO/KK0
SUSP,
RATIO
5 DAY 1OD M3/L
RATIO KG/KK3
COD MG/L
RATIO
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
OR6AKIG-W MS/L
RATIO
ANMOHIA-lf
RATIO K6/KIIC@
?K
TSIP DSG C
1180O
25e1
1.22
67.4
3.26
185
8.93
21.1
1.02
5.76
0.279
0.982
0.048
6.00
14.1
15,1
0.730
31 .O
1.50
5.16
0.250
1.11
0«054
0.112
0.005
0.353
10,5
16.4
Oe795
44S7
2,16
144
6.98
15.5
0,749
4.84
0.234
0.807
0,039
5.60
5e99
1e4®
4.32
229
11.1
27 9B
1834
7.33
0*355
1.13
Oe055
6,68
29o2
183
-------
The end products of fish meal reduction are fish meal, oil, and
fish solubles; fish solubles being a product of stickwater and
bailwater evaporation. The product material balance portion of
Table 41 shows the relative amounts of each product obtained in
the process. Yields will vary somewhat according to the season,
the species processed, and the efficiency of the plant. A
significant portion of the water contained in the fish exits the
plant as waste vapor in the meal drying process and in the
evaporator process.
Plants M2, M2H, M3, M3H and M5 were processing menhaden ex-
clusively during the sampling periods with production rates
averaging about 640 kkg/day (700 tons/day) . Plant Ml was
processing mostly menhaden along with some scraps from bottom
fish and herring plants and had an average production rate of
about 200 kkg/day (220 tons/day). Plant A2 was processing
anchovy exclusively during the sample period and had an average
production rate of 410 kkg/day (460 tons/day).
Fish Meal Production Without Solubles Plant
Two fish meal plants without solubles plants were sampled on the
California Coast during October 1973. The sampling period was
during the peak season, however, the weather and the fact that
some fishing boats alternate between squid and anchovies, caused
intermittent operation.
Wastewater material balance
Table 47 shows the wastewater balance summary for a fish meal
plant with no solubles plant discharging stickwater and
bailwater. The largest and strongest flow is the stickwater
which is the liquid remaining after the oil is recovered from the
press liquor. The waste load from the stickwater is one of the
strongest in the entire seafood industry being very high in BOD,
suspended solids, and grease and oil. The bailwater is also a
relatively high flow and load and has similar characteristics to
the bailwater described previously for the menhaden processes.
«
Tables 48 snd 49 show the discharge characteristics for the two
plants sampled, Al and A3 respectively. Plant A3 had an air
scrubber which contributed about 15 percent of the flow but
almost no waste load. Plant Al used a once pass bailwater system
which increased the flow substantially, compared to A3 which
unloaded the fish using a high pressure hose from a truck.
Product material balance
Table 47 shows the disposition of the raw product for plants
discharging stickwater. There is more waste from these plants
because the solubles are not recovered.
184
-------
Table 47, Fish meal production without solubles plant material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) stickwater
b) bailwater
c) washdown
d) air scrubber
of Total
Flow
45%
39%
1%
15%
of Total
BOD
93%
7%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
94%
6%
00
in
Total effluent average
A3
1870 1/kkg
71 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products % of Raw Product
Products
a) meal
b) oil
Wastes
a) stickwater
b) water vapor
28%
8%
35%
29%
59 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 187 kkg/day (207 tons/day)
-------
Table 48 . ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS
(DISCHARGE)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SFTT. POLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
I«
—
17»0
23.1
3600
46.4
6160
79.5
968
12.5
399
5.15
19.9
0.257
. 6.82
21.3
STD DEV
0.910
—
12.5
199
6190
1480
0,473
6.10
—_.
935
12.1
1790
23.1
2970
38.3
1020
13.1
171
2.20
13.2
0.171
0.192
4.02
MINIMUM
5.53
3.80
9.39
149
6750
1620
1,29
16.7
«H>W*>
—
1180
15.2
2070
26.7
3790
48.9
94.9
1.22
265
3.42
11.0
0.142
6.63
16.7
PLANT
MAXIMUM
7.15
11.0
34.4
547
19100
4590
2.22
28.7
*•***.
—
2860
36,9
5570
71 .8
9490
122
2090
26.9
591
7.63
35.1
0.453
7.18
23.4
A1
3 SAMPLES
186
-------
Table 49 . ANCHOVY REDUCTION PROCESS
(WITH AIR SCRUBBER WATER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/ER
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW I/ SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DIG C
MEAN
6.63
24.0
4.00
63.5
1870
448
221
41 2
246
0.459
31400
58.6
37900
70.8
78200
146
20100
37.5
2810
5.24
99.7
0.186
6.78
43.3
STD DEV
0.411
„_»
0.234
3.71
114
27.3
51.3
95.8
—
18100
33.7
1 1000
20.6
38600
72.1
13800
25.7
1050
1.95
33.2
0.062
0.060
2.34
MINIMUM
8.33
—
3.72
59.1
1770
425
167
313
„. _
11500
21.5
22500
42.0
34200
63,8
2730
5.11
960
1.79
45.1
0.084
6.68
40.7
PLANT
MAXIMUM
9,
—
,08
4.52
71 .7
2120
509
305
570
_—.
60800
1 14
49300
92
1 38000
258
39800
74
3420
6
1 36
0
6
45
A3
.1
.3
.39
,255
.87
-.7
5 SAMPLES
187
-------
Both Al and A3 were processing anchovy exclusively during the
sampling period. Production rates ranged from HI kkg/day (50
tons/day) at the smaller plant (Al) to 190 kkg/day (210 tons/
day) at the larger plant.
SALMON CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Three salmon canning plants in Alaska and two plants in the
Northwest were investigated during the period from July to August
1973. In addition historical data were obtained front four plants
in the Northwest, including the two sampled.
The 1973 Alaska salmon season was very poor, therefore more fish
were going to the fresh/frozen market and the canning operations
were very intermittent. Most of the canneries are presently
grinding their waste and discharging to a submarine outfall,
therefore, end of pipe samples were relatively easy to obtain at
a common sump.
The Northwest plants investigated were sampled during the end of
September which was near the end of the season. The Northwest
plants usually have both hand butchering and mechanical
butchering lines, hence there was a combined operation during
most of the investigation period. The butchering machine was
usually operated only during times when large volumes of fish,
usually pinks and chums, arrive at the plant. Silver and Chinook
salmon were usually hand butchered. Hand packing of sockeye was
also done for special orders that required a finer quality
product.
Wastewater M§terial Balance
The intake water for Alaskan salmon plants located in isolated
places is obtained from nearby surface water streams. The intake
water for plants located in town is usually from the municipal
systems. The water used in the canneries is chlorinated either
by the plant or by the municipal treatment system. City water is
generally $\sed by Northwest plants for all phases of the
operation.
Table 50 shows the wastewater balance for salmon canning
operations using the butchering machine. It can be seen that
this machine contributes a significant portion of the flow and a
very great portion of the BOD and suspended solids load. The
main reason that the BOD loads for the Northwest plants were
quite variable, and generally lower than the Alaskan plants (see
Figure 25), was because the butchering machines were used only on
a portion of the total fish processed.
Table 51 shows the wastewater material balance for an exclusively
hand butchering operation (CSN5, CS6M). It can be seen that the
total loads are much lower for the hand butchering operation than
188
-------
00
10
Table SO Salmon canning process material balance (mechanized)
Mastewater MaterialBalance Summary
Unit Operation
a) unloading water
b) iron chink
c) fish scrubber
d) sliming table
e) fish cutter
f) can washer and clincher
g) washdown
Total effluent average
% of Total
Flow
m
27%
191
13%
7%
21
20%
19800 1/kkg
Product Material Balance
% of Total
BOD
10%
65%
5%
6%
4%
1%
10%
45.5 kg/kkg
Summary
% of Total
Susp. Solids
7%
56%
3%
18%
5%
1%
11%
24.5 kg/kkg
End Products % of Raw Product
Food products 62
By-product
a ) roe 4
b) milt 2
c) oil
d) heads 12
e) viscera 0
- 68% '
- 6%
- 31
1%
- 14%
- 5%
Wastes
11 -
Average Production Rate, 37 kkg/day (41 tons/day)
-------
fable §' , Salmon canning process material balance (hand butcher).
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) butchering line
b) fish cutter
c) can filler
d) can washer
e) washdown
% of Total
Flow
20%
20%
5%
22%
33%
% of Total
BOD
24%
16%
21%
5%
34%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
17%
17%
30%
5%
30%
Total effluent Average
CSN5, CS6M
5400 1/kkg
3.4 kg/kkg
2.0 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 4.8 kkg/day (5.3 tons/day)
-------
for the mechanical butchering line. The hand butcher canning
process is identical to the fresh/frozen operation except for the
wastes from the fish cutting and can filling operation, which
increase the load about 45 percent more. Plant CSN2 used a hand
packing operation rather than a mechanical filler, therefore,
their wastes were lower.
Tables 52 through 57 show summary statistics of the wastewater
for the plants utilized in the subcategory summary. Figure 29
contains a normalized salmon canning process plot of selected
wastewater parameters from each plant sampled. Codes CSN2, CSN3
and CSN1 represent Alaskan plants which used the butchering
machine exclusively. Codes CSN5 through CSN8 represent Northwest
plants which used the butchering machine in varying amounts.
Code CSN5 used hand butchering exclusively, plant CS8H (histor-
ical data from CSN8) used the butchering machine exclusively,
while the rest of the plants used it occasionally.
Plant CSN8 had a poor water conservation practice of letting
water run through the butchering machine in between periods of
operation. This practice caused the flow ratio to be much
greater than normal at this plant. CSN8 also used' a flume
unloading system which was not observed at the other plants and
which produced an added flow of about ft170 1/kkg (1000 gal/ton).
The added waste load in terms of BOD, however, was very small.
Most of the plants in Alaska grind the larger solids before
discharge to submerged outfalls. Some plants were beginning to
install screens in 1973 but none were operational during the
sampling interval.
Most plants in the Northwest discharge the wastewater after
coarse screening to remove the larger particles. Plant CSN7 had
a tangential screen in place and samples were taken to "determine
its effectiveness. The tangential screen removed the screenable
solids effectively, however, the BOD and suspended solids were
observed to increase slightly (it should be noted that the
"before screening" samples were passed through a 20 mesh Tyler
screen prior to analysis). The reason for this is believed to be
due to the type of pump used to deliver the water to the screen.
The pump could have pulverized some of the solid material causing
the number of undersize particles to increase (see Section VII,
Screening).
Product Materi al Balance
Table 50 shows the product material balance which is similar for
either hand or mechanical butchering. The food recovery varies
with species and is a little greater for the hand butchering
operation. Solid wastes such as the heads and viscera are
usually discharged to the receiving water in Alaska and are
usually recovered in the Northwest for pet food, mink food, or
fish meal.
19]
-------
Table 52 • SALMON CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIMS HR/DAY
PLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RA2IG L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD i*G/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
3.16
6.00
13.9
220
1 8300
4370
2.97
54.3
1390
25.4
726
13.2
1330
24.2
2470
45,1
175
3.19
175
3.20
5.33
0.097
6,88
11 .9
STD DEV
0.761
-_.
2.o7
42.5-
3690
384
1.26
22.9
573
10.5
252
4.61
451
8.23 .
4SO
8.95
62.0
1.13
48.9
0.892
1 .41
0.026
.0.109
0.554
MINIMUM
1 .67
2.50
10.1
160
13600
3270
1 .68
30.7
824
15
448
8.17
719
13.1
1670
30.4
. j -*
99.2
1 .81
81.5
1 .49
2.93
0.053
6.71
11.3
MAXIMUM
3.94
10.0
17.8
283
25100
6010
4.81
87.8
2610
' 47.7
1190
21 .6
2100
38.3
3090
56.4
271
4.95
236
4.30
7.16
0.131
7.09
12.6
PLANT CSN2
7 SAMPLES
192
-------
Table 53 . SALMON CANNING PROCESS
&." •'•'"""'.. .-=.---»..- *,..,,.-
PARAMETER
"%
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
S-ETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L '
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG ^
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
P 4.62
8.25
22 .0
..349
19000
4560
46.3
882
V. **** "'
,40.8
4300
81.8
'-7510
143
'-• * * i
"341
,, 6.49
816
15.5
• 16.7
0.31
6.82
12.9
STD DEV
0.548
.. ... —
' -::3.38
.,.53*6
2470
592
9.37
178
• ' __
~ ifoso
20.6
.,14.4
f450
..27.6
2.11
0.040
:: • '394
7.49
; C 6.26
7. a 0.119
0.080
1.07
MINIMUM
4.06
4.00
17.8
283
15100
3620
34.5
——
1020
19.5
3470
66,0 ,
5460
104
339
6.46
, 7.81 r
7.97
0.152
6.73
11 .8
MAXIMUM
5.32
12.0
26.5
421
21300
5JPO
54.2
1030
• • ~i._
3270
62.2
5190
98.8
889O
•>•>.. -t69
343
6.53
1260
.24.0
22.3
0.424
6.96
13.8
* * PLANT CSN3
4 SAMPLES
193
-------
54 , SALMON CANNING PROCESS
(wira GRINDING)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME MR/DAY
FLOW L/SEG
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KRG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RA1IQ KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PE
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
4.4*
7.13
21.2
336
20400
4900
25.5
522
2360
48.3
1460
29.6
2610
53.4
5560
114
842
17.2
408
8.35
10.2
0.208
6.62
15.4
STD mv
1.34
—
3.76
59.8
8050
1930
22.5
45 5'
2010
41.1
.384
7.86
1170
24.0
2720
55.6
1110
22.6
185
3.77
3.59
0.073
0.151
0.705
MINIMUM
2.63
4.50
14.6
231
1 3200
3170
4.20
85.8
552
11.3
857
17.5
14QO
28.7
2770
56.6
232
4.74
192
3.93
4.12
0.084
6.45
14.8
PLANT
MAXIMUM
5.89
9.50
26.8
425
31400
7520
64.3
1320
5580
114
1980
40.4
4670
95.5
9790
200
3080
62.9
729
14.9
14.2
0.290
6.88
16.7
CSN4
6 SAMPLES
194
-------
Table 55 . gAJMON CANNING PBDCESS
(HftND BUTCHER)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TO8/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/SBC
(CAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP, SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KRG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N «G/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DIG C
MEAN
1.02
5.20
2.21
35.1
8980
2150
1.92
17.3
—
342
3.07
455
4.08
1260
11.3
875
7.85
86.7
0.779
1.35
0.012
6.98
13.7
STD DEV
0.818
_
0.463
7.35
2230
534
0.625
5.61
—
60,5
0.544
114
1.02
310
2,78
•BUI imm
22.9
0.206
0.507
0.005
—
2.11
MINIMUM
0.286
2.80
1.28
20.4
4240
1020
0.732
6.57
—
220
1.98
311
2.79
616
5.53
— . .
40.5
0.364
0.631
0.006
—
12.4
MAXIMUM
2.62
7.50
3.79
60.1
16000
3840
3.10
27.8
_.
491
4.41
598
5.37
2230
20.0
;— , •.
143
1.28
2.19
0.020
;
15.0
PLANT CSN5
8 SAMPLES
195
-------
Table 56 . SALMON CANNING PROCESS
(BAUD BUTCHER )
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SBC
(GAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKO
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PR
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.786
6.20
0.222
3.53
1780
427
1.91
3.41
—
419
0.746
1540
2.74
2520
4.48
—
185
0.329
2.44
0.004
6.97
13.4
STD DEV
0.664
—
0*10O
1.59
646
155
0.839
1.49
«~.
224
0.399
814
1.45
1070
1.91
«?-
82.5
0.147
1.30
0.002
0.064
0.702
MINIMUM
0.2O3
3.10
0.092
1.46
958
230
1.07
1.90
••—
258
0.460
815
1.45
1300
2.31
s—
96.9
0.172
0.871
0.002
6.92
12.7
MAXIMUM
1.81
7.70
0.379
6.02
3060
735
3.05
5.44
_
742
1.32
2260
4.02
4650
8.28
•_ •
358
0.637
4.98
0.009
7.06
14.5
PLANT CS6M
6 SAMPLES
196
-------
Table 52. SALMON CANNING PROCESS
(WITHOUT PLUMING)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MI!?}
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG ;
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG.
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMM6NIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
.PH
TEMP D.EG C
MEAN
1.03
6.10
11.9
1 89 ;
47800
11500
12.2
582
505
24.1
384 .
18.3
1030
49.1
1990
95.2
110
, -5.25 .
152
7.27
3,58
0.171
6,54. -•*'
'. J. . f
15.6
STD DEV
•/ 0 .1 04
- — .
0*380
14.0
5040
1210
4.20
200
338
16.1
66.4
• ,. 3.17
, 8B.-7 " " >
" - 4.24
387
18.5
23.8
1.14
39.1
1.87
0.365
0.017
0.103
tammat -, •
-MINIMUM
0.913
2.30
i 11 .0
175
42700
10200
7.36
352
266
12.7
342
16.3
930
44.4
1600
76.3
94.1
-.-, 4.50
117
5.57
3.23
0.154
6.41
. •' _— . • .
MAXIMUM
1.11
9.50
• . 12.& .-
203
52800
12600
15.0
715
744
35.5
460
22,0
1100
52.7
2370
113
137
6.56
194
9.27
3.95
0 ,1 89
6.65
_— - • -
PLANT CSN8 :
3 SAMPLES
197
-------
The production rates averaged 27 kkg/day (30 tons/day) for the
Alaska plants, however, this was considered to be lower than
normal due to the poor 1973 season. Plant CS8H in the Northwest
which was sampled from late July through early September* 1969 at
a time of peak production averaged 53 kkg/day (58 tons/ day).
Fresh/Frozen Salmon Process Wastewater Character1stics |
Four fresh/frozen salmon operations in Alaska and three: in "the
Northwest were investigated. The four Alaskan operations were
monitored during August of 1973 which corresponded to a
relatively heavy period of fresh/frozen salmon processing. All
operations were located on the waterfront in urban areas*
utilized a domestic water source, and discharged their effluent
directly into a receiving body of water. ,
The three Northwest operations were monitored during September of
1973 near the end of the season* were located on the waterfront
in metropolitan areas, utilized domestic water and discharged
their effluent to the municipal treatment facilities.
Various species of both pre-dressed (troll caught) and round
salmon were being processed during the sampling period.
Wastewater Material Balance •
Table 58 shows that the primary source of wastewater from the
fresh/frozen salmon process is the wash tank operation, in which
the eviscerated fish are cleansed of adhering blood, mesentaries,
sea lice, and visceral particles. Also, depending upon the
condition of the fish, a preliminary rinse of the round fish
prior to butchering may also be implemented. This latter rinse
is employed to reduce the amount of slime adhering to the fish to
facilitate handling. The wash tank or wash tank plus pre-rinse
contributes about 90 percent of the total effluent flow. The
butchering table is essentially a dry operation except for short
hose-downs of the area at the discretion of the crew. Some
plants use small hoses attached to cleaning spoons and other use
a small constant flow on the table.
Tables 59 through 62 show summary statistics of the waste water
for the plants utilized in the subcategory summary. Figure 34
contains a normalized fesh/frozen salmon process plot of selected
wastewater parameters from each plant sampled. Alaska plants are
represented by codes FSl, FS2, FST1 and FST2, where FS represents
a round fish process and FST a pre-dressed process. Northwest
plants are represented by codes FS3, FST3, and FSl. It can be
seen that the round fish processes have consistently higher waste
loads in terms of BOD than the pre-dressed processes. The
samples of the pre-dressed processes were taken at the same
plants as the round fish processes, however, the waste flows
could be separated since they are usually not conducted at the
same time.
198
-------
Table S8 . Fresh/frozen round salmon process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) washdown
% of Total
Flow
88 -
4 -
96%
12%
% of Total
BOD
76 - 92%
8 - 24%
% of Total
S u sgi So 1 ids
74 - 97%
3 - 26%
Total effluent average
FS1» FS2, FS3, FS4
3750 1/kkg
2 kg/kkg
0.8 kg/kkg
ProductMaterial Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
a) salmon
b) eggs
c) milk
By-product
a) heads
b) viscera
Waste
% of Raw Product
65 - 80%
5%
3%
5. -
1 -
8%
7%
2%
Average Production Rate, 16.4 kkg/day (18 tons/day)
-------
TABLE 59
FROZEN SALMON PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
CGAL/HINJ
FLON RATIO L/KKG
CGAL/TON)
SETT, S3LIOS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/'KKG
SUSP. SOLIOS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY 800 MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COO MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE < 3IL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC- N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP OEG C
MEAN
1.33
6.75
%.**5
70.7
11500
27%0 "
0.157
1.80
li<*
1.31
116
1.33
259
2,96
552
6.32
26.0
0.298
%8.6
0.557
1.75
0.020
J 6. 27
11.5
STO OEV
1.23
—
1.63
2S..3
SS90 •
13<*0
0.150
1.71
16.8
0.215
70.2
0.80*
10&
1.20
277
3.17
13.9
0.159
26.3
0,32^
0.71*5
0.009
0.280
0.257
MINIMUM
*;
0.725
^. oo
3.23
51.3
HOK. 0
lluO
0.087
0.998
90. k
1.0
-------
Table 60. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(ROUND)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS Tim HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KRG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
3.76
7.38
3.14
49.8
3390
814
0.717
2.44
132
0.449
271
0.920
747
2.54
1540
5.21
41.0
0.139
122
0.414
3.85
0.013
6.59
9.19
STD DEV
0.412
— .
0.137
2.17
480
115
0.401
1.36
76.5
0.260
47.5
0.161
144
0.489
325
1.10
6.46
0.022
27.2
0.092
0.928
0.003
0.210
0.687
MINIMUM
3.31
5.50
2.94
46.7
2770
664
0.346
1.17
46.2 .
0.157
200
0.680
565
1.92
1120
3.81
34.3
0.116
91.0
0.309
2.79
0.009
6.40
8.52
PLANT
MAXIMUM
4,30
10.5
3.26
51.7
3940
943
1.24
4.20
193
0.654
299
1.02
913
3.10
1920
6.51
47.6
0.162
151
0.513
4.72
0.016
7.07
10.1
FS2
4 SAMPLES
201
-------
Table 61. SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(ROUND)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME Hi/ DAY
PLOW I/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO K6/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
2.29
3.67
2.32
36.8
4330
1040
0.895
3.87
385
1 .66
154
0.665
404
1 .75
765
3.31
39.9
0.173
48.2
0.209
2.49
0.011
7.03
15.6
STD DEV
0.866
__
0.723
11.5
1270
304
0.580
2.51
290
1.25
36.3
0.157
95.0
0.411
150
0.648
9.03
0 .039
20.3
0.088
0.600
0.003
0.192
0.372
MINIMUM
1 .28
1 .00
1 .44
22.9
2570
616
0.218
0.943
121
0.526
102
0.443
254
1 .10
502
2.17
25.9
0.112
12.4
0.054
1.66
0.007
6.64
15.0
PLANT
MAXIMUM
3.50
8.00
3.41
54.1
7060
1690
1.86
8.05
828
3.58
220
0.950
539
2.33
951
4911
52.7
0.228
7485
0.322
3.66
0.016
7.30
16,1
FS3
9 SAMPLES
202
-------
Table 62 . SALMON FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(ROUND)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/BR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KK6
SCR, SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KRG
SUSP. SOLIDS M6/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO SCG/KKG
ORGANIC-H HG/L
RATIO KG/KRG
AMMOOTA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DBG C
MEAN
2.54
8.88
1,81
28.8
2920
701
0.7 2O
2.10
456
1.33
236
0.689
S38
. 1.57
1070
3.13
43.9
0.128
93.1
0.272
2.81
0.008
6.52
15.7
STD DEV
0.898
— ,
0.539
8,56
555
133
0.589
1.72
62,5
0.183
72.2
0.211
208
0.609
459 .
1,34
13.9
0.041
40.8
0.119
0.850
0,002
0.179
0,261
MINIMUM
1.29
5.00
1.09
17.2
2110
507
0,113
0.329
398
1,16
133
0.388
247
0.722
5OO
1,46
25. 0
0.073
40.4
0.118
1.59
0.005
6.38
15.6
MAXIMUM
3.40
10.5
2.24
35.5
3360
806
1.29
3.78
540
1.58
300
0.877
691
2.02
1600
4.67
55.2
0.161
136
0.397
3.52
0.010
7,08
16.0
PLANT FS4
4 SAMPLES
203
-------
The waste flows and loads for both pre-dressed and round
fresh/frozen processes are relatively low and are comparable to
the loads from the conventional bottom fish processes which will
be discussed later in this section. No freezing salmon in the
round processes were observed due to the poor season in Alaska,
however, the waste loads from this process should be less than
from the dressing operations.
Product Material Balance
The production rate varies considerably due to raw product
availability. The rates observed at the round fish operations
averaged about 16 kkg/day (18 tons/day) . Round fish processing
predominates in both Alaska and the Northwest, however, large
volumes of pre-dressed fish are handled on occasion as can be
seen from the production rates for plant FST3. Table 58 shows
that the food recovery of whole salmon varies from 65 to 80
percent, chum and silver salmon yield approximately 75 percent!
sockeye, 78 to 80 percent; and pinks, 65 to 70 percent. These
figures refer only to round salmon which are eviscerated and
beheaded. The recovery of finished product for troll caught fish
is about ten to twelve percent higher for each species since they
are eviscerated at sea. The recovery of eggs and milt represents
about five and three percent of the round salmon weight,
respectively. Other by-product recovery, such as the grinding
and baggng of heads and viscera, is done only occasionally in
Alaska and for the most part these solids are disposed of
directly into the receiving water. The heads and viscera in the
Northwest plants are usually collected for pet food or for
reduction to fish meal.
Bottom Fish and Miscellaneous Finfish Wastewater Characteristics
The wastewater characterization data from the bottom fish and
miscellaneous finfish industry is organized into the conventional
processes (essentially manual unit operations) , the mechanized
processes, and the Alaskan processes, because of the different
methods, and regions involved.
Non-AlaskaConventional Bottom Fish
Twelve conventional bottom fish, ground fish, and finfish plants
in all non-Alaska regions were sampled in August and September,
1973. In addition, historical data were available from four
Northwest operations (25), Bottom fish are'often located in
urban areas, use municipal water and sewer systems and operate
year round with the species composition changing with the
seasons. In general, there was no lack of fish during the
monitoring periods except in New England where landings have been
decreasing.
204
-------
Wastewater material balance
There are a variety of conventional bottom fish processing
operations. However, for the filleting process, which is
considered to be the most important, there appears to be only two
main options: the use of skinners, and/or sealers.
Table 63 shows the wastewater balance for three operations (B2,
B4, B8) which used skinners most of the time. The skinners are
mechanical and can constitute a large percentage (13 to 6ft
percent) of the flow and load (six to 36 percent of BOD)
depending on the type used. The flow from the fillet tables is
quite variable depending on water conservation practices. It is
common practice for a small hose to be continually running at
each filleting position. Fish are sometimes rinsed before
filleting or eviscerating, and are usually dippedj in a wash tank
afterwards to clean and preserve the flesh. The flows from
either of these operations is relatively small, however, the BOD
and suspended solids loads can be moderately high.
Table 6H shows the wastewater balance for three operations (Bl,
B6, Bll) which often used a descaler. It can b^ seen that the
descaler can contribute a substantial flow ani waste load.
Desealers which use high pressure water jets in ajrevolving drum
were observed to contribute high loads. One plant (B6)
occasionally used a sealer which increased the water flow and
waste load by a factor of four. This type of sealer was so large
and contributed such a large waste load that it was not
considered to be a conventional operation. In general, the waste
loads were about the same whether skinners or sealers were used.
Tables 69 through 81 summarize the wastewater characteristics for
each of the conventional bottom fish processes used to determine
the subcategory summary. Figure ftl presents a normalized
convential bottom fish process plot of selected wastewater
parameters for each plant monitored. Plants represented by codes
Bl and B2 are small ground fish processes in New England, plants
PHP1, FNF2, FNF3 are finfish processes in the mid-Atlantic
region, FNFft is a finfish process in the Gulf region, and B4
through B12 are bottom fish plants on the West Coast. Plant FNF3
was not considered typical since all the fish were handled in the
round and no eviscerating or filleting operations were carried
out on the one day of sampling. There is a relatively large
variability in flow ratios and waste loads between all the
plants. This is caused partly by different processing methods
and mostly by different degrees of water conservation. The aver-
age flows and loads from all these plants are relatively low and
are comparable to the fresh/frozen salmon process discussed
previously*
Product material balance
205
-------
The production rate of conventional bottom fish processes varies
considerably. The average production level observed was 11
kkg/day (12 tons/day) but varied from 2.8 kkg/day to 31 kkg/day.
Table 63 shows the disposition of the raw product for food and
by-products. The food product varies considerably (20 to 45
percent) depending on the species, season, and whether it is
processed whole or filleted. Table 65 shows the recovery figures
for various species of New England ground fish. All figures are
for fillets unless noted.
The solid wastes (carcasses, viscera, etc.) are usually recovered
for various by-products. In New England it is commonly used for
lobster bait or sent to reduction plants. On the West Coast it
is commonly used for pet or animal food or sent to reduction
plants,
Non-Alaska Mechanized Bottom Fish
Four mechanized plants which used a high percentage of machinery
and water were sampled in the New England, Gulf and Northwest
regions between August and October, 1973. It was a particularly
good year for whiting in Hew England and large quantities of fish
were available during the sampling period in August, The finfish
process in the Gulf was sampled during October, 1973, which was
during a period of higher than normal production.
The two whiting plants sampled (Wl, W2) were considered to be
typical mechanized operations where the fish were iseheaded,
descaled, and partially eviscerated by mechanical methods and
relatively large water flows were used. The finfish process in
the Gulf (CFCl) was processing croaker for fish flesh and was
highly mechanized. The .Northwest plant (B6) used conventional
processing except for the large sealer which produced a high
waste flow.
Wastewater material balance , .
Table 66 shows the wastewater sources for a typical whiting
process. The process water includes water from the storage bins,
the beheader and the descaler, and is the largest source of
wastewater. The largest portion of the process water is due to
the fluming of fish from the storage bins to the processing line
using a high pressure hose and elevator. The replacement of the:
hose by a dry conveyor system such as is used in the sardine
plants would reduce the waste flow and load significantly. The
visceral flume constitutes about 20 percent of the waste load and
could be replaced by a dry conveyor system.
The unit operations of the fish flesh plant were not sampled,
however, it is estimated that the highest loads came from the
washdown which lasted several hours.
206
-------
Table 63. Conventional bottom fish process material balance (with skinner)
WastewaterMaterial Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) skinner
b) fillet table
c) pre-rinse or dip tank
d) washdown
% of Total
Flow
13 - 64%
22 - 83%
ink 1 - 13%
3 - 21%
% of Total
BOD
6 - 36%
43 - 76%
7 - 26%
.4.- 20.%
% of Total .
Susp. Solids
5 - 39%
39 - 80%
5-34%
7 - 21%
rsj
o
Total effluent average
B2, B4, B8
8000 1/kkg
2.8 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products %of Raw Product
Food products 20. - 40%
By-products
a) carcass
(reduction,
animal food) 55 - -75%
Average Production Rate, 16.5 kkg/day (18 tons/day)
1.8 kg/kkg
-------
Table
o
00
Conventional bottom fish process material balance (with descaler)
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) descaler
b) fillet table
c) pre-w,ash or dip tank
d) washdown
% of Total
Flow
42 - 66%
21 - 36%
k 3 - 10%
7 - 18%
% of Total
BOD
56 - 61%
16 - 30%
4-8%
6 - 19%
% of
Susp.
26
12
4
7
Total
Solids
- 70%
- 19%
- 8%
- 18%
Total effluent average
Bl, B10-, Bll
10,000 1/kkg
2.5 kg/kkg
1.6 kg/kkg
-------
Table 6*5. Percent recovery for
New England ground, fish
Species (process) % Recovery
Ocean perch 29
Cod (with skin) 40
Cod (boneless) 35
Cod (no skin) 37
Haddock 40
Haddock (no skin) 37
Sea catfish (dressed) 45
Sea catfish (filleted) 30
Pollock (with skin) 45
Pollock (no skin) 40
Flounder (small) 20
Flounder (large) 30
209
-------
Table$6 • Whiting freezing process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) washdown
c) visceral flume
% of Total
•Flow
70 - 75%
3 - 8%
22%
% of 'Total
BOD
74 - 77%
2 - 5%
21%
% of
Susp.
74 -
"2 -
Total
Solids
78%
6%
20%
Total effluent average
Wl, W2
13,500 1/kkg
14 kg/kkg
11 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Pood Products
% of Raw Product
By-product
a) heads, scales,
viscera (to
reduction plant)
Waste
50%
48%
* 2%
Average Production Rate, 35 kkg/day (38 tons/day)
-------
Table 67. Recovery of fillets and fish
flesh from West; Coast bottom fish (27)* :-;
Species
English sole
Flounder
Ling cod
Pacific cc-d • .
% Recover
Fillets . F
:-3iQ., ^ '
31 • • v
28
—
y ."•
lesh
60
47
43
38 '
211
-------
Table 68• Halibut freezing process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) head cutter/grader
b) washer
c) washdown
1 of Total
Flow
3%
79t
18%
"<% of Total
BOD
11%
72%
17%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
10%
62%
28%
ro
Total effluent average
FRH1
8600 1/kkg
1.5 kg/kkg
1.2 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Food products
By-products
a) heads
Wastes
% of Raw Product
90%
10%
minimal
Average Production Rate, 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day)
-------
Table 69 . GROUND FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
( GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0,528
5.83
0.226
3.59
1760
422
9.49
16.7
4530
7.96
737
1.30
1010
1.78
1590
2.79
40.2
0.071
147
0.259
6.96
0.012
7.15
20.9
/
0«118
_-
0.050
0.797
443
.106
3.03
5.33
2640
4.64
444
0.781
397
0.699
742
1.31
19.6
0.034
66.9
0.118
2.20
0.004
0.144
2.41
MINIMUM-
0.418
4.50
0.188
2.98
1210
290
5.74
10.1
2690
4.73
343
0.603
584
1.03
757
1 .33
21.1
0.037
76.5
0.135
3.83
0.007
6.96
18.7
MAXIMUM.
0.653
7.50
0.284
4.51
2390
572
13.5
23.7
7650
13.5
1420
2.49
1410
2.49
2620
4.62
70.3
0.124
241
0.425
10.9
0.019
7.33
22.5
PLANT El
3 SAMPLES
213
-------
Table 70
GROUND PIS! FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 1
(GAL/TOH)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD. MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAHIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
0.654
6.84
2.27
36.0,
3800
3310
4.69
64.7
—
186
2.56
196
2.71
423
5.83
25.1
0.347
26.6
0.367
2.70
0.037
6.47
16.0
0.018
—
0.004
0.059
359
86.0
3.89
53.7
— •
115
1.58
86.1
i.19
124
1.71
6.80
0.094
16.7
0.230
0.961
0.013
0.149
2.55
0.632
4.70
2.27
36.0
13300
3190
1.46
20.2
__.
58.0
0.801
65.8
0.908
243
3.35
14.5
0.200
9.76
0.135
1.51
0.021
6.27
12.5
PLANT
0.681
7.70
2.28
36.1
14300
3420
10.1
139
_
366
5.04
303
4.19
613
8.46
37.7
0.520
52.6
0.726
4.00
0.055
6.65
17.9
32
5 SAMPLES
214
-------
•-- •* , • TABLE: 71 .,. , - - -
FINFISH PROCESS . , .,
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION .TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/OAY
FLOW L/SEC
CGAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
IGAL/TONI
SETT, SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS- MG/L
RATIO KC/KKG
5 DAY 800 MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COO MG/L
RATIO KS/KKG
GREASE f OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC- N HG/L -
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA**! HG/L
RATIO KG/KKGi
PH • • •• -- -
TEMP OES C
MEAN
2.04
6.48
37^7
1050
' 4*16
16.2
' -579
2.53
496
2.17
1030
4.52
s "**
1610
7,05
292
1,28
76.8
0.336
7.19
0.031
-» 6,78^
10.3
STO 0£V
- . 0.494
—
VQ.75%
12.0
1180
282
2.17
9.51
1.76
-. 160
0.701
0 ..180
0.739
'*=•;• ,561
2,45
115
0.502
-, 20.6
0.090
2.33
0.010
- - 0.121
1.93
MINIMUM
--„. - 1.36
4.50
1.67
26.5
30*20
725
. 1.40
6.14
,252
1.10
1.07
670
3.80
ft" " *"
3.14
.' • '' 166 '
0.726
;-'- -50.6
0.221
4.88
0.021
,. -6.60
9.14
MAXIMUM
2.47
7.^0
3. 05
43.4
5920 •-•'/
1420
6.38
27.9
899
3.93
672
2.9%
1190 >
5.22
2240
9.77
434 -
1.90
102 :
0.444
10.5
0.-046
6.94
12.5
PLANT FNF1
4 SAMPLES
215
-------
Table F2. FJNFXSH PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIKE HR/DA¥
FLOW I/ SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS KL/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO FG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N KG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1.14
8.00
1,»5
30*9
«»790
1£30
6.18
41.9
894
6.07
402
2.72
864
5.66
1470
9.36
119
0 .606
110
0.745
7.53
0.051
6. 66
24.3
STD DEV
0.075
0.641
10.2
2200
526
3.02
20.5
609
4.14
155
1 .05
317
2.15
472
3.20
52.8
0.358
83.5
0.567
3.31
0.022
0.167
0.791
MINIMUM
1.09
' —
1.29
20.4
4540
1090
2.36
16.0
271
1.84
226
1.54
429
2.91
973
6.61
77.0
0.522
16.9
0.114
3.15
0.021
6.69
23.7
MAXIMUM
1.25
m*mm
2.63
41.7
8940
2140
9.67
65.6
1630
11.0
578
3.92
1200
8.12
1960
13.3
163
1.11
235
1.59
11.6
0,079
7.33
25.2
PLANT FNF2
4 SAMPLES
216
-------
Table 73 . FINFISH PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME ER/PAY
FLOW L/ SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMQNIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1 .93
5.50
. 11.4
181
17500
4200
47.1
825
630
11.0
106
1 .85
31'8
5.58
571
10.00
35,7
0.626
56.0
0.981
3.95
0.069
7.12
19.0
STD DEV
1 .26
__
3.39
53.9
5200
1250-
13.7
239
501
8078
28.5
0.499
125
2.18
211
3.70
11.9
0.209
25.7
0.451
1.&8
00030
0.1 61
2.11
MINIMUM
0.375
2.50
5.89
93.5
1 1 1 00
2670
35.9
628
29.5
0.517
55.9
0.980
128
2.24
231
4.05 '
15.5
0.279
18.7
0.327
1 .82
0.032
6.85
17.6
PLANT
MAXIMUM
" 3.80
8.00
16.6
263
28000
671 0
59.0
1030
1730
30.4
147
2.57
465
8.15-
81 1
14.2
53.7
0.942
89.4
1.57
7.52
0.132
7.45
20.7
FNF4
5 SAMPLES
217
-------
Table 74. BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS KG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1 .99
8.00
1 .41
22.4
2840
681
3.06
8.69
264
0.750
225
0.638
388
1.10
741
2.11
64.2
0.182
49.7
0.141
3.55
0.010
7.19
16.5
STD DEV
__
— —
0.141
2.24
770
184
0.662
1.88
54.6
0.155
91.2
0.259
140
0.399
313
0.888
20.7
0.059
23.8
0.068
0.393
0.003
0.115
1.73
MINIMUM
-,— ,
__
1 .21
19.2
2150
516
2.68
7.60
216
0.615
151
0.428
229
0.649
455
1.29
41.5
0.118
28.5
0.081
2.77
0.008
7.03
14.7
PLANT
MAXIMUM
__
—
•1.54
24.5
3860
924
3.90
11.1
323
0.5*19
354
1 .01
565
1.61
1150
3.27
91.6
0.260
82.2
0.234
4.53
0.013
7-. 3 4
17.4
B4
4 SAMPLES
218
-------
Table 75. BOTTOM FISH FILLBT PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW X./8EC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BQDiMG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/Ii
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & Oil, WG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-8 MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PK
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
2«61
8.00
3.62
57.5
5880
1410
4.88
28.7
202
1.19
171
1.00
346
2.04
608
3.58
60.9
0.358
44.9
0.264
2.48
O.O15
7.09
16.8
STD DEV
0.633
*»*•»
0.712
11.3
1790
428
1.82
10.7
33.7
0.198
62.6
0.368
157
;.0i«aa.
239
1.41
18.1
0.106
22.4
0.132
1.19
0.007
0.146
0.251
MINIMUM
1,66
—
2.38
37.7
3920
939
2,16
12,7
163
0.956
85.9
0.505
153
0.901
300
1.76
34.9
0.205
20.7
0.121
1.25
0.007
6.89
16.7
MAXIMUM
3.34
—
4.52
71.7
9310
2230
7.24
42.6
241
1.42
266
1.56
581
3.42
914
5.38
89.0
0.523
80.0
0.471
4.25
0.025
7.36
17.0
PLANT B5
5 SAMPLES
219
-------
Table 76 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS 1IME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1 *30
7»00
3.19
50.7
9990
2390
2.05
20.5
63.0
0.630
96.2
0.961
198
1.97
359
3,59
22.2
0.222
31.8
0.318
1.74
0.017
7.26
16.3
STD DEV
0.007
—
0.672
10.7
2050
492
,0.515
5.15
5.34
0.053
33.1
0.331
90.9
0.909
171
1.71
6.33
0.063
15.8
0.158
0.818
0,008
— ,
1.12
MiNIMUM
1 .29
5.00
2.53
40.2
7950
1910
1.51
15.1
59.6
0.596
60.2
0.601
102
1 .02
186
1.86
16,9
0.169
15.9
0.159
0.844
0.008
—
15.6
MAXIMUM
1.30
8.00
3.88
'61 .6
12100
2890
2.54
25.3
69.2
0.691
125
1.25
283
' 2.83
529
5.28
29.2
0.292
47.6
0.475
2.45
0.024
—
17.0
PLANT B?
3 SAMPLES
220
-------
Table 77 • BOTTOM FISK FILLET PRCCFSS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/ER
PROCESS TIME. iiR/CAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIK)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RA1IO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMOKIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN .
5.12
6.75
9.08
144
7550
1810
3.68
27.8
203
1 .53
301
2.27
594
4.48
1050
7.yi
86.7
0.655
73.4
0.555
4.30
0.032
7.13
16.6
STD DEV
1 .00
—
0.807
12.8
1020
245
0.764
5.77
154
1.16
108
0.815
208
1.57
308
2.32
65.2
0.492
29.8
0.225
2.57
0.019
0.1 28
0.711
MIKIMUK
3.73
5.50
7.a2
126
6150
1480
2.85
21.5
67.0
0.506
176
1.33
388
2.93
680
5.13
34.3
0.263
28.4
0.215
2.11
0.016
7.01
16.1
PLANT
MAXIMUM
- 6.10
8.00
S. 84
156
8910
2140
4.53
34.2
383
2.89
464
3.51
934
7.05
1530
11.5
176
1.33
106
0.797
8.41
0.064
7.38
17.0
RS
4 SAMPLES
221
-------
Table 78 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TCK/KR
PROCESS TIME HR/DA*
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIK)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP OEG C
MEAN
1 .96
7.00
7.53
120
15700
3750
4.29
67.2
94.1
1.47
1 61
2.52
263
4.11
451
7.05
36.4
0.570
35.4
0.554
1 .58
0.025
7.26
16.1
STD DEV
0.362
—
0.490
7. 78
3890
934
1 .41
22.1
86.5
1.35
91.5
1.43
99.0
1 .55
214
3.35
8.38
0.131
12.4
0.195
0.257
0.004
. 0.037
—
MINIMUM
1 .70
6.00
7.18
114
12900
3090
3.30
51.6
33.0
0.516
96.4
1.51
193
3.02
299
4.68
30.5
0.477
26.6
0.417
1.40
0.022
7.23
—
PLANT
MAXIMUM
2.21
8.00
7.88
12S
18400
4410
5.29
82.8
155
2.43
226
3.53
333
5.21
602
9.42
42.3
0.663
44.2
0.692
1.76
0.028
7. .28
—
B9
2 SAMPLES
222
-------
Table 79 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1.25
6.70
6.58
104
22700
5440
1.72
39.0
79.1
1.80
156
3.53
298
6.78
3.92
0.089
22.5
0.511
1.21
0,027
6,59
14.4
STD DEV
0.419
—
1.20
19.0
5910
1420.
0.814
18.5
21.4
0.487
8.07
0*183
89.8
2.04
—
7.72
0.175
0.362
0.008
0.262
2.73
MINIMUM
0.741
4.20
5.08
80.7
13800
3310
0.800
18.2
46.5
1.06
148
3.35
171
3.89
-._
12,8
0.290
0.622
0.014
6,10
10.8
MAXIMUM
1.88
9.30
9.14
145
31700
7610
2.92
66.4
124
2.82
164
3,72
492
11,2
—
39.0
0.886
1.90
0.043
7.00
18.8
PLANT B10
9 SAMPLES
223
-------
Table go . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD D1V MIHIMUM MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIMS HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KRG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MK3/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG p
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DSG C
1.08
7.08
1.50
23.8
5630
1350
3.63
20.5
_„
2«5
1.61
381
2.14
902
5.08
143
O.805
74.0
0.417
4.93
0.028
5.82
12.4
0.318
—«.
0.368
5.84
1420
340
1.78
10.0
_
96.9
0.546
—
334
1.88
-~
22.1
0.125
1.88
0.011
0.241
3.85
0.694
3.80
0.750
11,9
2150
516
1.33
7.49
—_
101
0.571
«-_ «
218
1.23
_—
32.0
0.180
1.55
0.009
5.40
7.10
1.89
9.20
2.51
39.8
9420
2260
8.38
47.2
mm.mm
490
2.76
— .
1560
8.81
—
118
0.666
10.4
0.058
7.16
17.5
PLANT B11
11 SAMPLES
224
-------
Table 81 . BOTTOM FISH FILLET PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGARIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1.40
6.60
1.58
25.1
4690
1120
4.78
22.4
— _
322
1.51
597
2.80
13OO
6.08
__
107
0.504
6.42
0.030
5.89
13.2
STD DEV
0.432
—
0.250
3.97
653
156
1»99
9.31
-„
70.6
0.331
—
407
1.91
— -
32.7
09153
2.58
0.012
0.222
3.65
MINIMUM
0.800
4.00
0.971
15.4
3500
838
1.87
8.78
~
184
0.865
— _
668
3.13
—
54.8
0.257
2.36
0.011
5.57
9.00
MAXIMUM
2.13
9.00
2,07
32.9
6300
1510
10.0
46.9
—
525
2.46
—
2160
10.1
—
16O
0.749
12.0
0.056
6.59
17.2
PLANT B12
7 SAMPLES
225
-------
Tables 82, 83, and 8ft summarize -the wast.ewat.er characteristics
from the mechanized plants which were used -to determine the
subcategory average. Figure 45 contains a normalized mechanized
bottom fish process plot for selected wastewater parameters for
each plant sampled.
Product material balance
The production levels for typical whiting processes are
relatively high. The average rate observed at the two plants
sampled was 35 kkg/day (38 tons/day). Table 66 shows that the
food recovery is higher for the whiting than other ground fish
since only the head and viscera are removed. The solid waste is
typically sent to reduction plants.
The production loads at the fish flesh process observed was
lower, averaging 5.0 kkg/day (5.5 tons/day), however, the
industry is expanding and it is predicted that production levels
will increase. Typical food recovery figures for fish flesh
operations using various species of bottom fish are listed in
Table 67.
Alaska Bottom Fish
The halibut is the most significant bottom fish processed in
Alaska. Two halibut processes in urban areas of Alaska were
monitored during July and August, 1973. The sampling period was
in the middle of the season; however, the operations were
intermittent due to a poor harvest. Two typical halibut
processes were observed; whole freesing and fletching, but
neither contributes a very high waste load.
Wastewater material balance •
Intake water was obtained from the municipal water system and
discharges were either to municipal sewer systems or to the
receiving water.
Table 68 shows the wastewater balance for a whole halibut
freezing operation. The first unit operation is the grading and
head cutting operation, which produces a minimal waste load
comprising about three percent of the total flow and a somewhat
larger percentage of the BOD and suspended solids loads. One.
plant observed used no water for this operation. The washing
operation is handled in two different manners, and they produce
substantially different waste flows. In one system, a continuous
spray washer is used, as well as spray hoses for the gut cavity.
For this, the flow and waste-loads are rather large, comprising
about 80 percent of the total flow and 70 percent of the BOD,
The other method involves washing the fish in shallow tanks with
brushes. This produces a much lower flow, but higher waste
226
-------
concentrations such that the waste load is similar to the other
method. For both processes observed, the washdown was similar,
producing about 20 percent of the total flow and waste loads.
The waste flows from a halibut fletching process are minimal,
with the washdown around the trim table constituting about 80
percent of the total BOD load. Table 85 and 86 summarize the
wastewater characteristics for the two halibut processes sampled.
Productmaterialbalance
The production rates at halibut processing plants can be quite
high. The average production for the whole freezing operation
was 33 kkg/day (36 tons/day), while the average production for
the fletching operation was 5.6 kkg/day .(6.2 tons/day),.
Solid waste from the freezing operation is minimal since the only
non-food product is the heads which are often used for bait.
There is no visceral waste since the fish are eviscerated at sea.
Solid waste from the fletching operation is about 10 percent
which consists of the carcasses and heads which may be used for
bait or disposed to the receiving waters,
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Two sardine canning plants were monitored during the month of
September, 1973. Due to the declining herring fishery, some
difficulty was encountered with raw product availability during
September, 1?73» hence the operations were intermittent and fewer
samples were obtained than originally planned. However,
additional historical data -were /obtained from the Edward c.
Jordan Company, of Portland, Maine who conducted studies for the
Maine Sardine Council over a period from the fall of 1970 to
early 1971.
Wastewater Material Balance
Table 87 shows the wastewater material balance for a typical
sardine canning plant. Each of the plants sampled used city
water for in-plant processing. Available surface water (salt or
brackish) was used to transport the fish from trucks or boats to
brine storage tanks.
Conveying fish to the packing tables was observed to contribute
18 to 62 percent of the water . Another large source of waste
loading is the stickwater from the precooking operation. The
flow is quite low, however, the BOD and suspended solid loadings
are significant. A very great reduction in BOD, suspended
solids, and grease and oil could be made by storing the
stickwater from the precook operation and transporting it to a
reduction plant for oil and solubles recovery. The sample data
indicated that approximately 70 percent of the total grease and
227
-------
Table 82 . WHITING FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE fie OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KW3
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
7.10
8.76
17.2
274
10200
2450
8.77
89.6
1100
11.3
859
8.77
1160
11.8
2040
20.8
270
2.75
98.4
1.01
3.70
0.038
6.93
19.6
1.41
mmmm
2.51
39.8
3730
894
2.21
22.6
722
7.37
282
2.88
353
3,60
789
8.06
178
1.82
36.2
0.370
0.949
0.010
0.028
1.S8
4.00
5.00
14.9
237
7$06
1800
S.90
60.3
209
2.14
491
5.02
683
6.98
1200
12.3
107
1.09
52,2
0.533
2.01
0.020
6.91
17.8
PLANT
8.05
10.5
21.5
341
18100
4340
12.0
122
2140
21.9
1320
13.4
1820
18.6
3250
33.2
559
5.71
146
1.49
4.78
0,049
6.97
20.5
W1
7 SAMPLES
Z28
-------
Table 83 . WHITING FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME 1R/DAY
FLOW L/SBC
(GAL/«Ifi>
PLOW RATIO L/KK6
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR« SOLIDS MG/L
1ATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAYPBOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MS/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-!? MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
4.71
3.15
19.3
307
16900
40SO
5.40
91.2
649
11.0
778
13.1
1010
17,0
2150
36.3
323
5.44
79.9
1.35
4.04
0.068
7.71
-_
STD DEV
1.13
—
2.16
34.4
3530
845
3.24
54.7
587
9.91
212
3.57
400
6.75
• 764
12.9
177
2.99
19.4
0.328
1.18
0.020
—
—
MINIMUM
3.60
2.30
16.1
255
13000
3120
1.77
29.9
234
3.95
492
8.31
434
7.32
974
16.4
104
1.76
53.2
0.899
2.94
0.050
—
—
MAXIMUM
6.27
4.80
21.7
344
21200
5090
8.30
140
1060
18.0
1040
17.6
1400
23.6
2760
46.6
494
8.34
99.7
1.68
5.37
0.091
—
—
PLANT W2
4 SAMPLES
229
-------
Table 84. . CROAKER FISH FLESH PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMHONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DIG C
MEAN
0.801
6.90
3.26
51.8
16700
4010
8.27
138
344
5.76
252
4.21
678
11.3
1210
20.3
91.3
1.53
124
2.08
4.84
0.081
7.23
21.6
STD DEV
0.119
—
1 .82
28.9
10700
2570
3.07
51.4
190
3.17
143
2.48
291
4.36
566
9.47
64.8
1 .08
47.1
0.788
2.00
0.033
0.191
1.33
MINIMUM
0.712
2.50
1.82
28.9
10200
2430
5.76
96.3
116
1.94
74.1
1.24
395
6.60
536
8.96
11.5
0.193
62.5
1.05
3.27
0.055
6.97
20.0
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.937
8.00
6.45
102
35600
8530
13.0
217
575
9.62
468
7.83
1110
18.5
1980
33.1
187
3.13
175
2.93
8.30
0.139
7.75
23.3
CFC1
5 SAMPLES
230
-------
Table 85 . HALIBUT FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KRS
COD liG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KMS
ORGA»IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
7.64
4.76
13.1
208
85BO
2060
0.326
2.81
944
8.10
137
1.18
179
1.54
402
3.44
59.4
0.510
24.8
0.213
3.29
0.028
6.95
10.8
STD DEV
, 3.32
—
0,681
10.3
1920
460
0.259
2.22
321 '-"f" '
2.75
38.9
0.334
47.2
0,405
116
0.998
21 .8
0«187
13.7
0.117
1,58
0.014
0.057
0.282
MINIMUM
3.91
2.50
11.7
185
5610
1340
0.132
1.13
542
4.65
81.6
0.700
104
0.893
243
2.08
28.5
0.244
3.53
0.030
1.53
0.013
6.85
10.5
PLANT
MAXIMUM
13.2
9.50
14,0
222
10600
2540
1.03
8.87
1290
11,1
206
1.76
255
2.18
613
5.26
99.1
0.850
54.8
0.470
6.03
0.052
7.02
11.1
FRH1
9 SAMPLES
231
-------
Table 86 , HALIBUT ELETCHING PBOdSSS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR'
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SSC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG ;
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L •
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG >-
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1.13
5.50
0.756
12.0
2380
571
20.6
49.1
314
0.749
775
1.85
876
2 .09 "
1870
4.46
33.6
0.080
174
0.415
3.87
0.009
6,24
9.44
STD DEV
0.136
—
0.118
1.88
565
135
2.65
6.32
213
0.508
75.4
0.180
52.1
0.124
121
0.289
1.19
0.003
12.0
0.028
1.11
0.003
0.123
_i_
MINIMUM
1.00
2.50
0.684
1C. 9
2010
4S2
18.9
4;5.0
163
0.389
699
1.67
813
1 .94
1
1720
4.09
32.1
0.076
158
0.377
2.72
0.00%
6.13
—
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1.27
7.00
0.893
14.2
3040
729
23.8
. .56.8.
465
' - '.1.11"'
875
2 .08
928
2.21
2000
4.77
35.0
0.083
184
0.437
5.17
0.012
6.44
—
FFH1
3 SAMPLES
232
-------
Table 87 . Sardine canning process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) flume (boat to storage)
b) flume (brine tank
c) pre-cook can dump
d) can wash
e) retort
f)jwashdown
•age)
:o table)
% of Total
Flow
14 - 46%
18 - 62%
<1 - 4%
3-4%
8 - 53%
1-10%
% of Total
BOD
12 - .28%
14 - 22%
28 - 67%
16 - 23%
1-2%
1-6%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
11
16
14
9
1
1
57%
30%
51%
10%
4%
12%
ro
Co
oo
Total effluent average
SA1, SA2, SA3, SA4
7600 1/kkg
10 kg/kkg
7 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products % of Raw Product
Pood products
30 - 60%
By-products
a) heads and tails 35 - 65%
(reduction or
bait)
b) scales 1' - 2%
Average Production Rate, 31 kkg/day (34 tons/day)
-------
oil is contained in the precook water for plants with essentially
dry transport systems to the packing tables.
A comparison of waste loadings at plant SA2 with hiatorical data
at the same plant before a conveyor was installed gives an
indication of the reduction in water use and waste loadings which
can be obtained using dry conveying. This comparison shows a
reduction in water use by 63 percent, in BOD by 59 percent, and
suspended solids by 77 percent. These percentages appear to
present a larger reduction than could be obtained using the flume
loadings observed at other plants. However, it does indicate
that the use of dry conveyors can reduce the water use
significantly and the waste loads to a lesser but substantial
amount.
Wastewaters were generally discharged directly into iphe receiving
waters at the plants sampled. Construction was underway at some
plants to tie into municipal waste treatment facilities. Most
plants utilized some form of screening to remove the solid waste
materials prior to discharging. One plant observed, but not
sampled due to lack of fish at the time, has installed a
dissolved air flotation system for waste treatment (see section
VII) . Tables 88 through 91 show summary statistics of the waste-
water from each plant sampled or where data were available.
Figure 50 presents a normalized sardine canning process plot for
selected wastewater parameters. The historical data for plants
SA2H, SA3 and SAft were already reduced to time averages, hence,
only one sample point is shown. Each of these timf averages is
reported to have come from three to five daily composite samples
(22) .
Product Material Balance
Table 87 shows that the food product yield for the sardine
canning process can vary from a low of 30 percent to a high of 60
percent. This wide range in yield is related to the size of fish
being canned. Since the same size can is often utilized for
various sizes of fish, more waste originates from the large fish,
which have a higher percent of the head and tail removed.
The heads and tails that are removed are usually dry conveyed to
trucks which transport the waste to reduction facilities. Some
solid waste is also collected by lobster fishermen for bait.
Scales, another by-product, are removed on the boats prior to
storage, and are used for cosmetics, lacquers, and imitation
pearls.
Product rates varied from a low of 26 kkg/day (29 tons/day) to a
high of 35 kkg/day (39 tons/day) at the plants investigated.
HERRING FILLETING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
234
-------
Table 88
SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR* SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS M6/L
RATIO KG/KKS
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KW3
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MS/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
6.51
5.34
3.94
62.6
2440
586
1.33
3.25
148
0.362
1590
3,88
4960
12.1
6930
16.9
1080
2.64
406
0.992
13.6
0.033
6.40
23.0
1.43
-»
0.656
10.4
452
108
0.658
1.61
133 '
0.325
656
1.60
1240
3.03
2310
5.66
571
1.40
109
0.266
2.71
0.007
0.138
1.45
4.17
3.30
2.68
42.5
1630
391
0.835
2.04
43.9
0.107
640
1.56
2190
5.35
2740
6.70
343
0.838
137
0.335
7.21
0.018
6.17
8.33
8.00
5.52
87.7
3640
872
3.33
8.14
327
0.800
3440
8.42
7190
17.6
13400
32.8
2780
6.80
629
1.54
20.0
0.049
6.83
22.0 23.9
PLANT SA1
8 SAMPLES
235
-------
Table 89 . SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
(DRY CONVEYING)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MS/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DBG C
MEAN
4.07
5.77
7,79
124
7590
1820
2.53
19.2
21.1
0.160
264
2.01
664
5.04
1060
8.08
152
1.15
74.7
0.567
3.17
0.024
6.31
18.5
STO DEV
0.760
—
1.18
18.7
1130
271
1.85
14.1
—-
97.9
0.743
263
1.99
362
2.75
114
0.866
22.0
0.167
0.742
0.006
0.198
0.292
MINIMUM
3.20
4.00
6.93
110
6240
1500
0.392
2.98
••••
155
1.18
367
2.79
654
4.96
67.7
0.514
53,4
0.405
2.35
0.018
6.15
18.3
PLANT
MAXIMUM
4960
7.50
9e22
146
8300
1990
4009
31.1
«•«•>
355
2.70
875
6.65
1350
10.3
283
2.15
97.4
0.740
3.36
0.029
6.91
18.8
SA2
3 SAMPLES
236
-------
Table .9.0 . SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 4961
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY S.OO
FLOW I/SEC 11.1
(GAL/MIN) 176
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 9550
(GAL/TON) 2290
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 1130
RATIO KG/KKG 10.8
5 DAY BOD MG/L 1040
RATIO KG/KKG 9*94
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG —
PH
TEMP DEG C
PLANT SA2
1 SAMPLE
237
-------
Table 91 . SARDINE CANNING PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAK
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR 4.S9
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 6.00
FLOW L/SWC 13.5
(GAL/MIK) 215
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 10800
(GAL/TON) 2580
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 943
RATIO KG/KKG 10.2
5 DAY BOD MG/L 1 1OO
RATIO KG/KKG " 11.9
COD FG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAfllC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
PLANT SA4
1 SAMPLE
238
-------
Two herring filleting plants were sampled during August, 1973,
one in New England and one in Alaska. In addition, historical
data were obtained from a plant operating in the maritime region
of Canada (26). The sampling interval was during a period of
peak production for New England, however, due to a poor harvest
in 1973 and bad weather, the plants were operating on an
intermittent basis. There were also breakdowns in the machinery,
which was quite old and needed considerable maintenance and
repair. The sampling interval in Alaska was during a slack
season, therefore, only one day of operation was observed.
Wastewater Material Balance
City water was used in both the New England and Alaskan plants
monitored. Table 92 shows the sources of wastewater from a
herring filleting process. The largest percentage of the total
flow and waste load is produced by the filleting machines and the
associated fluming. The flow from each filleting machine is only
about 0 i*l I/sec (6 gpm) however the fluming of product to and
from the machine is much higher. The bailwater, when a fish pump
unloading operation is used, constitutes a relatively large flow
and waste loading. This could be reduced by using a dry
unloading system.
Tables 93 through 95 summarize the wastewater characteristics of
three herring filleting processes. The plants represented by
codes HF1, HF2, and HF3 are in New England; New Brunswick,
Canada; and Alaska, respectively. The waste loads are similar in
terms of BQD ;and suspended solids.- - The flow ratio was much
higher at BF3 because only a few fish were being processed and
the flow through.the filleting machine' is independent of the rate
that*'fish are being run through. - The wastewater at the New
England plant was screened' and discharged to the receiving water,
while the entire load was discharged in Alaska.
Product Material Balance
The New England plant is relatively large and was observed to
process an average of 78 kkg/day (86 tons/day) of raw fish when
they were available. Each filleting machine operated at about
1.4 kkg/hr (1.5 tons/hr).
Table 92 shows percentages of food and by-product recovery for
this process. The food product averages H2 to 45 percent but
varies with the season and the type of filleting machine used.
During the spring spawning season roe and milt are sometimes
collected. This increases the food recovery by about three to
five percent. The rest of the solid waste is either sent to
reduction plants or discharged with the wastewater.
CLAMPROCESS mSTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
239
-------
Table 92 . Herring filleting process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) process water
b) bailwater
c) washdown
% of Total
Flow
58%
37%
% of Total
BOD
70%
27%
3%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
59%
38%
3%
PO
*»
O
Total effluent average
HF1
10,200 1/kkg
34 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
23 kg/kkg
End Product
Food products
% of Raw Product
42 - 45%
By-product
a) heads, viscera 55- 58%
(for reduction)
Average Production Rate, 78 kkg/day (86 tons/day)
-------
Table 93 . HERRING BILLETING PROCESS'
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKG 1
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR, SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MQ/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
12.9
6.67
33.5
532
Oi ^0
2460
14.5
148
—
2210
22 .6
3330
34.1
6220
63.7
597
6.11
434
4.45
21.3
0.219
6,91
21.7
STD DEV
2.15
- —
0.769
12,2
1050
253
5.03
51.5
—
439
4.50
775
7.94
1050
10,8
95.0
0.973
80.6
0.825
2.40
0,025
0.076
0.639
MINIMUM
10.7
3,50
32.6
518
9490
2270
10,1
103
—
1810
18.5
2560
26.2
5030
51.5
495
5.07
353
3.61
18.6
0.191
6.82
21.1
MAXIMUM
15.0
' 9.00
34.1
542
11400
2740
20.0
205
—
2680
27.4
4100
42.0
7010
71 4 8
683
7*00
514
5.26
23.3
0.239
6.97
22.1
PLANT HP1
3 SAMPLES
241
-------
Table 94 . HERRING FILLETING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAV
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
MEAN
4.72
6.67
5,57
88.4
4820
1150
STD DEV
1.22
-._
0.536
8.52
754
181
MINIMUM
3.63
4.00
5.03
79.8
4020
962
MAXIMUM
6.04
8.00
6.10
96.9
5510
1320
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L •
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
4940
23.8
6280
•30.2
10000
43. 4
1190
5.73
3180
15.3
3400
16.4
3700
17.8
3520
16.9
7230
34.8
6080
29.3
9760
47.0
13800
66.6
PLANT HF2
3 SAMPLES
242
-------
Table 95 . HERRING FILLETING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME BR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL. MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L ;'
RATIO KG/KKG
MEAN STDrDEV MINIMUM" MAXIMUM
0.150 — J......— ,, ' — •
2.00 --. -:>'• "--
1 .01 -
,,,16.0 '.... ' - — . • :•. •
2670.0 —
6400
2.00
53.4
255 - — > • — •'•-_-
6.81 .;• * ~ • • —
632" . ''-- .' ; ' ' —
.. ,1.6. .9 ,_.„-.,.. —
''1220' ' ' " — : ..,.-
32.6. _.. . '/-.- ., - - -- .. -. . —
2590 " ' "'"' -- . , — ' " —
' ' 7B5 "'"" — . .' . , — -/,"
21 .0 . — ' " ; ' — . '
: 102 •'•
"" ;. 2":*72'. :" ' '--:/ 1 . '. , —
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG '
PH
TEMP DEC C
1.00
PLANT HF3
1 SAMPLE
243
-------
The wastewater characterization data from the clam processing
industry are organized into mechanized shucking arid/or canning
operations and conventional hand shucking operations because of
the different methods and waste loads involved -. Figure 55
presents a normalized process plot of selected wastewater
parameters for the conventional and mechanized clam processing
plants sampled during this study.
Mechanized Clam Process
Four mechanical clam shucking and/or canning plants were moni-
tored during September and October, 1973, in the mid-Atlantic
region. One conch shucking and canning process was also sampled
in conjunction with the clam processes. Although clams are
harvested all year, the plants operate on an intermittent basis
since the clam dredging operation is highly dependent on the
weather and roughness of the sea.
Wastewater material balance
The water supply for the clam plants was from fresh water wells
or municipal water supplies. Table 96 shows the wastewater
balance for a typical clam canning operation and indicates that
most of the flow and waste load is due to the washing operations.
Typically, large amounts of water are used to wash the product at
different stages in the process. One plant (FCL3) used a total
of five drum washers, although two were more common. The
washdown flow was also considerable at some plants and ranged
from 22 percent to 45 percent at the plants observed.
Tables 97 and 98 summarize the characteristics of the wastewater.
from the mechanized clam plants utilized for the subcategory
summary. The waste loads and flows are quite variable due to the
various combinations of unit operations which are used. The
plant represented by code FCL1 had a mechanized shucking
operation but did not debelly and shipped the clams to another
plant for further processing. Therefore, the flows and loads
were much lower since the debellying and subsequent washing is a
major unit operation in the clam process. Plants FCt2, FCL3, and
CCL2 all produced a clam product with the bellies removed.
Plants FCL2 and FCL3 removed the bellies mechanically while plant
.CCL2 used a manual debellying line. The flows and waste loads at
plant FCL3 are higher due to the fact that considerable washing
of the product is done and also because the clams are opened by
steam cooking and the, clam juice is condensed by evaporators.
Code CCLl represents a process which received preshucked clams
from othe.r plants and then washed and canned them. Since there
was no shucking operation, this process had lower flows and waste
loads. The tables indicate that the waste flows and loads from
the mechanized clam operations are substantial and on the same
order of magnitude as from the canned fish operations.
244
-------
Table 96 . Surf clam canning process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) iron man
b) first washer
c) first skimming table
d) second washer
e) second skimming table
f) washdown
% of Total
Plow
35%
15%
33%
% of Total
BOD
31%
24%
32%
13%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
52%
25%
15%
8%
Total effluent average
CCL2
21,000 1/kkg
13 kg/kkg
5.2 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Products
Pood products
By-products
a) shell
Wastes '
a) belly
.% of Raw Product
10 - 15%
75 - 80%'
7-10%
Average Production Rate, 38 kkg/day (41 tons/day)
-------
Table 97 . SURF CLAM MEAT PROCESS
(MECHANICALLY-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TCW/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN}
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/RKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAMC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-4I MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
4.89
7.50
12.4
197
9570
2290
3.29
31.5
201
1.92
297
2.84
1280
12.2
1460
14.0
24.5
0.235
167
1.60
6.16
0.059
7.04
22.5
STD DEV
0.768
— .
1.89
30,1
1210
289
1 .48
14.2
190
1,82
164
1.56
256
2.45
425
4.07
7.09
0.068
44.7
0.428
1.13
0.011
0.060
1.33
MINIMUM
3.88
—
10.1
161
7900
1890
2.11
20,2
78.1
0,747
157
1.50
993
9.50
1050
10.0
15.8
0.151
124
1.18
5.25
0.050
6.97
21.6
PLANT
MAXIMUM
5.75
—
14.6
231
10900
2610
5.55
53.1
486
4,65
549
5.26
1590
15.2
2100
20.1
32.3
0.309
224
2.14
7.06
0.068
7.14
23.9
FCL2
4 SAMPLES
-------
Table 98 . S°R? CI^M «SAT PROCESS
(MEGHANICALLY-S HOCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TOR/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
CGAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GR1ASB & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH _' . "' 'P ; "
TEMP DBG C
MEAN
12.0
7.10
1 22
1940
39900
9570
4.09
163
-.. ,•' ——
356
14.2
719
1380
55.0
0^905
- 89.8
«> •- 3.59 '
0*1 52
' " 6. 10
36 .4
STD DEV
•• ••'--
— •'
14.8
235
4960
11 90
1.02
40.6
—
• 127 '
5.06
215
8.57
772
30.8
6.93
0.277
29.6
-*•''•••"* -.36
0.054
'0,238
*•--'• 3.31
MINIMUM
-- •• ^.-— •
6.50
97.0
1540
31 000
7430
2.32
92.6
— • • .
179
7.13
341
13.6
633
25.3
13.0
0.517
53.5
2.14
2.28
0.091
5.78
33.9
PLAHT
MAXIMUM
_-
7.50
134
2130
44300
10600
4.94
197
—
534
21.3
980
39.1
2740
109
33.9
1.35
135
5.38
6.09
0.243
6.74
38.5
FCL3
5 SAMPLES
247
-------
The wastewaters are commonly discharged! to receiving waters;
however, some discharged to municipal systems and one plant
located a few miles inland was using a spray irrigation disposal
system, some plants use grit chambers to remove sand and shell
particles and one plant (FCL3) screened their effluent through a
tangential screen before discharge.
Product material balance
The production rates at the plants monitored were variable and
depended to a large degree on the combination of unit operations
employed. The plant which shucked but did not debelly (FCLl),
handled a large volume of clam;f averaging 117 kkg/day (162
tons/day) , The ratio between the weight of clams in the shell to
clams before debellying is about four to one. The average
production at plants which shucked and dlebellied the clams was
about 50 kkg/day (55 tons/day). The final food product without
the bellies is about 10 to 15 percent of the weight in the shell.
The clam bellies are sometimes used for bait or animal food but
are often discharged to the receiving waters or ground up and
discharged to the municipal sewer system. Clam shells are
generally used for fill or road beds but are •sometimes ' barged
back to the clam beds.
ConventionalClam_Process
Three conventional hand shucking clam processes were monitored
during September, 1973, in the mid-Atlantic region. The plants
operate all year on an intermittent basis. The conventional
plants are generally smaller than the mechanized plants.
Wastewater material balance
The hand shucked clam plants are usually located in rural
communities or areas and obtain water from domestic supplies or
fresh water wells. Table 99 shows that most of the waste flow
and loads come from the washing operations after shucking and
debellying.
It can be seen that the flows and loads are much lower* except
for 5-day BOD versus suspended solids, from the hand shucking
operation than from the mechanized operations. The suspended
solids parameter is hard to sample accurately, especially during
washdowns, since the concentration of fine sand fluctuates
greatly at the beginning of the period., Tables 100 through 102
summarize the characteristics of the was-;ewater. from each of the
three plants monitore<|. The wastewater is generally discharged
to the receiving water with no treatment.
Product material balance
248
-------
Table W . Hand shucked clam process material balance.
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
Unit Operation
a) first and
washers
b) washdown
second
1 of Total
Flow
83-92
8-17
% of Total
BOD
65-97
3-34
% of Total
Susp. Solids
10-96
4-89
Total effluent average 5100 1/kkg 5.3 kg/kkg 12 kg/kkg
Average production rate: 20 kkg/day (22 tons/day).
249
-------
Table 1°° . CLAM PRBSH/FROZ1N PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L,
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-H MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DBG C
MEAN
4.08
6.00
7.64
121
7440
1780
8.04
59.8
547
4.06
581
4.32
843
6.27
1.410
10.5
37.4
0.278
138
1.03
5.18
0.039
6.91
19,5
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PLANT BCL*
1 SAMPLE
250
-------
Table 101 . ciAM PRESS/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KHS
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KRS
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-!! MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
6.53
5.50
3.59
57.0
2280
546
10.0
22.9
2460
5.60
6660
15.2
2680
6.11
4060
9.24
52.2
0.119
421
0.960
8.00
0.018
7.04
18.6
STD DEV
1.21
—
0.657
10.4
771
185
6.57
15.0
1920
4.37
3100
7.06
1070
2.43
1530
3.49
26.8
0.061
164
0.374
3.41
0.008
0.111
1.10
MINIMUM
4.78
2.50
2.65
42.0
1480
355
1.73
3.94
649
1.48
3990
9.09
1670
3.80
2600
5.92
25.7
0.059
258
0.589
5.60
0.013
6.93
17.8
MAXIMUM
7.48
8.00
4.10
65.0
3330
799
15.9
36.3
5150
11,7
10600
24.2
4180
9.52
6210
14.1
80.6
0.184
648
1.48
12.9
0.029
7.20
19.8
PLANT HCL2
4 SAMPLES
251
-------
Table 102 CUM PRESS/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER MEAN
PRODUCTION TON/HR 3.43
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY 2.30
PLOW L/SEC 4.85
(GAL/MIN) 77.1
PLOW RATIO L/KKG 5610
(GAL/TON) 1350
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 3.01
RATIO L/KKG 16.9
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L 273
RATIO KG/KKG 1.53
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 2910
RATIO KG/KKG 16,4
5 DAY BOD MG/L 632
RATIO KG/KKG 3.55
COD MG/L 958
RATIO KG/KKG 5.38
GREASE & OIL MG/L 16.4
RATIO KG/KKG 0.092
ORGANIC-N MG/L 102
RATIO KG/KKG 0.574
AMMONIA-N MG/L 3.51
RATIO KG/KKG 0.020
PH 7.02
TEMP DEG C ~
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PLANT HCL3
1 SAMPLE
252
-------
The production rates at the three plants sampled averaged about
20 kkg/day (22 tons/day) which was about half the rate of the
mechanized plants and ranged from 7 kkg/day (8 tons/day) to 33
kkg/day (36 tons/day). The yield of food product from the hand
shucked plants is similar to the mechanized plants. The final
product is shipped to other plants for further processing into
canned clams or chowder.
OYSTER PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The wastewater characterization data from the oyster processing
industry is organized into mechanical steamed or canned
operations and conventional hand shucking operations because of
the different methods and waste loads involved. Figure 58
presents a normalized process plot of selected wastewater
parameters for the fresh/frozen, steamed, or canned oyster
processing plants sampled during this study.
Steamed or canned Oysters
Two steamed oyster processes in the mid-Atlantic region and two
canned oyster processes in the Northwest were monitored during
September and October, 1973. The two steamed oyster processes
and one canned oyster process were similar, in that shucking of
the oysters was facilitated by steaming the oyster to loosen the
meat from the shell. The other canned oyster process used pieces
of meat from hand shucking operations and then canned them as
oyster stew. There was soine difficulty encountered sampling one
of the steamed oyster plants (SO2) becuase of the numerous
discharge points.
Historical Gulf Coast Oyster canning data, plant SOU, was
obtained from the American Shrimp Canners Association. The Gulf
Coast process includes an external wash of the raw oyster,
steaming in the shell, mechanical shucking, and brine flotation
for separation of the oysters from the shells.
Wastewater material balance
The two plants on the East Coast were located in small commun-
ities and obtained water from domestic supplies. The plants on
the West Coast were located in more rural areas and obtained
their water from wells.
Table 103 shows the wastewater balance for a typical steamed
oyster process. It is observed that a large portion of the flow
and load is caused by the washdown at these plants. The largest
flow comes from the culler and shocker which is used to clean and
partially open the shell before steam cooking| however, the BOD
load is relatively small.
253
-------
Table 103 * Steamed oyster process material balance
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total % of Total % of Total
UnitOperation • Flow BOD Susp. Solids
a) belt washer 11% 10% 63%
b) shocker 43% 9% 26%
c) shucker 15% 11% 1%
d) blow tanks ' 7% 6% <1%
e) washdown " 23% 64% 10%
ro
en
** Total effluent average
S02 66,500 1/kkg 30 kg/kkg 137 kg/kkg
Average Production Rate, 6.8 kkg/day (7.5 tons/day)
{production for the oyster processes is measured in
terms of final product)
-------
Tables 10** through 107 summarize the characteristics of the
wastewater from the steamed or canned oyster plants which are
included in the subeategory summary. Codes SOI and SO2 represent
the two East Coast steamed oyster plants. The waste loads appear
to be higher at sol. This could be caused by the higher water
use or sampling problems caused by the numerous outfalls at SO2.
The results from plant SOI are considered to be the most
accurate. Code COl represents a canned oyster process on the
West Coast which is similar to the East Coast operation except
that the oyster meat is removed from the shell manually after
steaming and is then canned and retorted. The waste load, in
terms of BOD, is about the same or a little higher than from the
East Coast operations. The suspended solids is much lower at the
West Coast plant as the shells are typically washed before they
enter the plant. Code CO2 represents an oyster stew process on
the West Coast. This process uses pieces of broken oyster from
hand shucking operations which are not desirable for the
fresh/frozen market. The wastes are lower since the process does
not include a shucking operation. Wastewater from the oyster
plants are typically discharged directly to the receiving water,
Table 107 summarizes the characteristics of the waste water from
the Gulf Coast oyster canning operation.
Product material balance
Production rates at the East Coast steamed oyster plants averaged
7.0 kkg/day (7.7 tons/day) of finished product. Oyster
production is usually measured in terms of final product since
the ratio between raw and final product is quite variable due to
loose or empty shells. The production rate at the West Coast.
oyster canning plants averaged 1,<4 kkg/day (1.5 tons/day) for the
canning operation and 3.2 kkg/day (3.5 tons/day) for the stew
operation. The stew operation, however, is usually done only
once a week after the oyster pieces have accumulated to a
sufficient amount.
Hand Shucked Oysters
Six hand shucked oyster processes in the mid-Atlantic region were
monitored during September and October, 1973 and four hand
shucked oyster processes in the Northwest were monitored during
October and November, 1973. In general, there was no problem
with the availability of product in either region during this
period. Processes of all size ranges, from those employing a few
shuckers to those with a capacity of over 100 shuckers were
sampled. Regardless of size, the processes are similar and
relatively easy to sample.
Wastewater material balance
255
-------
Table 104* Hand shucked oyster process material balance
East Coast
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% 'of Total
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) washdown
71 - 94%
6 - 29%
% of Total
BOD
81 - 94%
6 - 19%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
11 - 58%
42 - 89%
po
Ol
01
Total effluent average
37.000 1/kkg
West Coast
14 kg/kkg
11 kg/kkg
Unit Operation
a) blow tank
b) washdown
% of Total
Flow
45 - 68%
32 - 55%
% of Total
BOD
83 - 95%
5 - 17%
% of Total
Susp. Solids
24 - 75%
25 - 76%
Total effluent average
41,000 1/kkg
25 kg/kkg
26 kg/kkg
(Production for the oyster processes is measured in terms of final product)
-------
Table .105 . OYSTER STEAM PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW I/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-*! MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMOUIA-N KG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN-"
0.956
7.18
15.4
244
85400
20500
7.14
61 0
2460
210
1570
134
546
46.7
903
77,2
16.9
1 .44
54.7
4.67
2.54
0.217
7.07
20,1
• STD DEV
0 .480
..
1.86
29.5
29600
7100
2. ,57
219
2260
1 S3
1 180
101
401
34.3
593
50.7
9.32
0.797
40.1
3 .4,2 :
1 .17
0.100
0.116
1.74
, MINIMUM "
0.418
5.50
11.9
190
48500
1 1600
3.29
281
420
, 35.8
714
61 .0
200
17.0
355
30.3
6.70
0.572
17.4
1 .49
0.984
0.084
6.94
18.2
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1 , 60
9.30
17.3
275
1 24000
29800
10.4
891
5620
480
3380
289
919
•.'"• 78,5 ,
1640
140
31 .8
2.72
101
8.64
4.06
0.347
7.35
21 .6
SOI
5 SAMPLES
257
-------
Table 106. OYSTER STEAM PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME KR/DAY
FLOW Tj SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGAN IC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH v .
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.920
8.19
13.9
220
66500
15900
11.7
781
2910
193
2060
137
448
29.8
&26
61 ,6
19.0
1 .26
52.8
3.51
2.93
0.195
7.07
19.8
STD DEV
0.125
—
0.581
9.22
9610
2300
4.05
269
637
42.4
860
57.2
59.7
3.97
172
11.4
5.41
0.360
9.93
0.661
0.875
0.058
0.087
0.786
MINIMUM
0.675
8.00
13,4
213
58400
14000
7.92
527
2040
136
835
55.6
392
26.1
688
45.8
13.9
0.928
40.0
2.66
2.15
0.143
6.92
18.8
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1 .04
8.80
15.0
239
85600
20500
18.8
1250
4070
271
3640
242
570
37.9
1260
83.9-
29.9'
1.99
71.1
4.73
4.29
0.285
7.16
20.8
S02
7 SAMPLES
258
-------
TABLE 107
OYSTER STEAM PROCESS
Parameter Mean
Production tons/hr 0.26
Flow I/sec 10.6
gal/min 168
Flow Ratio 1/kkg 167,000
gal/ton 39,990
Total Susp. Solids mg/1 656
kg/kkg 203
5 day BOD mg/1 693
kg/kkg 165
COD mg/1 1090
kg/kkg 204
Grease & Oil mg/1 9
kg/kkg 1.8
pH 7.2
(Plant SOV)
3 samples
259
-------
The plants on the East, coast obtained water either from domestic
supplies or from wells, while the plants on the West coast ob-
tainec? their water from wells.
Table 10W shows the wastewater balance for typical East and West
Coast hand shucked oyster processes. It can be seen that the two
main sources of water are the blow tanks and the washdowns. The
blow tanks, which are used to wash and add water to the product,
are the major sources of wastewater and BOD loads. The washdowns
can be a major source of suspended solids due to the fine pieces
of sand which are on or in the oyster shells.
Tables 108 through 116 summarize the characteristics of the waste
loads from the hand shucked oyster plants - included in the
subcategory summary, codes HSOl through HSO6 represent East
Coast plants while codes HSO8 through HSll represent West Coast
plants. ;
In general, the wastewater loads were higher at the West Coast
plants than the East Coast plants. The reason for this appears
to be due to the difference in the type of oysters processed and
the flows used. The West Coast plants typically use more water
in washing the product than the Eash Coast plants. The West
Coast oyster is also larger and tends 'to break easier during
handling. One plant on the East Coast (HSO5) breaded the oysters
after shucking. This operation was found to contribute about 50
percent of the BOD load at that plant; however, the overall load
was about average due to good water conservation practices. The
wastewater from hand shucked oyster processes is typically dis-
charged directly to the receiving water.
Product material balance
The average production rate of the last coast plants sampled was
800 kg/day {1800 Ibs/day) of final product; however, there was a
wide range of from about 250 kg/day (5ftO Ibs/day) to 2100 kg/day
(4500 Ibs/day). The West- Coast plants observed had higher
production rates averaging about 1100 kg/day (2500 Ibs/day) . All
oyster production volumes or rates are in terms of final product,
since the input shell weight to final product weight is too
variable for accurate measurements.
Scallop Freezing Process Wastewater Characteristics
Two scallop freezing processes were monitored in Alaska during
July and August of 1973. Although this was about the middle of
an average scallop harvest season, some difficulty was
experienced in obtaining samples due to intermittent processing.
Wastewater material balance
260
-------
Both plants sampled used chlorinated municipal water sources,
derived from reservoirs and deep wells. The only wastewater
produced was in the washing operation? however* each plant
sampled had a different method. Plant SP1 used a two stage
continuous flow washing system in which a large volume of fresh
water was used. Plant SP2 used a non-flowing brine tank which
was dumped approximately every eight hours.
Tables 117 and 118 summarize the wast©water characteristics for
each plant sampled. It can be seen that, although the flow is
much higher for SP1, the BOD loads were similar for the two
processes and relatively low compared to other seafood processing
operations«
The effluent was discharged to the receiving water at one plant
and to the .municipal sewer' system at the:other plant.
Product material balance
Production rates for the two plants were similar, averaging about
9 kkg/day (10 tons/day) of finished product. Production rates
for the scallops were recorded in terms of finished product since
they are shelled and eviscerated at sea. The yield is nearly 100
percent since the only wastes produced are small scallop pieces
not suitable for freezing, solid waste removed during inspection,
and small amounts of dissolved organic matter.
FRESH/FROZEN ABALONS PROCESS W&STEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Three abalone processors in 'Southern California were monitored'
during the month of October, 1973, which is a period of average
production. All of the plants were located in metropolitan
areas, utilized domestic water supplies, and discharged the
effluent to the municipal treatment plant.
Wastewater .Material,...Balance . -
Table 119 shows that the primary source of wastewater is from the
processing area and consists of various small flows used to keep
'the area clean, These small flows may be either continuous or
intermittent at the discretion of the plant personnel. The flat
surfaces of the processing table and the slicing machines are
periodically cleansed to facilitate handling as well as to . rinse
away accumulated wastes. Washwater that is used to cleanse the
foot muscle prior to trimming was handled differently in each of
the three plants sampled. The largest plant, ABlf utilized
recirculated washwater which was dumped twice a day. Plant AB2
used a system which recirculated the washwater during a single
wash cycle and then discharged it, and plant AB3 used a
continuous flow of water through the washing mechanism during
each wash cycle.
261
-------
Table 108. o*SIER-FRESE/FROZEN PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION 1ON/HR
PROCESS TIKE HR/DAY
FLOW I/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO I/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS Ml/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L .
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMOKIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.282
7.33
2.29
36.4
36600
8780
1.77
64.8
222
8.14
304
11.2
302
.11 .1
569
20.9
15.1
0.552
52.9
1.94
2.63
0.096
7.07
15.6
STD DEV
0.090
—
0.596
9.47
3990
956
—
3.95
0.145
20.3
0.746
85.2
3.12
120
4.40
3.97
0.145
10.4
0.381
0.152
0.006
0.042
—
MINIMUM
0.213
6.00
1.66
26.4
34200
8200
„_
218
7.97
286
10.5
243
8.89
496
18.2
10.5
0.385
45.2
1.66
2.47
0.090
7.05
—
MAXIMUM
0.383
8.00
2.85
45.2
41200
9890
—
225
8.25
326
12.0
399
14.6
708
25. rf
17.7
0.648
64.7
2.37
2.77
0.102
7.13
—
PLANT HSO2
3 SAMPLES
262
-------
Table
OYSTER FRESH/ FROZEN PROCFSS
(HAND-SHOCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/BR
PROCESS TIME BR/DAY
FLOW I/ SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/ TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 BAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PE
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.139
5.70
0.831
13.2
24500
5870
2.82
69.1
319
7.61
437
10.7
346
8.46
699
17.1
20.0
0.490
63.8
1.56
3.28
0.080
7.10
15.6
STD DEV
0.017
— .
0.219
3.47
3800
911
0.193
4.71
3.07
0.075
20.9
0.511
66.2
1.62
166
4.05
3.80
0.093
14.4
0.353
0.452
0.011
0.076
_—
MINIMUM
0.125
4.30
0.650
10.3
21000
5040
2.65
64.8
317
7.77
414
10.1
261
6.39
472
11 .6
14.4
0.353
43,9
1.07
7,85
0.070
7.01
—
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.163
8.00
1.14
18.1
29800
7140
3.03
74.2
323
7.90
464
11.4
404
9.89
856
21 .0
22.6
0.554
77.4
1 .90
3.92
0.096
7.17
—
HS03
4 SAMPLES
263
-------
Table 11Q OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/S1C
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 1
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L '
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.109
5,40
3.12
49.6
12000
26800
0.867
96.8
87.5
9.77
203
22.7
256
28.8
572
63.8
15.4
1.72
51.6
5.76
1.98
0.221
7.10
19.8
STD DEV
0.029
.._
1.28
20.3
32900
7880
—
7.98
0.891
126
14.0
51.4
5.74
73.0
8.14
5.11
0.571
8.21
0.916
0.817
0.091
0.112
0.795
MINIMUM
0.091
5.00
1 .35
21,4
56800
13600
—
77.1
8.60
139
15.5
187
20.9
474
52.9
7,26
0.810
42.3
4.72
1.02
0.114
7.00
18.7
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.160
6.50
4.88
77.4
1 39000
33300
—
98.3
11.0
427
47.7
330
36.8
670
74.7
20.6
2.30
60.7
6.78
3.18
0.355
7.39
20.7
HSO4
5 SAMPLES
264
-------
Table
OYSTER FRESH/ FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHOCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIS)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAI*/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATI5 L/KKG
.SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGASIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-H MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.147
7.47
1 .31
20.8
36900
8850
1.77
65.5
217
8.01
308
11.3
.372
13.7
68O
25.1
16.4
0.605
42.0
1.55
2.36
0.087
7.10
17.7
STB rev
0.011
—
0.22S
3.62
6840
1640
—
7.71
0.284
15.8
0.584
91.2
3.36
182
6.73
2,77
0.102
15,4
0.568
0.323
0.012
0.074
0.799
MINIMUM
0.133
7.30
0,854
13.6
24000
5760
__
209
7.71
293
10.8
263
9.72
459
17.0
11.9
0.439
22.8
0.843
1 .89
0.070
7.00
16.9
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.160
7.50
1 .56
24.8
46900
1 1 200
— _
224
8.28
332
12.2
511
18.9
924
34.1
19.4
0.715
66.8
2.46
2.80
0.103
7.29
18.6
HSCS
7 SAMPLES
265
-------
TABLE 112
OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HANO-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIOS HL/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. S3LIQS HG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY 830 MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE < OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N HG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N HG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEC C
MEAN
0.055
5.14
0.90*
14.4
67800
16300
1.94
131
317
21.5
315
. 21.3
263
17,9
488
33.1
13.7
0.928
37.2
2.52
2.41
0*163
7. 10
17,2
STD OEV
0.010
—
0.186
2.95
8160
1960
0.804
54.5
107
7.23
17.5
1.19
90.2
6.12
172
11.7
3.66
0.249
15.1
1.02
0.563
0.038
0.049
0.558
MINIMUM
0.040
4*00
0*730
11*6
52300
12500
1.34
91*2
202
13,7
291
19.8
159
10,8
280
19.0
9.01
0.612
22.1
1.50
1.78
0*121
7.05
16,7
MAXIMUM
0.067
6*00
1*16
Id. 3
75600
18100
2.53
172
534
36.2
337
22*6
424
28*8
789
53.5
20,8
1.41
63.0
4,27
3.26
0.221
7.21
17,8
PLANT HS06
7 SAMPLES
266
-------
Table 113. OYSTER FRESS/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
PLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT, SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MS/L
RAf IO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS M6/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD M6/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GRBAS1 & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-* MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONI&-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TSMP DIG C
0*153
7.50
2.23
35,4
56400
13500
2.05
116
124
7,01
618
34,8
406
22.9
729
41.2
30.1
1.7O
63.2
3,57
1.81
0.102
6.66
10.OO
0.011
—
0.090
1.43
697
167
0.281
15.9
26.1
1.47
27.6
1.56
52.5
2.96
87.8
4.95
6,12
0.345
8.59
0.484
0.414
0.023
0.052
mmm*
0.138
5.50
2.12
33.7
5S800
13400
1.75
98.5
104
5,89
583
32,9
330
18.6
608
34.3
25.3
1.43
51.5
2.90
1.43
0.081
6.60
—
PLANT
0.164
8.00
2.33
37.0
57400
13800
2.36
133
168
9.48
650
36.7
476
26.9
848
47.9
38.5
2.17
74.6
4.21
2.46
0.139
6.73
— .
HSO8
5 SAMPLES
267
-------
Table 114. OYSTER JRBS^fRQZEN PROCESS
(BAUD SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DBV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION Ttm/m
PROCESS TIME HR/JJAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(OAL/TOH)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKS
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKS
COD M6/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KW5
ORGAN1C-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEO C
0.380
4.75
2.72
43.2
28700
6880
2.18
62.6
312
8.96
490
14.1
1030
29.6
1610
46.2
37.3
1,07
255
7.32
4.72
0.135
6.89
1.97
0.028
. —
0.120
1.91
2700
648
0.620
17.8
97.4
2, BO
108
3.11
165
4.75
228
6.S4
9.12
0.262
26.5
0.7SO
0.047
0.001
0.228
—
0.360
4.50
2.64
41.9
26800
6420
1.74
50.0
243
6.99
413
11.9
916
26.3
1450
41.5
30.8
0.885
236
6.78
4.69
0.135
6.72
—
0.400
5.00
2.81
44.6 .
30600
7340
a. 62
7S.1
381
10.9
566
16.3
11 5O
33.0
1770
50.8
43.7
1.26
274
7.85
4.75
0.136
7.18
-„
PLANT HSO9
2 SAMPLES
268
-------
Table K]5 . OYSTER FRES^FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FIiOW L/SEC
(GAL/MTO)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS NG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
0.031
8.00
0.309
4.91
37100
8890
1.67
62.1
245
9.07
416
15,4
619
23.0
1450
53.6
42.9
1.59
129
4.78
2.15
0.080
6.73
10.00
STD DEV
0.009
_
0.041
0.656
1700
407
0.314
11.7
63.5
3.10
105
3.89
78.1
2.90
182
6.7S
4.53
0.168
16.3
0.605
0.202
0.007
0.026
— .
MINIMUM
0.025
—
0.280
4.45
35900
8600
1.45
• 53. S
186
6.88
342
12.7
564
20.9
1320
48.9
39.7
1.47
118
4.36
2.01
0.074
6.71
—
MAXIMUM
0.037
—
0.339
5.38
38300
9180
1,90
70.3
304
11.3
491
18,2
674
25.0
1580
58.4
46.1
1.71
141
5.21
2.29
0.085
6.75
—
PLANT BS10
2 SAMPLES
269
-------
Table "116. OYSTER FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
(HAND-SHOCKED)
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KRG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO K6/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/RKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KRG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KRG
ORGABIC-8 MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
0.150
8.00
1.52
24.1
40200
9630
4.42
178
599
24.1
961
38.6
611
24.6
1370
55.2
39.5
1.59
231
9.30
2.65
0.107
7.00
10.00
_—
—
0.149
2.36
3940
945
0.602
24.2
477
19.2
130
5.24
78.9
3.17
169
6.78
5.62
0.226
16.2
0.652
. 0.331
0.013
0.129
—
— _
—
1.41
22.3
37300
8930
3.91
157
274
11.0
838
33.7
511
20.5
1250
50.3
31.1
1.25
221
8.88
2.31
0.093
6.86
—
PLANT
—
1.72
27.3
45600
10900
5.03
202
1170
47.2
1140
45.6
711
28.6
1640
65.8
47.6
1.91
257
10.3
3.24
0.130
7.24
~
HS11
4 SAMPLES
270
-------
Table 117 . SCALLOPS FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
bLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN )
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN
1.48
5.77
5.00
79.5
13600
3270
0.133
1.81
448
6.11
26.6
0.363
199
2.72
321
4.39
15.2
0.208
56.5
0.771
2.71
0.037
6.86
11.1
STD DEV
0.226
—
0.784
12.5
2550
611
0.054
0.741
122
1.66
9.25
0.126
67.7
0.924
78.1
1.07
14.8
0.202
34.4
0.470
0.724
0.010
0.184
0.680
MINIMUM
1.21
3.30
4.22
67.0
10100
2410
0.074
1.01
306
4.18
14.7
0.201
98.8
1.35
200
2.73
3.61
0.049
19.7
0.269
1.93
0.026
6.56
10.6
PLANT
MAXIMUM
1.71
8.00
6.34
101
17400
4170
0.215
2.93
584
7.97
40.6
0.555
285
3.88
396 .
5.41
31.9
0.435
102
1 . 39
3.92
0*054
7.19
12.2
SP1
6 SAMPLES
271
-------
Table US. SCALLOP FREEZING PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DEG C
MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM
1.05
11.5 —
00089 — — —
1842 — —
338
81 eO — — —
3200 — — —
10.8
—
3970 —
1934
10700 — — —
3.61 — — —
11300 — — —
3.82
26.0
0.009 — — —
1740 —
0.586 — —
77.1
0.026
6.30 — — —
5.55
PLANT SP2
1 SAMPLE
272
-------
Table '119. Abalone fresh/frozen process material bal mce
Wastewater Material Balance Summary
% of Total % of Total % of Total
Unit Operation Flow BOD Susp. Solids
a) process water 49% 50% 39%
b) wash tank 26% 20% 42%
c) washdown 25% 30% 19%
Total effluent average
AB1 47,100 1/kkg 27 kg/kkg 11 kg/kkg
Product Material Balance Summary
End Product % of Raw Product
Food Products
a) steaks 38 - 42%
b) trimmings
(patties,
canned) 34 - 36%
By-products
a) shell 10 - 12%
Wastes
a) viscera 10-12%
Average Production Rate, ,34 kkg/day (.38 tons/day)
-------
The remaining source of wastewater is the washdown of the entire
processing area. Tables 120 through 122 show the wastewater
characteristics of the three plants sampled. These tables show
that relatively large amounts of water and wastes are generated
per ton of product compared to other seafood processing
operations.
Product Material Balance
The production rates of abalone plants are quite low, with an
average of 0.183 kkg/day (0.202 tons/day). The input also varies
considerably due to fluctuations in raw product availability.
Table 119 shows the breakdown of raw product into food product,
by-product, and waste. The recovery of food product varies with
species and whether the abalone are packed whole or prepared as
steaks. The average recovery of sliced steaks is approximately
38 to £»2 percent. Good quality trimmings are retained along with
low quality steaks for the production of abalone patties. The
weight of trimmings is usually around the same as the net weight
of the steaks recovered.
The abalone shells are retained for sale to curio shops and to
producers of jewelry and gift items. These shells constitute the
only by-product recovery at present. The viscera was collected
as solid waste and turned over to the municipalities for
disposal.
Determination of Subcategory Summary Data
The computation of the subcategory summary data for the flow
ratio, total suspended solids, BODS^, and grease and oil
parameters is based, in general, on the log-normal transform of
individual plant summary data. The plants which were used to
compute these subcategory-wide (spatial) averages are considered
to be typical in their water and waste control practices. Plants
which employed hybrid or partial processes were not included in
the averages.
The log-normal transform incorporated weighing factors for the
number of samples collected at each individual plant and for the
temporal variabity of the individual plant data. Figure 71
presents the log-normal formulas utilized to calculate the
subcategory parameter averages and standard deviations for the
fish meal, hand-butchered salmon, mechanized salmon, conventional
bottom fish, mechanized bottom fish. Pacific Coast hand-shucked
oyster, and East and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster processing
subcategories.
In unweighted log normal distribution was utilized to calculate
the remaining subcategory averages even though the elimination of
the weighing factors results in higher subcategory raw waste
loads. However, the deletion of the weighing factors increases
274
-------
the data base because historical data which has already been
reduced to temporal averages and plant data which does not
include temporal variability can be utilized in the calculations.
275
-------
Table 12Q . mKLOm FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
PLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP; SOLIDS MS/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD M6/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GRSASE & OIL M6/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-M MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
TEMP DIG C
MEAN
0.072
5.23
O.604
9.58
47100
11300
4.80
226
95.4
4,50
237
11.2
579
27.3
917
43,2
22.5
1.O6
69.8
4.23
4.04
0.190
7.17
20.3
STD DEV
O.O19
—
0.054
0.863
1400O
3370
3.78
178
13.2
0.620
91.3
4.30
223
10.8
356
16.8
9.06
0.427
33.5
D.58
1.58
0.075
0,185
1.72
MINIMUM
0.048
4.20
0.517
8.20
31200
7490
2.27
107
85.4
4.02
143
6,74
302
14.2
468
22.1
12.6
0,595
46.2
2.18
1.85
0.087
6.89
19.1
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.087
7.50
0,676
10.7
69000
16500
10.7
505
105
4.97
410
19.4
885
41.7
1430
67.3
42.0
1*93
135
6.34
6.49
0.306
7.62
21.4
AB1
4 SAMPLES
276
-------
Table 121 . ABALONE FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
PARAMETER
MEAN
STD DEV
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION TON/BR 0.045
PROCESS TIMl BR/DAY 2.20
PLOW L/SEC 0.583
(GAL/MIN) 9,25
FLOW RATIO L/KKG 50900
(GAL/TON) 12200
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L 4.09
RATIO L/KKG 208
SCR. SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG —
SUSP. SOLIDS MG/L 317
RATIO KG/KKG 16.1
5 DAY BOD MG/L 431
RATIO KG/KKG 22.0
COD MG/L 1010
RATIO RG/KKG 51,2
GREASE & OIL MG/L 29.8
RATIO KG/KKG 1.52
ORGANIC-N MG/L 46.0
RATIO KG/KKG 2.35
AMMONIA-N MG/L 2.19
RATIO KG/KKG 0.111
PH 6.9f
TEMP DIG C —
PLANT AB2
1 SAMPLE
277
-------
Table 122 . ABALONE FRESH/FROZEN PROCESS
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION TON/HR
PROCESS TIME HR/DAY
FLOW L/SEC
(GAL/MIN)
FLOW RATIO L/KKG
(GAL/TON)
SETT. SOLIDS ML/L
RATIO L/KKG
SCR, SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
SUSP, SOLIDS MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
5 DAY BOD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
COD MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
GREASE & OIL MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
ORGANIC-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
AMMONIA-N MG/L
RATIO KG/KKG
PH
T1«P DEG C
MEAN
0.069
2.33
0.437
6,94
25200
6050
2.47
62.2
162
4.08
298
7.52
473
11.9
816
20.6
33.9
0.854
72.3
1.82
3.16
0.080
7.19
20.6
STD DEV
0»005
— .
0«134
2,13
8590
2060
1«16
29.2
167
4,21
78.0
1,97
165
4«15
148
3.72
13,9
0.352
11 «9
0,299
1.05
0,026
0*176
;
MINIMUM
0.067
1.50
0.328
5.21
18400
4410
1.21
30.6
23.8
0.599
198
5.01
263
6.64
631
15.9
19.6
0.494
58,1
1.47
2.13
0.054
7.00
—
PLANT
MAXIMUM
0.075
4.00
0.611
9.70
36400
8730
3.50
88.3
297
7,48
388
9.79
633
16.0
992
25.0
51.5
1,30
87.1
2.20
4.55
0,115
7.35
—
AB3
3 SAMPLES
278
-------
N
N
i=l
(*-$-*>)
Where Jij MJ and Xai |