EPA-230/1-74-047
FEBRUARY 1975
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
OF
INTERIM FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
FISH MEAL, SALMON, BOTTOM FISH, CLAMS,
OYSTERS, SARDINES, SCALLOPS, HERRING, ABALONE
QUANTITY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Washington, D.C. 20460
\
UJ
O
-------
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
INTERIM FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
SEAFOODS PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Fish Meal, Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clams
Oysters, Sardines, Scallops, Herring, Abalone
David L. Jordening
Thomas R. Eycstone
To
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Flew
Chicago. *l 60604-3590
Contract No. 68-01-1533
Task Order No. 11
February, 1975
-------
PREFACE
The attached document is a contractor's study prepared for the Office
of Planning and Evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA"). The purpose of the study is to analyze the economic impact
which could result from the application of alternative effluent limita-
tion guidelines and standards of performance to be established under
sections 304 (b) and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended.
The study supplements the technical study ("EPA Development Document")
supporting the issuance of international regulations under sections 304(b)
and 306. The Development Document surveys existing and potential waste
treatment control methods and technology within particular industrial
source categories and supports proposal based upon an analysis of the
feasibility of these guidelines and standards in accordance with the
requirements of sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act. Presented in the
Development Document are the investment and operating costs associated
with various alternative control and treatment technologies. The attached
document supplements this analysis by estimating the broader economic
effects which might result from the required applications of various
control methods and tec \nologies. This study investigates the effect of
alternative approaches in terms of product price increases, effects upon
employment and the continued viability of affected plants, effects upon
foreign trade and othur competitive effects.
The study has been prepared- with the supervision and review of the Office
of Planning and Evaluation of EPA. This report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. BOA 68-01-1533, Task Order No. 11 by DeveJopmei,
Planning and Research Associates, Inc., Manhattan, Kansas. Work was
completed as of February, 1975.
This report is being released and circulated at approximately the same tim:
as publication in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rule making
under sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act for the subject point source cate-
gory. The study IG not an official EPA publication. Tt will be considered
along wilh the information contained in the Development Document and any
comments received by EPA on either document before or during proposed
rule making proceedings necessary to establish final regulations. Prior
to final promulgation of regulations, the accompanying study shall have
standing in any EPA proceeding or court proceeding only to the extent that
it represents the views of the contractor who studied the subject industry.
It cannol be cited, referenced, or represented in any respect in any such
proceeding as a statement of EPA's views regarding the subject industry.
-------
CONTENTS
I. INDUS TRY SEGMENTS 1-1
A. Introduction 1-1
B. Classification of Firms and Plants 1-3
1. Number and Location of Firms
and Plants 1-3
2. Geographical Concentration of
Plants 1-5
C. Economic Concentration in the Fisheries
Industry 1-7
D. Level of Integration 1-8
E. Technological Status of the Industry 1-9
F. Domestic Production, Imports and Exports I-10
G. Summary 1-17
II. FINANCIAL RETURNS AND FINANCIAL CHARAC-
TERISTICS OF THE INDUSTRY II-1
A. General Considerations II-2
1. Physical Considerations II-3
2. Economic Considerations II-3
B. Constraints on Financing Additional Capital
Assets H-3
C. Estimated Earnings and Financial Consi-
derations by Segment II-4
1. Alaskan Salmon Canning Segments II-5
2. West Coast Salmon Canning
Segments II-6
3. West Coast Fresh and Frozen
Salmon Segment II-6
4. West Coast Bottom Fish Segment II-7
5. Atlantic Bottom Fish Segment II-7
6. Fish Meal Segment II-7
7. Oyster Segment II-7
8. Clam Segments II-8
9. Maine Sardine Segment II-8
D. Summary , II-8
-------
CONTENTS
irr. PRICING in- 1
A. Price Dete rmi nation IIT-1
B. Potential Price Effects m~2
IV. ECONOMIC IMPACT METHODOLOGY IV- 1
A. Fundamental Methodology IV- i
1. Industry Segmentation IV-2
2. Pollution Abatement Cost Con-
version IV-2
3. Preliminary Impacts IV-3
4. Price Effects IV-3
5. Estimated Impacts IV -5
V. EFFLUENT CONTROL COSTS V-l
A. Description of Effluent Control Levels
and Costs V-l
B. Current Status of Effluent Control in the
Industry V-5
VI. IMPACT ANALYSIS VI- 1
A* Total Investment Required under BPT and BAT VI- 1
B. Price Effect s VI- 1
C. Financial Effects . VI- 6
D1. Production Effects VI-7
1. ' Potential Plant Closures Under
BPT Assumption VI-7
E. Employment Effects VI-20
1. Distribution of Employment by
Plant Size VI-20
2. Possibility of ReempJoyrnent in
New Plants Being Built VI-20
3. Absorption of Laid-off Employees
by Other Plants VI-22
4. Direct Employment Effects VI-22
5. Secondary Unemployment Effects VI-22
F. Community Effects VI-2-1
G. Balance of Trade Effects VI-24
H. Impact of BAT Guidelines VI-2S
I. Combined Impact BPT 1 BAT Guidelines VI- 30
J. Impact of New Source Performance Stcmdards Vl-33
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
~ ee
VII. LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS VII-1
A. General Accuracy VII-1
1. Effluent Control Costs VII-2
2. Current Effluent Treatment Status of
the Industry VII-2
3. Current Status of Municipal Treatment
in the Industry VII-2
4. Estimating Peak Capacity VII-2
5. Economic Status of the Industry VIT-3
6. "Shutdown" Decisions VII-3
7. Price Effects VII-3
8. Inflationary Trends VII-3
B» Other Considerations . VII-4
C. Selected Qualifications for Alaskan
Segments VII-4
1. Problems Associated with Land Fill
Solids Disposal in Alaska VII-5
2. General Comments on Barging
Processing Waste From Seafood
Plants VII-6
3. Consideration of Alternate Plant Sites VII-7
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Pag
I-I Distribution of plants by region: Bottom fish 1-20
1-2 Distribution of plants by region: Fresh and frozen
salmon 1-21
1-3 Distribution of plants by region: Canned salmon 1-22
1-4 Distribution of plants by region: Oysters Pacific,
fresh and frozen 1-23
1-5 Distribution of plants by region: Eastern oysters,
fresh and frozen 1-24
1-6 Distribution of plants by region: Oysters Pacific,
canned 1-25
1-7 Distribution of plants by region: Oysters Eastern,
canned 1-26
1-8 Distribution of plants by region: Clams, Frozen
and fresh 1-27
1-9 Distribution of plants by region: Clams canned 1-28
I-10 Distribution of plants by region: Fish meal 1-29
I-11 Distribution of plants by region: Sea Herring,
canned (Maine Sardines) 1-30
1-12 Summary of number of plants by select species 1-31
1-13 Geographic concentration of selected segments of
the seafood processing industry 1-32
1-14 Number and size of U.S. seafood processing plants,
1970 and 1972 1-34
1-15 Concentration of fish and shellfish processing, 1972 1-35
1-16 Percent of total value of shipments accounted for by 1-36
1-17 Number and size of U.S. Canned Sea Herring
processing plants, 1972 1-37
1-18 Number and size of U.S. fish meal processing
plants, 1972 1-38
1-19 Number and size of U.S. Eastern Oysters fresh
and frozen processing plants, 1972 ' 1-39
1-20 Number and size of U.S. clams, fresh and frozen
processing plants, 1972 1-40
1-21. . Number and size of U.S. bottomfish processing
plants, 1972 > 1-41
1-22 Economic concentration and integration of
selected salmon processing companies 1-42
1-23 Oysters - landings by region, 196-'. -1973 1-45
1-24 Oysters-proressed product, United States, 1964-1972 1-46
1-25 Oysters, imports for consumption, 1963-1972 1-47
1-26 Clams - Landings by region, 1964 - 1973 1-48
1-27 Clams - processed product, United States, 1964-1972 I-"*9
1-28 Clams, imports for consumption, 1963-1972 1-50
1-29 Menhaden, U.S. landings by major states and
regions, 1963-1972 1-51
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table No> Title Pago
1-30 Production of menhaden products, 19-17-7] I-52
1-3-1 U.S. production of dried fish scrap and meal,
solubles and manhaden oil, 1963-1972 1-53
1-32 Foreign trade dried fish scrap and meal, soluble:;
and fish and marine animal oil, 1963-1972 1-54
1-33 Anchovies - landings and processed product,
California, 1964-1973 I-5V
1-34 U.S. landings of Pacific salmon, by state, 1963-
1972 1-58
1-35 U.S. salmon consumption, aggregate and per capita,
canned and non-canned, 1963-1972 1-59
1-36 U.S. supply and disposition of salmon, 1963-1972 1-60
1-37 Imports of salmon to the United States, by country
of origin, 1963-1972 1-6]
1-38 U.S. canned salmon prodxiction, imports and ex-
ports, 1963-1972 1-62
1-39 Pacific bottom fish, landing and values by states,
1963-1967 1-63
1-40 Pacific bottom fish, U. S. landings by species,
1963-1973 1-64
1-41 Atlantic bottom fish, landings and value, 1963-1972 1-65
1-42 Atlantic bottom fish, landings and value, by species,
1963-1972 1-66
1-43 Atlantic bottom fish, U. S. sources and disposition,
1960-1972 1-67
1-44 Supply of bottom fish fillets ;,nd steaks, 1960-1973 1-68
1-45 Halibut, U. S. .landings, 1963-!'"72 1-69
1-46 U. S. halibut consumption, aggregate and per
capita, 1963-1972 1-70
1-47 Halibut, U. S. imports, 1963-1972 1-71
1-48 Sea Herring - landings and processed product, Maine,
1963-1973 ' 1-72
1-49 Canned sardines, U.S. supply, 1960-1973 1-73
II-1 Estimated earnings and cash flow for Southeast Alaska
salmon canner, 1972 11-10
H-2 Estimated earnings and cash flow for Central
Alaskan salmon canner, 1972 11-11
IT-3 Estimated earnings and cash How for Western
Alaska salmon canner, 1972 11-12
II-4 Estimated earnings and cash flow lor Southeast
Alaska salmon canners(5-yr a. vc. 1968-1972) 11-13
II-5 Estimated earnings and ca^ii flow for Central
Alaska salmon canners (5-year average; 1968-197?-} 11-14
H-6 Esi imatrd onrningG and cash flow for VWsiern
Alaska salmon canners (5-year average 196S-1972) 11-15
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title
II-7 Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast
salmon canner, 1972 11-16
II -8 Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast
and Alaskan fresh and frozen salmon processor, 1972 II- 17
II-9 Estimated earnings and cash flow for iVest Coast
and Alaskan fresh and frozen salmon processor, 1972 11-18
11-10 Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast
and Alaskan fresh and frozen salmon processor, 1972 11-19
11-11 Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast
and AJaskan bottom fish processor, 1972 11-20
11-12 Estimated earnings and cash flow for Atlantic bottom
fish processor, 1972 11-21
11-13 Estimated earnings and cash flow for anchovy
processor, 1972 11-22
11-14 Estimated earnings and cash flow for Menhaden
processor, 1972 - 11-23
11-15 Estimated earnings and cash flow for Eastern fresh
and frozen oyster processor, 1972 11-24
II- 16 Estimated earnings and cash flow for oyster canner,
1972 11-25
11-17 Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast
fresh and frozen oyster processor, 1972 11-26
11-18 Estimated earnings and cash flow for darn canner,
1972 II-27
11-19 Estimated earnings and cash flow for fresh and
frozen cJam processors, 1972 11-28
11-20 Estimated earnings and cash flow for Maine sardine
processors, 1972 11-29
11-21 Summary of financial returns by segment, 1972 11-30
11-22 Summary of basic financial characteristics for
selected seafood processing segments 11-32
V-l Effluent control costs, seafood processing plants
1972 V-2
V-2 Industrial waste treatment model data- -Percent
treatment existing for each subcategory V-6
V-3 Industrial waste treatment model data- -Percent-
direct dischargers V-8
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table No. Title Pa^o
VI-1 Estimated total investment and annual cost of BPT
and BAT effluent .HmitHtion guidelines Vl-E
VI-2 Number of plants, price effects and BPT impact
by industry segment VI-9
VI-3 Estimated impacts of BPT and BAT effluent
limitation guidelines for miscellaneous plants VI-17
VI-4 Employment in the fresh and frozen packaged fish
industry, by size group, 1967 VI-21
VI-5. Employment in the canned and cured seafood products
industry, by size group, 1967 VI-21
VI-6 Estimated direct employment loss attributal to BPT
and BAT guidelines for selected segments Vl-23
VI-7 Number of plants, price effects and BAT impact
by industry segment VI-26
VI-8 Estimated Impacts of BPT and BAT effluent
limitation guidelines Vl-31
VII-1 Solid waste disposal summary of selected seafood
processing plants in Alaska VII- 8
-------
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INTERIM FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
I. INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
A. Introduction
Pursuant to the objectives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, the Environmental Protection Agency is establishing in-
dustry effluent limitation guidelines. This task encompasses numerous
biological, engineering and economic considerations. While it is desir-
able that all of the above considerations be explored prior to establishing
the guidelines, the last consideration, i.e. , assessing the economic
impact of impending guidelines, is the single objective herein.
In order to further conceptualize this objective, and at a later date,
evaluate the success of this report in achieving this objective, it is
expedient to briefly highlight the exact nature, purpose and scope of this
report.
As mentioned above, the sole objective is to assess the economic impact
of effluent limitation guidelines on selected segments of the seafood pro-
cessing industry. Selecting the waste water treatment strategy, assessing
the capital and operating costs associated with the recommended treat-
ment strategy and evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed strategy
is included in the objectives of other studies. Likewise, other topics
with obvious merit, such as the optimal regional waste treatment strategy
or the economic benefits of water quality enhancement are beyond the
scope of this report. In summary, the objective of this report is to
assess the economic impact of impending national effluent limitation
guidelines--based on one recommended "end of pipe" treatment strategy
and associated costs as provided by EPA. This therefore precludes
assessing the economic impact stemming from state environmental regu-
lations. It further precludes assessing the economic impacts emanating
from user fees or hook-up fees for those plants that are utilizing munici-
pal waste treatment facilities.
It is also expedient to mention that not all segments of the seafood pro-
cessing industry will be considered herein. The selection of the specific
processes and/or species considered is heavily dependent on the develop-
ment of effluent treatment cost data which preceded this report. The
industry segmentation as presented is further influenced by the form and
1-1
-------
nature of the effluent treatment cost data as provided by EPA. Therefore
while the objective of the report is to ascertain the economic impact of
impending waste water treatment standards, many factors must be con-
sidered as external lo this report.
The segments delineated are as follows:
1. Oysters, fresh and frozen
2. Oysters, canned
3. Clams, fresh and frozen
4. Clams, canned
5. Fish meal, menhaden and anchovy
6. Salmon, fresh and frozen
7. Slamon, canned
8. Sea herring (sardines), canned and fillets
9. Pacific bottom fish, fresh and frozen
10. Atlantic bottom fish, fresh and frozen
11. Scallops
12. Abalone
Several modifications and revisions in the above taxonomy will be intro-
duced throughout the development of this report. These changes will
be introduced and documented as required.
It is also recognized that seafood processing plants are riot specialized
to the degree indicated by the above specific segments. Although special-
ization does exist, e.g. menhaden reduction plants, most processors
operate multi- species plants and some combine fresh, frozen ".;
-------
The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a broad description of the
above industry segments. A brief discussion of plant numbers, geo-
graphic concentration, economic concentration, volume of domestic
production and volume of imports and exports has been included. For
the most part, this summary is based on secondary data and is intended only
to elucidate broad production and consumption trends.
B. Classification of Firms and Plants
In general, the firms and plants included in this analysis fell under three
1972 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes:
SIC 2091 - Canned and cured fish and seafoods (partial)
Establishments primarily engaged in cooking and/or canning
fish or shell fish.
SIC 2092 - Fresh or frozen packaged fish and seafoods (partial)
Establishments primarily engaged in preparing fresh and raw or
cooked frozen packaged fish or other seafoods,
SIC 2094 - Animal and marine fats and oils
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing animal oils,
including fish oil and other marine animal oils, and by-product
meal; and those rendering inedible grease and tallow from animal
fat, bones and meat scrap.
1. Number and Location of Firms and Plants
The entire emphasis of this report is confined to primary commercial
processors of the above products and/or species. It is recognized that
in addition to primary commercial processors, there are many whole-
salers, reprocessors and specialized custom packers located throughout
most seacoast and nonseacoast states. The latter plants will not be
considered in this report and have therefore not been included in the
plant lists presented below. (All tables and figures have been included
as an attachment at the end of the chapter. )
1-3
-------
Plant numbers and location data presented in this section were developed
from plant lists provided by National Marine Fishery Services. The
following summary of plant numbers by species and region have been
developed from this data source.
Tables I-1 to I- 11 present the total number of plants within each segment
as well as the number of plants that meet the 80 percent specialization
criteria. It should be noted that some of the segments presented below
do not correspond to the segment listed earlier. For example, the bottom
fish segment includes both Atlantic and Pacific bottom fish including halibut.
Species other than rockfish, flounder, cod, haddock have also been included
in the bottom fish segment. The reader is encouraged to review the foot-
notes at the bottom of each Table for the definitions and coverage of each
segment. In general the segmentation as presented in Table I-1 to I-11
is broader and includes more plants than the taxonomy originally presented.
In addition to the plants listed in Tables I-1 to I-11, there are 150
Alaskan seafood processing plants that process salmon, bottom fish or
herring. Alaskan plant numbers were constructed from state publications,
National canner listings and personal interviews. Some of the pro-
cessors listed on the Alaskan list are more analogous to wholesalers
in that little processing is actually performed.
The largest segment, in terms of number of plants is the fresh and
frozen oyster segment. A total of 407 plants are included in this seg-
ment. In 338 of these plants, oysters account for more than 80 percent
of total plant sales. These plants are located primarily in Gulf and
Chesapeake regions. These two regions account for approximately
85 percent of all fresh and frozen oyster plants, 47 and 38 percent
respectively.
The second largest segment in terms of number of plants is the .-.>ttom
fish segment. This segment as presented herein actually contains all
bottom fish and selected finfish plants. A total of 224 plants are included,
142 of these are specialized to the extent that bottom fish accounts for
greater than 80 percent of total plant sales. These plants (bottom fish)
are dispersed in all coastal regions of the U. S. The Northeast region
is most important in terms of number of plants.
A summary of number of plants by select species is presented in
Table 1-12. This table includes both Alaskan and Non-Alaskan seg-
ments. A total of 728 plants are listed in Table 1-12 and will be
considered in this report.
1-4
-------
2. Geographical Concentration of Plants
The preceding section presented plant numbers without attempting to express
the number of plants on a state or community basis. The form of the plant
list is such that it is not possible to express number of plants by specific
location, e.g., community. Since, however, community impacts are
a very important facet of mandatory pol]ution abatement standards,
additional efforts have been implemented to determine the extent to which
adverse community impacts are likely as influenced by geographic con-
centration or clustering of plants.
Community impacts depend on the number of plants adversely impacted and
the economic importance of these plants to the local communities. It is
not possible at this early juncture to expound on the number of plant
closures but it is possible to briefly explore the geographical clustering
of plants which may be an indication of the dependency of the local
economy on the respective segments of the seafood processing industry.
The most important region in the 48 contiguous states in terms of number
of plants is the Gulf coast region. Considering only those plants that
meet the 80 percent criteria Gulf states accounts for approximately
30 percent of all 80 percent plants considered in the 48 contiguous
states. The next most important region is the Chesapeake region which
accounts for approximately 20 percent. The Northeast region is the
next most important followed by the Pacific region. The following
summary presents number of 80 percent plants by region.
Region ' ' Number of Plants I
Northeast 108
Mid Atlantic 48
Chesapeake ' 144
South Atlantic ' 49
Gulf 179
Pacific 78
Great Lakes 35
Mississippi 7
Total 651
J./
Only 80 percent of the plants in the 48 contiguous states have been
included in the above material.
1-5
-------
To further illuminate the extent to which local communities depend on
various plants, we have further explored geographical clustering by
simply tabulating the number of plants at selected locations. The 1970
population estimates for these communities are also presented as a crude
indication of the economic base of the respective communities. This in-
formation is presented below in Table 1-13 and is intended to simply
highlight or alert EPA of the extent of geographical clustering and therefore
the possibility or potential of adverse community impacts if plant closures
are projected.
This table shows that in almost all segments, it is very common to find
several plants operating in very small communities. It is also
known (but not shown in Table I-13)that there are many situations where
a single plant employs a large percent of the total local labor force.
An excellent example of the above would be the Maine sardine industry
where several plants are located in small remote locations. The
Chesapeake fresh and frozen oyster industry is also dispersed in many
rural areas throughout the bay.
It must also be recognized that even when plant numbers are expressed
on a community by community basis significant geographic clustering
may be obscured. Such a situation arises when several plants located
in different but neighboring communities -- separated by only a few miles --
draw from a common labor pool.
In summary, the location data presented, plus other information concerning
the regional importance of the seafood processing industry, clearly indicate
that the economic fortunes of many communities and regions are '.. -ectly
related to the economic fortunes of the seafood processing industi1'. If
mandatory pollution abatement standards adversely impact selected seg-
ments of the seafood processing industry, severe community and regional
impacts should be expected. The severity of the community impacts
depends on the"number of plant closings and the importance of these plants
to the respective communities.
The discussion of plant location and clustering as related to community
impacts must make special note of the Alaskan seafood processing seg-
ment. Limited employment opportunities, high unemployment rates and
significant plant clusterings increases the potential for adverse and
prolonged community and employment impacts _if_plant closures result
from the guidelines.
1-6
s
-------
C. Economic Concentration in the Fisheries Industry
Data from the 1967 Census of Manufactures indicates the following level
of concentration in the canned and cured and the fresh and frozen packaged
seafoods segments.
Percent of total value of shipments accounted for by:
4 largest 8 largest 20 largest 50 largest"
Product Line companies companies companies companies
Canned and
cured seafood 44 59 73 35
Fresh or frozen
packaged fish 26 38 56 72
The above data indicates that there is some concentration in the seafood
processing industry when grouped into broad SIC categories. Much of the
concentration is, however, accounted for by segments such as canned
tuna or canned salmon that produce a relatively large volume of output,
account for a relatively large portion of total industry sales and possess
a significant amount of economic or production concentration. These
segments tend to overshadow highly fragmented segments such as oyster
and bottom fish processing.
One alternative to the census format which has been suggested is to
present volume data on a plant by plant basis rather than on an owner-
ship basis. This method clearly shows that most seafood processing
plants, considering all segments, are quite small (42 percent of all
seafood processing plants had sales less than $100, 000 in 1972). One
objection is that the latter method is misleading in that it is not the
conventional method used to express industrial concentration and there-
fore should not be used to make industrial concentration comparisons
unless comparable data for all industries can be acquired. Since,
however, most seafood processing segments can be characterized as
consisting of primarily single plant firms the concentration ratio on a
plant by plant basis is viewed as representative of or an accurate
portrayal of production concentration.
1-7
-------
Number and percent of plants by size for 1970 and 1972 is presented
in Table 1-14. For example, approximately 20 percent of all seafood
processing plants had sales of $25, 000 or less. Forty-two percent
had sales of less than $100,000. Only 14 percent of all plants had
sales of $1, 000, 000 or more. As will be pointed out below many seg-
ments of the seafood processing industry have a few larger plants
which produce a significant portion of total output while the remainder
of the output is produced by numerous small, single family operations.
Additional production concentration data by plant for the seafood pro-
cessing industry is presented in Table 1-15. This table shows that
the four largest plants (approximately one-fourth of one percent by
number) produce approximately 17 percent of total output. The 1,389
smallest plants (approximately 87 percent by number of plants)
produce only 16 percent of total output. Both tables clea.rly show that
the industry may be characterized as possessing many very small
plants. Table 1-14 also shows that the total number of processing plants
in the industry is declining. This trend is accompanied by increasing
concentration of larger plants and a reduction in the number and percent
of small plants.
Additional concentration measures for selected industry processing seg-
ments are presented in Table 1-16. This table shows that for many of the
segments a very small number of plants produce a significant share of
total industry output. The remainder of the industry, however, is
comprised of numerous very small plants. Tables I-17 through 1-21
present number of plants and percent of plants in various size cate-
gories which further illustrate the large number of extremely small
plants in selected segments. For example, in Table 1-21, the smallest
23 percent of bottom fish plants produce less than 1 percent of lotal
industry output. Another example is that of fresh and frozen oysters.
Table 1-19, fresh and frozen oysters depicts a situation where >>.e
smallest 33 percent of plants produce only 3 percent of the total output.
D. Level of Integration
Integration within the seafood processing industry varies by product.
Broad industry wide measures of integration do not exist and would not
be particularly meaningful in that we could again expect that larger
plants and firms that possess considerable integration would completely
overshadow or bias integration data for smaller segments.
1-8
-------
In general, horizontal integration by product is very common and ad-
visable since many production seasons for selected species are very short
and horizontal integration provides a means for increasing the length
of season and spreading fixed costs. Horizontal integration (multiplant
integration) is most common in the salmon and menhaden reduction
industries. Vertical integration also exists in some segments, i.e.,
menhaden reduction. Since, however, the processing units will be
treated as separate entities, the profitability and impacts will be es-
timated on a processing unit basis only, vertical integration will not
be considered in great detail. Table 1-22 presents a brief summary
of concentration (number of plants) and product and plant integration
for selected seafood processing companies. This table shows that
multiplant companies are common in various segments. This table
(1-22) shows that multiplant companies are common in the Alaskan
salmon processing segments. Alaskan Packers Association, Bumble
Bee vSeafood and the New England Fish Company produce a significant
portion of the total Alaskan salmon pack. It further shows that species
and/or product integration is also common.
E. Technological Status of the Industry
The level of technology of the industry and industry segments influences
profits, process and effluent loads and is therefore an important con-
sideration. Technological change is, however, a dynamic and ongoing
process. New lines are added, new equipment installed and the concept
of plant and equipment is a blend of new and old components. Variations
within industry segments appear to be as great as variations between
segments. For the most part, however, the large plants and firms
within the segments possess a more advanced level of technology than
do the numerous small plants. This situation is perhaps one of the
reasons why a disproportionately large number of small plants have left
the industry in recent years.
For the most part, however, technological differences are obscure
and virutally impossible to include in the analysis. Only a few broad
generalizations are possible. For example, New England bottom fish
segments tend to be more heavily mechanized than West Coast segments.
Alaskan salmon segments tend to be almost completely mechanized as
opposed to small West Coast salmon plants which in some cases hand
butcher salmon. Mechanized oyster and clam operations are increasing
in number to partially eliminate critical labor restraints. Again,
they tend to be the larger plants within the segments.
1-9
-------
Financial profiles will be established for several size categories within
each industry segment. Differential rates of return and profit levels
for these size categories are in part the result of technological differences.
F. Domestic Production, Imports and Experts
A compendium of domestic landings, domestic production, volume of
imports and exports is presented in this section to further assist in
characterising the industry. While only broad coverage of these items
is included, there are many intrinsic implications concerning the ability
of the industry to withstand the impacts of pollution abatement standards.
Most of the material presented is in the form of published fishery sta-
tistics and is presented as background data which will be required in the
impact analysis section.
Oysters
Domestic oyster landings in 1970 were 53,6 million pounds. Approximately
44 percent of this volume was harvested in the Chesapeake area. Gulf
Coast landings accounted for 33 percent of total landings. Pacific Coast
states accounted for 14 percent while the remainder wsis distributed
throughout New England, Middle Atlantic and South Atlantic states.
The total value of landings was $29, 485, 000 in 1970 which was
4.8 percent of the total value of all domestic landings. In terms
of value, oysters ranked as the seventh most important species in
terms of relative value.
In terms of processed product, fresh shucked oysters are by far the
most important oyster product accounting for over 50 percent of the
total value of all oyster products. The value of imports in 1972 totaled
approximately 16 million dollars while the value of domestic production
was approximately four times this amount. Imports of canned oysters
account for nearly 80 percent of all oyster imports.
Data on oyster landing, production and imports are presented in Tables
1-23 through 1-25. It is also significant to note that the number of
oyster canning plants has decreased from 28 in 1964, to 19 in 1972
reflecting a continuing decreasing trend in the number of plants in
this industry. The above plant numbers do not reflect the 80 percent
specialization criteria. Oyster production or oyster products are not
the most important seafood in terms of sales. This is very important
in terms of number of plants at selected locations (as discussed earlier).
1-10
-------
Clams
New England, Chesapeake and Middle Atlantic states harvest approximately
95 percent of total U. S. clam production. The largest single producing
region is the Middle Atlantic region, accounting for approximately 63 percent
of U. S. landings in 1970. New England states accounted for roughly. 10
percent of all landings while the South Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific regions
accounted for less than one percent of total landings each.
Imports of clam products amounted to 3.38 million dollars in 1971
while the value of domestic production in 1971 was 63 million dollars.
Landings,production and iinports are shown in Tables 1-26 through I-Z8.
Fresh and frozen and canned clams account for approximately 90 percent
of domestically produced clam products with specialties accounting
for the remainder. During the past seven years the quantity of fresh
and frozen and speciality items produced has doubled. The production
of canned clam products has declined in absolute terms. The number
of clam canning plants has declined from 39 in 1965 to 24 in 1971. Most
of those that have discontinued clam canning are assumed to be small
plants. Increasing labor costs and diseconomies of scale inherent in
smaller plants have gradually forced these smaller clam canaers out.
Menhaden Reduction
Menhaden is the singularly most important species in terms of relative
volume of landings. Pounds of menhaden landed normally exceed the
poundage of the second most important species by a factor of three to
five. In terms of relative value of the landings, however, menhaden
is exceeded by several other species.
*
Virtually all menhaden landing are utilized in the production of fish meal,
solubles and oil. During the past ten years menhaden meal has accounted
for 54 to 75 percent of total U. S. production of dried scrap and fish meal.
Similarly, menhaden solubles have accounted for as much as 90 percent
of U. S. production offish solubles.
Menhaden are landed throughout the Middle Atlantic, Chesapeake and
Gulf fisheries. The Gulf region has been the largest producer in terms
of total landings, accounting for as much as 75 percent of all menhaden
landings in 1969. U. S. landings of menhaden by state and region from
1963 to 1971 are shown in Table 1-29.
1-11
-------
The volume of U.S. production of menhaden products and the total value
of domestically produced menhaden products since 1947 is presented in
Table 1-30.
U. S. production of dried scrap and menhaden meal reached a peak of
495 102, 000 pounds in 1961. Production has fluctuated between this
amount and a low of 238, 270, 000 pounds since 1961. Using a five year
average (1955 - 1959) as a base production period, U. S. production
of dried menhaden and scrap has varied from +25 percent to -38 per-
cent of the base production level since I960, but has remained at
nearly double the levels of the late 1940'S and early 1950's..
Total U. S. production of all dried fish scrap and meal, solubles and
menhaden oil is presented in Table 1-31.
Total U. S. supply of meal and solubles including imports is shown in
Table 1-32. Total supply has grown from 399 million pounds in 1947
to 1,253 million pounds in 1971. Percent meal imported to total supply
ranges from 52 to 78 percent over the 26-year period.
In general the outlook for fish meal, oil and solubles is one of relative
short supply and high prices as influenced by the above factors. Figures
1-1 and 1-2 reflect the drastic impacts the Peruvian situation has had on
U. S. supplies and prices of fish meal.
The most important single factor currently influencing the domestic
supply of fish meal is the anchovy crisis in Peru. While sea'water
temperatures along the Peruvian coast are near normal, it is expected
to be some time until resource stock is replenished.
Very recent data (February 1974) indicate^ that supply will remain tight
as a result of the Peru anchovy situation.
Other factors affecting U.S. supplies and demands of fish meal are
substantially higher soybean prices and exports, the disappointing
production of menhaden meal during the first part of 1973 and the
higher level of broiler replacements during 1973 and 1974.
JL/ U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Feed
Situation, February 1974.
1-12
/'
-------
Anchovy
The fourth segment included herein is anchovy reduction. This is con-
fined to California and, for the most part, Terminal Island. The seg-
mentation included, i.e. , anchovy reduction is somewhat of a misnomer
in itself in that most of these plants rely heavily on other fish and/or
fish scraps. It must be further recognized that many of these plants
would be classified secondary reducers and would not be operating as
separate entities and are actually part of a by-product recovery plant
associated with large tuna or food fish plants. Effluent from these plants
would be only a part of the effluent stream from the overall integrated
operation and would be treated as a part of a common effluent stream.
Indications are that several of these plants do not have separate waste
water streams and may therefore have difficulties with meeting
separate standards. Additional discussions will be devoted to this
problem in other chapters.
Table 1-33 presents anchovy landings in California since 1964. This
includes anchovy landings, for all purposes, bait and canned as wel]
as for fish meal and oil reduction.
Salmon
In terms of relative volume and value, salmon is one of the most im-
portant species harvested in the U.S. In 1968, salmon was second
in terms of volume of catch (exceeded only by menhaden) and also ranked
second in terms of value (exceeded only by shrimp).
The segments considered within this report include both canned and fresh
and frozen salmon. At the present time, the canning segment is the
larger of the two, however, recent price changes are beginning to result
in an increase in the amount of salmon entering the noncanned segment
relative to the canned segment. In 1971 the noncanned segment handled
36 percent of total domestic production as opposed to only 20 percent in
1963. Additional price shifts may render salmon too valuable for canning
purposes.
Domestic landings of salmon were 454,236,000 pounds (round-weight)
in 1947. Landings in 1971 and 1972 were 312,071,000 and 216,685, 000
pounds respectively. If domestic landings from 1955 through 1959 are
averaged and used as a base, recent landings (1963-1972) are found to
vary from +31 percent to -20 percent of the base period. No long-
term trend, either decreasing or increasing, is evident since 1963.
1-13
-------
Alaska is the major salmon producing state, contributing from 64 to 89
percent of domestic landings (1963 to 1970). The next largest producing
states were, in order, Washington, Oregon and California contributing
9, '5 and 2 percent respectively in 1970. Table 1-34 presents salmon
'landing by state and total landings from 1963 through 1970.
Table 1-35 presents aggregate and per capita consumption of canned
and noncanned salmon since 1963. A relative decline in canned con-
sumption is evident. An absolute decline in per capita consumption is
.also evident.
U. S. supply and disposition of salmon, 1963-1972, is presented in
Table 1-36. Imports have constituted from 3 to 7 percent of apparent
consumption. Over the same time period, exports have varied from 7 to
25 percent of domestic landings.
The volume of imports of salmon (canned and noncanned) by country of
origin is presented in Table 1-37. Canned salmon imports and exports
are shown in Table 1-38.
The outlook is, of course, highly dependent on future landings. The
short supply situation has placed upward pressure on prices and has
dampened exports. Future developments in the export market for fresh
and frozen salmon will also influence domestic supplies and prices.
In recent years the reduced landings have resulted in very short pro-
cessing seasons in some areas. There is additional concern over for-
eign fishing and the status of the resource stock. While seasonal fluc-
tuations are to be expected the drastic declines in harvests has stimulated
additional concern over the stock resource.
Pacific Bottom Fish
Two species of Pacific bottom fish -- flounder and rockfish -- were initially
considered in this report. These two species constitute (by volume)
62 percent of all Pacific bottom fish landings. The scope of the project
has, however, been expanded to include all major bottom fish.
Pacific bottom fish landings (all species included) have been relatively
stable since 1950 with annual landings near 105 million pounds. Table
1-39 presents total West Coast landing and value by state since 1963.
Landings by state (1967) show that Washington produced 45 percent of
all West Coast bottom fish landings followed by California (32 percent),
Oregon (20 percent) and the remainder from Alaska.
1-14
-------
Landings by species arc presented in Table 1-40. Flounder and rockfish
are the most important (in terms of quantity landed) followed by ocean
perch, lingcod, cod and sablefish.
Recent indications are that substantial bottom fish stocks exist in Alaskan
waters. While there is an increasing amount of interest being devoted
to this fishery it is expected to be some time until a substantial number
of plants are committed to this geographical area.
Atlantic Bottom Fish
The Atlantic bottom fish species to be considered in this report include
cod, haddock and flounder. Together these species accounted for 62
percent of all Atlantic bottom fish landings in 1969. The segmentation
and scope has been broadened to include all important Atlantic bottom
fish.
Atlantic bottom fish landings since 1963 are presented in Table 1-41.
Landings in recent years have been steadily declining. The value of
landings in 1968 was $32,294,000.
Landings and value by species are shown in Table 1-42. Flounder
accounted for 30 percent of bottom fish landings in 1968, haddock 19
percent and cod 13 percent. Of the species not considered, whiting is
the most important in terms of volume of landings (20 percent).
Table 1-43 presents bottom fish stocks, landings, imports, exports
and total supply. Apparent consumption is als o included. Imports of
all species of Atlantic bottom fish amounted to 81 percent of apparent
consumption in 1968. Consumption and imports have been increasing
while domestic landings have been decreasing.
There is great concern in this segment over the encroachment of foreign
fishing fleets. Plant utilization is low and many are questioning the
continued existence of the industry given existing fish pressures.
In general, it must however be recognized that most of the U.S. supply
of Atlantic and Pacific bottom fish is supplied by foreign producers.
As can be seen in Table 1-44, imports far exceed U.S. production.
1-15
-------
In 1968 halibut landings accounted for 0.6 percent of total landings.
During the same year the value of halibut landings amounted to only
0.8 percent of the total value of all landings. The 1971 Pacific halibut
catch was approximately 43 percent of 1915 record landings of 66,696,000
pounds. Table 1-45 presents halibut landings by region since 1963.
Aggregate and per capita consumption of halibut is shown in Table 1-46.
A large portion of this demand is satisfied through imports of fresh
and frozen halibut which were 25, 720, 000 pounds in 197 1 (shown
in Table 1-47).
Many have expressed the belief that the halibut fishery, while heavily
regulated, is overfished by foreign vessels. Even if released after
being caught by foreign vessels, the survival rate is believed quite low.
Consequently, many believe that this resource stock will continue to decline.
The outlook is for somewhat reduced supplies. High inventories are
expected to ameloriate price impacts normally associated with reduced
supplies.
Sej. Herring
The segmentation presented earlier includes two categories for sea
herring--canned and fillets. The canning segment (Maine sardines)
is the larger of the two. There are only two plants in New England
that process sea herring fillets. In addition, two Alaskan plants pro-
cess sea herring fillets.
It should be noted that the Maine Sardine Industry has declined from
51 plants in 1951 to 16 in 1974. An estimated pack of 916, SOO cases
in 1973 should be compared to 3,800,000 cases in 1950. Current
pack is about 25 percent of the record pack.
This situation has resulted in great concern over increasing Canadian
competition and depletion of the resource.
While the total catch of sea herring constituted only 2.6 percent of the
total seafood catch in 1968, this does not adequately reflect the regional
importance of the industry; e.g., the Maine sardine industry.
1-16
-------
Maine sardine landings and pack in recent years are presented in
Table 1-48. Yearly pack imports, exports and consumption statistics
are presented in Table 1-49. As with other fishery products, it is
not surprising to find a considerable amount of the total U.S. supply
available for consumption is derived from imports. Total imports of
canned sardines amounted to 68 percent of total supply available for
consumption.
G. Summary
The material presented in the above sections is complex due
to the number and diversity of segments considered. In view
of this fact there is a need to further summarize selected or key
characteristics which are particularly important when considering the
impacts of impending waste water treatment standards. This summary
is presented below and for the most part is based on data contained
in the tables at the end of this chapter. At this point we have not
considered the cost of mandatory standards so the summary is con-
fined to key structural or competitive factors which can potentially
influence financial or economic considerations. It should be noted
that inference can however be gained. Two examples are cited, one,
it is known that economies to scale exist in production and in waste
water treatment. Therefore, we can expect small plants to be dis-
proportionately impacted. In this regard it should be recalled that the
seafood segments have an extremely large number of small plants.
Secondly, an industry with declining number of plants, excess capacity,
great fluctuations in raw product, may have difficulty acquiring capital
or financing waste water treatment equipment. Additionally, those
segments in direct competition with foreign producers may be adversely
impacted due to the inability to compete or pass prices through to
final consumers.
Again it is cautioned that at this point we are not attempting to quan-
tify the magnitude of the expected impacts. The only objective is to
further summarize key characteristics which must be considered in
the impact analysis.
A brief summary is presented below:
Bottom fish_ - The bottom fish segment -- West Coast, Alaska, and
Atlantic-- consists of an extremely large number of small
plants. Many of these plants are single family operations.
1-17
-------
Underutilization of plant capacity is the rule rather than the
exception. Declining and variable landings, and the large
volume of imports are of great concern to industry.
Fish meal - The fish meal industry consists of fewer plants, some of which
possess considerable economic concentration and economic
integration, i.e. , several large menhaden companies con-
trol several large plants and produce a significant portion
of total output. The financial prospects of this capital-
intensive and energy-intensive industry in large part depend
on world fish meal and energy prices. Several plants and
companies were pushed close to or below the "break-even"
point during the energy crisis in early 1974.
Oysters - An extremely large number of very small plants exist
in the oyster segment. Many of these plants are marginal
family type operations that produce only a very minute
portion of total industry output. Underutilization of plant
capacity, little influence on prices and limited capital ac-
quiring ability accurately characterize many plants; within
this segme nt.
Clams - Large, mechanized clam processors coexist with numerous
~ small family operated fresh and frozen clam processors.
Underutilization of plant capacity, increasing production
costs and numerous regulations concerning clam harvesting
methods are cited by industry as key factors influencing
profits. Labor constraints have also produced a trend toward
increased mechanization.
Sea herring - While 1972 was a good year in terms of landings,
"~~ production and profits,the canned sardine industry can be
accurately characterized as an industry with a declining
number of plants and production over the long run. The lack
of raw product availability and foreign competition (Canada, Venezuela,
South Africa, Denmark, Spain and Brazil) is and has been the reported
cause of declining plant numbers and profits.
Salmon - Plant utilization in selected segments of the salmon
processing segment has been as low as 15 to 20 percent in
recent years. In fact, it is not difficult to isolate various
processing plants that have operated only one out of three
years during production seasons. This situation has
produced additional concern over the resource stock. Foreign
competition in the fishery, demand shifts, raw product avai-
lability and increased production are factors influencing industry
profitability.
1-18
-------
Estimated earnings, financial characteristics and profitability by
industry segment are presented in Chapter II. The segmentation
for the most part is comparable to that presented in Chapter I.
Selected modifications will however be introduced as required.
The emphasis will be on presenting general profitability measures
for selected segments.
1-19
-------
Table 1-1. Distribution of plants by region: Bottom fish_
I/
3
ft .
7.
q
C)
0.
WHIM
(>' n H r M
MIO AT
r M F S A P
S . ATI
PAT I F 1
P.RFAT
H A i-f A I I
A i " . S .
!' t S S 1 <>
LA'
OF
TUTAI.
PLANTS
1 7 . H 6
10.71
7 . ?3
1 7U
?. ftfl
] 0.71
0.00
O. 00
?.?3
PLANTS^
THAN
p,ox
1 )
1
1
10
11
]ft
0
0
17
!/PFr.>G>fMT
OF
TOTAL
PL A' ITS
4.9]
0.4S
0 . 4 5
4.4A
^ . 9 1
ft. 70
7. 14
0.00
o.oo
7.59
TOTAL
PLANTS
THIS
i^Fr, HIM
51
ft
17
39
50
0
0
??.
PFPCFMT
. THIAL
P L A M T S
?'/ *'n
n . i ^
^ . t, ''
(-.'/*-,
~! "^ ^^
1 7 . M
o.oo
0 . 0; >
».<\?
TOTAL
142
82
224
\l
Includes Atlantic and Pacific bottom and selected finfish.
2/
Includes all plants where the value of bottom fish constitutes greater than
80% of total plant sales.
Includes all plants where the value of bottom fish is less than 80% of total
plant sales.
4 /
Does not include Alaska
Data compiled from:
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-20
-------
Table 1-2. Distribution of plants by region: Fresh & frozen salmon
I .
'i ,
/V ,
^
7.
5}
C1
n.
(
m=r,ip.Ml/
f'flRTH CAST
MID ATLANTIC...
f i|PS APT AKF
S. AT! AMT 1C ....
P A f 1 f- 1 C
(V"U:AT LAKHS....
HAK A II
MISSISSIPPI....
>I_ANTS
THAN
f)
0
(1
0
1
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PL ANTS
0.00
0.00
O. 00
0.00
0. 00
11.11
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
PLANTS.
less
THAN
8 OK
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
riF
TOTAL
PLANTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P.8.R9
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
TOTAL
PLANTS
THIS
RET, IUfl>
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
Of-
THTAI
1 PLANTS
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
100. 00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
TOTAL
y
Does not include Alaska
21
Includes all plants where the value of fresh and frozen salmon constitutes greater
than 80% of total plant sales.
3/
Includes all plants where the value of fresh and frozen salmon is less than
80% of total plant sales.
Data compiled from:
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-21
-------
Table I- 3. Distribution of plants by region: Canned salmon
Plants 2 /
Larger
Than
Region!/ 80%
1. Pacific 9
TOTAL 9
' Percent
of
Total
Plants
40.90
Plants 3 ^Percent
Less
Than
80%
13
13
of
Total
Plants
59. 10
Total.
Plants
This
Region
22
22
Percent
of
Total
Plants
ioo.'oo
Does i ot include Alaska
Ir.cluces all plants where the value of canned
80% of total plant sales.
ivioii constitutes reater tha
Includes all plants where the value of cabled sal.ncn is less than 30% of to';ai
plant sales.
Data compiled from:
Source: National Mari.-.e Fisheries Service
1-22
-------
Table 1-4. Distribution of plants by region: Oysters Pacific, fresh and frozen
1.
2.
3.
(^
^
O *
7.
^
Q.
0.
.
/
REGI'lM-i'
MflRl H FAST
MID ATLANTIC...
CHFSAPF AK F .....
S. ATI ANTIC. . . .
Gin P. .
PACIFIC
GREAT LAKES....
HM-'A II
AM. S . K PR
MISSISSIPPI
.. _._TOTAL
PLANTS-/
LARGER
THAM
BOX
0
0
o
0
o
32
0
0
0
0
32
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
PLANTS
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
84.21
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
PL ANT s!/
LESS
THAN
00%
0
0
0
0
o
6
0
0
o
0
6
PFPCEN1
OF
TOTAL
Pl.AtMTS
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0 .00
0. 00
1 b . 7 Q"
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
PLANTS
THIS
REGION'
()
0
o
o
o
" 3R
0
o
o
0
38...
PhRCFNT
OF
roi'Ai.
P L A M T S
0. 00
0.00
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 f )
0.00
i nn nn
I \J\J . VJ VJ
0.00
0. 00
0.00
o.on
I/
~~ Does not include Alaska.
Z/
3/
Includes all plants where the value of fresh and frozen oysters constitutes greater
than 80% of total plant sales.
Includes all plants where the value of fresh and frozen oyster is less then 80%
of total plant sales.
Data compiled from:
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-23
-------
Table 1-5. Distribution of plants by region: Eastern oysters, fresh and frozen
1 .
J.
2.
x
- ' *
A .
T
S .
7.
ft .
*
0.
R^JON!/
MrHT H FAST.....
Min A TLA NT I G...
r (..( c c A (j p i\ v p
s . A T i A ;-.i i i r . . . .
GRF.AT LAKES....
HAl'A IT
A . i . S . f, PR
MISSISSIPPI ....
TOTAL
PL AMI S^
LARGER
THAN
MOX
).
13
1 26
36
159
1
0
0
0
338
> /
' p i- R r P M T
Or
TOTAL
PLANTS
\l r.s
30.4*>
3^.07
0.25
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.4"
PLANTS!/
LFSS
1 HAIJ
80'X
0
1
2ft
35
0
0
0
0
0
69
PI^G^T
Or
TOTAL
PLANTS
0.00
0.25
6.PH
1 .23
0.00" "
0.00
0 .00
0 . 0 0
0.00
TOTAL
PLANTS
THIS
^PG i ON
1
154
41
194
r
0
f)
0
407
PR'ChK'T
>)^
TOTAL
p i. A \i T S
0.25
3.44
37. "-4
1.0.07
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
Does not include Alaska
Includes all plants where the value of fresh and frozen oyster constitutes
greater than 80% of total plant sales.
Includes all plants where the value of fresh and frozen oyster is less than
80% of total plant sales.
Data compiled from:
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-24
-------
Table 1-6. Distribution of plants by region: Oysters Pacific, canned
Region.!'
Plants 27 Percent Plants _3/Percent Total Percent
Larger of Less of Plants of
Than Total Than Total This Total
80% Plants 80% Plants Region Plants
1. North East
2. Mid Atlantic
3. Chesapeake
4. S, Atlantic
5. Gulf
6. Pacific
7. Great Lakes
8. Hawaii
9. Am. S. & PR.
10. Mississippi
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
33.33
66.67
100. 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
II
~ Does not include Alaska
Includes all plants where the value of canned oyster constitutes greater than
80% of total plant sales.
3V
Includes all plants where the value of canned oyster is less than 80% of total
plant sales.
Data compiled from:
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-25
-------
Table 1-7. Distribution of plants by region: Oysters Eastern, Canned
1 .
2.
i.
^
6*
7*
q
g.
o.
H^KH!/
NORTH FAST
MID ATLANTIC...
r up <} /\ ,) ;: A (' F
S. AT I. AMI 1C....
GUI f
PACIFT" .
GQPAT LAKES....
HAM A 11 ,.
AM. S. F, PK
MISSISSIPPI
TOTAL
PLAMTSJ
LA-
-------
Table 1-8. Distribution of plants by region: Clams, Frozen and fresh
] .
2.
3.
/
s
ft .
7.
R .
0.
RPO I i"1 \1_
MflHTH FAST.....
MID ATLANTIC...
CHtrSAPF AKh
S . ATI '. >'M TIC....
GDI F.....
P A C I F If ........
GREAT LAKFS....
HAWAII.........
A (>' . S . f, PR
MISSISSIPPI....
TOTAL,
PL ANT Si
THAN
BOX
47
q
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
./ PFUCFNT
MF
TOTAL
PLANTS
41.50
7. 9ft
4.73
0.00
0. 00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
PLANTS
LFSS
THAN
RO*
fi
10
?0
5
1
0
0
0
0
46
(IF
TOTAL
PLANTS
7 . 0 R
R.RS
17.70
4.4?
0 . p. R
1.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
PLANTS
THIS
m-r, ION
55
19
31
ij
1
0
0
0
0
113
PPRCFWT
TOTAL
pi.Af-17 S
4R,ft7
1 ft . R 1
? 7 . A 3
^ . 4 ?
0 . f, P
] .ft
0.00
0.00
0 . 0 0
o.oo
I/
Does not include Alaska
21
Includes all plants where the value of fresh and frozen clam constitutes greater
than 80% of total plant sales.
3/
~~ Includes all plants where the value of fresh and frozen clam is less than 80%
of total plant sales.
Data compiled from:
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-27
-------
Table 1-9. Distribution of plants by region: Clams canned
1 .
f
^
ft.
7.
^
C) .
0.
1
1
win ATL A; IT ic...
C H P S A P ~ i\ i< F . . . . ,
S . A T I A "' T 1 G . . . .
r,i i1 i-
P A f I F I f
f^KAT LAKF.S....
HA'J A T T
A >. S . f, P;?
MISSISSIPPI....
TOTAL
'I.ANTS-
_A^r,F'<
THAN
802
f)
1
0
0
0
0
0
()
0
0
1
) 1
"J PHRCFMT
TOTAL
PLANTS
0. 00
o.oo
0.0(1
0. 00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0. 00
o.oo
PLANTS:
LFSS
THAN
7
*
0
0
7
f)
0
0
0
12
OF
TOTAL
PLANTS
1 *> 3R
Aft . } 'i
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
TOTAL
PLANTS
THIS
?
1
2
0
7'
0
o
0
0
13
PF"CF'MT
Or
1 5 . '-5 ^
] *> . 3 p.
0 .00
O. OO
0.00
0 .00
0. OO
0.00
Does not include Alaska
Includes all plants where the value of canned clam constitutes greater than 80%
of total plant sales.
Includes all plants where the value of canned clam is less than 80% of total
plant sales.
Data compiled from:
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-28
-------
Table I-10. Distribution of plants by region: Fish MealJL'
1 .
3.
4.
c,
6.
7.
^
CJ *
0.
REGinvl'
MDRTH FAST.....
MID ATLANTIC ...
CHI- SAP - AKF .....
s. ATLANTIC ....
(; | j | p
PAG I FIC
GRRAT LAKES....
HA'-J A 11
AM. S . £ PR
MISSISSIPPI....
TOTAL
3
PL /s KITS-
LA -IGF R
THAN
80CX
2
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
10
/ ~
.'PFkOFNT
OF
TOTAL
PLANTS
5. 2ft
o.oo
0. 00
10.53
0. 00
7.HQ
2.ft3
0.00
0 . 0 0
0.00
PLAMTS-
LCSS
THAN
ft OK
?
1
y
A
1 1
7
0
0
0
1
.__.. 28
i/
Z' PFPf.FNl
OF
Tfll A|_
PLANTS
5.2ft
5.2ft
10.53
2^.95
1«*.42
0.00
o.oo
0.00
TOTAL
PLANTS
THIS
REGION
4
1
2
R
11
"10"
1
f)
0
1
38
PFP.CF.NT
OF
TOTAL
PL AMI s
] 0. 53
5 . 2 ft
21.05
? q . Q s
2 ft . 3 2
2 . ft 3
0.00
0.00
2.ft3
I/
Includes both Menhaden and Anchovy plants.
Does not include Alaska
3/
Includes all plants where the value of fish meal constitutes greater than 80%
of total plant sales.
4/
Includes all plants where the value of fish meal is less than 80% of total
plant sales.
Data compiled from:
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-29
-------
Table I-11. Distribution of plants by region: Sea Herring, canned
1
I
2.
V
J .
H .
A
" *
7.
^
q
* .
0.
- -
REGIO^l/
MID ATLANTIC...
GR'-A7 LAKES. ...
MISSISSIPPI....
TOTAL
PLAiMTS-
LA-
-------
Table 1-12. Summary of number of plants by select species.
Number of plants Number of Alaskan
80 percent of plants by select
Industry Segment sales by select species' species
BoLtorniish 142
Gulf croaker F&F - U
Halibut - "*J
Salmon F&F 1
Salmon canned 9
Oysters Pacific, F&F 32
Oysters Eastern, F^F 338
Oysters Pacific, canned 1
Oysters Eastern, canned 4
Clams, FfcF 67
Clarn s, ca nne d 1
Fish Meal 22
Sea Herring, canned 16
Sea Herring, fillets 2
Al? sk=n T-ottomfish 3
Al^sl^sn Salmon F-ZtF 31
Alaskan Salmon, canned 59
TOTAL 635 93
~ Does not include Alaska
Included in bottom fish.
1-31
-------
Table 1-13.
Geographic concentration of selected segments of the
seafood processing industry
Segment
Sea Herring
(Maine Sardines)
Menhaden
Atlantic
Bottom fish
Clams (East Coast)
Oysters (East
Coast)
Area of Number of plants Population of
Concentration by location Host city
Lubec, Maine
Eastport, Maine
Milbridge, Maine
Beauford, N. C.
Cameron, La.
Empire, La.
Biloxi, Miss.
Abbeville, La.
Reedville, Va.
New Bedford, Mass.
Fairhaven, Mass.
Delcambre, La.
Port Norris, N. J.
Addis on, Maine
Stockton Springs, Maine
Ipswich, -Mass.
Rowley, Mass.
Chincoteaque, Va.
Wildwood, N. J.
Yineland, N. J.
Essex, Mass.
Easton, Md.
Apalachicola, Fla.
Biloxi, Miss.
Coden, Ala.
Eastpoint, Fla.
Crisfield, Md.
New Orleans, La.
Weems, Va.
Seabrook, Tx.
Bon Secour, Ala.
4
3
2
5
4
3
3
2
2
12
9
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
20
18
17
17
13
14
6
6
6
950
1,989
500
3,368
950
600
48,486
10,996
400
101, 777
16,332
1,975
1,955
250
400
10,750
3,040
1,897
4, 110
47,399
637,887
6,809
3, 102
48,486
500
1, 118
3,078
593,471
250
3,811
600
continued
1-32
-------
Table I- 13 . Geographic concentration of selected segments of the seafood
processing industry (continued)
Segment
Anchovy
Reduction
Area of
Concentration
Number of plants
by location
Population of
Host city
Oysters (West
Coast)
Shelton, Wa.
Olympia, Wa.
Newport, Ore.
Ocean Park, Wa.
8
4
2
2
6,515
23, 111
5, 188
825
Terminal Island, Ca.
Canned Salmon
Kodiak, Alaska
Petersburg, Alaska
Astoria, Oreg.
Naknek, Ak ska
Egegik, Alaska
10
4
3
3
3
3,798
2, 042
10,244
178
138
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service Plant List.
1-33
-------
Table 1-14. Number and size of U. S. seafood processing plants,
1970 and 1972 !'
1970
Size Class
2/
Up to $25,000 -
$25,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $399,999
$400, 000 to $499, 999
$50,0,000 to $749,999
$750,000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 to $1,499,999
$1,500,000 to $2,499,999
$2, 500, 000 to $4,999,999
$5, 000, 000 to $9,999,999
$10, 000, 000 and over
Totals
No. of
Plants
414
401
233
128
81
45
76
53
65
65
46
34
31
1,672
Percent
of Total
24.8
24.0
13.9
7.7
4. ,8
2.7
4.5
3.2
3.9
3.9
2.8
2.0
1.8
100.0
1972
No. of
Plants
309
364
23Z
144
65
61
91
54
54
81
52
39
43
1,589
Percent
of Total
19.4
22.9
14.6
9.2
4. 1
3.8
5.7
3.4
3.4
5.1
3.3
2.4
2.7
100.0
Does not include Alaska.
Dollar values are F. O. B. plant.
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-34
-------
Table 1-15. Concentration of fish and shellfish processing, 1972
Plants-'
4 largest plants
8 ." "
10 " "
20 " "
30 " "
40 " "
50 " "
60 " "
70 " "
80 " "
90 " "
100 " "
125 " "
150 " "
175 " "
200 " "
Total all plants
1.589-7
Value 2-
($1,000)
354,457
511,097
582,128
850,548
1,028,340
1, 158,258
1,254,354
1,329,898
1,393,757
1,447,774
1,496,381
1,538,204
1,615,279
1,675,015
1,725,680
1,769, 109
2, 105,290
Percent of Tota!
16.8
24.3
27.6
40.4
48.8
55.0
59.6
63.2
66.2
68.8
71. 1
73.1
76.7
79.6
82.0
84.0
100.0
Ranking is by individual plant rather than by companies.
2/
- F. O. B, Plant.
_'Does not include Alaska.
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service.
1-35
-------
Table I - 16 . Percent of total value of shipments accounted for by:
Specie and 4 Largest
Product Line Companies
Fish Meal
Oysters Pacific F & F
Oysters Eastern
Clams Canned
Oysters East
Clams F & F
Bottom Fish
Oysters Western
Sea Herring
Salmon F Sc F
47
51
6
93
56
27
16
37
88
8 Largest 20 Largest 50 Largest Total No. of
Companies Companies Companies Plants in seg
«.
65 93
69 95
11 24
99
82
43 66
28 51
64
100
38
38
45 411
13
16
89 113
75 224
3
18
9
Rounding to nearest whole percent.
1-36
-------
Table 1-17.
Number and size of U.S. Canned Sea Herring
processing plants, 1972
$0 to $25, 000
$25,000 to $99,000
$100,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $399,999
$400,000 to $499,999
$500,000 to $749,999
$750, 000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 to $1,499,999
$1,500,000 to $2,499, 999
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999
$10,000, 000 and Over
TOTAL
Number of
Plants
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
6
6
0 I/
0
0
18
t Percent
of total
sales
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.34
7.39
30.08
44.29
0.0 !/
0.0
0.0
100.0
Percent
of total
plants
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11. 11
11. 11
33. 33
33. 33
0.0 I/
0. 0
0. 0
100.0
Several plants in this size class or larger have been deleted to
avoid disclosure. Columns will therefore not total.
1-37
-------
Table 1-18. Number and size of U.S. fish meal processing plants, 1972.
Size class
$0 to $25,000
$25,000 to $99,000
$100,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300, 000 to $399,999
$400,000 to $499,999
$500, 000 to $749,999
$750,000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 to $1,499,999
$1,500,000 to $2,499, 999
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999
$10, 000, 000 and Over
TOTAL
Number of
Plants \J
4
5
3
0
2
0
2
4
6
5
4
0
0
38
Percent
of total
sales
0. 10-
0.48
0.85
0.0
1. 11
0.0
2.34
6.31
12.99
18.30
23.46
0.0
0.0
100.0
Percent
of total
plants
10.53
13. 16
7.89
0.0
5.26
0.0
5.26
10.53
15.79
13.lt
10. 53
0.0
0.0
100.0
Several plants have been deleted to avoid disclosures.
will therefore not total.
Columns
1-38
-------
Table 1-19. Number and size of U.S. Eastern Oysters fresh and frozen
processing plants, 1972
Size class
$0 to $25, 000
$25,000 to $99,000
$100,000 to $199,999
$200, 000 to $299,999
$300, 000 to $399,999
$400,000 to $499,999
$500, 000 to $749,999
$750,000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 to $1,499,999
$1,500,000 to $2,499, 999
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999
$10, 000, 000 and Over
TOTAL
Number of
Plants
135
126
71
38
17
12
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
407
Percent
of total
sales
3. 17
15.61
23.53
20. 23
12.94
11.95
10.56
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.01
Percent
of total
plants
33.09
30.90
17.52
9.25
4. 14
2. 92
1.95
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
100. 00
Several plants have been deleted to avoid disclosure.
therefore not total.
Columns will
1-39
-------
Table 1-20. Number and size of U.S. clams, fresh and frozen
processing plants , 1972
Size class
$0 to $25,000
$25,000 to $99, 000
$100,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $399,999
$400,000 to $499, 999
$500,000 to $749,999
$750, 000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 to $1,499,999
$1,500,000 to $2,499, 999
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999
$10, 000,000 and Over
TOTAL
Number of
Plants
26
39
21
10
6
0
5
3
0
2
0
0
0
113
Percent
of total
sales
1.32
10. 17
14.27
12. 10
10. 08
0.0
16. 22
13.86
0.00
16. 13
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Percent
of total
plants
23. 01
34. 51
18. 53
8.85
5. 31
0. 0
4. 42
2. 63
0.00
1. 77
0. 0
0.0
0.0
100. 0
Several plants have been deleted to avoid disclosure.
therefore not total.
Columns will
1-40
-------
Table 1-21. Number and size of U.S. bottomfish
processing plants, 1972.
Size class
$0 to $25, 000
$25,000 to $99,000
$100,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $399,999
$400,000 to $499,999
$500,000 to $749,999
$750,000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 to $1,499,999
$1,500,000 to $2,499, 999
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999
$5, 000,000 to $9,999,999
$10, 000, 000 and Over
TOTAL
Number of
Plants
51
46
43
25
13
4
17
5
9
9
2
0
0
224
Percent
of total
sales
0. 63-
3.47
8. 17
8.23
6.31
2.44
13.76
5.97
16.36
24. 44
10.21
0.0
0.0
100.0
Percent
of total
plants
22. 77
20.54
19.20
11. 16
5.80
1.79
7.59
2.23
4.02
4.02
0.89
0.0
0.0
100.0
1-41
-------
Table 1-22. Economic concentration & integration of
selected salmon processing companies
Company Name
Plants Location
Booth Fisheries (Div.
Consolidated Foods Inc.
Throughout the
U.S.
Canada
Mexico
Nicaragua
France
Orient
Products
Alaska Packers Assoc.
Inc. (Subs. Del Monte)
Alaskan Seafoods Inc.
Chiqnik , Alaska
Egegik, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Larsen Bay, Alaska
Naknek, Alaska
Homer, Alaska
Canned salmon
Canned salmon
Canned salmon
Canned salmon
Canned salmon
Crab
Halibut
Herring
Herring roe
Salmon
Shrimp
Canned sardines
Canned scallope
Canned tuna
Frozen: clams
Crabs, fish stick
Flounder
Haddock, halibut
herring, lobster,
etc.
Bumble Bee Seafoods
(Div. Castle & Cook,
Inc.)
Astoria, Ore.
Cambridge, Md.
Honolulu, Hawaii
Bellingham, Wash.
Naknek, Ala ska
Paramaribo, Surinam
South America
1-42
Canned: shad roe,
tuna, Alaska king
crab, pet foods
Frozen: dungeness
crab
Canned & Frozen:
Salmon, shad,
shrimp, sturgeon
Canned: tuna, pet
foods
Canned: tuna, pet
foods
Canned salmon
Canned salmon
Frozen
Shrimp
continued
-------
Table 1-22. Economic concentration & integration-of selected salmon
processing companies (continued)
Company
Plant Location
Products
Carnation Seafoods
Oceans of the World
Eastern Inc.
Jolly Roger Seafoods
Kadiak Fisheries Co.
King Salmon Inc.
Lazio Fish Co. , Inc.
New England Fish Co.
New York, N. Y.
Nahcotta, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Westport, Wash.
Eureka, Calif.
Chatham, Alaska
Egegik, Alaska
Ketchikan, Alaska
Nakeen, Alaska
Orca, Pederson Point,
Sunny Point, Sand Point,
Waterfall, Alaska
Anacortes, Wash.
La Conner, La Push, Wash.
Warrenton, Oregon
Newport, Oregon
Miami, Fla.
1-43
Frozen: clams
cod, crab, fish
sticks, flounder,
haddock, halibut
lobster, oysters,
perch, salmon,
scallops, shrimp
Canned: oyster
stew
Frozen: clams,
crabs, halibut,
salmon, scallops,
shrimp
Canned & Frozen:
crab, sturgeon,
canned, Glass &
Frozen oysters
Canned: salmon,
crabmeat
Canned & Frozen:
clams, crabmeat,
salmon, frozen
dungeness crab,
herring
Canned: dungeness
crabmeat, salmon,
shrimp, tuna
Canned: salmon,
shrimp, tuna,
mackerel
Frozen: Alaska
king crab, dungeness
crab, cod, fish
sticks, flounder
haddock, halibut
lobsters, oysters,
perch, scallops,
salmon, shad roe,
shrimp, breaded &
prepared
seafood items
continued
-------
Table 1-22. Economic concentration & integration of selected salmon
processing companies (continued)
Company
Plants Location
Product
Pan-Alaska Fisheries
Inc.
Whitney- Fidalgo
Seafoods Inc.
Monroe, Wash.
Unalaska, Alaska
Kodiak, Alas,ka
Seattle, Wash.
Anchorage, Alaska
Ketchikan,, Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska
Naknek, Alaska
Petersburg, Alaska
Port Graham, Alaska
Uyak, Alaska
Frozen: dungeness
crab, halibut,
salmon, shrimp,
Frozen: crabmeat,
salmon
Frozen: cod, crab,
oysters, perch,
salmon
Frozen: clams,
cod, crab, flounder,
halibut, herring,
shrimp, perch,
tuna, canned &c
frozen salmon
Canned salmon
canned salmon
canned crab &
salmon
canned salmon
Frozen: halibut,
herring roe,
canned & frozen:
crab, salmon, shrin
Canned salmon
Frozen herring roe
Canned salmon
Frozen herring roe
Source: Judge, Edward E. , The Directory of the Canning, Freezing,
Preserving Industries , 1972-73.
1-44
-------
Table 1-23. Oysters - Landings by region, 1964-1973
New England
Year
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Qua nt .
mis. Ibs
. 195
.340
.408
.323
.195
. 152
. 190
I/
I/
J7
Value
mis $
.326
.652
.849
.746
.456
.358
.403
Mid-Atlantic
Quant.
mils Ibs
1.36
.757
.917
1. 19
1.54
1.32
1.41
Value
mils $
1.37
1.06
1. 17
1. 17
1.49
1.35
1.76
Chesapeake
Quant.
mils Ibs
22C 10
21. 19
21.23
25.80
22.68
22. 16
24.67
Value
mils $
15.81
16.70
14.54
17.32
15.26
14.00
15.08
S. Atlantic
Quant.
mils Ibs
3.53
4.08
3.66
3. 16
2.97
1.83
1.63
Value
mils $
1.51
1.51
1.58
1.35
1.53
1.08
.974
Gulf
Quant.
mils Ibs
23.39
19. 16
17. 18
21.75
26.74
19.77
17.71
Pacific
Value
mils
6.27
5.71
6.49
8.49
10.27
8. 15
7.54
Quant
$ mils
9.97
9. 17
7.83
7.74
7.77
6.97
7.99
Value
Ibs mils
2.65
2.23
2.75
3. 17
3.00
2.61
3.72
Total
Quant
$ mils
60.53
54.69
51.22
59. 56
61.89
52.20
53.60
54.59
52.55
48.55
Value
Ibs mils $
27.93
27.87
27.37
32.24
32.01
27. 57
29.49
30.43
33.82
35. 19
-Source: Fishery Statistics of U.S. , 1973.
Source: Fishery Statistics of the U.S. , 1964-1970
-------
Table 1-24. Oysters-processed product, United States, 19^4-1972
Shucked
Year
1964
1965
1966
1967
7 1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Mils. Ibs.
46.
39.
38.
40.
43.
42.
46.
48.
11
64
41
25
14
70
55
39
Mils. $
35.26
31.70
32.46
34.78
38.99
38.62
41.81
47.6*
Fresh &
Frozen
Steamed
Mils. Ibs.
.98
.61
.70
. 852 '
1.00
--
--
.672
Specialties
Mils. $ Mils. Ibs.
2. 16 4.
1.34 4.
1.53 4.
1.41 5.
2.03 5.
4,
5.
1.29 4.
17
42
26
00
96
87
72
71
Mils. $
3.
3.
3.
4.
5.
5.
5.
4.
67
38
72
60
44
00
36
76
Canned *'
Mils, cases
.538
.443
.484
.573
.531
.313
.543
.694
. 658
Mils. $
7.46
6. 13
7.22
10. 12
9.37
5. 13
7.28
9.37
11.35
Canning
Plants!/
Number
(28)
(21)
(20)
(22)
(22)
(16)
(12)
(18)
(19)
Includes both regular pack and specialties.
Regular processing and does not include specialties due to uncertainty of duplication.
Source: Fishery Statistics of the U. S. , 1964-1970, Canned Fish Products, 1972 (Prelim.), Processed
Fish Prod. , 1971.
-------
Table 1-25.
Oysters, imports for consumption, 1963-1972
Fresh. & Frozen
Canned
Unclassified
Except seed oysters (Prin. seed oysters
Total
Oysters &
Oyster Juice
Imports
Total
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
-. 1969
* 1970
"J 1971
1972
Quant.
mils Ibs
1. 380
.991
1.290
1. 138
3.581
2. 754
1.429
2. 104
1.206
1.960
Value
mils $
. 605
.444
.617
.560
1.067
.888
.946
1.216
.855
1.842
Quant.
mils Ibs
5.437
4.016
3.737
1.973
4.256
2. 102
1.350
1.717
.921
1.934
Value
mils $
.469
.497
.416
.313
.827
. 625
.550
.481
.479
.237
Quant.
mils Ib s
6.817
5.007
5.027
3. Ill
7.837
4.856
2.779
3.821
2. 127
3.894
Value
mils $
1. 074
.941
1.033
.873
1.894
1.513
1.496
1. 697
1.334
2. 079
Quant.
mils Ibs
8.463
7.969
8. 638
12.015
16. 114
14. 499
16. 720
14.953
9.452
20.848
Value
mils $
3. 101
2.876
3.225
4.494
5.845
5. 640
6.373
8. 140
6.545
13.763
Quant.
mils Ibs
15.280
12.976
13. 665
15. 126
23.951
19. 355
19.499
18.774
11.579
24. 742
Value
mils $
4. 175
3.817
4.258
5.367
7. 739
7. 153
7.869
9.837
7.879
15.842
Source: Fishery Statistics of the U.S.
Summary 1972.
1964-1970 Imports and Exports of Fishery Products-Annual
-------
Table l-2t. Clans - Landings by region, 1964 - 1973
Year
New E
Quant,
higland
Value
Mid-Atlantic
Quant,
Value
Chesapeake
Quant.
; 65
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
i/
H
I/
C.40
6.54
7.46
7. 17
7.42
8.69
11.08
3, 52
3 . 6 1
4. 14
4. 14
4. 15
4.62
5.93
46.
52.
54.
54,
45,
52.
63.
02
24
90
52
26
38
30
7.82 10.
9.15
11. 13
12, 92
12.35
14.60
16.75
1C.
9.
8,
13.
17.
22.
99
88
50
rv5
32
94
69
Value
3.06
?,
2.
£.
3.
5.
5.
09
85
93
76
38
21
S. Atlantic
Quant,
Value
Gulf
Quant.
Value
Pacific
Quant.
Value
.402 .152 ,072
.404
.310
.320
.289
.423
.491
. 171
. 119
. 148
. 150
.210
.248
. 1U
.004
.354
.417
.647
.770
.0?.d
. 042
,001
.036
, 046
,071
.081
-589
,677
.582
.585
c ~i ;;
* *-' J /
.663
.872
,318
, 370
.309
.31^
,294
.360
.570
Total
Quant.
mils
64.
70.
72.
71.
67.
80.
99.
82.
89.
106.
Ibs
46
85
75
50
25
75
20
66
10
29
Value
mils $
14.89
16.73
18. 55
20.49
20.73
25,24
28.79
30.54
31.86
34.73
' Fisheries of the U.S. , 1973.
Source: Fishery Statistics of the U.S. , 1964-1970.
i
»o>
00
-------
Table 1-27. Clams - processed product, United States, 1964-1972
Fresh and Frozen
Shucked
Year Quant.
(mils.
Ibs)
Value
(mils.
$)
Specialties
Quant.
(mils.
Ibs.)
Value
(mils.
$)
Can
Quant.
(mils .
cases)
ned!'
Value
(mils .
$)
(Canning Plants)-'
Exclusive of
duplication
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
--
30.529
33.014
34.283
27.370
51.739
56.333
61.976
-
11.
13.
14.
14.
22.
26.
28.
-
144
238
047
677
171
658
093
--
4.199
5.425
6.035
13.013
13.507
8.228
7.756
3.
4.
5.
9.
11.
7.
6.
--
052
219
159
562
524
146
720
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
-
626
701
607
405
445
609
665
825
-
19.
22.
23.
21.
24.
28.
28.
28.
263
690
146
912
044
161
737
705
--
(39)
(33)
(32)
(29)
(31)
(29)
(26)
(24)
Whole and minced, chowder, juice and specialties
Excluding canned specialties
Source: Fishery Statistics of the U.S. , 1964-1970, Canned Fish Products,
1972 (Prelim.), Processed Fish Products, 1971.
1-49
-------
Table 1-28. Clams, imports for consumption, 1963-1972
Fresh and frozen
In shell or shucked
Year
Quant.
Value
Canned
Total
Quant.
(Imports, millions
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
.469
.411
.573
.703
.708
.749
1.087
1.720
3.072
2.994
.097
.080
.097
.125
. 171
.271
.494
.819
1.251
1.348
1 . 544
1.433
1.423
1.990
1.750
1.887
2.746
4.634
3. 186
4.231
Value
of Ibs or
.903
.929
.898
1.251
1.079
1. Ill
1.648
2.966
2. 130
3.007
Imports
Total,
Quant.
millions of $)
2.013
1.844
1.996
2.693
2.458
2.636
3.833
6.354
6.258
7.225
Value
1.000
1.009
.995
1.376
1.250
1.382
2. 142
3.785
3.381
4.355
Source: Fishery Statistics of the U.S. 1964-1970.
Imports and Exports of Fishery Products, AnnuaL Summary 1972,
1-50
-------
Table 1-29. Menhaden, U. S. landings by major states, and regions, 1963- 1972
State Landings
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
N. J.
178
64
74
13
46
68
34
31
60
Va.
256
331
352
273
220
270
178
446
392
N. C.
190
173
161
182
150
167
145
108
80
Miss.
250
238
278
191
167
150
225
206
306 1,
La.
pounds -
633
600
682
556
510
622
856
960
237
Other
309
154
179
93
71
98
108
86
115
Regional Landings
Atlantic Gulf
848
656
703
515
464
552
390
628
583
832
968
904
1,023
793
700
823
1, 155
1,209
1,607
1, 107
Total U.S.
Landings
1,816
1,560
1,726
1,308
1,164
1,375
1,545
1,837
2,190
1,939
1,890
Source: Menhaden, Basic Economic Indicators, N.M. F.S. , U.S. Dept. Commerce, Current Fisheries
Statistics, No. 5934.
-------
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
Table 1-30. Production of menhaden products, 19*17-71
(Product-weight)
Dried scrap
Kear and meal
191(7
iplt8
1950
1951
1952
1953
195)4
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961.
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Source :
Thousand
pounds
197,20)4
207,638
225,282
206,520
230,652
287,936
366ll82
381,256
3)4)4 J76
316.1U8
1.1.7,786
1.36,81.6
1*95,102
1(79, U114
368,1(10
320,698
351,918
269,908
238,270
286,308
318,986
377,100
1.1.2,008
Thousand
dollars
10.88U
11,5)48
17,773
12,856
13,878
17,81(5
21,767
23,783
25,1(58
27,1*1(0
21,726
20,699
26,392
19,202
25,852
28,250
22,263
20 ,001
25,869
20,539
15,265
19,53l4
26,960
3). ,658
Fishery Statistics of the
Solubles
Thousand
pounds
78,076
112,5147
123,877
1145,705
138,797
216 ',159
131,700
1)46,610
170,1.00
11.9,662
137,).76
11.6,360
121,538
103,5)(0
106,149).
126,53)4
11.3,782
183,1.82
United States,
Thousand
dollars
-
3,593
5,565
"(,397
5,31(0
5,615
6,253
5,853
2,299
3,11.2
14,120
1..1.86
"4,055
It, 666
3,725
3,080
2,669
3,069
3,57)*
3,773
various years
Oil
Thousand
pounds
63,550
65,730
62,201.
76,575
91..028
96,665
133,681.
139,811
159,21.1
168,211
118,1.814
127,986
15)*,712
183,1(03
235,167
232 ,619
167,631.
157,730
175,201.
101 ', 38k
152,020
11.9,155
186,283
21.2,071
and Industrial
Thousand
dollars
11,1*25
.10,132
3,1*08
5,867
9,771
5,785
8,806
9,755
12,195
ll*,092
9,1.66
9,143)*
10,71(3
11,582
12,913
10,060
9,853
11,735
10)982
14,736
6,21.7
8,253
16,833
19,268
Fi shery
Products. 1970-71.
1-52
-------
Table 1-31. U.S. production of dried fish scrap and meal, solubles
and manhaden oil, 1963-1972
Dried Scrap and
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Menhaden
368
321
352
270
238
286
319
377
442
387
378
Other
144
150
156
178
204
184
186
161
143
174
Meal
Total
512
471
508
448
442
470
505
538
585
561
Solubles-
Menhaden Other
- Million
75
69
73
61
52
53
64
72
91
104
pounds -
32
24
22
22
23
19
18
23
10
30
Total
107
93
95
83
75
72
82
95
101
134
137
Menhaden
Oil
168
158
175
144
101
152
149
186
242
167
200
Dry weight.
Source: Menhaden, Basic Economic Indicators, N. M. F.S. , U.S. Dept.
Commerce; Current Fisherty Statistics No. 5934 .
1-53
-------
Table 1-32. Foreign trade dried fish scrap and meal, solubles and fish and marine
animal oil I/ 1963-1972
Driad scrap & meal
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
U. S.
Prodn.
Mils. Ibs.
512
471
508
448
442
470
505
538
585
571
Imports
Mils. Ibs.
753
878
541
896
1,303
1,711
717
503
566
784
Imported
60
65
52
67
75
78
59
. 48
49
58
U. S.
Prodn.
Mils. Ibs.
107
93
95
83
75
72
82
95
101
134
Solubles
Imports
Mils. Ibs.
7
6
5
4
4
1
-
-
1
-
Oil
Imported
7
6
5
5
5
1
-
-
1
-
U. S.
Prodn.
Mils. Ibs.
186
180
195
164
122
174
170
206
265
188
Exports
Mils. Ibs.
262
152
104
77
77
65
199
159
230
193
Source: Menhaden, Basic Economic Indicators, UMFS, U.S. Dept. Commerce, Current Fishery
Statistics No. 5934, and where exports exceed production, it is assumed that additional supplies
came from previous year's stocks.
-------
U.S. PRODUCTION, IMPORTS, AND TOTAL SUPPLIES OF FISH MEAL,
JANUARY-APRIL, 1963-73
Thousand short tons
300
200
100
0
Total supplies
for January-April
Production
::IJII!J!IJ!!lpi-:!l:h-!ii^ll Import 5
1*00
i!i:::!!li!i!l!li!i!:::!J:::!:!:l!i!:!i!!:!!!i;iyin^
!!:!:!:;!:::ii!:;;.::!:3::::::!:!:;;!;:;::;::::{;;:;:::!;;!;!";;!!::"g:!::::;:;;i:;:;!!==":^i::»»""";"-="-"i-""vv;v ;! ;-nt;;;;:;!
300
200
100
1963 196^ 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
NOAA
Market Research and Services Division
NMFS
Figure 1
-------
PRICES OF FISH MEAL
Dollars per
short ton
600
500
100
KOAA
Market Research and Services Division
SMFS
Figure 2
1-56
-------
Table I- 33. Anchovies - landings and processed product,
California, 1964-1973
Year
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Meal 1
Quant.
Tons
(1)
(1)
4,468
5,575
2,762
11,436
16,204
7,718
&t Scrap
Value
$
(1)
(1)
675, 748
722,475
336,523
1,738, 195
2,786,993
1, 195,465
Oil
Quant.
(000 JLbs. )
(1)
409
773
1,004
899
4,861
6, 165
3,169
Value
$
(1)
1,208
56, 608
39,051
32,304
207,416
439,333
175,702
California
Quant.
Mils. Ibs.
4.98
5.73
62.28
69.61
31.08
192.49
135.28
88.00
149.07
229.286 -
Landings
Value
Mil. $
.082
.099
.644
.701
.284
2. 157
1.353
.969
1.763
5.253
Included in unclassified products.
Source: Fishery Statistics of the U. S. - 1964-1970. Processed Fishery
Products, Annual Summary 1971
1-57
-------
Table 1-34. U. S. landings of Pacific salmon, by state, 1963-1972
(Round- we ight)
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Alaska
Z23.063
311,623
274,844
333,325
138,517
285,272
219, 150
346,465
Washington
± noi
54,993
21,275
30,418
32,367
53,374
25,754
31,978
37,601
Oregon
isand pounds
8,262
9,867
11,806
12,373
17,371
9,631
10,549
19,442
California
7,859
9,481
9,738
9,447
7,402
6,952
6, 151
6,611
U.S.
Total
294, 177
352,246
326,806
387,512
216,664
327,609
267,828
410, 119
312,071
216,685
Source: Salmon, Basic Economic Indicators, NMFS, U.S. Dept. Commerce,
Current Fishery Statistics No. 6129.
1-58
-------
Table 1-35. U. S. salmon consumption, aggregate and per capita,
canned and non- canned, 1963- 1972.
(Edible weight)-7
Aggregate Consumption
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
&l 51
Canned Non- canned Total
'Nyfi
JVU
136.0
145. 7
162.2
142.2
132. 1
121.4
123.8
136.6
133.3
ill ion pound:
36.4
34.3
36.6
35.5
33.8
36.2
40.8
51. 1
77.3
171. 5
179.5
198.8
177.8
165.9
157. 7
164.8
187.7
211.3
Per Capita Consumption
Z/ 6 1
Canned Non- canned Total
.721
.762
.838
.727
.669
.609
.615
.671
.647
.700
. 193
. 179
. 189
. 181
. 171
. 182
.202
.251
.375
.910
.939
1.027
.910
.840
.791
.818
.922
1.026
I/
Includes fresh and frozen, smoked and cured.
3 /
Up to 1965 these figures do not take into account changes in smoked,
filets, steaks and canned stocks, therefore, from year to year the sum
of non-canned and canned figures will vary slightly from the total
consumption figures. On a continuous basis these variations cancel
each other out.
Source: Salmon, Basic Economic Indicators, N.M.F.S. , U.S. Dept.
Commerce, Current Fishery Statistics, No. 6129.
1-59
-------
Table 1-36. U. S. supply and disposition of salmon, 1963-1972
Beginning Total Ending .
Yjear Stocks JJ Landings' Imports Supply Stocks Exports
tion
Thousand pounds
1963 20,305 294,177 12,614 327,096 19,132 22,187 285,777
1964 19,132 352,246 10,938 382,317 23,150 59,945 299,222
1965 231,078 326,806 9,639 567,523 185,907 50,296 331,320
1966 222,387 387,512 10,895 620,794 269,880 54,553 296,361
1967 269,880 216,664 10,685 497,229 167,217 53,540 276,472
1968 167,217 327,609 19,346 514,173 223,376 27,860 262,937
1969 223,376 267,828 13,557 504,761 170,457 59,668 274,636
1970 170,457 410,119 12,475 593,051 221,415 58,830 312,806
1971 221,415 312,071 11,747 545,233 126,624 66,524 352,085
1972
Beginning in 1965 fresh, frozen and cured, fillets and steaks, canners stocks
and beginning in 1966 includes distributors stocks of canned salmon.
2/
West Coast landings.
Includes all types co-nverted to round weights.
4/
Includes canned and fresh and frozen; also includes cured to 1965, after which
cured figures were no longer reported separately. All forms converted to
round weight.
Source: Salmon, Basic Economic Indicators, NMFS, U. S. Dept. Commerce,
Current Fishery Statistics, No. 6129.
1-60
-------
Table 1-37. Imports of salmon to the United States, by country of origin,
1963-1972.
(Round-weight equivalent)
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Fresh &
Frozen L'
10,287
10,519
9,321
9,978
10,475
11,601
10, 100
8,603
9,234
Canada
Canned
838
2
106
93
6,208
2,529
2,274
2, 060
4,756
Total
TV» mi c
11, 125
10,521
9,427
10,071
10,475
17,809
12,629
10,877
11,294
Fresh &
7 1
Frozen _'
and pounds -
713
347
38
774
157
188
3
120
815
Japan
Canned
494
12
20
20
1,301
822
1,392
616
6,838
Total
1,207
359
58
794
157
1,489
825
1,512
1,431
Other
282
58
154
30
53
48
103
86
22
2
Total
12,614
10,938
9,639
10,895
10, 685
19,346
13,557
12,475
12, 747
11,596
Includes some smoked and cured.
Less than 500 pounds.
Source: Salmon, Basic Economic Indicators, NMFS, U. S. Dept. Commerce,
Current Fishery Statistics No. 6129, and Food Fish, Market Review
and Outlook, NOAA, FFSOA 15, July 1973.
1-61
-------
Table 1-38. U. S. canned salmon production, imports and exports,
1963-1972.
U.S. Production
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Std. Cases
- Thousands -
3,295
3,759
3, 634
4,358
2,072
3,448
2,551
3,822
3,509
1, 773
Quantity
158, 153
180,442
174,414
209, 161
99,473
165,490
122,444
183,466
168,452
85, 109
Imports
1,250
236
101
589
121
4,956
2,217
2,441
1,551
11,647
' 3/
Exports
10,228
20,924
24,892
20,484
20,543
5,726
15,536
16,811
18,232
21,358
I/
2/
Various size cans converted to equivalent of 48, one-pound cans per case.
Includes canned salmon in oil and not in oil.
3/
Product weight.
Source: Salmon, Basic Economic Indicators, NMFS, U. S. Dept.
Commerce, Current Fishery Statistics No. 6129.
1-62
-------
Table 1-39. Pacific bottom fish, landing and
values by states, 1963-1967.1 /
Alaska
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
Landing
(000 Ibs. )
1,451
2,679
2,758
2, 356
2,338
Value
(000 $)
132
295
258
278
220
Washington
Landing
(000 Ibs. )
49,026
40,935
50,074
54,255
49, 150
Value
(000 $)
3,086
2,576
2,942
3, 168
2,916
Oregon
Landing
(000 Ibs. )
30, 884
31, 716
32,431
26,575
22,261
Value
(000 $)
1,618
1,601
1,605
1,515
1,328
California
Landing
(000 Ibs.)
36, 199
32,064
35,341
36, 177
34, 847
Value
(000 $)
2,660
2,454
2,696
2,975
2,933
Source: Pacific Groundifsh, Basic Economic Indicators Division of Economic
Research
1-63
-------
Table 1-40. Pacific bottom fish, U. S. landings by species 1963-19731'
Rockfish
^ear
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1970
1971
1972
1973
{000 Ibs)
25,030
19,315
21,389
25.. 529
22, 139
27,593
24,674
,,30,539
-'35,419
(000 <>)-'
1,328
1,003
1, 158
1,412
1,328
1,830
1,524
1,912
3,451
Cod ^ , Lingcod ,
(000 Ibs)
6,369
6,414
10, 153
9,983
9,155
2,782
6,472
10,390
9,482
(000 S)~< (000 Ibs)
350
351
^25
518
482
180
455
779
697
4,790
5,229
6,818
7,959
8,548
. .
.-
__
--
(000 $)-'
293
294
378
450
484
.«
-- '
--
.
Pollock
(000 Ibs)
N.A.
N.A.
146
267
96
9,217
10,847
12,796
14,077
;000 S)£/
N.A.
N.A.
2
4
9
697
828
1,139
1,438
Sable-fish
(000 Ibs)
6,464
8,OoS
7,283
6,931
7,073
_-
--
--
--
(000 $)=.'
654
877
716
669
641
_.
--
..
Flounde r
(000 Ibs)
51,200
47,395
46,463
46,830
46, 159
45,948
44,285
52,285
47,854
(000 $)±'
3,696
3,402
3,410
3,773
3,620
4,100
3,935
5,363
4,778
Ocean Pei'ch
(000 ibs)
23,578
20, 973
28,352
21,864
15,426
15,265
10,843
9,752
5, 155
(000 S)£'
1, 172
999
1,334
1, 105
861
963
704
591
506
Pacific groundfish, basic economic indicators. Division of Economic Research
2/ Ex vessel value.
L.J Fisheries of the U.S., 1973.
-------
Table I- 41. Atlantic bottom fish, landings and value, 1963- 1972J./
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Landings
Thousand Pounds
518, 187
507,984
487,425
480,709
403,761
383, 100
319,385
300,262
284,438
296,463
Value
Thousand dollars
34, 308
32,419
36,610
40,764
32,855
32,294
38,528
36, 815
43, 288
48, 849
Source: Atlantic bottom fish, Basic Economic Indicators, Division
of Economic Research
Includes cod, cusk, flounder, haddock, red and white hake, ocean perch,
pollock and whiting.
1-65
-------
Table 1-42. Atlantic bottom fish, landings and value, by species, 1963-1972
I/
Cod
Year
19=
1964
1965
1966
1967
1963
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Ltindinc
(000 Ibs)
42, 177
38,746
36, 04S
37,576
44, 400
48,600
53,226
52,824
46,254
50,080
Value
JOOO $)
3, 106
2.669
2, 877
3, 196
3, 578
3,500
5,740
6,345
7,887
8,989
Cask
Landinc
(000 Ibs)
1,909
2,319
2, 177
2,218
1,717
1,500
1,351
1,776
2,170
2,866
Value
(000 $)
110
118
131
133
106
94
101
157
215
331
Hake (red 1
Landinc;
(000 Ibs)
12,961
11, 303
10, 052
5, 961
2,800
3,000
6, 300
7,898
9,513
10,046
k white)
Value
(000 $)
356
334
365
280
153
100
358
456
686
915
Ocean
Landing
(000 Ibs)
131,870
110, 141
11 1,960
103,416
71, 409
61, 500
55,290
59,852
58,791
53,683
Perch
Value
(000 $)
6, 319
4,780
4,728
4, 530
2,799
2,400
2,725
3,047
3,289
4, 132
Pollock
Landing
(000 Ibs)
14, 607
13,287
11, 856
9, 018
7, 297
6,400
9,217
10,847
12,796
14, 077
Value
(000 $)
670
658
723
511
410
300
697
828
1, 139
1,438-
Whiting
Landing
(000 Ibs)
92,643
94,233
82, 574
90,408
69, 543
77,900
44, 515
33.20L
26,711
42,671
Value
(000 $)
2, 178
2,067
2,204
3,955
2, 156
2,700
3,890
2,106
2,382
3,394
Flounder
Landinc:
(000 Ibs)
121,627
125, 330
127,364
121, 955
106,508
112, 900
122 SOS^/
112,265
116,482
114,727
Value
(COO $)
11, 036
10,897
13,288
15, 325
12, 495
13, 900
Haddock
Lancir.c Value
(COO Ibs) (000 $)
123,972 11,705
133,493 11,845
133,892 13,630
132,288 13,943
98, 464 11, 094
71,300 9,300
18, 9731' 26, 88p2/6, 044!'
18,256
23,399
26,490
21,599 5,620
11,721 4,291
8,313 3,160
Source: Atlantic Bottom Fish, Basic Economic Indicators, Division of Economic Research.
Derived by subtracting Pacific landings from total landings for 1970 to 1973, Fisheries of U. S., Landings by Specie.
-------
I/ 2/
Table 1-43. Atlantic bottom fish, U.S. sources and disposition, 1960-1972
Year
Beginning
stocks
Landings
Imports
Total
supply
Ending
stocks
Exports
Apparent total
consumption
million pounds
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
£ 1969
-1 1970
1971
1972
251.3
229.7
201.5
220.7
234.1
211. 1
250.2
305.8
271.0
307. 1
528.
532.
542.
518.
5 08-.
487.
480.
403.
383.
5
8
4
2
0
4
7
8
1
575.
709.
802.
835.
901.
1,082.
1, 173.
1, 063.
1,446.
3
1
8
0
4
4
3
6
9
1,
1,
1,
1,
1.
1,
1,
1,
2,
355. 1
471.6
546.7
573.9
643.5
780.9 '
904.2
773.2
101.0
229.7
201.5
220.7
234.1
211.1
250.2
305.8
271.0
307.1
306.9
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.6
2.0
2.8
3. 1
2.0
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
123.7
268.7
324.6
338. 1
430.8
528.7
595.6
499. 1
791.9
Source: Atlantic Bottom Fish, Basic Economic Indicators, Division of Economic Research.
2/
Includes cod, cusk, flounder, haddock, red and white hake, ocean perch, pollock and whiting.
-------
Table 1-44. Supply of bottom fish fillets and steaks, I960-1973.1
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
U. S.
Thousand
pounds
93,818
93,039
93, 625
83,419
75, 166
77, 180
75,418
71, 034
55; 349
47,269
42,894
43,808
35, 683
46,685
Production
Precent
37.6
32.3
29. 7
26.5
23.4
20. 7
19.3
20.0
12.4
10. 0
8.6
8.3
5.9
7.5
Imports
Thousand
pounds
155,550
195,099
221,420
231, 768
246,569
294,954
315,097
283,567
390,236
426, 728
458, 762
482, 618
568,714
578,826
Percent
62.4
67.7
70.3
73.5
76.6
79.3
80. 7
80.0
87.6
90.0
91.4
91.7
94. 1
92.5
Total
Thousand
pounds
249,368
288. 138
315,045
315, 187
321,735
372,134
390,515
354,601
445,585
473,997
501,656
526,426
604, 397
625,511
I/
Includes Atlantic ocean perch and includes blocks and slabs.
Source: Fisheries of the U. S. , 1972.
1-68
-------
Table 1-45. Halibut, U. S. landings, 1963-1972
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Pacific
45,569
35,047
40,497
40,326
39, 778
25,740
33,205
34,349
28,413
Landings
Atlantic
272
307
328
307
293
251
211
198
238
Total
45,841
35,354
40,825
40,633
40,073
25,991
33,416
34,547
28,651
26,834
24, 196
Source: Halibut, Basic Economic Indicators, NMFS, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Current Fisheries Statistics, No. 6128.
1-69
-------
Table 1-46. U. S. halibut consumption, aggregate and per capita,
1963-1972 (Edible weight)
Year
1963
'1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Aggregate
(Thousand pounds)
34,962
38,587
34,398
31,762
34,396
35,175
33,067
30, 151
31,080
Per Capita
(Pounds)
. 185
.202
.177
. 162
. 174
. 176
. 164
. 148
. 150
Source: Halibut, Basic Economic Indicators, NMFS, U. S. Department
of Commerce, Current Fisheries Statistics, No. 6128.
1-70
-------
Table 1-47. Halibut, U. S. imports, 1963-1972
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Dressed, fresh & frozen
22,722
22,567
21,726
19,496
15,567
18,082
20,093
18,213
19,971
16, 731
12,619
Fillets & Steaks-
4,817
5,569
5,942
5,699
8,377
10,940
8,448
6,501
5,749
Total
27,539
28, 136
27,668
25, 195
23,944
29,022
28,541
24,714
25,720
Prior to 1964, includes salmon. It is estimated that approximately
75 percent was halibut. After September, 1963, includes only halibut.
Source: Halibut, Basic Economic Indicators, NMFS, U. S. Department
of Commerce, Current Fisheries Statistics, No. 6128.
1-71
-------
Table I- 48.
Sea Herring - landings and processed product,
Maine, 1963-1973
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Canned
Sardines
Mils, cases
1.62-L'
.866
1.27
1.33
1.25
1.73
1.04
.807
.951
1.56
.955
Pack
Value
Mils. $
7.584
10.868
12.262
13.862
19.297
11.512
11.227
10.856
23.884
Landings
Quantity
Mils. Ibs.
60.866
70. 180
58.299
64. 600
69.703
54.214
36.593
.
Value
Mils. $
1.275
1. 168
1.209
1.538
1.669
.968
.653
I/
2/
Processed fishery products 1970-1972, Source: Fishery Statistics of
the U.S. , 1967-1969.
-' Source: Fisheries of the U. S. , 1973
1-72
-------
Table 1-49. Canned sardines, U. S. supply, 1960-1973-
l/
U. S. Production
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
i i
i 1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Maine
46, 744
17, 635
50,248
37,890
20,259
29, 646
31, 118
29,260
40, 489
24,401
18,872
22,249
Pacific In Oil
T
27,714 21,236
18,859 27,877
6,168 32,603
2,568 19,908
5,438 20,033
374 21,532
116 23,601
4/ 25,494
4/ 28,436
27,220
34,070
31,034
Imports
Not in Oil
housand pounds
6, 140
14,611
20,342
21,640
24, 602
23,538
33,987
26,945
30,431
18, 147
12,838
18,985
Exports 2/
In Oil
264
185
578
146
839
3/
3/
3/
3/
I/
I/
3/
Not in Oil
20,955
7,475
7, 188
3,493
2,426
3,376
3,557
1,373
3,033
2,095
1,456
890
Total for
U.S. Cons
80, 615
71,322
101,595
78,367
67,067
71,714
85,265
80,326
96,323
67,673
64, 324
71,378
continued. ....
-------
Table I-49- Canned sardines, U. S. supply, I960-1973.1 / {continued^
U. S. Production . Imports Exports ^/
Year
1972
5/ 1973
Maine
36,540
23,284
Pacific In Oil Not in Oil In Oil
thousand pounds
41,544 28,671 3/
36,089 31,330 3_/
Not in Oil
3,030
1, 740
Total for
U.S. Cons.
103, 748
88,963
Source: Fisheries of the U. S. , 1972; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Maine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics 20. 6100.
2 /
' It has been pointed out by the Maine'Sardine Council that most of the exports presented above are
actually shipment to Canada for warehousing which are then reshipped to the domestic markets.
Data on the pack in oil have been included with the pack not in oil.
4/
Data not available.
- Fisheries of the U.S. , 1973.
-------
II. FINANCIAL RETURNS AND FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE INDUSTRY
The ability of industry or individual plants to with stand the financial impacts
of mandatory pollution abatement standards depends on n any financial,
production and locatiorial factors. These obviously include qualitative and
quantitative considerations, many of which directly or indirectly reflect
the: financial profile of ii>c plant. The objective of this chapter is to
briefly outline some of the salient characteristics which influence the
ability of industry segment or plants to either acquire capital or bear the
additional operating expenses resulting from the installation or operation
of waste treatment facilities.
This objective is complicated by the fact that basic investment and oper-
ating costs for the seafoods industry are not available in published form
nor is such information generally available from all firms in the industry.
The development of investment and operating costs for specific products,
e.g. , botl orn fish, oyster or salmon., becomes particularly difficult where
these products are processed as part of multi-product plant operations.
In addition, son e of the major processors are parts of conglomerates or
diversified food processors so that analysis of financial statements
given in annual reports or of data given in. such publications as Standard
and Poors reveals little about the costs and returns from the seafood
processing operations of these corporations or specific product lines.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the age and construction
of seafoods processing plants varies greatly from plant to plant. Even
though plants may be nearly standardized, i.e. , fish meal, virtually no
data on investments and operating costs are available in published form.
Many of the processors operate from a variety of facilities. Some are
parts of diversified seafoods processing plants, some have "floater"
plants based on barges, converted ferries, obsolete "Liberty" ships or
other hulls, and some operate out of shore-based plants which vary from
ramshackle operations in old waterfront buildings to new, modern,
specialized processing plants.
Only a limited amount of meaningful work on the costs of processing
seafoods has been conducted by universities or other research organisations.
In its evaluation of the market research and service programs of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, reported in October, 1972, Develop-
ment Planning and Research Associates, Inc. , recommended that priority
be given to costs of processing seafoods and to economies of scale in
the processing of seafoods. _L'
-^ Seltzer, R. E. , Evaluation of Market Research and Service Activities
of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Development Planning and
Research Associates, 1972.
II-l
-------
Faced with this situation, the economic conl ractor has been forced to
develop its own estimates of investment and operating costs based on
sxich data as are available from a variety of unpublished sources and a
great number of personal contacts with firms engaged in seafoods pro-
cessing.
Ideally the procedure would involve a plant by plant assessment of all
relevant financial and production characteristics. Clearly this is not
practical due to the number of plants that must be considered herein.
It must also be recognized that the seafood processing industry is one
of the most complex and diverse-: in terms of number of plants, size of
plants, age of plants, yearly production variations, final product form
and raw production variations. The model plants presented in this chapter
therefore represent general financial characteristics of broad processing
segments. The impact analysis will, however, account for unexplained
variations by utilizing sensitivity analysis to account for production
and profitability variations.
As explained earlier we adopted a return on sales framework of analysis.
The implication of the above for the current chapter is that we shall
present general financial considerations and estimated profitability
ranges by industry segment and the emphasis will not he on presenting
detailed cost or expense breakdown by processing segment.
General economic considerations including constraints on financing
additional capital assets are presented in the following sections. Model
plants and general profitability levels are presented in section C of Ihis
chapter.
A. Genera] Considerations
As mentioned above many considerations mur.l be evaluated to accurately
determine the economic impact of impending effluent limitation standards.
There are many unique factors intrinsic to the seafood processing industry
that substantially and in some cases adversely influence the industry's
ability to absorb or withstand the financial i.npacts of pollution abatement
standard?. Many of these characteristics are enumerated in the loilowmg
subsections. Some of these items or subsections are directly related to
physical or location characteristics that in turn possess financial
consideration or facets. The critical nature of some of these factors
is such that they must be repeated and further emphasized.
II-2
-------
1. Physical Considerations^
As mentioned above, many segments of the seafood processing industry
are dominated by many small plants. This is true for all segments
considered herein, with the exception of various portions of the salmon,
clam and fish meal segments. For many of the remaining segments -
relatively low capital requirements have provided unrestricted entry
which has resulted in a highly competitive and fragmented industry.
These plants (small economically and physically) are in general relatively
old facilities that are in many cases being operated by second and third
generation family members. Plant age, however, is a nebulous concept
since some modernization is required and plant replacement is an on-
going process. The mere fact, however, that many plants are located
on sites initially established years ago has several implications.
For example, frequently the surrounding land has been developed for
industrial, residential, or commercial activities, which has left the
seafood processing plant enclosed and a virtual enclave. Land required
for expansion or waste water treatment facilities is frequently available
only at exorbitant prices. Frequently, even if land is available various
constraints are encountered. These include zoning regulations or rugged
terrain which is not compatible with land requirements for plant expansion
or waste water treatment facilities. Additional constraints stemming from
tribal land ownership by native Americans (Indian or Eskimo), principally
in Alaska, are also encountered.
2. Economic Considerations
The above general physical characteristics can be expressed in general
financial or economic terms. In this case the description or narrative
is couched in terms of under-utilization of plant capacity, lack of raw product,
difficulties acquiring required capital and declining number of small plants.
For most of the seafood industry the above description is the general
rule rather than the exception.
B. Constraints on Financing Additional Capital Assets
Constraints on financing additional capital required for water pollution
control facilities will vary greatly from firm-to-firm and from location-
to-location. In general, it is anticipated that there will not be serious
constraints in securing capital required for pollution cor.trol for most large sea-
foods processing plants. However, in individual situations where plants
II-3
-------
are old, obsolete or unprofitable, and where local condition:? may require
substantial investments for internal pollution abatement systems or for
participation in expanding capacity of sewer systems in communities,
the seafood processing owner/management may hesitate or be unable
to make the investments required. The difficulties encountered depend
on the amount of capital required and the constraints encountered.
Seafood processing plants that are owned by conglomerates, large diversi-
fied food processing firms or by large diversified seafoods processing
companies will have less difficulty acquiring capital and capital availability
is not expected to be a limiting factor. In situations where uncertainty
exists concerning the resource stock even the large processors may
hesitate to seek the funds required for pollution abatement equipment.
Capital availability may be a much more serious problem for small plants
which continue to operate primarily because owners have depreciated out
original investment costs, consider their investment in the plant as
"sunk capital" and consider that the plant has a "utility value" if continued
in operation which is greater than the "market value" or "salvage value"
of the plant should they decide to cease operations. For such plants the
increased investment required for pollution control may be difficult to
obtain since it may be unattractive to continue plant operations. In these
situations, the decision to attempt to obtain additional capital may be
based on the desire of the owners to maintain the business for personal
employment reasons rather than on the expectation of realising a return
on invested capital.
In the following section we shall briefly highlight the salient features of
the model plants that have been .developed to represent respective industry
segments.
C. Estimated Earnings and Financial Considerations by Segment
Prior to this point most of the discussion has been in reference to general
characteristics and statistics concerning plant numbers, landing, demand
and supply by industry segment. It is now time to focus attention on
specific financial considerations by industry segment. This is accom-
plished by developing model plants which are used to represent financial
profiles of various types of plants.
It must be emphasized that model plants are intended to portray the
financial characteristics of groups of plants and do not portray the exact
characteristics of one specific plant. It is therefore probable that
any one observation or specific plant will have profitability measures
that differ from the estimates provided. Unique location, production or
II-4
-------
process characteristics indeed insure this. The economic contractor
recognizes that variations occur and no single or reasonable number of
mode] plants will accurately portray the cxaet financial characteristics
of each and ever plant. Cognizant of this fact we shall utilize broad
profitability measures and sensitivity analysis in the iinpact analysis to
attempt to account for unexplained variations in profitability.
The mode] plants that have been developed do not attempt to estimate
numerous specific line items such as labor, cans, fuel etc. All plants
were, however, constructed with as mucn detail as possible and were
then aggregated into broader items such as product related or plant re-
lated expenses. It should also be pointed out that investment data is even
more difficult to gather and analyze tnan direct or indirect expenses.
Numerous variations and complications enter due to plant age, process
ind other Jaclors.
The procedures utilised in constructing the model plants included plant
visits, personal interviews and in general acquiring data from numerous
seafood processors throughout the country. Written arid oral communi-
cation.s provided much of the data. Published data and prices have also been
utilized. These data were then analyzed (in some cases rejected or
corroborated) and used for the model plants presented at the end of this
cha.pte r.
A brief review of the models is presented below.
1. Alaskan Salmon Canning Segments
A total of twelve Alaskan salmon canning model plants have been constructed,
These have been delineated into various sizes of plants in three general
locations --Southeast, Central and Western Alaska. These models have
been constructed from specific plant data from numerous salmon processing
plants in these areas.
The effects of low plant utilization are obvious. All data is based on 1972
figures which indicate that plants were operating from 15 to 30 percent
capacity. Due to the large fixed investments and fixed costs the Alaskan
salmon canning plants all show large losses for this time period. Losses
approach 40 percent of sales. Annual cash flow is negative in all cases
including the large plants. Tables II-l to II-3 present model plant data
for these plants. It is impossible to justify the existence of the Alaskan
salmon canning segments considering the magnitude of the losses portrayed
in these tables.
II-5
-------
Due to the fact that 1972 reflects the effects of extremely low utilization,
efforts were also expended to construct model plants for a five year period,
1968 to 1972. These model plants show positive cash flow and profits for
the five year period. Profits as a percent of sales for this period range
from 1 to approximately 5 percent of sales before tax. This rate of return
is relatively low considering the risk and variability that may be attached
to future salmon runs. Two or three consecutive years of low plant
utilization can effectively reduce profits to very low levels. Tables IJ-4
through II-6 present model plant and cash flow for Alaskan salmon camiers
over a five year period.
Even over a five year period, whicn should be a long enough period of
to erase seasonal variations, the profitability estimates are sufficiently
low that new capital is not likely to be attracted to this segment. This is
especially true considering (he unusually high risk and uncertainty. The
high percentage of underutilised capacity coupled with substantial'variations
in volume of landings further discourage new capital investment.
2. West Coast Salmon Canning Segments
Two West Coast salmon canning model plants have also been constructed.
This includes one model with sales of approximately $600,000 and another
with sales of approximately $2, 500, 000. Using published prices of $50.50
per rase this represents 12,500 and 50,000 cases anmially.
Both plants are shown to be operating at 50 percent of capacity. Even at
this relatively low level of capacity both have a positive cash flow for the
period.
Before tax return on sales for the two models is 6. 1 and 9. 9 percent res-
pectively. Cash flow and earnings data for these models is shown in
Table II-7.
3. West Coast Frosh and Frozen Salmon Segment
A total of five West Coast fresh and frozen salmon models have been con-
structed. These plants range in size from 20,000 pounds to 1,350,000 pound;
In general the plants have positive cash flow, and a profitability rate of
4. 5 to 8. 8 percent tax return on sales. Little investment is reqxiired for
a plant of this type. The small plant has total assets of $17, 000, much
of which is current (inventory). Return on investment is estimated to be
between 6. 5 and 14. 5 percent.
Investment, profitability and operating data arc shown in Tables II-8 to
11-10. A halibut processing line is also presented for two of these plants.
II-6 i'
i
-------
4. West Coast Bottom Hsh Segment
Table 11-11 present data for bottom fish and halibut processors.
Both of the segments show low levels of profitability with the small bottom
fish plant and all of the halibut processors showing a loss. Before tax
return on sales for the bottom fish processors varies from - 11.2 percent
to plus 2.8 percent.
The above plants and profitability measures will be used for West Coast
and Alaskan bottom fish processors.
5. Atlantic Bottom Fish Segment
At 75 percent capacity, the Atlantic bottom fish processing models show
a. before tax return on sales of 2.3 to 5. 3 percent. Return on investment
is estimated to be 3.2, 3.7 and 5.8 percent for the three plants. (Table 11-12)
The basic relationships for these models were developed on plant interviews
and actual plant data plus fundamental relationships derived in other
segments.
6. Fish Meal Segment
Two models were developed for the fish meal segment. The model presented
in Table 11-13 was developed for the anchovy reduction segment and the model
presented in Table II-14 was developed for small menhaden producers.
While only one small model plant is presented for the menhaden segment
this is not viewed as a serious limitation due to the fact that the guidelines
require only in-plant changes for large menhaden plants. Both segments
have a positive cash flow and profits. Before tax, return on sales is 3
and 6 percent for menhaden and anchovy reduction plants respectively.
7. Oyster Segments
Three oyster models are shown in Table 11-15 through II-1?« This includes
one model for eastern fresh and frozen oysters, one for oyster canners
and one model for West Coast fresh and frozen oysters. All show a positive
cash flow and returns ranging from 2. 9 percent before tax return on sales
to 5 percent before tax return on sales.
II-7
-------
Return on investment is estimated to be 4.6, 8.7, and 8.5 percent for the
three plants.
8. Clam Segments
Estimated earnings and cash flow for two clam models are presented in
Tables 11-18 and 11-19. Before tax return on sales is estimated at 4.4 and 4. 9
percent for the canned clam and fresh and frozen clam models respectively.
9. Maine Sardine Segment
Two models have been developed for the Maine sardine segment. These are
for plants with approximately 40,000 and 130,000 case productions in 1972.
These models are presented in Table 11-20.
The returns are estimated at 5.4 and 3.7 for the small and large plants
respectively. This is due to a higher rate of utilization for the sjnall plant.
Since plant utilization is somewhat higher in 1972 than in proceeding or
subsequent years these profitability rates and financial returns are higher
than should be expected over the long run.
Individual models for the sea herring filleting segment have not been
included.
D. Summa ry
The model plants as presented in this chapter have utilized all data available
to the economic contractor. A great number of personal contacts and pub-
lished data, when available, have been used to develop these models. Even
though every attempt was made to be comprehensive there are cases where
data were not available or were deliberately withheld. In these situations
basic relationships were extrapolated from other segments.
The profitability measures as presented in the model plants will be used
in the impact analysis, Chapter IV. As has been stated earlier modifi-
cations will be made and a sensitivity analysis utilized.
Some of the data developed and presented in the model plants are further
summarized in Tables 11-21 and 11-22. Table 11-21 presents a summary of
financial returns by segment and Table 11-22 presents selected margins
by processing segment.
II-8
-------
In general several conclusions can be made from the models analyzed.
1. Alaskan seafood plants in 1972 appeared to be generally unprofit-
able, but were marginally profitable as an average of the 1968-72
period.
2. Larger plants are generally more profitable than smaller plants.
3. The West Coast salmon industry appears more profitable than
other fishery segments studied.
4. Returns on investment to most segments are below current
interest rates.
II-9
-------
Table IL-1.
Estimated earnings and cash flow for Southeast Alaska salmon
canner, 1972
Annual capacity (cases)
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (cases) -'
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
Plant size
$1,468,000
Annual sales
105,000
30%
32,000
1,468^
1.122
436
(91)
72
36
(199)
(55)
3,000
l.ZOO
485
191
1,685
556
(13.6)
(11.8)
Plant size
$2,431,000
Annual sales --'
175,000
30% "
53,000
2,431 -'
1,928
750
(247)
102
51
(400)
(196,)
4,250
1,700
812
326
2,512
810
(16.4)
(15.9)
Plant siiie
$2,889,000
Annual sales '
210,000
30%
63,000
2,889 -1
2,335
908
(354)
114
57
(525)
(297)
4,750
1,900
953
375
2,853
910
(18.1)
(18.4)
-./ All revenue, expense arid financial data shown in thousands.
_' Standard cases defined as 48/1 Ibs.
3_y Ave. price $45.86 per case as reported by selected Southeast Alaska salmon canners,
11-10
-------
Table II-Z.
Estimated earnings and cash flow for Central Alaskan salmon
canner, 1972
Annual capacity (cases)
1972 Utilization
2/
1972 Production (cases) -'
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income lax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (°/c before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
Plant size
$1,079,000
Annual sales '
116,000
20%
23,000
1,079 -^
865
336
(122)
36
18
(176)
(140)
1,500
600
356
140
956
296
(16.3)
(18.4)
Plant size
$2, 159,000
Annual sales _'
232,000
20%
46,000
2, 159 -1
1,740
677
(258)
79
40
(377)
(298)
3,300
1,320
712
280
.2,032
640
(17.5)
(18.6)
Plant size
$3,285,000
Annual sales _'
348,000
20%
70,000
3,285 I/
2,731
1,062
(508)
108
54
(670)
(562)
4,500
1,800
1,084
427
2,884
891
(20.4)
(23.2)
_L' All expense, sales and financial data shown in thousands.
^J Standard cases defined as 48/ 1 lbs- -
±1 Ave. price $46.93 per case as reported by selected Central Alaska salmon canners,
11-11
-------
Table II -3. Estimated earnings and cash flow for Western Ala.ska salmon
canner, 1972
Annual capacity based on 34
days, at 8 hrs/day
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (cases) '
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
'Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
R.OI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
Plant size
$489,000
Annual sales
68,000
cases
15%
10,000
489 -^
487
146
(144)
32
16
(192)
--
-_
(160)
1,800
540
194
77
734
247
(39.3)
(26.2)
Plant size
$978,000
Annual sales
136,000
cases
15%
20,000
978 -1
998
298
(318)
43
22
(383)
--
--
(340)
2,400
720
387
152
1, 107
349
(34. 8)
(34.6)
Plant size
$1,956,000
Annual sales JL'
272,000
cases
15%
40,000
1,956~/
1,966
589
(599)
112
56
(767)
--
--
(655)
6,200
1,860
775
305
2,635
866
(33.5)
(2,9. 1)
JL' All expense, sales and financial data shown in thousands.
±7 Standard cases defined as 48/1 Ibs.
' Ave. price $48.90 per case as reported by selected Western salmon canners.
11-12
-------
Table. U-4. Estimated earnings and cash flow for Southeast Alaska
sal in on canners, (5-ycar average 1968-1972)
Annual capacity (based on
50 day, 7 hr/day)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Ann ua 1 c a s h fl ow
Replacement investment
Book value of investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
ROS (% before tax)
ROI(% profit before tax/
total asset)
Plant size
$2, 250'C'^O
Annun] sales
105, 000
annual cases '
2.250.2/
2, 042
208
72
36
100
43
52
124
3,000
1,200
743
293
1,943
4.4
5. 1
Plant size
$2,400 , 000
Annual sales
175,000
annual cases
2,400J:/
2, 122
278
102
51
125
60
65
167
4,250
1,700
792
312
2,492
5.2
5. 0
Pla/it sxze
$2,500, 000
Anninl sales
- 210, 000
annual c.aoc
2,500±/
2, 189
311
114
57
140
67
73
187
4, 750
1,900
825
3/ ,
2, !£(>
b. 6
3. 1
~ Standard cascf; are assumed to be 48/1 Ibs.
All expense, sales ?ind fir-) ncia) data shown in thousands.
11-13
-------
Table n-5. Estimated earnings and cash flow for Centra] Alaska
salmon canners, (5-year average 1968-1972)
Annual capacity (based on
50 day, 7 hr/day)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Replacement investment
Book value of investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
KOS (% before tax)
RO1{% profit before tax
total asset)
Plant size
$1, 000, 000
Annual sales
116,000
» i
annual cases.!'
l.OOOl'
898
102
36
18
48
23
25
61
1, 500
600
330
130
930
4.8
5.2
Plant size
$2, 300, 000
Annual sales
,
232, 000
annual cases
2,300!'
2,071
229
79
40
110
53
57
136
3,300
1,320
759
299
2,079
4,8
5.3
~ " '"" »
Plant
$4, 000
Annual
...
348, 000
size
, 000
C 3 7 o Q
Sell G O
' ...
annual cases
4,000!'
3,678
322
108
54
160
77
83
191
4,500
1,800
3,320
520
3, 120
4.
5.
0
1
Standard cases are asrumed to be 48/1 -Ibs.
All expense, sales and financial data shown in thousands.
11-14
-------
Table II-6 . Estimated earnings and cashflow for Western Alaska
salmon canners (5-year average 1968-1972)
Annual capacity (based on
34 day, at 8 hr/day)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Replacement investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Current Liabilities
Long term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
Plant size
$1,358,000
Annual sales
68,000 cases!/
l,358i/
1,292
66
32
16
18
9
9
41
1,800
540
448
176
988
272
286
1.3
1.8
Plant size
$2,675,000
Annual sales
136,000 cases !/
2,675 i/
2,475
200
43
22
135
65
70
178
2,400
720
883
348
1,603
535
427
5.0
8.4
Plant size
$3,319,000
Annual sales
272,000 cases!/
3.3192/
2,976
343
112
56
175
84
91
287
6,200
1,860
1,095
431
2,955
664
916
5.3
5.9
I/
21
Standard cases are assumed to be 48/1 IDS.
All expense, revenue and financial data shown in thousands.
11-15
-------
Table II -7. Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast salmon canner, 1972
Plant size
$630,000
Annual sales
Plant size
$2,500,000
Annual sales
Annual capacity (cases)
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (cases) -
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
25,000
50%
12,500
631, 250 -1
482,500
85,000
63,750
7,500
17,500
38,750
12,250
26,500
34,000
170,000
80,000
310,000
145,000
390,000
38,000
6.1
9.9
100,000
50%
50,000
2,525, 000 £/
1.810,000
365,000
350,000
30,000
70,000
250,000
113,600
136,400
166,400
1,600,000
530,000
1,230,000
570,000
1,760,000
250,000
9.9
14.2 '
Ave. price $50.50 per case
Source: Canned Fishery Products, 1972. Annual Summary (Preliminary)
National Marine Fisheries Service, April 10, 1973 pg. 5.
11-16
-------
Table II -8. Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast and Alaskan fresh and
frozen salmon processor , 1972
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (pounds)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI {% profit before tax/
total assets)
Plant size
$25,000
Annual sales
40, 000
50%
20,000
24, 600
20,000
2,500
2, 100
600
400
1, 100
250
850
1, 450
15, 000
5, 000
12,000
5, 500
17, 000
2, 400
4.5
6.5
Plant size
$370,000
Annual sales
600,000
50%
300, 000
369, OOOi/
297, 000
30,000
42,000
8,900
6,000
27, 100
6, 600
20, 500
29,400
210,000
70,000
180, 000
83, 000
250, 000
35,000
7.3
10.8
Plant size
$1, 000, 000
Annual sales
1, 500, 000
50%
800,000
984, 000_L/
792, 000
65, 000
127,000
24,000
16,000
87,000
35,400
51, 600
75, 600
360,000
] 20, 000
480,000
230, 000
600,000
58, 000
8.8
14. 5
Ave. price $1.23 perlb.
Source: Food Fish Market Review and Outlook, National Marine Fisheries Service
July, 1973, p. 51. Wholesale price, ave. of King and Silver dressed salmon,
1972.
11-17
-------
Table II-9. Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast and Alaskan fresn arid
frozen salmon processor, 1972
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (pounds)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Halibut
$390,000
Ann vial sales
620,000
60%
371,400
390,000 I/
393,600
3,200
-6,800
2,200
1,700
-10,700
-o-
-10,700
Salmon
$1,657,500
Annual sales
2,700,000
50%
1,347,600
1,657,500 £/
1,335,000
108,000
214,500
27,000
26,900
160,600
70,700
89,900
Annual cash flow
'Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROT (% profit before tax/
total assets)
-8,500
950,000
473,000
' 998,000
461,000
1,471,000
227,000
7.3
10.2
116,900
I/ Ave. price $1.05 per Ib. as reported by selected West Coast processors.
U Ave. price $1.23 per Ib.
Source: Food Fish Market Review and Outlook, National Marine Fisheries Service,
July 1973, pg. 51. Ave. wholesale price of King and Silver dressed salmon, 1
11-18
-------
Table II -10. Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast ami Alaskan fresh
and frozen salmon processor, 1972
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (pounds)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Halibut.
$5,000
Annual sales
8,000
60%
4,800
5,000 -1
5, 110
700
-810
204
86
-1, 100
-0-
-1, 100
Salmon
$389,000
Annual salon
630,000
50%
316,000
389,000 -'
313,000
32,000
44,000
9,000
6,000
29,000
7,500
21,500
Annual cash flow
'Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
-896
320,000
159,000
192,000
89,000
351,000
92,000
7.1
7.9
30,500
_' Ave. price $].05 per Ib. as reported by selected Wc;;t Coast processors.
Ave. price $1.23 per Ib.
Source: Food Fish Market Review and Outlook, National Marine Fisheries Service,
July 1973, p^. 5J, Ave, wholes? Ic pri ce of Kir: <; and .Silver dressed saJmou, 1.972
11-19
-------
Table
Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coastand Alaskan
bottom fish processor, 1972
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (pounds)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flo\v
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (c/,- profit before tax/
total assets)
Plant size
$80,000
Annual sales
115,000
80%
92,000
80,000 y
70,800
14,000
(4, 800)
2,900
1,500
(9,200)
-0-
(9,200)
(6,300)
175,000
61,000
39,000
18,000
79,000
29,000
(11.5)
(11.6)
Plant size
$300,000
Annual sn les
430,000
80%
344, 800
300,000 I/
255, 100
30,000
14,900
4,700
2,500
7,700
1,700
6,000
10,700
300,000
103,000
146,000
67,000
249,000
49,000
2.6
3.1
Plant size
$640,000
Annual sales
915,000
80%
732,000
637,000 }./
534,300
66,500
36,200
13,000
5,500
17,700
4,000
13,700
26,700
675,000
228,900
310,000
143,000
538,900
110,000
2.8
3.3
11-20
-------
Table II-I2- Estimated earnings and cashflow for Atlantic bottom fish
processor, 1972
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (pounds)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
$100, 000
160, 000
75%
120,000
103, 000 J7
84,000
15, 000
4, 000
600
1, 000
2,400
500
1,900
2, 500
75, 000
25, 000
50,000
23,000
75, 000
12, 000
2.3
3.2
PJ.-u-l -,i;-,e
$215, 000
Amr.'.'.l sales
325, 000
75%
250, 000
214, 700J7
175,450
30, 000
9,250
1,250
2, 500
5, 500
1,200
4,200
5, 550
125,000
45, 000
105,000
49, 000
150,000
' 22, 000
2. 6
3. 7
$1 , 720, 000
Annul) G-ilcs
2, 600, 000
75%
2, 000, 000
1, 720, OOOJ7
1,398, 000
200, 000
122, 000
10, 000
20, 000
92, 000
38, 000
54, 000
64, 000
2, 250, 000
750,000
840, 000
390,000
1, 590, 000
360, 000
5. 3
~.i O
\l
Ave. price $.86 per Ib. as reported by selected by Atlantic bottom fish processors,
1972.
11-21
-------
Table II - 13. Estimated earnings and cash flow for anchovy processor, 1972
Plant size
$405,000
Annual sales
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (pounds) 5,800,000
Sales 405,000 i/
Product related expenses 321,000
Plant related expenses 20,000
Cash earnings 64,000
Depreciation 25,000
Interest ' 15,000
Pretax income 24, 000
Income tax 5,400
After tax income 18,600
Annual cash flow 43, 600
Estimated replacement
investment 750,000
Book value investment 225,000
Curreijl assets 130,000
Net working capital 60,000
Total assets 355,000
Estimated long-tcrrn debt 110,000
ROS (% before tax) 6.0
ROI (% profit before tax/ 8.8
total assets)
J_' Ave. price for dried scrap ?nd meal, solubles and oil $.07 per Ib as reported
by selected anchovy proco.'-sors.
11-22
-------
Table II - 14. Estimated earnings and cash flow for Menhaden processor, 1972
I/
Plant Si?ic
$1,200,000
Annual sales
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (pounds)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
13,000,000
1,200,000-'
964,000
95,000
141,000
53,000
53,000
35,000
10,000
25,000
78,000
1,200,000
470,000
390,000
180,000
860,000
225,000
3.0
4.1
_L' Although there are substantial numbers of small fish meal plants, these
arc primarily fish scrap processors, not Menhaden processors.
_.' Ave. price dried meal and scrap, $185.50 per Ion or $.093 per Ib.
Source: Industrial Fishery Products Market Review and Outlook, National
Marine Fisheries Service, July 1973, pg. 19.
11-23
-------
Table II -15- Estimated earnings and cash flow for Er, slnrn fj-esh and f;-r>;-.sn
oyster processor, 19/2
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (pounds)
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capita.!
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (To before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
Plant size
$60, 000
Annual sales
58, 750
85
50, 000
59, 500
49, 500
7,500
2, 500
500
250
1,750
400
1, 350
1,850
25, 000
25,000
9, 500
28,000
13, 000
38,000
2.9
4.6
I- IP. ill Fii-.e
$240, 000
235, 000
65%
200,000
238, 000 J7
198,000
30, 000
10,000
2,000
1, 000
7,000
1, t.OO
5, 400
7,400
100,000
38, 000
115,000
53,000
153,000
2.9
4.6
\ *
-' Ave. price $1. 19 [>?r 1U
Source: Fisherir- 01" [he U^iu-cl S-i.->
Mnrch, 1973, p. 66.
, 197'1, N;;tionn] Marine Fisheries
11-24
-------
Table II -16. Estimated earnings and cash flow for oyster canner, 1972
Plant size
$270,000
Annual sales
Annual capacity
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (cases) -
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
'Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Net working capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
I/
30,000
85%
25,000
268,500
227,500
26,000
15,000
1,000
500
13,500
3,000
10,500
11,500
75,000
25,000
130,000
60,000
155,000
12,000
5.0
8.7
' Standard cases are defined as 24/4-2/3 oz.
2/ Ave. price $10.74 per case.
Source: Canned Fishery Products, 1972, National Marine Fisheries Service,
April 10, 1973, pg. 3.
11-25
-------
Table II- 17. Estimated earnings and cash flow for West Coast fresh and frozen
oyster processor, 1972
Plant si/-,e
$180,000
Annual sales
Annual capacity 165,000
1972 Utilization 90%
1972 Production (pounds) 150,000
Sales ' 178, 500.L/
Product related expenses 152,000
Plant related expenses 15,000
Cash earnings 1 1, 500
Depreciation *> 50°
Interest ' l'°°°
Pretax income 9,000
Income tax 2'00°
After tax income. . 7> 00°
Annual cash flow 8' 50°
'Estimated replacement 40,000
investment
Book value investment 19,000
Current assets 87'°°°
Net working capital 40,000
Total assess 106'°°°
Estimated long-term debt '
ROS (r)c before tax) 5> °
ROI (To profit before tax/
total assets) 8.5
Ave. price $1. 1 9 per ] b. as reported by selected West Coast oyster processors,
1972.
11-26
-------
Table IT -18. Estimated earnings and cash flow for clam canner, 1972
Plant si^e
$240,000
Annual sales
Annual capacity ---
1972 Utilisation ---
1972 Production(c.ases)-// 25,000
°°°
Book value investment 25,000
Current assets 117,000
Net working capital ' 54,000
Total asset;; 142'000
TP 4- 4 1 1 4. 1 1 ,
-L-stimatcd long-term debt
ROS (% before tax) 4> 4
ROI (% profit before tax/
total n.sseto) 7. 4
Stand/rd ca.se defined as 48/6 oz.
? /
_' Ave. pi ice $9. 60 per case.
Source: (':, nvied Fishery Products, 1972. National Marine Fisheries Service,
April 10, 1973, p. 3.
11-27
-------
Table 11-19. Estimated earnings and cash flow for fresh and froxc*i clam pro
c R s s o r s,, 19 7'-.
Annual capacity (gallons)
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (-allon-;) I/
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Interest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
Annual cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current, assets
Net v/orkinj capital
Total assets
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
Plant SLX.C
$75, 000
Annual Sales
26, 000
85%
22, 000
$75, 000
63, 000
7, 000
4, 700
600
400
3, 700
900
2, 800
3, 400
53, 000
25, COO
36, 500
17, 000
61, 500
12, 000
4.9
6.0
' Pit.'
$> r
<-
Ann
88
75
$255
215
24
16
2
1
12
3
9
11
180
85
124
57
209
40
i j i. f » .1 '''i \:
,[,, 000
arJ S. !<-..
, 000
85%
, 000 -I
,000
, 000
, 000
, 000
,000
, 500
, 500
,000
, 500
, 500
, 000
, 000
,000
,000
, 000
, 000
4.9
6.0
~ Gallons ;o-e defii.erl ,. - 8. '('-> Ibs.
o /
' Ave. price $3.40 per r'^lonas rry/orlc-d 1
-------
Table II-20. Estimated earnings and cash flow for Maine sardine processors, 1972
Plant size
$720, 000
Annual sr Ics
Annual capacity (cases)
1972 Utilization
1972 Production (cases) -'
Sales
Product related expenses
Plant related expenses
Cash earnings
Depreciation
Inte rest
Pretax income
Income tax
After tax income
A nn.ua. 1 cash flow
Estimated replacement
investment
Book value investment
Current assets
Networking capital
Total assets
43,
43,
722,
511,
159,
52,
8,
39,
12,
26,
35,
613,
66,
380,
325,
446,
ooo-
100%
000
400 --
300
100
coo
600
300
100
40 C
700
300
000
000
000
ooo
000
Plrnt clKc
$2, 150,000
Anru^l r,a Ics
150,000
85%
127,500
2, 142,000 -
1,490,000
53 5, COO
117,000
25, 500
12, 500
79,000
31, :;oo
73,000
1.950,CJ"
420, G.,G
645,000
1,545,000
Estimated long-term debt
ROS (% before tax)
ROI (% profit before tax/
total assets)
32.0CO
8.8
200,000
'.-. 1
- Slano.-.rd cases dcfj..cd as 100/1/4 lb.
Ave. price $16.?.'0 per case.
Source: Foo'jfjsh M'irkct Revie\\ and Outlook, NationoJ Marine Fisheries Service,
December 1973, p. 50.
11-29
-------
Table 11-21. Summary of financial returns by segment, 1972
West Coast
Fresh and Frozen Salmon
West Coast Salmon
Canner
Western Alaska Salmon
K Canner
i
o
Southeast Alaska Salmon
Canner
Central Alaska Salmon
Canner
West Coast Bottom fish
Table
No.
II-8
II-8
II-8
11-10
II-9 .
II-7
II-7
II-3
II -3
II-3
II-l
II-l
II-l
II -2.
II-2
II-2
11-11
II- 11
11-11
Plant
Size
S
M
L
M
L
M
L
S
M
L
M
LL
L
M
L
L
S
M
L
Sales $
25,000
370,000
1,000,000
389,000
1,657,500
63,000
2, 500,000
489,000
978,000
1,956,000
1,468,000
2,431,000
2,889,000
1,079,000
2, 159,000
3,285,000
80,000
300,000
640,000
Production
(Ibs.)
20,000
300,000
800,000
316,000
1,350,000
(cases)
12,500!/
50,000!/
io,ooo!/
20, 000 1-7
40,000i/
32, 000 !/
53,000!'
63,00o!/
23,000!/
4-o,ooo!/
70, ooo!/
92,000 Ibs.
344,800 ibs.
732,000 Ibs.
ROS %
Before tax
4.5
7.3
8.8
7. 1
7.3
6.1
9.9
(39.3)
(34.8)
(33.5)
(13.6)
(16.4)
(18.1)
(16.3)
(17.5)
(20.4)
(11.5)
2.6
2.8
ROI %
Before tax
6.5
10.8
14.5
7.9
10.2
9.9
14.2
(26.2)
(34.6)
(29.1)
(11.8)
(15.9)
(18.4)
(18.4)
(18.6)
(23.2)
(11.6)
3. 1
3.3
Cash
F lo'.v
1,450
29,400
75,600
30.. 500
116,900
34,000
166,400
(160,000)
(340,000)
(655,000)
(55,000)
(196,000)
(297,000)
(140, OGC)
(295.. OCC)
(562,000)
(6,300)
10,700
26,700
Continued.
-------
Table 11-21. Summary of financial returns by segment (continued)
Sc ament
Atlantic Bottom fish
Maine sardine
Fish Meal, Menhaden,
Anchovy
"West Coast Fresh and
Frozen Oyster
East Coast Fresh and
Frozen Oyster
Oyster Canner
Fresh and Frozen clam
Clam canner
Table
No.
11-13
11-13
11-13
11-20
11-20
11-14
11-13
11-17
11-15
11-16
11-19
11-18
Plant
Size
S
M
L
M
L
S
M
M
M
M
M
M
Sales
100,
215,
1,720,
720,
2,150,
1,200,
405,
180,
240,
270,
255,
240,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
ROS %
Production Before tax
120,
250,
2,000,
43,
127,
13,000,
5, 800,
150,
200,
25,
75,
25,
000
000
000
000
500
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
21
case s±'
cases".'
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
3/
cases'
gal.-'
cases_'
2.3
2.6
5.3
5.4
3.7
3.0
6.0
5.0
2.9
5.0
4.9
4.4
ROI
Before
3.
3.
5.
8.
V
4.
S.
8.
4.
8.
6.
7.
Lax
2
7
8
8
1
1
8
5
6
7
0
4
Cash
Flow
2, 500
5, 550
64,000
35,300
73,000
78, 000
43,600
8,500
7,400
11, 500
11,500
9, 100
' Standards cases defined as 48/1 lb.
U Standard-ea,&e-s~defined as 100/4oz.
' Standard cases defined as 24/4-2/3 oz.
4/
Standard gallons defined as 8.75 lb.
£.' Standard cases defined as 48/5 oz.
-------
Table 11-22. Summary of basic financial characteristics for selected seafood processing segments.
Plant Size
Net Sales
Cost of goods sold
(including all dried
prodact related expenses)
Gross margin
All other expenses
Net income
West
S
100
81.3
18.7
14. 2
4.5
West Coast
Coast fresh an.d frozen salmon salmon canner
M L M L M L
100
80.5
19.5
12.2
7.3
100
80.5
19.5
10.7
8.8
Soxvthea stern Alaska
salmon canner
Net Sales
Cost of poor's sold
(Product related expenses)
Gross margin
All other expenses
Net income
M
100
76.4
23.6
37.2
(13.6)
L
100
79.3
20.7
37. 1
(16.4)
L
100
80.8
19.2
37.3
(18.1)
100
CO. 7
19.3
12.2
7. 1
100
84.4
15.6
8.3
7.3
100
76.
23.
17.
6.
100
4 71.
6 28.
5 18.
1 9.
7
3
4
9
Western Alaska
salmon canner
S M L
100
99.
39.
(39.
100
6 102
4 (2)
7 34.6
3) (34.8)
100
100.5
(-5)
33.0
(33.5)
Central Alaska
salmon canner
M
100
80.2
19.8
36. 1
(16.3)
L
100
80.6
19.4
36.9
(17.5)
L
100
83.
16.
37.
(20.
S
100
1 88.
9 11.
3 23.
West
5
5
0
4) (11.5)
Coast
M
100
85.
15.
12.
2.
bottom fish
L
100
0 83.9
0 16. 1
4 13.3
6 2.8
L
100
86.5
13.5
8.3
5.2
-------
Table II- ?-~. _ Summary of basic- liriaiu'ial cha ra.ct,c ris Ucs ior selected seafood procuring .s c. :;:;-.enti, (continue.^}.
Net Sales
Cost of goods sold
(Product related expenses)
Gross margin
Ail other expenses
Net income
» i
i
UJ
Net Sales
Cost cf i-cods sold
(Product related expenses)
Gross margin
All other expenses
Net income
A'.lamic couorn fish
S M L
100 100 100
81.6 81.7 81.3
18.4 IS. 3 13.7
16.1 15.7 13.4
2.3 2.6 5.3
Oyster canner
M
100
84.7
15.3
10.3
5.0
Maine sardines
M L
100 100
70.8 69.6
29.2 30.4
23.8 26.7
5.4 3.7
F 8c F clam
M
100
84.3
15.7
10.8
4.9
Menhaden Anchovy F c; F oyster
S Ivl M M
100 100 100 100
80.3 79.3 85.2 £3.2
19.7 20.7 14.8 16. S
16.7 14.7 9.8 13.9
3.0 6.0 5.0 2.9
Clam canr.er
M
100
S5.0
15.0
10.6
4.4
-------
III. PRICING
Both the total and per capita consumption of all fishery products by U. S.
consumers have risen gradually since 1955, v/licn the per capita rate
was 10.5 pounds to 12.2 pounds in 1972. Thir- 16.2 percent rise occurred
during a period \vhen the domestic catch used for human food declined.
The fishery industry increased its imports from 1,332 million pounds
in 1955 to 3, 582 million pounds in order to meet the requirements of
U. S. consumers. Since there has been no substantive increase in the
world production fishery products for human food when worldwide
consumption was rising, competitive buying intensified among fish
processors and distributors in various parts of the world. The compe-
tition for available supplies, particularly for such items as shrimp,
crab, tuna, halibut, cod and salmon increased as demand increased
both in the U. S. and other countries.
The result of supply limitations, i.e, , fish meal and salmon, and growth
in demand has resulted in record prices. Industry is quite concerned
over increasing cxvessol prices and further is quite dubious about the
prospects of passing on additional price increases required for pollution
control that would be in addition to previous price increases. It is the
general feeling that substantial price pass through is not realistic for
most segments since consumers would shift to poultry, red meats
or imported processed seafood products where poss ible.
The objective of this chapter is twofold. We shall briefly discuss price
determination and secondly we shall discuss the basic factors influencing
potential price effects,
A. Price Determination
The structure of the industry and the general fragmented nature of the
industry (including the large number of small plants) in essence means
that most of the plants have very little control or influence over final
product prices. The only segment under consideration in this report-
that has any appreciable price leadership is the salmon canning indus-
try. In this segment several larger companies appear to have some
influence in establishing exvcssel and wholesale prices. In all
segments (including fish meal) the prices are a function of supply
and demand forces including the influence of foreign producers. For
example, the influence of foreign production can be observed by re-
viewing domestic fish meal prices as influenced by the anchovy situ-
ation on the supply side and the broiler situation on the demand side.
For the mort part demand and supply dictate prices and the individual
plant ha.s little- control over prices. Recent price increases have caused
III-l
-------
industry considerable concern and the consensus is that with seafood prices
reaching peak levels future price increases are likc-ly to encounter con-
siderable, resistance and reduced sales.
Exvesscl prices as established by rcgiomil auctions or markets and
contracts are sensitive to landings and plant utilisation. Regional
markets such as those in the Boston or New Bedford area serve as
a guide to other buyers and areas and serve to provide benchmark prices.
Seafood processors must therefore decide on a daily basis whether ex-
vessel prices and volumes are sufficient to warrant operating the plaint
for perhaps a minimum of four hours. In other cases processors have
established relationships with fishing fleets whereby one processor pur-
chases the total output of the boat or fleet. In any cafe plant utilisation,
demand and supply are key factors in establishing exvei.se] prices.
Wholesale prices are also determined on a daily basis for some products.
Processors frequently have established informal relationships with
wholesalers so as to be: assured of a steady buyer. This in many cases
requires expanding product lines to accomodcte the wholesaler. Again,
however, Iandi7ig and supplies influence prices. Cold storage units
have increased the ability of many processors to hold product and
capitalize on higher offseason prices.
Basic supply and demand factors in the segments considered in this report
were discussed in Chapter I and will not be repeated here.
B. Potential Price Effects
Price effects induced by pollution controls are perhaps the most critical
and difficult facet of the entire impact analysis. These effects arc critical
in that plant and production impacts are very closely related to the ability
of the industry to absorb, pass forward or pass backward the total and
incremental costs induced by pollution abatement standards. Price effects
are difficult to analyze or ascertain in that the data requirements fre-
quently exceed data availability.
A variety of methods and technique's could be arid have been used to ascer-
tain the price effects of pollution abatement standards. The nature of the
problem, the state of the data, and the number and type of factors in-
volved dictates that the problem be approached in qualitative terms. The
ultimate conclusion, as to the portion of pollution abatement costs to be
passed through will also, by necessity, involve a considerable amount of
judgment.
Ill-2
-------
The ma.rket clearing equilibrium price involves both supply and demand
considerations. The following demand and supply factors are important
in ascertaining the price effects of pollution abatement standards. A
cursory review of the list of factors presented below reveals that many
demand, supply, production and structural factors have been included
and that it would be extremely difficult to express all of the variables
in quantitative terms.
Demand Factors
Substitute and competitive products
Expected demand growth
Foreign demand
Captive usage
Price elasticity of demand
Cross elasticity of demand
Major or dominant demand components
S u pp ly F a c tors
Capacity utilization
Foreign competition
Supply elasticity
Competitive structure of the industry
Market share distribution
Number of producers
Price determination
Relative bargaining power of marketing segments
Industry leaders
Capital acquiring ability
Industry profit variations
. Raw material &. labor availability
Abatement Cost Factors
. Municipal sewer availability by industry segment
. Seginents incurring unequal abatement costs
. Collective and cooperative treatment potentials
. Physical factors affecting abatement costs
Exogenous factors
These factors are explained briefly as follows:
III-3
-------
Substitute Products -- The existence of substitute products wi]l tend to
reduce the amount of water treatment costs that will be pa.ssed to the
final consumer.
Capacity Utilization -- The greater the capacity utilization, for the in-
dustry the greater the possibility of cost pass through.
De! ma_nd Growth -- A rapidly expanding market will tend to increase the
possibility of pollution abatement cost pass through.
Foreign Competition -- The greater the percentage of the domestic market
served by foreign producers, the less likely it is that pollution abatement
costs can be passed through.
Demand Elasticity -- The more inelastic the demand, the more likely
it is that cost can be passed through.
Captive Usage -- Captive usage or fixed consumption will tend to increase
the amount of costs that can be passed through to the-- final consumer.
Abatement Cost Differences -- If some plant or some segments of the
industry will not incur significant or substantial pollution abatement
costs, the less likely it is that the remaining segments can pass through
their pollution abatement costs.
Basis for Competition - - If the basis for competition in the industry is
primarily price as opposed to service, technology or product brand, the
more difficult it will be to pass through cost increases.
Market Share Distribution -- Segments with few concentrated producers
(frequently ^^.ssociatec1 with price leaders) \vill have a greater possibility
of passing through the increased costs associated with pollution abatement
standa rds.
Number of Producers -- The greater the number of producers with
different production cost structure, the more difficult it will be to
pass through increased costs of pollution control, since lower cost
producers may be able to absorb increased costs and expand pro-
duction a', the expense of higher cost producers.
Relative B a r ;ja i n i n g P owe r -- The relative bargaining power of individual
marketing or producing segments will influence the degree of cost pass
through possibilities. If the producers are the dominant bargaining force,
cost increases may be passed backwards and forwards.
Ill-4
-------
Physical Factors - Physical factors affeciing abatement costs wo ;lcl
Tnclu d c tc IT; pe ra tu r e (Alaska vs. Florida), hurnidiLy, topography a m"
related land - ciimate c:onditions.
Exogenous Factors - Factors not directly related 1o the abatement systc n
itself "but which affect abatement costs. The principal one would be
land costs, especially where lagoons or other treatment systems requirir
land are required. In some instances zoning, traffic patterns and plant
locations would directly influence the cost or practicability of abatement
systems .
It must be recognized that the price effects depends on the number of
closures and the number of closures depends on expected price effects.
This simultaneous relationship is not surprising in view of the fact that
any discussion of market clearing price must incorporate both demand
and supply considerations.
The above is a broad overview of the price considerations. This portion
of the methodology will be interfaced with the impact methodology in
the following chapter. The actual price estimates and calculations are
presented in the impact chapter.
III-5
-------
IV. ECONOMIC IMPACT METHODOLOGY
A variety of methods and analytical procedures have been utilized to
assess the economic impacts of effluent limitation guidelines. Dis-
counted cashflow, breakeven analysis and other procedures have been.
applied to the problem. While a number of techniques have been used,
they all have a common objective, i.e. , ascertaining the extent to which
firms are financially impacted by the imposition of mandatory regulations.
Conceptually (in the absence of data constraints) all methods would produce
nearly identical results. Realistically, however, availability is a req-
uisite consideration in selecting the methodology to be employed.
In the case of seafood proce ssirig, a significant amount of data has re-
cently been transmitted to the economic contractor whicn has been used
to supplement existing data banks. This data contains quantity and sales
data for virtually all primary seafood processors. The availability of
tnis data has several implications. These are as follows:
1. An accurate listing of all seafood processing plants--exclusive
of duplication--is now available.
2. Primary processors can be separated from producers of
specialty items.
3. It is further possible to accurately classify or delineate all
plants in the industry on the basis of various characteristics
including sales and quantity of specific product produced.
In summary, it is now possible to deal with selected individual charac-
teristics of all seafood processing plants. As a direct result, the econ-
omic contractor has altered the methodology that is normally used. The
discounted cash flow analysis has been replaced with return on sales
analysis since we can now deal with all plants individually. The profit-
ability measures, and mode] plant data are, however, used in assessing
the severity of the impacts.
A. Fundamental Methodology
The impact methodology consist of five basic parts. A description of
each separate step is present below.
IV-1
-------
1. Industry Segmentation
Industry segmentation is now much more refined and detailed as a result
of the above mentioned data. First, the analysis is limited to primary
seafood processors. Secondly, the data facilitates delineating the in-
dustry on the basis of major commodities produced.
As discussed in Chapter I we have considered only those plants that meet
the 80 percent criteria, i.e. , greater than 80 percent production (on the
basis of sales) of group two species.
This second item, i.e. , 80 percent criteria, greatly reduces! the multi-
product or multi-species problem encountered. Since the effluent guide-
lines are written on a species by species basis and different technologies
are required for different species, some specialization criteria is re-
quired. It must be recognized, however, effluent, limitation guidelines
will eventually cover all species and all plants--multi species and single
species plants. We further recognize that the above 80 percent special-
ization criteria in some respects simply forestalls the difficulties
associated with applying single species guidelines to multispecies plants
until a later date.
In addition to the above items, the quantity data has facilitated a more
refined size classification of plants considered. Annual production data,
length of operating season as provided in the Development Document and
other peak production data provided by EPA (Effluent Guideline Division)
permits classifying all plants on the basis of estimated capacity in tons
per day (raw prodxact basis).
2. Pollution Abatement Cost Conversion
The second major step involves converting and scaling the pollution
abatement cost estimates received from EPA. This includes ascertaining
the correct costs to be applied to the different size plants. These costs
include capital, operating and maintenance and monitoring costs. All
costs are converted or expressed on an annuali-zed basis. This includes
all expenditures required for principal and interest payments on required
capital over a ten year period at eight percent interest. Other interest
rates, both above and below eight percent, were considered, but the
eight percent rate was used in the analysis. These costs (aimualized
capital industry debt service, operating and maintenance and an estimate
of monitoring) are then totaled to arrive at a total annualized cost for
each level of treatment for each plant.
The above costs do not include land acquisition costs for those treatment
technologies (such as lagoons) which require land, and insofar as land
acquisition is required, then these costs would be understated.
IV-2
-------
At the time of the development of this report, eignt percent cost of
borrowed capital was realistic. Persistent inflationary trends and
recent high interest rates tend to make the initial capital costs and
borrowing costs rather conservative. Continued inflation and high
interest rates between now and 1977 could result in substantially higher
production and effluent treatment costs. Increases in final product prices
and technology advances may offset some of the potential effluent treat-
ment cost increases. At the present time, however, no one can accu-
rately project 1977 price levels.
_3. Preliminary Impacts
Preliminary impacts have been computed by expressing total annualized
cost of pollution abatement as a percent of sales. This calculation pro-
vides only a rough estimate of the magnitude of the required expenditures
(annualized) relative to total plant gales.
Industry or segment profitability measures (based on the model plants
presented in Chapter II) will be utilized to determine number of
closures. Differences or variations in processing and profitability
will be accounted for by utilizing profitability ranges and sensitivity
analysis. Final impacts will be determined by relating total annualized
costs of pollution abatement control to sales and to profitability measures
as presented in Chapter II.
4. Price Effects
Estimating possible price effects induced by pollution abatement standards
is the next major step in the analysis. This is perhaps the most difficult
a-nd unsettled step in the entire analysis. The reasons are many but in
general relate to difficulties associated with estimating the influences
of substitution, product elasticity and many other variables and in some
cases, unknown factors.
Ttie economic contractor has reviewed most EPA industrial development
documents, participated in the preparation of others, and reviewed most
of the literature on possible price effects induced by pollution abatement stand
standards. For some commodities and/or industries, it has been assumc.d
thai all costs are passed forward or backward. In other situations all cost
increases are shared by producer, wholesaler or supplier on some basis.
Other examples have been uncovered where the price pass through is
estimated to be greater than the actual pollution abatement costs incurred,
thereby increasing processor margins.
IV-3
-------
A few selected examples will adequately illustrate the complexities in-
volved in projecting price effects. For example, there are no doubt
situations where large producers dominating local markets also have
access to low cost waste treatment options or are currently utilizing
municipal waste treatment systems. Small producers that find it
necessary to finance their own private treatment system at higher costs
may therefore be constrained from passing on all or any added produc-
tion costs incurred as a result of effluent limitation guidelines. Alter-
natively, some producers are able to spread waste treatment costs
over a large number of products and thereby achieve lower per unit
waste treatment costs which will create greater inequities in required
waste treatment costs and total product production costs.
Other producers or perhaps entire regions may gain or already possess
favorable competitive positions due to geographical proximity to markets,
raw product or with respect to land suitable for low cost waste water
disposal. Segments that do not possess these advantages will have
difficulty passing on higher pollution abatement costs and still compete
with low cost producing segments or areas.
Price increases may be further restrained by low cost foreign producers,
e.g., foreign producers that are not subject to EPA regulations and there-
fore effluent treatment costs.
To further complicate matters, economists have not been overly success-
ful and a concerted effort has not been focused on quantifying elasticity
and cross elasticity measures. While some work has been done in this
area, the results as of this time are too general to be useful.
In summary, the economic contractor feels that the most important factors
influencing possible price increases include the structure of the industry,
the strength of product demand, demand for substitute and complementary
products, magnitude of impacts and industry abatement cost differences.
At this point in time, quantitative estimates of these factors are simply
not available and are not likely to be in the near future.
IV-4
-------
The dilemma encountered is that price effects must be considered before
closures are estimated. Simultaneity is also encountered in that closures
influence industry capacity utilization and therefore price effects and
on the other hand industry capacity utilization influences price effects
and therefore potential closures.
The assumption that has been adopted for this report is that the price
effects are assumed approximately equal to the pollution abatement costs
incurred by the largest producers which is viewed as the constraining
factor. In some cases where several large plants are clustered to-
gether, a weighted average has been used to ascertain price effects.
The exact price pass through estimate, by segment is presented in the
impact analysis--Chapter VI.
5. Estimated Impacts
The final step or procedure is that of estimating the number of plants that
will not be able to withstand the net (after price increases) impacts of
pollution abatement standards. This is accomplished by relating profit-
ability levels before the imposition of controls with profitability estimates
after imposing controls.
This step involves considerable judgment in that many quantitative factors
must be considered. Some of these items are:
1. Salvage value of the plant
2. Book value of plant
3. Alternative employment options available to owners and
managers
4. Age of plants
5. Consideration of other constraints such as impending action
by OSHA, FDA
6. Factors such as labor availability, expected industry trends ,
alternative seasonal or part-time employment, land availability,
required modernization, and age of owner also influences
potential closure decisions.
7. Capital acquiring ability
Community impacts, employment effects and balance of trade impacts
can be explored after plant closures have been estimated.
IV-5
-------
The decision to close a plant seldom depends on only one factor. It is
desirable to net out all factors and consider each influence separately.
The complication encountered is that by doing so the sum of the parts
do not necessarily equal the total. For example, the influence of OSHA,
FDA, NMFS, EPA, lack of available labor and required modernization
may not be sufficiently important to classify a plant as a potential closure
when considered separately. When considered jointly, nowever, the total
impact of these factors may be catastrophic. On the other hand, it is not
realistic to assume that all production cost increases are a direct result
of effluent guidelines.
An additional complication is that it is difficult to define "acceptable"
profit levels. At what point or how low do profits have to dip until
they are no longer acceptable. This obviously varies by individual
operator or owner and is influenced by other employment options
available. It is relatively easy to locate seafood processors that are not
realizing what may be considered by many to be sufficient returns based
on the risk and uncertainty associated with the seafood processing in-
dustry. In other cases it must be realized that the owner's labor is
often included in normal production costs and the profit ren: lining must
be viewed as a residual over and above payments to family labor.
The large number of old, small and run-down processing plants may be
viewed as the result of poor profitability and not necessarily the cause
of poor financial performance.
In other words, many factors influence the closure decision of plants
and not all of these factors can be conveniently expressed in quantitative
terms. Judgment, by necessity, must enter the analysis.
Insofar as possible, the estimated number of plant closures is based
on only the impacts of pollution abatement standards. All other in-
fluences are not considered in estimating the number of plant closures.
A schematic presentation or recapitulation of the above methodology is
presented in Figure IV* 1.
IV-6
-------
Figure IV-1. Impact methodology Summary
Industry
Data
Base
i
EPA
Pollution
Abatement
Cost
Data base
Industry Segmentation
1. Primary processors
2. Specialization
3. Plant size
Annualized Cost
by Plant
1. Capital costs
2. O & M costs
3. Monitoring
costs
Preliminary
Impacts
Annualized
cost/sales
by
plant
Price
Effects
V
s
Profitability
Estimates
Estimated
Impacts
-------
V. EFFLUENT CONTROL COSTS
Water pollution control costs used in this analysis were furnished by
the Effluent Guidelines Division of the Environmental Protection Agency.
These basic data were adapted to the types and sizes of plants specified
in the analysis.
Three effluent control levels were considered:
BPT - Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available, to be achieved by July 1, 1977
BAT - Best Available Control Technology Economically
Achievable, to be achieved by July 1, 1983.
NSPS - New Source Performance Standards, apply to
any source for which construction starts after
the publication of the standards.
A. Description of Effluent Control Levels and Costs
The technical document describing the recommended technology for
achieving the BPT, BAT and NSPS guidelines was prepared for EPA
by Environmental Associates, Inc. of Corvallis, Oregon and is titled
"Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
of Performance--Canned and'Preserved Fish and Seafoods Processing
Industry," draft, February, 1974. To avoid duplication and possible
confusion, no details or technical descriptions of BPT, BAT and NSPS
guidelines are given in this report. The interested reader is referred
to the above-mentioned document for technology descriptions and a
complete break down of costs for individual components.
The proposed technologies, capital and operating costs, furnished by
EPA for use in this analysis are shown in Table V-l.
Since the publication of the Development Document selected changes in
treatment strategy and the cost of various strategies have been made by
EPA, Effluent Guideline Division. These changes have been incorporated
in the pollution control cost data illustrated in Table V-l. All pollution
control costs were extrapolated to fit actual plant sizes. Monitoring
costs, not included in the Development Document, were added to the
V-l
-------
Table V- 1
Effluent control costs, seafood processing plants, 1972 -'
Product category .
Fish neal with
solubles plant
Fish ri-sal vnthcut
solubles plant
Alaskan fresh and
frozen salmon
Alaskan salmon
canning
West Coast fresh
and 'rozen salmon
West Coast salmon
canning
Alaskan Bottom fish
Non-Alaskan Bottom
fish (Conventional)
Non-Alaskan Dottoin
fish (Mechanical)
Industry
coverage
f-io size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
Mo size
cut-off
specified
>4,COO Ibs
liveweight
No size
cut-off
specified
Proposed effluent treatment
technology
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I "'
Level I
Level II
Level I U
Level I !/
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I y
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
In plant changes
In plant changes
In plant changes
with barging
Solubles plant
Grinding
Screening with
barging
Screening, air
flotation with
barging
Screening with
barging
Screening, air
flotation with
barging
Screening
Screening, air
1'loLut.ioii
Screening
Screening, air
flotation
Grinding
Screening, with
barging
Screening, air
flotation with
barging
Screening
Screening aerated
lagoon
Screening
Screening, air
flotation
4/
Capital costs
Costs have not been
Costs have not been
49 TPD
38.06W
200 TPD
225,000
53 TPD
317000"
78,600
214,600
150 TPD
54,030 '
146,000
862,000
35 TPD
16,000
62,000
40 TPD
35,000
157,000
106 T?D
38,000
98,040
294,040
43 TPD
19,000
53,000
49 TPD
-2470GO
104,000
90 TPD
119^950
589,950 '
?3 TPD
TTTOC'J
45,000
estimated
estimated
100 TPD
35,000
13 TPD
24,000
55,900
131,900
20 TPD
30,000
71,560
237,560
n TPD
11,000
41,000
15 TPD
727000
90,000
14 TPO
20,000
58,000
121,000
10 TPD
T2.000
23,000
8 TPD
"T6
63
Daily operating and
maintenance cost
and are assumed
and are assumed
200 TPD
200
53 TPD
47
192
209
150 TPD 90
97 87
443 366
568 453
35 TPD
5
23
50 TPD
8
46
106 TPD
63
188
200
43 TPD 23
6 5
13 11
49 TPD
6
30
to be small
to be small
100 TPD
130
13 TPD
43
164
180
TPD 20 TPD
5S
236
260
11 TPD
13
15 TPD
5
27
14 TPO
54
150
161
TPD 10 TPD
4
9
a TPD
5
19
-------
Table V-1. (continued)
Product category
Clans(conventional)
Clams (mechanical )
West Coast hand
shucked oysters
F.T.tnrn h.inrf
shucked oysters
Steared or canned
oysters
Maine sardine
Alaskan scallops
Non-Alaskan scallops
Herring Fillets
Non-Alaskan
Herring filleting
Ascians/sea
ur;hin
Industry
coverage
> 4,000 Ibs.
liveweight
No size
cut-off
specified
> 1,000 Ibs.
liveweight
- i,nno ih->.
liveweight
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
specified
No size
cut-off
Proposed effluent treatment »,
technology Capital costs -
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I -1
Level II
1 ovol I
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I -1
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
Level I
Level II
46 TPD
Screening 21 ,000
Screening 21,000
265 TPD
Screening 66,000
Screening, aerated 120,000
lagoon
3.2 TPD
Screening 20,000
Screening extended 94,000
aeration
S< riM-ii in;)
Screening, extended
aeration
Screerri ng
Screening, aerated
lagoon
65 TPD
Screening 31 ,3007
Screening, air 87,300
flotation
Grinding
Screening, with
barging
Screening, with
barging
Screening
Screening
Grinding
Screening, with
barging ' .
Screening, air
flotation, with
barging
Screening, air
flotation
Screening, air
flotation
Screening
Screening
27 TPD
18,000
18,000
78 TPD
29,000
62,000
1.6 TPD .8 TPD
16,000 8,000
79,000 33,000
1.6 T=D
TTToJir
48,000
7 TPO
26,000
56,000
44 TPD 17 TPD
19,350
45,350
20 TPD
45,000
82,000
82,000
50 TPD
"T7TCOO
17,000
179 TPD
~5i76oo
173,600
849,600
179 TPO
313.C30
313,000
7 TPD
7,000
7, COO
Daily operating and
maintenance cost
46 TPD 27 TPD
5 5
5 5
265 TPD 78 TPD
13 7
33 16
3.2 TPD 1.6 TPD .8 TPD
554
15 12 11
1.6 TPD
4
n
7 TPD
6
14
- 66 TPD 44 TPD 17 TPD
40 18
53 23
20 TPD
"23
61
61
20 TPD
t
1
179 TPD
To
358
432
179 TPD
85
86
7 TPD
3
3
-------
Table V-l. (Continued)
I/ Source: Effluent Guidelines Division, Environmental Protection Agency, from materials developed by Environmental
~~ Associates, Inc., 1974 cost adjusted to 1972 levels by DPRA by applying appropriate cost adjusting factors. Costs
are also scaled to reflect appropriate plant sizes.
11 Grinding is the recommended technology for Remote Alaskan plants, screening with barging is recommended for
Non-remote Alaskan plants.
3_/ Level I refers to Best Practicable Technology (1977), Level II refers to Best Available Technology (1983).
4/ Cost of Level I starting from no control. Does not include land acquistion costs. Plant size represents estimated
peak capacity in tons raw product per day.
5/ Barging costs for fish rr^al plants without solubles plants is expressed in annual costs only.
-------
pollution costs illustrated in the above table. Further, land acquisition
costs for technologies that require land have not been included. Normal
land preparation costs for technologies requiring land were, however,
included in the respective cost estimates.
All effluent control technologies, costs and related plant characteristics
to which these costs apply were specified by EPA Effluent Guidelines
Division, based on the technical report of Environmental Associates, Inc.
All treatment system costs are in terms of 1971 dollars, and it has there-
fore been necessary to up-date these to 1972 dollars by the use of
appropriate cost inflators, i.e. , Index of Sewage Treatment Plant Construe'
tion Costs for Investment and the Implicit Price Inflator for GNP for
operating costs.
B. Current Status of Effluent Control in the Industry
The availability and usage of municipal wastewater treatment systems is
an important factor influencing potential closures of seafoods processing
plants For the purposes of this study, estimates of percent of plants on
municipal treatment systems were provided in the Development Document.
These estimates are shown in Table V-2. For those plants, located on
the water front, which do not have sewer connections, fishery processing
wastes are usually returned to the ocean through outlet pipes. In some
instances, solids are ground before being discharged. In other instances
screens are used to remove solids which are then disposed of in land fills
or, in a few cases, are processed into animal feeds, pet foods or fer-
tilizer. Estimates of the percent of plants which currently have screens
in place are also presented in Table V-2.
While only the costs of "end of pipe" treatment strategies have been
considered herein it must be recognized that plants discharging into
municipal treatment systems will also be financially impacted. As a
general rule, however, the hook-up and user fees for disposing of liquid
wastes into municipal systems are less than privately owned treatment
systems. Since the cost of discharging into municipal systems varies
from community to community these impacts have not been considered.
It should also be brought to the reader's attention that exceptions do
exist. Examples can be sited, where the municipal sewer charges are
in excess of the total annual cost of privately owned treatment systems.
Other examples, can also be sited where seafood processors were pre-
vented from acquiring municipal sewer hook-ups.
V-5
-------
Table V-2. Industrial waste treatment model data--
Percent treatment existing for each subcategory.
No. of
Subcategory Plants
Fish meal
w/solubles plant
w/o "
Salmon canning
F/F salmon
process
Bottom fish
process
Sardine canning
Herring filleting
Pickled herring
Mackerel canning
Clam
mechanical
conventional
Oyster
steamed
conventional
Scallop
Abalone
Sea urchin
Lobster
American
spiny
20
10
*
*
*
17
7
10
4
27
7
48
27
*
20
6
*
*
Existing Treatment
% Municipal % Screen
20
60
30
25
35
15
15
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
80
90
0
85
N.A.
80
50
0
20
80
15
0
90
5
0
0
0
20
65
0
5
0
Ave. Flov;
gal./min.
3884
208
277
40.
128
163
310
195
1370
61
85
170
25
79.
8.
8.
190
3
6
5
6
3
Note: * indicates all plants that exceed 20 in number; N.A. r.oans
it was not necessary to screen since solids were removed
prior to discharge.
Source: "Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
Standards of Performance -- Supplement A, Canned and Preserved Fish
and Seafood Processing Industry," draft document, February, 1974.
V-6
-------
The estimates of percent of plants on municipal systems and the percent
of plants with screening currently in place (presented in Table V-2)
were used in the analysis. For segments that do not appear in Table
V-2, it was assumed that all were direct dischargers. Using this data
and the economic contrator's knowledge of the industry, the percent of
directed dischargers for BPT and BAT was estimated as presented in
Table V-3.
V-7
-------
Table V-3. Industrial waste treatment model data--
Percent Direct Dischargers I/
Segment
Bottom fish
(Conventional)
Bottom fish
(Mechanized)
Clams Fresh and Frozen
(Conventional)
Clams Fresh and Frozen
(Mechanized
Eastern Oysters
Canned
Eastern Oysters
Fresh and Frozen
West Coast Oysters
Fresh and Frozen
West Coast Canned Salmon
West Coast Fresh and
Frozen Salmon
Maine Sardines
Fish Meal (w/solubules)
Fish Meal (w/o solubules)
Alaskan Salmon Canning
Alaskan Bottom fish
Abaloije
Herring Fillets
Scal)o]>.'>> non- Alat-kan
% of PJants
Direct Dischargers
requiring BPT
65
65
100
65
100
100
100
20
20
50
80
20
100
100
10
85
80
% of PJ
Direct Dis
requirir
65
65
100
70
100
100
100
70
70
65
80
40
100
100
20
85
80
Source: Based on Table V-2 and additional data estimates by Ihc economic
contractor. ,
-------
VI. IMPACT ANALYSIS
The imposition of effluent controls on the seafood processing industry
will have both direct and indirect impacts on the industry, on consumers,
on its suppliers and on communities in which plants are located. An
analysis was made, for specified effluent control technologies in both
quantitative and qualitative terms.
The following types of impacts will be discussed.
Price Effects
Financial Effects
Production Effects
Employment Effects
Community Effects
Balance-of-Trade
A. Total Investment Required under BPT and BAT
Table V-l presents the estimated total investment required for BPT
guidelines. These estimated costs were calculated on a plant by plant
basis and then aggregated for each segment and for the nation. The
estimates are net of estimates in that those plants that are on munici-
pal systems or currently have screening "in place" are not included
in. the totals. The total investment for BPT is $5,500, 300.
Table V-l shows total investment for BAT guidelines also. Total
investment for BPT + BAT was $13,059, 100.
Annual costs, including debt service, operation and maintenance and
monitoring for BPT and BPT + BAT is $1, 150, 400 and $2, 806, 200,
respectively.
B. Price Effects
As will be seen in the production effects section of this chapter, the
role of price effects in this analysis is critical. The industry is one
with a relatively low value added and low profit margin in relation to
sales. A small change in the wholesale price with raw product prices
VI-1
-------
Table VI-1. Estimated total investment and annual cost of BPT and BAT effluent limitation guidelines
Segment
Fish Meal (w
solubles)
Fish Meal (w/c I/
solubles)
Alaskan Fresh &
Frozen Salmon
(non-remote)
Alaskan Fresh &
Frozen Salmon
(remote)
Alaskan Salmon
Canning (Non-
remote)
Alaskan Salmon
Canning (Re-
mote)
West Coast
Fresh and '
Frozen Salmon
West Coast
Canned Salmon
No. of
plants
16
6
7
24
9
50
1
9
Plants
above
cut-off
16
6
7
24
9
50
1
7
% plants I/
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BPT
80
20
100
100
90
100
20
20
% plants I/
direct dis-
chargers re- BPT
quiring BAT Invest
$
80 0
40 0
100 216,400
100 380,400
100 393,700
100 2,132,600
70 0
70 31,700
Annual^
$
0
0
68,800
100,500
96,500
426,000
0
5,200
BPf
BAT
Invest
$
0
0
560,100
620,500
623,600
5,308,300 1
28,700
401,400
Range for annual
costs as % of sales
Annual^/ BPT
$
0 None
0 9.6-22
123,600 .8-11
202,400 .2-4.
107,000 .7-16
,274,100 .2- 2
5,000 .4
67,000 .3-1.
BPT+BAT
None
.9 6.7-16.0
.3 1.4-15.9
1 .8-11.3
.9 2.4-20.0
.8 .6- 5.8
1.3
2 1.2 - 4.1
-------
Table VI-1. cont.
Segment
Alaska/1, Bottom-
fish -'
Bottom Fish
(Conventional )
Bottom Fish
(Mechanized)
Clams Fresh and
Frozen (Con-
ventional )
Clams Fresh and
Frozen (Mecha-
nized)
West Coast Oysters
Fresh and Frozen
Eastern Oysters
Fresh and Frozen
Eastern Oysters
Canned
Maine Sardines
No. of
plants
1
128
14
60
7
32
338
4
16
Plants
above
cut-off
1
59
14
20
7
18
109
4
16
% pi ants L/
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BPT
100 .
65
65
100
65
100
100
100
50
% pi ants L'
direct dis-
chargers dis-
quiring BAT
100
65
65
100
70
100
100
100
65
BPT
Invest
$
0
307,200
206,700
183,400
113,000
182,800
814,600
45,700
199,000
BPT
BAT
Annual */ Invest
$ $
0 0
61,500 575,300
37,600 758,600
37,500 183,400
20,900 267,200
34,100 229,900
163,800 2,589,600
7,600 98,300
43,600 521,100
Range
costs
Annual */ BPT
$
0
116,000
135,000
37,500
49,600
37,700
470,800
16,600
107,100
13.2
.1-2
.1-.
.3-1
.5-.
1.0-1
.4-1
.5-.
.3-3
for annual
as % of sales
BPT+BAT
17.0
.1 .2-4.2
4 .4-1.7
.8 .3-1.8
6 .9-1.3
.6 3.6-5.7
.0 1.6-3.6
8 1.0-1.7
.7 .7-9.8
-------
Table VI-Leapt.
Segment
Alaskan Scallops
Non-Alaskan
Scallops
Herring
fillets
Abalone
Total $S
No. of
plants
1
5
2
5
Plants
above
cut-off
1
5
2
5
% plants LI
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BPT
100
80
85
20
% plants i/
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BAT
100
80
85
20
5
Invest
$
0
9,600
280,900
2,600
,500,300
BPT
Annual^/
$
0
1,500
44,800
500
1,150,400 13
BPT
BAT
Invest
$
0
9,
280,
2,
,059,
600
900
600
100 2
Annual JJ
$
0
1,500
44,800
500
,806,200
Range for annual
costs as % pf sales
BPT
None
.1-56.0
3.6-18.
.2-1.0
BPT+BAT
None
.1-56.0
9 3.6-18.9
.2-1.0
y Source: Effluent Guidelines Division, Environmental Protection Agency, from materials developed by Environmental
Associates, Inc., 1974 cost adjusted to 1972 levels by DPRA by applying appropriate cost adjusting factors. Costs
are also scaled to reflect appropriate plant sizes.
-/ Grinding is the recommended technology for Remote Alaskan plants, screening with barging is recommended for Non-remote
Alaskan plants.
-/ Level I refers to Best Practicable Technology (1977), Level II refers to Best Available Technolpgy (1983).
3S Cost of Level I starting from no control. Poes not include land acquisition costs. Plant size represents estimated
pesk capacity in tons rsw product per day.
-/ Barging costs for fish meal plants without solubles plants is expressed in annual costs only.
-------
staying constant results in significant changes in industry profits. The
converse of this argument is likewise true. Hence, if an increase in
processor margins can be expected as a result, of mandatory effluent
treatment practices, the adverse economic impacts of those controls
on the industry will be substantially ameliorated.
The extent to which price increases can be passed on depends on many
factors. These factors include essentially all demand and supply con-
siderations and were enumerated in Chapter IV. Some of these factors
are repeated below.
1. the number of firms in the industry
2. the number of plants with low cost waste treatment
options such as municipal sewer
3. the relationship of domestic production relative to
imports
4. possible substitution effects
5. the competitive structure of the industry.
The complicating factor encountered is that many of the above items as
well as those presented in Chapter IV can not, at this time, be expressed
in quantitative terms.
The competitive nature of the industry, -the importance of imports, the
large number of small independent plants and the fact that in some cases
we are dealing with a product that has very limited shelf or freezer life
indicates that the industry is not in a position to demand and realize un-
limited price increases resulting from effluent guidelines or increased
production costs. In some segments products can be retained or stored
for some time by the processor only to be subjected to additional discounts
by the wholesaler.
In general, the industry can be characterized as "price takers". Price
levels are determined by the strength of aggregate demand, existing
supplies and prices of competitive products. We therefore assume that
as a general rule only modest price increases can be passed on to the
consumers. Further, we do not expect that exvessel prices will decline
as a result of pollution abatement standards. A general scarcity of fish
and other seafoods will tend to keep exvessel prices as high as tjie market
will allow. A reduction in processor margins can therefore be expected
for most seafood processing plants in the short run.
VI-5
-------
The price increases that are utilized in the analysis are assumed to be
approximately equal to the impact which would be experienced by the
largest plant within each segment. In some cases where several larger
plants cluster at the upper end of the size spectrum, a weighted average
price increase has been used. In other situations where various seg-
ments are in direct competition, i.e., Alaskan salmon and West Coast
salmon, a weighted average between segments has been adopted.
In almost all segments the largest plants in each segment are only slightly
impacted by the proposed guidelines, which means that the price increases
utilized in the analysis are quite small and that price increases which will
be available to small plants will be no greater than those for large plants.
The exact price increase that has been assumed for each segment is
presented in the production effects section of this chapter. The basic
assumption, i.e., that price effects will be limited to the impact of the
largest plant in the respective segment, is the most pragmatic and
realistic considering the structural characteristics of the segments
arid the industry. The reader is encouraged to refer to Table VI-2
to review the exact price pass through that was used in the analysis.
C. Financial Effects
Financial profiles for the relevant portions of the seafood processing
industry have been presented ir: Chapter II of this report, Basic in-
dustry information and data assimilated during the completion of this
section of the study has revealed that there is a great disparity in profit
rates, production practices, prevailing technology and expected future
profitability within and between all industry segments.
Attempts to acquire specific plant financial data have also indicated that
many plants and entire industry segments are operated on a day to day
basis influenced primarily by the availability of raw product. Detailed
raw product costs, production and financial data, are in many cases
considered incidental to raw produc^ availability. Variation in raw product
availability and the failure of many plants to account accurately for spec-
ific production costs and financial data has, in some cases, thwarted
attempts to quantify numerous inter and intra industry relationships.
These constraints have necessitated a higher degree of generalization
than normally desirable. In summary, the impacts of pollution abate-
ment standards within segments were developed by using fundamental
industry relationships, profitability le els reported by knowledgeable
industry representatives, published reports and derived relationships.
VI-6
-------
Profitability ranges based on the model plants developed, as well as
numerous industry contacts are presented in the production effects
section of this chapter. Table VI-2 presents the profitability levels
used in the analysis.
D. Production Effects
Of fundamental interest are the production impacts which the imple-
mentation of BPT and BAT effluent controls may bring out. Of par-
ticular interest are potential plant closures. As discussed in Chapter
IV, the methodology used is a return on sales framework of analysis.
The financial burden of pollution abatement standards was applied to
the industry segments to ascertain the financial impacts. Inference
regarding closures for each segment was drawn, based on the relation-
ship of annualized pollution abatement costs as related to prevailing
profitability levels and sales. The number of plant closures is "net"
in that they reflect only those plants that do not discharge to municipal
systems or those plants that do not have waste treatment equipment in
place at this time. The number of plant closures indicated represents
only closures directly attributable to costs associated with the establish-
ment of pollution control systems. Other closures, due to economic
conditions, poor management, etc. as reflected by the general trend
in plant numbers in these industry segments (the baseline condition),
would primarily be found in very small plants below the cut-off limits
specified.
1.' Potential Plant Closures Under BPT Assumption
BPT effluent limitation guidelines as presented herein suggest relatively
low level treatment technologies. In most segments, the small plants
will be impacted more severely than larger plants due to lower profit-
ability levels and higher per unit waste treatment costs. The differential
impacts have been at least partially circumvented by providing cut-off
points or levels which exempt small plants from the guidelines.
It should also be recognized that the impacts assessed are applicable to
national effluent limitation standards only. No attempt has been made to
assess the economic impact associated with more restrictive state or
local effluent limitation standards. States that pass more restrictive
standards must recognize that as more sophisticated treatment strategies
are required, the economic impact may be greatly increased.
VI-7
-------
Expected price increases, profitability levels and projected plant closures
are presented in T, ble VI-2. All calculations were corrpleted on a plant
by plant basis. The results of these calculations were then aggregated
into multi-plant groups to prevent divulging individual plant data.
It shoxild be pointed out that baseline closures have not been specified.
It is, however, expected that past trends will continue through 1977 and
1983 and some small plants will close or discontinue production prior
to the 1977 or 19^>3 implementation deadline. Baseline closures are
most likely to include those plants that are projected as closed or
threatened because of the guidelines. Estimated number of plant
closures because of the guidelines may be expected to err on the
high side of the realized closures.
Fish Meal
Proposed effluent limitation guidelines for fish rneal processing plants
includes housekeeping for the plants with solubles and bargir^ for those
plants that do not have solubles plants. Impacts were not computed for
the plants with solubles in that housekeeping costs were not p>rovided«
Since these requirements are relatively minor and therefore inexpensive,
no significant impacts are projected for fish meal plants with solubles.
A total of 6 (out of a total of 22) fish meal plants currently do not have
solubles plants. Since there is no treatment available for stickwater, it
is recommended that fish meal processes without solubles plant barge
stickwater, recycled bailwater and washdown water to sea. The pre-
ferred method, however, would be to direct or funnel the waste flows
to a fish meal plant with solubles capabilities in the near vicinity for by-
product recovery or to build a solubles plant. This option is currently
being practiced by some plarus in the industry.
The cost of BPT guidelines was computed on the basis of leasing the
required barges. On this basis the annual costs would he in excess of
$100, 000 for larger non-solubles plant, and the guidelines would result
in the closing of all fish meal processing plants without solubles recovery.
This, however, is an overstatement of the impact in that some non-
soluble plants currently utilize the ' y-product recovery facilities of
other plants. Data reviewed and developed by the economic contractor
indicates that at least 1 plant does not have the option of utili2;ing
the solubles facilities of other processors. The projection is that.this
plant will be forced to discontinue operations or to build adequate by-
product recovery facilities. Thi -= closure estimate may vary by one to
two plants in either direction. Regardless, industry production should
not be significantly affected since remaining plants would have sufficient
excess capacity to compensate for the closure of this one plant.
VI-8
-------
Table VI-2. Number of plants, price effects and BPT impact by industry segment.
Total
no. of
Segment/size plants
Fish meal with
solubles (16)
Fish meal without (6)
solubles
> 40-150 TPD
> 150 TPD
Alaskan Fresh and
Frozen Salmon (non-
remote)
< 10 TPD (7)
> 10-20 TPD
> 20 TPD
Alaskan Fresh and
Frozen Salmon (Re-
mote) (24)
< 10 TPD
> 10-20 TPD
> 20 TPD
Alaskan Salmon
Canninq (non-
rerrote)
<50 TPD (9)
>50 TPD
No. of
plants
above
cut-off
Costs
2
4
3
2
2
14
7
3
8
1
Estimated Total annual ized Assumed Estimated
precontrol pollution price Net impact closures
profitability abatement pass (cost as % attributed
level costs through of sales) to BPT
(% of ROS) (% of sales)
have not been
3.0
3.0
5.9
8.8
8.8
5.9
8.8
8.8
4.ff
5.6
estimated, and are
17.00
10.20
8.3
1.9
.8
2.95
.65
.25
3.90
.70
assumed to be small
) 0.0 17.00 None
) 10.20 ll/
) 7.9 3
) - .4 1.5 1
) .4 None
) 2.55 8
) .4 .25 None
) No impact None
t
) 3.60 3
) .3 .40 None
-------
Table VI-2. cent.
Segment/size
A", ;:skan Salmon
Canning (remote)
< 42 TPD
42-111 TPD
> 111 TPD
West Coast Fresh
and Frozen Salmon
4 TPu
West Coast Salmon
Canning
< 15 TPD
> 15 TPD
Alaskan Bottom Fish
(Non-remote)
Bottom fish
"(Conventional)
> 2-5 TPD
> 5-15 TPD
> 15-30 TPD
Lot torn Fish
Mechanical)
> 24-35 TPD
> 35 TPD
Total
no. of
plants
(50)
(1)
(9)
(1)
(128)
(14)
No. of
plants
above
cut-off
13.
17
20
1
3
4
1
30
5
8
6
Estimated
precontrol
profitability
level
(% of ROS)
2.8
4.5
4.9
7.3
6.1
9.9
2.6
2.6
2.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
Total annuali zed
pollution
abatement
costs
(% of sales)
1.40 )'
.40 )
.25
.4 )
.75 )
.30 )
13.20 )
.80 )
.50 )
.30 )
.30 )
.30 )
Assumed
price
pass
through
.3
.4
.3
.3
.3
.3
Net impact
(cost as %
of sales)
1.10
.10
No Impact
No Impact
.45
No Impact
12.90
.50
.20
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Estimated
closures
attributed
to BPT
6
None
None
None
None
None
1
5
None
None
None
None
i i
i
-------
Table VI-2 .cont.
Segment/size
Clams Fresh and
Frozen
Total
no. of
plants
(60)
No. of
plants
above
cut-off
Estimated
precontrol
profitability
level
(% of ROS)
Total annual i zed
pollution
abatement
costs
(% of sales)
Assumed
price
pass
through
Net impact
(cost as %
of sales)
Estimated
closures
attributed
to BPT
(Conventional)
> 2-15 TPD
> 15-40 TPD
> 40 TPD
Clams Fresh and
Frozen
(Mechanical) (7)
>40 TPD
West Coast Oysters
fresh and frozen (32)
>.5 - 2 TPD
> 2 - 3 TPD
> 3 TPD
Eastern Oysters
fresh and frozen (338)
> .5 - 1 TPD
> 1 - 2 TPD
> 2 TPD
Eastern Oysters
canned (4)
12
7
1
< 1.75
> 1.75
12
3
3
67
36
6
2
2
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
5.0
5.0
1.55
1.05
.60
1.90
1.70
1.10
.75
.60
.50
,75
.50
) - .3
.50 ) .3
) 1.0
) - .5
1.25
.75
.3
.5
.20
.90
.70
.10
.25
.10
No Impact
.25
No Impact
4
2
None
None
3
1
None
None
None
None
None
None
-------
Table VJ-2.cont.
Segment/size
Maine Sardine
< 40 TPD
> 40 - 60 TPD
> 60 TPD
Alaskan Scallops
Non-Alaskan Scallops
< .5 TPD
Herring fillets
4.5 TPD
149 TPD
Aba! one
< 5 TPD
Total
no. of
plants
(16)
(1)
(5)
(2)
(5)
No. Of
plants
above
cut-off
6
7
3
1
5
1
1
5
Estimated
precontrol
profitability
level
(% of ROS)
2.70
2.70
1.85
Costs have
3.00
5.0
5.0
3.0
Total annual ized
pollution
abatement
costs
(% of sales)
1.10 )
.40 )
.35 )
not been estimated
2.10- )
18.90 )
3.60 ) --
.45 )
Assumed
price
pass
through
Net impact
(cost as %
of sales)
.90
.20 .20
.15
, and are assumed to be small
.2 1.90
15.30
3.6 No Impact
.4 .05
Estimated
closures
attributed
toBPT
1
None
None
2
1
None
None
-------
A word of caution should be interjected at this point. Some meal plants
are operated as an intricate part of larger processes. If, for example,
separate and distinct guidelines apply to separate components of a large
complex process, high costs may be incurred in separating waste flow
streams. The closing of a meal plant that is associated with a complex,
integrated operation will certainly impact the entire production complex,
and the firm may be willing to reallocate part of the meal plant overhead
costs to other divisions and thus keep the plant in operation.
Salmon
1. Alaskan Salmon-- Two categories are proposed for Alaskan Salmon.
These segments are mechanized and hand butchered salmon processes.
These categories are further delineated into geographical subsets, i.e.,
remote and non-remote. Remote plants are those plants not located
in major Alaskan cities or in locations where good transportation facilities .
exist. Non-remote plants are located in major cities (e.g. Anchorage or
Fairbanks) or in locations having good transportation services. The
proposed BPT guidelines for Alaskan hand butchered, non-remote
salmon include grinding, screening and barging solids to sea. Hand
butchered for remote locations requires grinding and ocean outfall.
The proposed guideline for mechanized salmon is identical, i.e.,
screening and barging for non-remote and grinding for remote.
The above segmentation has been somewhat difficult to deal with due to
the fact that one cannot readily identify type of process from plant lists.
However, most of the salmon canning operations in Alaska are at least
partically mechanized. The impacts were computed on the mechanized
basis. Grinding costs range from $30, 000 to $54, 000 for a 20 ton per
day plant and a 150 ton per day plant respectively. Screening and barging
costs vary from $71, 000 to $146, 000 for the same plants.
The impact analysis reveals that the remote plants will be impacted from
1 percent of sales to approximately 2. 6 percent of sales. Only a small
portion of this cost is expected to be passed on in the form of higher
product prices.
After examining profitability, plant size and pollution abatement costs,
the economic contractor has estimated that 14 remote plants are expected
to close. Most of these plants are relatively small. This represents
approximately 11 percent of the production of all remote plants.
Non-remote plants (required to screen and barge) will be impacted from
0.4 percent of sales to 7.9 percent of sales. After examining profitability,
sales, plant size and pollution abatement costs, the economic contractor has
classified 7 plants as expected closures. These closures would represent
approximately 38 percent of the total production of all non-remote plants.
\ VI-13
\
-------
A word of explanation is perhaps required. First, it should be recognixed
that extreme vaviati. .3 in yearly landings, climatic conditions and un-
certainty in general icreases the difficulty of projecting plant closures.
Secondly, industry representatives are quite concerned about the disposal
of solids. In many topographic, climatif or unique local conditions im-
pose serious constraints for the disposal of solid wastes. The industry
already faces serious problems in solid waste disposal. Costs of solid
waste disposal adJed to effluent disposal costs could increase plant closures,
These constraints are discussed in Chapter VII. Finally, the classifica-
tion of remote and non-remote is somewhat obscure and perhaps should
be implemented on a plant by plant basis after specific constraints, i.e.,
barging and land disposal conditions at specific locations, are further
clarified.
In general, there are many factors (mostly nonquantifiable) that may
influence actual plant closures. These factors must be assessed on a
plant by plant basis. The best approach may therefore be to flovelop
a procedure where the specific waste treatment requirements reflect
the unique constraints of individual plants.
2. West Coast Salmon - Categories "R" and "S" of the guideline's are
entitled West Coast hand butchered and West Coast mechanized salmon.
These categories include a total of 10 plants that meet the 80 percent
criteria as discussed in Chapter I. The impacts were computed on the
basis of the mechanized costs in that most plants are at least partically
mechanized.
The technical development document has estimated that 30 percent of
the. West Coast salmon plants are currently on municipal sewers. The
development document further estimated that 50 percent of the West
Coast salmon plants have already installed screens. On this basis and
Since the net cost of screening is expected to be approximately $22, 000 -
$35, 000 or about half of one percent of sales, the economic impact of
effluent guidelines for the West Coast Salmon segment is very minor and
no plants are projected as definite closures.
Bottom Fish
1. A la skan B ott om Fi sh - The Alaskan bottom fish segment has been the
topic of considerable interest in recent years. Many feel that this fisherx
resource has great potential and will be the outlet for considerable invest-
ment in the future. At the pres-nt time, however, the resource is not
heavily utilized. Data for 1972 indicates that 14 plants processed
bottom fish. Most of these plants were multispecie plants with most
of the production devoted to salmon and/or shellfish. These data indi-
cate that bottom fish comprised a significant portion of total plan;, pro-
duction in only one plant.
VI-14
-------
The investment cost of grinding varies from $20, 000 for a 14 ton plant
to $38, 000 for a 106 ton per day plant. Screening and barging costs
vary from $58, 000 for the 20-ton plant to $98, 040 for the 106-ton plant.
These costs are sufficiently large to identify one plant as a closure as
a result of BPT guidelines.
2. Non-Alaskan Conventional Bottom Fish. The guidelines apply to
conventional and mechanized bottom fish plants located in the contiguous
48 states. This includes a total of 142 plants that meet the 80 percent
specialization criteria.
The basis segmentation criteria, i.e., conventional as opposed to
mechanized is required due to the fact that water usage varies directly
with mechanization. Checks with industry and government personnel
failed, however, to isolate any source of data accurately portraying
the number of mechanized plants. The difficulty is that mechanization
is a continuum and not an either/or situation. Plants may use mechanized
processes at a number of production stages. For example, skinning may
be performed manually or by machine. The two processes could be com-
bined in any form, i. e., manual or mechanized as plants vary in the
degree of mechanization employed.
Since it is impossible to accurately ascertain the number of mechanized
plants, we have first estimated the impacts assuming the upper ten
percent (based on sales) of plants are mechanized and the remainder
utilize conventional processes. It is assumed that the larger plants
are those which are mechanized.
The impact for the mechanized plants is minimal. No plants are
classified as threatened or closed.
The impact for the conventional plants is greater than that for the
mechanized plants.- The results of the analysis indicates that small
plants (2-5 tons per day) will be impacted on an average of approximately
.5 percent of sales. Plants between 5 and 15 tons per day will be im-
pacted on an average of .20 percent of sales. Larger plants (greater
than 15 tons per day) will experience no impact. On this basis the econ-
omic contractor (after examining sales, profit, effluent treatment costs
on a plant by plant basis) has projected 5 small plant closures.
The impact has been substantially reduced as a result of the 2 ton per
day cut-off, i.e. , plants producing less than 2 tons per day are exempt
from the guidelines, as are those plants on municipal sewers.
VI-15
-------
3. Miscellaneous bottom fish - Impacts of BPT guidelines on miscellaneous
bottom fish are shown in Table VI-3. A total of 34 plants, both conventional
and mechanized, were identified. Of these 17 were larger than cut off
levels. Only one conventional plant was projected to close a=> a result of
BPT guidelines. r"he impact on production would be negligible as re-
maining plants couio process the volume lost by this closure.
Clams
The guidelines apply to both hand shucked and mechanized clam processing.
BPT guidelines require screening for all plants greater than 2 tons per day
(live weight basis). All plantti less than two tons per day are exempt from
the guidelines.
On the basis of the analysis, we again find that the small plcints are dis-
proportionately impacted. Four closures are projected for the first
group of hand shucked plants above the 2 ton per day cut-off, i.e. 2 to
15 tons per day. On the average these plants will experience an impact
of 1.25 percent of sales. In addition two conventional plants in the 15-45
TPD range are projected to close with a price impact of .75 percent of
sales. The closing of these plants would represent a loss o' 5 percent
of total industry capacity.
The per unit cost of the technology decreases rapidly as size of plant
increases. The net impact for the mechanized clam segment (assumed
to be the largest 10 percent of plants in the industry) is 0.20 percent of
sales. This is not sufficiently large to classify the plants as potential
closures.
Oysters
1. West Coast, fresh and frozen - Plants producing less than 0.5 tons
per day are exempt and this small plant cut-off effectively eliminates
numerous small, and in sor-e cases inefficient, marginal plants. All
categories recommend screening, estimated to cost between $8, 000 for
an 0.8 TPD plant to $20, 000 for a 3.2 TPD plant. The price impact ranges
from . 10 percent for a 3 TPD plant to .90 percent for a 0. 5 - 2 TPD
plant. Three closures of small (0.5 - 2 TPD) plants and one medium (2-3 TPD)
plant closure are projected. Loss of production would be approximately 20
percent, but could probably be absorbed by the remaining plants.
2. Eastern and Gulf, fresh and fr .zen - There are 338 plants in this
category, of which 109 are above cut off levels. Screening costs, for
a 1.6 TPD plant are estimated at $11,000. P^-ice impacts are small
(. 10 - .25 percent) and no plant closures are projected for this segment.
VI-16
-------
Table VI-3. Estimated impacts of BPT and BAT effluent limitation
guidelines for miscellaneous plants
Segment
Bottom fish
(Conventional)
Bottom fish
(Mechanized)
Clams Fresh & Frozen
(Conventional )
Clams Fresh & Frozen
(Mechanized)
Eastern Oysters
Fresh and Frozen
Blue Crab
Catfish
Shrimp
No. of
plants
17
17
13
13
29
16
8
27
Plants
above
cut-
off
12
5
11
3
11
14
1
25
% Plants \l
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BPT
65
65
100
65
100
80
80
85
% Plants \J
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BAT
65
65
100
70
100
80
80
85
BPT Impacts
Closures
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
11
BPT + BAT
Impacts
Closures
2
1
Same
0
3
0
1
17
I/ Source: Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines, and data estimates made
by the economic contractor.
-------
3. Eastern Canned Oysters - There are only four plants identified in
this category, none are exempt. Screening costs for a 7 TPD plant are
estimated at $26, 000. Price impact- are small and none of these plants
are projected to cl<_ e,
4. Miscellaneous EasternOystei Processors - These are processors for
whom oysters constitute less than 80 percent of total volume but are,
nevertheless, the primary species processed. Twenty-nine plants were
identified, with 11 being above cut-off levels (Table VI-3). All were
direct dischargers. Imposition of BPT guidelines is not expected to
result in any closures in this group of processors.
Maine Sardines
Economic impact of BPT effluent limitation guidelines that have been
analyzed for Maine sardines and includes only screening, capital
requirements are estimated to vary from $19, 350 for a 17 TPD plant
to $31,300 for a 66 TPD facility. In accessing the economic impact,
every attempt wa - made to utilize representative cost data. Th j fre-
quency of monitoring was established at what some feel to be ?rMtrarily
high levels. This was done to insure that the costs indue' d in the analysis
were not understated. Further, since the effective operation of this par-
ticular technology is time consuming and therefore costly, Effluent
Guidelines Division has increased the initial cost estimates to insure
that representative cost estimates are utilized and to provide for
engineering services required by the system. In summary every
attempt has been made to guarantee that appropriate or realistic
costs arc involved in the analysis.
The profitability estimates dev<^ oped in Chapter II for Maine Sardines were
based on 1972 production data. Correspondence with the industry indi-
cates that 1972 was an atypical year. Landings were high and the con-
census of that 1972 was perhaps the most profitable year in the last
10 production seasons. For the above reason the analysis or computation
of closures was based on a profitability rate of 50 percer1" of those pre-
sented in Chapter II.
On the basis of the above we have determined that the net impact is as
high as 0.9 percent of sales for plants with capacity of less than 40 tons
per day. It is projected that 1 plar will close and tr*e impact on pro-
duction will be minimal.
VI-18
-------
Scallops
Recommended control for non-Alaskan scallops is screening with
an estimated investment of $17, 000. However, these plants are
small, .5 TPD and the investment is thus relatively large. Five
plants were identified. Net impact, cost as percent of sales, was
1.9 percent and two small scallop plants were estimated to close.
Herring Fillets
Only two plants were identified, one with 4.5 TPD capacity and the
other, a large plant, with 149 TPD. The small plant would be heavily
impacted, costs 15.3 percent of sales, and would close. The other
plant would not be heavily impacted and would remain in operation.
Abalone
Five abalone processors were identified. Only screening is required
and the net impact was small, .05 percent. No abalone processors
should close as a result of BPT controls.
Miscellaneous Phase I Plants
Plants which processed a mix of Phase I and Phase II species could
not be analyzed when the Phase I guidelines were published. Now that
Phase II is ready for publication, these plants have been included in
the economic impact section. Miscellaneous plants that process mostly
a particular Phase II specie have been discussed with that specie (see
Bottomfish Clams and Oysters). Ir this section, the impact on plants
which process a mix of species, but mostly one of three Phase I species
(Blue Crab, Catfish and ShrimD)will be discussed. The analysis was
conducted on a plant-oy-plant basis and is summarized below.
Prices -- Blue Crab price increases are projected to be 0.2 percent
for BPT and 0.5 percent for BAT. Catfisa prices are not expected to
be increased. Shrimp price increases are projected as 0. 2 percent
for BPT and 0.5 percent for BAT. These estimates are equal to the
price increases projected for these species under Phase I since these
miscellaneous plants are only a minor part of the industry.
Production/Shutdown Effects -- No blue crab processors of the 16 plants
in this segment are projected to close. One catfish processor of the 8
in this segment is projected to close due to BPT (or BAT). Of the 27
shrimp processors in this segment, 11 closures are estimated for BPT
and 17 closures are projected for BAT. Industry production will not be
VI-19
-------
significantly affected since these plants are small and a large portion
of supply comes from the exclusive plants covered under Phase I. The
remaining plants c.- make up for the lost capacity from these projected
closures.
E. Employment Effects
U Distribution 01 Employment by Plant Size
There is substantial concentration.of employment in large firms in the
seafoods processing industry. Published data are not available on each
industry and product category considered in this study, but industry
wide data from the Census of Manufactures provides an indication of
the situation which exists.
In the fresh and Cro^en packaged fish industry, in 1967, 79 percent of
the plants employed les > than 50 people and accounted for 29 p-ii cent
of total employment. At the other end of the scale, 3 per ent of the
plants employed over 250 people, but had 34 percent of the total number
of employees. Details, by plant size are shown in Table VT-4.
In the canned, cared and preserved seafoods industry, in 196i7, 75 percent
of the plants employed less than 50 people and accounted for 23 percent
of total employment. In the large plant category, 3 percent of the total
number of plants employed over 250 people, but had 33 percent of the
total number of employees.- .Details, by plant size, are shown in
Table VI-5.
Approximately 91 percent of the total employees in the fresh and frozen
fish industry and 89. percent in the canned seafoods industry are pro-
duction employees.
2. Possibility of Reemployment in New Plants Being Built
There would be little probability that new plants would be built in the
same area to replace small or obsolete plants which were forced to
close because of their inability to id necessary equipment to comply
with water pollution control requirements. This is especially true for
the Alaskan segments. It does, however, hoW to varying degrees for
-------
Table VI-4. Employment in the fresh and frozen packaged fish
industry, by size group, 1967 _'
Number of
employees Number of
per plant establishments
Less than 10
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 249
250 - 499
500 and over
Total
178
213
65
25
11
6
497
Number of
employees
600
5,600
4,500
3,500
3,500
3,800
21,400
Average per
firm
3.4
26.3
69.2
140.0
318.0
633.0
43.1
Source: Census of Manufactures, 1967, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Table VI-5. Employment in the canned and cured seafood products
industry, by size group, 1967 _'
Number of
employees
per plant
Less than 10
10 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 249
250 - 499
500 and over
Total
Number 'of
establishments
109
131
46
26
4
4
320
Number of
employees
400
3,300 '
3,300
3,700
, 1,500
3,600
15,800
Average per
firm
3.7
25.2
71.7
142.0
375.0
900.0
49.4
27 Source: Census of Manufactures, 1967, U. S. Department of
Commerce
VI-21
-------
the other segments as well. Small seafood processing plants face sub-
stantial disadvantages due to economies of scale in processing and water
pollution control operations. As a result, it is doubtful that these small
plants would be re ced since medium or large plants which might sur-
vive could.absorb i; ^ added volume represented by these small plants.
Obsolete plants are most likely tc- persist in areas where the fishing and
seafood processing industries are declining and as a result there would
be little inducement to replace plants in these areas. New plants built
would be in the medium-to-large size range.
3. Absorption 01 Laid-off Employees by Other Plants
However, it is probable that good reemployment opportunities would
exist in those medium and larq;e plants which would be able to bear the
cost of effluent control programs* Many of the jobs in the fishery pro-
cessing industry required skilled or semi-skilled labor and a high pro-
portion of displaced labor should be able to find jobs in the remaining
plants. There is, also, the possibility that some plants could increase
imports of part'-lly processed raw materials, reorganize their produc-
tion lines and concentrate on final processing only. To the extent that
this occurs, sorre employees would be retained and the adverse unemploy-
ment impacts partially ameliorated. In general, however, this is expected
to have a minor influence on unemployment impacts.
4. Direct Emp^yment Effects
On the basis of the plant closures estimates presented earlier (Tables
VI-2 and VI-3), it is estimated that approximately 750 jobs will be lost
from BPT guidelines. A sizeable portion of this loss is contributed by
the bottom fish, Alaskan Salmo- and oyster segments. Table VI-6 shows
employment less for both BPT and BAT, by segment. However, since
substantial reemployment opportunities are expected, the net loss in
employment from BPT controls is estimated to be 190 jobs.
5. Secondary Unemployment Effects
The closure of seafood processing plants could result in some unemploy-
ment among fishermen who depended on these plants to provide a market
for the fish and shellfish which they caught.
The exact magnitude of the indirect effects is not known at this time,
however, it should be kept in mind that the indirect effects may well
be expected to exceed the lirect effect. Additional indirect effects would
be experienced by transportation agencies, especially air freight, suppliers
of ice, cans, cartons, and othe. packing materials and other supplier
firms associated with the seafoods industry.
-------
Table VI-6. Estimated direct employment loss attributal to BPT and BAT guidelines
for selected segments
Segment and technology level
Fish meal (w solubles)
Fish meal (w/o solubles)
Alaskan Fresh and Frozen
Salmon
Alaskan Salmon Canning
West Coast Fresh and Frozen
Salmon
West Coast Salmon Canning
Alaskan Bottom Fish
Non-Alaskan Bottom Fish
Clams Fresh and Frozen
West Coast Oysters Fresh
and Frozen
Eastern Oysters, Fresh
and Frozen
Eastern Oysters, Canned
Maine Sardines
Alaskan Scallops ._/
Non-Alaskan Scallops
Herring Fillets
Abalone
Total , ,
Less: Reemployment --'
Net employment lost
Total no.
of plants
16
6
31
59
1
9
1
142
67
32
338
4
16
1
5
2
5
Total no. of
employees
800
75
820
5,100
-JU /
I/
1,680
*/
5,800
2,400
630
6,000
790
1,250
*/
45
270
*/
No. of
employees
jobs lost
for BPT
0
10
100
150
0
0
*/
220
80
120
0
0
40
0
20
10
0
750
560
190
No. of
employees
jobs. lost
for BPT-iBAT
0
10
300
550
0
160
*/
440
80
510
920
0
230
0
20
10
0
3,230
2,820
TlO
*/
Data not available
' Due to geographic concentration of plants and their utilization of present capacity,
reemployment in plants not affected is predicted for most segments, with the ex-
ceptions being remote Alaskan salmon processors and Maine sardine processors.
VI-23
-------
Community Effects
Direct and indirect employment, losses can soon be transmitted into ad-
verse community effects. The data used in the analysis was actual pro-
duction, sales and volume data on a plant by plant basis. Actual plant
location information and firm names were not included. This prevents
pin-pointing the actual location of potential closures. The discussion
of community effects must therefore be couched in a very general frame-
work.
Although the closing of a major canner or freezer represents a sub-
stantial economic loss to any community, the impact in a major city
such as Los Angeles, Sari Diego or Tampa, would not be as disastrous
as would the closing of a much smaller plant in a location such as Kodiak,
Alaska (population under 3, 000) where processing of fishery products is
the primary local industry. Although the situation in Kodiak is dramatic
because of the concentration of seafood processing at this location and the
lack of alternative employment opportunities, the impact of plant closures
would be equally severe in large numbers of isolated communities where
the laiiding and processing of fish and shellfish represents a major segment
of the local economy. Even considering recmployment possibilities in
surviving plants, the loss of a plant in a specialized seafood processing
community cannot help but damage the economic base of the area.
Without knowing the exact location of plant closures, it is not possible
to list specific communities where the impact can be expected to be
acute. It is possible, based only on the number of plant closures, to
state only that adverse community impacts are most likely in Alaska,
Maine and the rural areas of Chesapeake Bay. While this is hardly a
definitive statement of community impacts further refinement is not
possible at this time.
G. Balance of Trade Effects
All other factors being equal, effluent limitation guidelines will have an
adverse effect on U.S. trade balances. Increased production costs
emanating from effluent limitation guidelines will tend, ceteris paribus,
to increase the competitive advantages of those foreign producers who
are not subject to pollution controls. The net effect of the guidelines
could result in forcing additional processing overseas.
The total value of U.S. fishery imports (edible and non-edible) reached
an all time high of $1, 578, 700, 000 in 1973. This represents an increase
of 6 percent over 1972. While a dramatic shift is not expected in 1977,
VI-24
-------
domestic producers are finding it increasingly difficult to compete
with foreign producers. Approximately 70 percent of all seafood
products consumed in the U.S. is provided by foreign processors.
Increased production costs for domestic processors can not help
but increase the advantages of foreign competitors.
The impacts of BPT standards are not great in terms of production
lost, however, minor price increases are projected in all segments.
It must also be remembered that EPA is not the only Federal agency
that has or will implement industry standards or controls which may
be passed on in terms of higher prices.
The net balance of trade effect is unknown, however, the direction is
well established.
H. Impact of BAT Guidelines
Impacts for 1983 (BAT) guidelines were computed in the same manner
as the previously discussed BPT guidelines. Table VI-7 presents num-
ber of plants, profitability levels, annualized costs as a percent of sales,
assumed price pass through, net impact, estimated number of plant
closures, and estimated number of threatened plants.
As may be expected, the higher level technology results in greater costs
and a greater number of closed or threatened plants. For example, 42
Alaskan salmon plants are listed as closures. In total 135 plants are
projected as closures for the segments presented in Table VI-7.
It should be pointed out that the above numbers are net of BPT closures.
A summary of projected closures due to BAT follows:
Segm ent Number of Projected BAT Closures
Fish Meal (without solubles) 1
Salmon
1. Alaskan salmon, canning (non-remote) 8
2. Alaskan salmon, fresh and frozen (remote) 11
3. West Coast salmon, canning 1
Bottom Fish
1. Conventional processing 11
2. Mechanical processing 2
VI-25
-------
Table VI-7. Number of olants, price effects and BAT imoact by industry segment
Total
no. of
Segrr.ent/size plants
Fish meal
(with solubles) (16)
(v/ithout solubles (6)
> 40 - 150 TPD
Alaskan Salmon
Canning (Non-remote)
< 50 TPD 9
> 50 TPD
^(Remote)
V < 42 TPD 50
is* > 42 - 111 TPD
°* > 111 TPD
West Coast Fresh
& Frozen Salmon
- 4 TPD (1)
West Coast Salmon
Canning
<15 TPD (9)
>15 TPD
Bottom Fish
(conventional) (128)
>2 - 5 TPD
>5 - 15 TPD
§15 - 30 TPD
(mechanical) (14)
x >2^ - 35 TPD
>35 TPD
Estimated Total annual ized
precontrol pollution
No. of profitability abatement
plants level costs
above (%
cut-off
Costs have not
Solubles Plants
2
4
8
1
13
17
20
1
3
4
30
24
5
8 '
6
Assumed
price
pass
through
Net impact
(cost as %
of sales)
Estimated
closures
attributed
to BAT
of ROS) (% of sales)
been
3.0
3.D
4.8
5.6
2.8
4.5
4.9
7.3
6.1
9.9
2.6
2.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
estimated and are assumed
7.76
7.48
6.30
2.40
3.60
1.30
.80
1.30
2.80
1.25
1.70
1.00
.75
1.5
1.10
to be small
j 0.0
)
)
)
) 1.0
)
1.0
\
)
)
) -7
)
7
/
7.76
7.48
5.30
1.40
2.60
.30
No impact
.3
1.80
.25
1.00
.30
.05
.45
.40
None,
1 If
8
None
9
2
None
None
l
None
9
2
None
1
-------
Table VI- 7. (continued)
Segment/size
Estimated
Total precontrol
no. of No. of profitability
plants plants level
Total annualized Assumed
pollution ' price Net impact
abatement pass (cost as %
costs through of sales)
Estimated
closures
attributed
to BAT
Clems, Fresh
and Frozen
^conventional) (60)
"T--15 TPD
>15 - 40 TPD
>40 - TPD
(mechanical)
>40 - TPD (7)
West Coast Oysters
Fresh and Frozen (32)
_>JL- 2 TPD
>2.0^~3 TPD
>3.0 TPD
Eastern Oysters
Canned (4)
^T775
> 1.75
Fresh and Frozen (338)
> .5 - 1 TPD
>1.0 - 2 TPD
>2.0 TPD
Maine Sardines (16)
< 40 TPD
> 40 - 60 TPD
> 60
above
cut-off
12
7
1
12
3
3
2
2
67
36
6
6
7
3
(% of ROS)
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.70
2.70
1.85
(% of sales)
1.55
1.05
.60
1.10
7.6
7.4
4.4
1.60
1.10
2.90
2.20
1.80
3.00
1.10
1.00
.90
) 3.7
1.00
) 2.0
) .5
1.25
.75
.30
.20
.90
3.70
.70
.60
.10
.90
.20
No impact
1.50
.60
.50
4
2
None
None
11
3
1
None
None
28
4
None
3
None
None
-------
Table VI- 7. (continued)
Segment/size
/vaskan Scallops
Non-Alaskan Scallojjs
< .5 TPD
Herring Fillets
<4.5 TPD
>149 TPD
Abalone
< 5 TPD
Estimated Total annual ized Assumed
Total precontrol pollution price Net impact
no. of No. of profitability abatement pass (cost as %
plants plants level costs through of sales)
above
cut-off
(1) 1
(5) 5
(2)
1
(5)
5
(% of ROS)
Costs have not
3.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
(% of sales)
been estimated and are assumed to be small.
2.10 .2 1.90
18.90 ) , , 15.3
3.60 ) J'D ' No impact
.45 .4 .05
Estimated
closures
attributed
to BAT
2
1
None
None
- Closures of all plants without access to solubles plants.
oo
-------
Segment Number of Projected BAT Closures
C lam s 6
Oysters
1. West Coast, fresh and frozen 15
2. Eastern and Gulf fresh and frozen 32
3. Eastern, canned None
Sardines 3
Scallops 2
Herring fillets 1
Abalone None
Total BAT Closures 93
Several qualifications should, however, be stated at this time. These
are as follows:
1. The structure of the industry is expected to undergo con-
siderable change between now and 1983. Baseline closures
are expected to continue. Larger, more efficient, mech-
anized plants are expected to increase in number and im-
portance. Small, marginal plants will continue to face
financial hardship and subsequently discontinue production.
2. Significant changes in water use, water efficiency and waste
treatment are expected. The net effect may be reduced per
unit waste treatment costs.
3. Increased by-product recovery (reduction and solubles plants)
and greater efficiency are likely to result in more recovery
facilities and greater efficiency in general.
4. The number of plants served by municipal waste treatment
systems is expected to increase.
5. Developments in Alaska will change the status of some plants'
from remote to non-remote.
VI-29
-------
6. BAT guidelines will be reviewed before 1983.
7. Profitability levels and production costs will also change
from those presented in Chapter II.
In the aggregate, the above factors will influence the accuracy of the
closure estimates presented in Table VII-7.
I. Combined Impact BPT + BAT Guidelines
The combined impact BPT + BAT guidelines is shown in Table VI-8.
By way of summary, the combined BPT + BAT closures are as
follows:
Segment
Fish Meal
With solubles
Without solubles
1.
2.
Salm on
1. Alaska, canned
2. Alaska, fresh and frozen
3. West Coast, canned
4. West Coast, fresh and frozen
Bottom Fish
1.
2.
Clams
Alaska
Continental U.S.
Projected BPT + BAT Closures
None
1
19
18
2
None
1
13
Oysters
1. West Coast
2. Eastern and Gulf, fresh and frozen
3. Eastern, canned
Sardines
Scallops
Herrin fillets
15
32
None
2
1
Aba lone
Total BPT + BAT closures
VI-30
113
-------
Table VI-8. Estimated impacts of BPT and BAT effluent
limitation guidelines
Segment
Fish meal
With solubles
Without solubles
Salmon
Alaskan fresh and
frozen (n on -remote)
Alaskan fresh and
frozen (remote)
Alaskan canning
(non-remote)
Alaskan canning
(remote)
West Coast fresh
and frozen
West Coast canned
Bottom fish
Alaskan bottom fish
Non-Alaskan (conven-
tional)
Non-Alaskan
(mechanized)
Clams
Fresh and frozen
(conventional)
Fresh and frozen
(mechanized)
No. of
plants
16
6
7
24
9
50
1
9
1
128
14
60
7
Plants
above
cut-
off
16
6
7
24
9
50
1
7
1
5?
14
20
7
% Plants If
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BPT
80
20
100
100
90
100
20
20
100
65
65
100
65
% Plants I/
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BAT
80
40
100
100
100
100
70
70
100
65
65
100
70
BPT
Impacts
Closures
0
1 2/
4
8
3
6
0
0
1
5
0
6
0
BPT + BAT
Impacts
Closures
0
12/
4
14
8
n
0
2
1
11
2
6
0
-------
Table VI-8. (Continued)
I
OJ
Segment
Oysters
West Coast fresh
and frozen
Eastern fresh and
frozen
Eastern canned
Maine Sardines
Scallops
Alaskan scallops
Non-Alaskan scallops
Herring Fillets
Abalone
No. of
plants
32
338
4
16
1
5
2
5
Plants
above
cut-
off
18
109
4
16
1
5
2
' 5
%Plants I/
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BPT
100
100
100
50
100
80
85
20
% Plants I/
direct dis-
chargers re-
quiring BAT
100
100
100
65
100
80
85
20
BPT
Impacts
Closures
4
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
BPT + BAT
Impacts
Closures
15
32
0
3
0
2
1
0
I/ Source: Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines, and data estimates made by the
economic contractor.
2j Closures of plants without access to a solubles plant.
-------
J. Impact of New Source Performance Standards
New Source Performance Standards apply to any source for which
construction starts after the publication of the standards. The re-
quirements are presented below.
Title New Sovirce Performance Standards
Fish meal
With solubles Housekeeping
Without solubles Solubles Plant
Alaskan hand butchered
Salmon
Non Remote In plant, grinding, screening, barging
Remote In plant, grinding, screening, barging
Alaskan mechanized
Salmon
Non Remote In plant, grinding + flotation
Remote In plant, grinding, screening, barging
West Coast Hand In plant, screening, flotation
Butchered Salmon
West Coast Mech- In plant, screening, flotation
anized Salmon
Alaskan Bottom fish
Non remote In plant, grinding, screening, barging
Remote In plant, grinding, screening, barging
Non Alaskan Con- In plant , screening, aerated lagoon
vention Bottom fish
Non Alaskan Mech- In plant, screening, flotation
anized Bottom fish
Hand shucked clams In plant, screening
Mechanized clams In plant, screening, aerated, lagoon
VI-33
-------
Title
New Source Performance Standards
West Coast Hand In plant, screening, extended
Shucked Oysters
East and Gulf Coast In plant, screening, extended
Oysters aeration
Steamed, canned In plant, screening aerated
oysters lagoon
Main Sardines In plant, screening, flotation
Alaskan Scallops
Non remote
Remote
In plant, grinding, screening, barging
In plant, grinding, screening, barging
Non Alaskan Scallops In plant, screening
Alaskan herring
fillets
Non remote
Remote
In plant, grinding, screening,
In plant, grinding, screening, barging
Non Alaskan herring In plant, screening, flotation
fillets
Abalone
In plant, screening
For the most part, new source performance standards will not halt
new investment in seafood processing facilities. Even though sub-
stantial impacts and relatively high baseline closures have been
projected, new plants are planned or proposed. This stems from the
fact that new production facilities are different than the projected
closures. The closures are predominately obsolete, inefficient pro-
duction facilities that have outlived their usefulness. New facilities
tend to be large, mechanized and efficient multi-specie processing
units.
VI-34
-------
One factor that should be considered, however, is that industry views
waste treatment and a host of other government regulations as a never
ending array of restrictions that can never be satisfied. The uncertainty
relevant to unknown standards is a deterrent to new investment.
However, long run plants and investment can and will be made if
future requirements are clarified.
VI-35
-------
VII. LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS
A. General Accuracy
The seafoods processing industry is complex in terms of the number,
ownership, location, type and size of plants. Variations in the seasonal
pattern of operations, extreme variation in climatic conditions (Kodiak,
Alaska to Key West, Florida) and substantial differences in raw produce
characteristics all contribute to the complexity of this industry.
Published data on sales and quantities of seafoods are generally released
in aggregate form. A substantial effort was made to develop supple-
mental detail to simplify and to improve the accuracy of the analysis .
In addition, considerable time has been spent supplementing original
data sources and revising critical assumptions. Even though additional
time and effort has been invested, there is still a great deal of unex-
plained variation from plant to plant. There are very few industries
in the U.S. that are more complex in terms of number and type of
plants than the seafood processing industry.
Throughout the study, an effort was made to evaluate the data available
and to update these materials wherever possible. Checks were made
with informed sources in both industry and government to help insure
that data were as reliable and representative.
Although processing cost data, information on investments and profit-
ability information must be considered approximate, general information
on these items was obtained from a substantial number of processors and
when classified and cross-checked, showed reasonable degrees of con-
sistency.
Published information from the Internal Revenue Service, Standard and
Poors, Dun and Bradstreet, and other sources of data on financial ratios
and financial performance were also used as checks on the reasonableness
of results obtained in the impact analysis.
While the accuracy of this report has been enhanced by greater coopera-
tion and data availability, the complexity of the problem and data limita--
tions are such that judgment is invariably involved. Whenever judgment
is involved, the possibility of error increases.
These errors emanate from a variety of sources. Collectively, they
maybe additive or offsetting. Some of the major sources of possible
error are enumerated below.
VII-1
-------
I. Effluent Control^Costs
Water pollution control costs were furnished by the EPA Development
Document. These costs were developed for a variety of industry
categories, subcategories and effluent treatment systems. It was
necessary to adapt these effluent control costs to the types and sizes '
of plants used in this analysis. Whenever it becomes necessary to
ascertain estimates of effluent treatment systems for plant sizes other
than that provided, the possibility exists that the cost extrapolation
technique utilized may not be appropriate. Most extrapolation tech-
niques assume smooth functions when in fact step functions may exist.
2. Current Effluent Treatment Status of the Industry
Assumptions concerning the current effluent treatment status of the in-
dustry are also critical to the analysis. In this report, based on the
recommendations of the EPA Development Document, it was assumed
that only limited investment in pollution abatement equipment is current
"in place".
3. Current Status of Municipal Treatment in the Industry
Only limited information is available concerning the number, location and
types of seafoods processing plants discharging into municipal sewage
systems. These estimates were presented in Chapter V. Although these
estimates are not based on a complete survey of all of the plants in each
area and product category, it is believed that contacts made in each area
were adequate to provide a useful estimate of the importance of municipal
waste treatment system connections to the seafood processing industry.
In some situations, e.g., Astoria, Oregon and Terminal Island, California,
expanded and/or improved sewage treatment facilities are either planned
or actually under construction. These new facilities will relieve the situa-
tion in those locations as they are completed and come on stream.
4. Estimating Peak Capacity
This possible error stems from the fact that effluent control costs
are or should be based on peak capacity of the plant which must
be estimated. In the seafood processing industry, plant capacity is
a rather nebulous concept. This stems froxn the fact that plant capacity
may be doubled or expanded greatly by simply adding an additional
fillyiing table.
VII-2
-------
Peak plant capacity was assumed to be thirty percent greater than aver-
age annual prodtiction. This assumption was based on the recommenda-
tions of the EPA Development Document.
5. Economic Status of the Industry
In addition to the above factors there is likely to be a great deal of varia-
tion in the economic profiles of individual seafood processing plants.
Throughout the report we have estimated profitability by industry seg-
ment. These estimates are broad generalizations for the entire segment.
The profitability of any one plant may deviate from the industry average
by a factor of two or more.
6. "Shutdown" Decisions
The general purpose of the "shutdown" analysis is to examine the profit-
ability of plants before and after the imposition of effluent limitation
guidelines, to determine the probability of plant closures and to calculate
the price changes required to cover the added effluent control costs.
This requires assumptions relative to numerous factors which are described
in detail in previous sections of this report. Assumptions utilized were
made on the basis of the best information which could be developed regarding
conditions prevailing in the seafoods processing industry. The possibility
of error does however exist.
7. Price Effects
The extent to which the seafoods industry and the specific segments
considered, can pass increased costs forward to consumers or back-
ward to fishermen is an important factor affecting the impact which
pollution control costs would have on the industry. Little information
is available on demand elasticity for seafoods and even less on supply
elasticity. Thus the price effects and impacts assumed are value
judgments and as such represent a possible source of error.
8. Inflationary Trends
Another source of concern to industry is the inflationary spiral that
has persisted in recent years. 1972 was used as the base year in the
analysis.
Continuation of these trends will increase production, effluent treat-
ment costs and final product prices. The net effect on processor mar-
gins can not, however, be determined at this time. For example, recent
communications with blue crab industry representatives indicate that
labor payments have increased 25 percent, cans 5 percent and energy
cost 80 percent in recent months. These increases are of great concern
to industry and the reader is advised that these costs have not been reflected
in the 1972 data used in the analysis.
VII-3
-------
B. Other Considerations
While an attempt was made to utilize all data available, there are
several other areas and methodological procedures embodied in the
report that influence the overall accuracy of this document.
One of these factors stems from the fact that the analysis assumes "end
of pipe" treatment. In many areas cooperative treatment, reduction of
solids, cooperative barging will substantially reduce the actual effluent
treatment cost.
At the direction of EPA it was also assumed that the current effluent
treatment status of the industry is very low. In most segments, how-
ever, one can easily locate plants with fairly advanced effluent treat-
ment systems. Since it is assumed that the current treatment status of
the industry is less than is actually in place, it appears that the projected
closures may be on the high side.
Still another factor which has been difficult to analyze is the impact on the
mechanized processing segments. This terminology is somewhat mis-
leading in that there is not a clear cut distinction between mechanized and
non-mechanized segments. Some plants may utilize machines in various
processes at peak processing periods. During periods of low plant utiliza-
tion, all processes maybe performed manually. In most cases, the num-
ber of mechanized and partially mechanized plants is simply not available.
For the above reasons, the taxonomy, i.e. , mechanized as opposed to
conventional, is simply not a useable framework or segmentation basis.
In addition, it has not been possible to analyze in detail the incremental
aggregate effects of other regulatory programs (FDA, OSHA, State
laws, etc.) which place specific requirements and costs on the seafoods
industry.
In summary, the above material briefly discusses several factors that
would increase or decrease the number of plant closures projected here-
in. Other factors not discussed could also influence the accuracy of the
analysis. In general, however, it is believed that the impacts projected
in this report could be represented as the worst or extreme situation
and that the actual closures may be fewer in number.
C. Selected Qualifications for Alaskan Segments
There are some indications that solid waste disposal in Alaska continue
to be a problem for industry. There are further indications that there
are many physical constraints to both barging and/or land fill. These
items reappear frequently in the solid waste disposal summary presented
VII-4
-------
below. Land fill and barging constraints exist and are heavily dependent
upon local conditions. The following summary is intended as a descrip-
tion of constraint at selected locations. These problems should be explored
prior to 1977 and 1983.
1. Problems Associated with Land Fill Solids Disposal in Alaska
General - Land fills are governed by State law. In order to obtain and
keep a State permit, strict conditions must be met. Land fills must be
operated in a sanitary manner in acceptable locations without risk of
contamination to state waters by seepage or leakage. Sufficient soil
must be available to cover the dumped materials at the end of each day's
operation. The operation must not cause any esthetic or ecological
dama ge.
None of the plants listed in this report is presently using a land fill for
disposal of seafood processing waste. In some areas the surrounding
land is definitely not suitable for land fill. In the other areas where the
distance to the site is listed, the site is potential and conditions would
have to be further investigated before a final decision could be made.
Bristol Bay - The land area in Bristol Bay is at approximately sea level.
It is flat and there are numerous lakes and pot holes. The surface is
covered with tundra with underlying permafrost. Land fills in this area
would not appear to be workable because of the natural conditions and
the fragile nature of the sub-arctic environment.
Kodiak Island - Plants in the City of Kodiak are handling processing
solids in a reduction plant and have no need for land fill. Plants on the
rest of the island have potential sites but since the island is essentially
rock without much top soil there might be a problem in finding enough
covering material to comply with State operating regulations.
Cook Inlet - Land filling on the Kenai Peninsula would probably be more
successful than in other areas of Alaska. Potential sites are available;
however, local conditions would have to be investigated, especially
sandy areas, to determine whether the leakage could contaminate State
waters. Also muskeg soils would cause problems.
Prince William Sound - Limited area may be possible. Much of the land
is mountainous and flat areas are tide flats. These areas would obviously
be unsuitable.
VII-5
-------
Southeastern Alaska- Generally mountainous behind the beach areas
where cannerTes a~re located. Terrain would make land filling difficult
Also, the high annual rainfall might cause problems with leakage entering
State waters.
Washington and Orcgon_ - Solids are generally used in reduction plants.
Land fill areas areTavailable, however experience with various cities
indicates that available sites are rapidly being used up.
2 . General Comments on Barging
There are a number of critical constraints on barging of solid seafood
waste for ocean disposal and they are as follows.
a. It is not clear from applicable state and Federal regulations
exactly what constitutes proper disposal areas for seafood
waste. If such areas are outside of three miles, barging
could require round trips in excess of 200 miles such as in
Cooks Inlet.
b. In some cases, barging of solid waste would require the con-
struction of new dock facilities, and the purchase of barges and
towing equipment. In some areas such as Bristol Bay and Cooks
Inlet barges would have to be of shallow draft to operate in the
area. In some areas, as in the case of the Whitney-Fidalgo plant
in Petersburg, Alaska there is no space available to bviild docking
facilities for barges. Docks, barges, and towing equipment
would only be used for a period of one to three months. The
barges and vessels would have to be stored ashore the remainder
of the year. The cost of leasing such equipment during the
summer season may be prohibitive.
c. In regions with great tidal movements, such as Cook Inlet and
Bristol Bay, barges could only be taken out at high tide and
would therefore necessitate extra barges and dock space to
handle full barges waiting for ties. The crew expense would be
quite high as barges would have to be moved on high tide re-
gardless of the hour of day or night.
d. The general weather conditions would not make it possible to
move barges in many cases on any reasonable schedule. Handling
barges because of strong tide, heavy seas, and high winds in
unprotected areas would be impossible. It is probable that
barges could not be towed and dumped in the proper areas 25 to
30 percent of the time because of the weathe^. factor alone.
VII -6
-------
e. Barges laying at the processing plants which contain processing
waste would be an attractant for flies and other insects, birds,
and rodents and consequently would create a serious problem in
terms of plant sanitation in the view of local, state, and federal
health agencies.
3. Consideration of Alternate Plant Sites
The problems associated with moving existing seafood processing plants
to other areas to provide for disposal by barging, land fill or municipal
treatment are numerous.
The matter of moving a processing plant would still leave the plant
subject to all of the constraints on barging and land fill noted pre-
viously.
The availability of property is also very difficult because of the
importance of remaining near fish producing areas in order to minimize
transportation time from the fishing grounds to the plants to help assure
wholesome products. The varying seasonality of fishing by districts
emphasizes this problem.
The status of land in Alaska is another problem at this time because
a number of Native Corporations have not selected their lands under
the Native Land Claims Act and because the State of Alaska also has
the subsequent right of land selection
There are only a limited number of locations which afford plants
adequate processing water, labor force, transportation, and protection
of docks and the plant from weather.
Additional considerations are presented in Table VI-Z which briefly
ennumerates solid waste disposal constraints for selected plants.
Many of these plants are salmon processing plants as well as processors
of other fish and shellfish but are included as representative examples
of the Alaskan seafood processing industry.
In summary, it appears that there are many technical or physical
constraints on solid waste disposal in Alaska. In addition, there is some
doubt as to whether the pollution abatement costs adequately reflect the
actual costs that maybe incurred, i.e., duplicate barges etc. If this is
the case then additional plant closures could result from the imposition
of BPT guidelines.
The lack of available land, dock and duplicate barge requirements could
result in greatly inflated BPT closure estimates.
VH-7
-------
Table VII-1. Solid waste disposal summary of selected seafood processing plants in Alaska.
Acres Ownership of
Plant Potential Miles Owned by Surrounding
Location to Land Fill Plant Lnr.d
Whitney-Fidalgo
North Pacific Processors
Columbia Wards Fisheries
Bumble Bee Seafoods
New England Fish Co.
<
J-H
oo New England Fish Co.
Whitney-Fidalgo
North Pacific Processors
Colunbia Wards Fisheries
Columbia Wards Fisheries
Kodiak King Crab, Inc.
Naknek
So . Naknek
Ekuk
So. Naknek
Pederson
Point
Egegik
Kodiak
Kodiak
-------
Page 2
Table VII-1. (continued)
Acres Ownership of
Company Name
Kodiak King Crab, Inc.
Kodiak King Crab, Inc.
New England Fish Co.
Whitney-Fidalgo
;5 Whitney-Fidalgo
» i
i
vO
Xenai Packers
Columbia Wards Fisheries
whitney-Fidalgo
North Pacific Processors
St. Elias Ocean Products
New England Fish Co.
Whitney-Fidalgo
Plant
Location
Zachar Bay
Potential Miles
to Land Fill
KODIAK ISLAND (Cont.)
NA
Port Williams NA
Uganik
Anchorage
Port Graham
Kenai
Kenai
Whittier
Cordova
Cordova
Orca
Ketchikan
1/4 mils
COOKS INLET
17
NA
NA
NA
PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND
NA
NA
NA
5 miles
SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
NA
Owned by
Plant
2
11
5
Lease Property
4
46
55
Lease Property
Lease Property
1
7
2
Surrounding
Land
Native Land Claims
Act
National Forest,
Native Land Claims
State & Federal
Alaska Railroad
Local Alaska
Natives
Alaska Packers &
Local homesteads
Local homesteads
Alaska Railroad
City of Cordova
Indian Land Claims
Federal
Union Oil Co.
Local y.etal Shoo
-------
Table VII-1. (continued)
Page 3
Acres Ownership of
Conoanv Name
VThitney-Fidalgo Seafoods
New England Fish Co.
Juneau Cold Storage
McCallum Legaz Fish Co.
< Excursion Inlet Pkg. Co.
t-t
i
0 Wards Cove Packing Co.
New England Fish Co.
Whitney-Fidalgo
Whitney-Fidalgo
Bumble Bee Seafoods
Perfection Smokery
Bumble Bee Seafoods
Plant
Location
SOUTHEAS
Petersburg
Chatham
Juneau
-Hydaburg
Excursion
Inlet
Wards Cove
LaConner
Anacortes
Seattle
Bellingham
Seattle
Astoria
Potential Miles
to Land Fill
TERN ALASKA (cont. )
NA
1
15 - probably
not available
NA
NA '
NA '
WASHINGTON
10
NA
NA
NA
NA-City pickup
OREGON
NA
Owned by
Plant
Plan"- on piling
100 ~. .. from
shore r
None owned -
Leased Fed.
1
Leased
6
5
None owned -
Leased city
u ii
5
4
1/4
7
Surrounding
Land '
U. S.
Federal
City
Indian owned
U. S. Forest
Service
Private land
Private
Other business
Other business
Other business
Private *
Other business
------- |