EPA-600/2-77-157
August 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
PRO1
Robert S. Kerr Environmental I
Office of Rese
0,1
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Off ice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-157
August 1977
WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FROM SEAFOOD PROCESSING PLANTS
by
Russel B. Brinsfield
University of Maryland
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
Horn Point Environmental Laboratories
Cambridge, Maryland 21613
and
Douglas G. Phillips
Department of Natural Resources
Maryland Environmental Service
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Grant No. S803522-01-0
Project Officer
Billy L. DePrater
Industrial Sources Section
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
ML tV.vTronmental Protection
- f.1 ,i. ?-. i/;..-:^.- .,-v-r -i->
".' i?. joa'j^r !-, -^L, ..-~_H3 1670
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to
coordinate administration of the major Federal programs designed
to protect the quality of our environment.
An important part of the agency's effort involves the search
for information about environmental problems, management tech-
niques and new technologies through which optimum use of the
nation's land and water resources can be assured and the threat
pollution poses to the welfare of the American people can be
minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this
search through a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs
to: (a) investigate the nature, transport, fate and management
of pollutants in groundwater; (b) develop and demonstrate methods
for treating wastewaters with soil and other natural systems;
(c) develop and demonstrate pollution control technologies for
irrigation return flows; (d) develop and demonstrate pollution
control technologies for animal production wastes; (e) develop
and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control or abate
pollution from the petroleum refining and petrochemical indus-
tries, and (f) develop and demonstrate technologies to manage
pollution resulting from combinations of industrial wastewaters
or industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the
EPA is to meet the requirements of environmental laws that it
establish and enforce pollution control standards which are
reasonable, cost effective and provide adequate protection for
the American public.
W. C. Galegar
Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study were to examine current waste-
water and solid waste disposal practices, characterize the
wastewater effluent and to recommend economical waste treatment
and disposal systems for seafood processing plants in Maryland
where municipal treatment facilities are not available. The
study also included an examination of current disinfection
practices and requirements.
Wastewater samples from randomly selected plants processing
blue crabs, oysters, soft-shell clams and fish were analyzed for
settleable solids, total suspended solids (TSS) , five-day bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BODcj) , oil and grease (0 § G) , pH,
residual chlorine, phosphorus, nitrogen as nitrite and nitrate,
nitrogen as ammonia and total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total coliform,
and fecal coliform.
All plants sampled were meeting oil and grease as well
as pH effluent limitations promulgated by EPA for both 1977 and
1983. Only a few plants were able to meet the TSS limitations
using static screens. None of those plants with requirements
limiting BOD5 are currently meeting the criteria for 1983.
Several plants sampled were not consistently meeting the State
imposed bacterial limitations even though residual chlorine
levels in the effluent were relatively high.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No.
S803522-01-0 by University of Maryland, Center for Environmental
and Estuarine Studies under sponsorship of Maryland Environmen-
tal Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
report covers a period from February 15, 1975 to August 15, 1976
and was completed as of August 3, 1976.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Tables yi
Acknowledgments vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 4
3. Recommendations ..... 6
4. Seafood Processing and Waste Disposal Methods
in Maryland 7
5. Wastewater Characterization 11
Introduction 11
Sampling Procedures 12
Data Reduction 12
Results and Discussion 15
6. Flow Reduction, Wastewater Treatment and
Disinfection Alternatives 22
Wastewater Flow 22
Effectiveness of Current Treatment Practices 22
Wastewater Disinfection 23
Processing Plants Located Where Municipal
Sewage Systems are Planned 24
Centralized Waste Treatment 24
Use of Aerated Lagoons and Alternative
Treatment Methods 25
Disinfection Alternatives 30
7. Wastewater Monitoring 32
References 33
Appendices 35
Glossary 97
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Summarized Waste Treatment Cost for Model
Canned and Preserved Seafood Plants . .
2 Summary Table for Analysis of Variance Comparing
Different Operations Within a Plant 14
3 Maryland Seafood Processors Current Ability to
Meet E.P.A. BPCTA (1977) and BATEA (1983)
Effluent Guidelines 16
4 Maryland Seafood Processors Flow Data 18
5 Summary of Bacteriological Results from Maryland
Seafood Processing Plants 19
6 Summary of Phosphorus Results from Maryland
Seafood Processing Plants 21
7 Evaluation of Using One or More Centralized
Waste Treatment Facilities 26
8-38 Characterization Data by Species 66-96
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Maryland Department of Economic and Community Develop-
ment provided C.E.T.A. manpower for wastewater sampling and
analysis. Their cooperation is sincerely appreciated.
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental and
Estuarine Studies, Horn Point Environmental Laboratories,
Cambridge, and Marine Products Laboratory, Crisfield, generously
provided manpower and facilities for this study. Their assis-
tance is deeply appreciated.
The continued assistance, cooperation and advice of Mr.
Robert Prier of the Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries Associa-
tion is gratefully acknowledged.
Funds supporting completion of this document were provided
to the author through the Marine Advisory Service division of
the University of Maryland Sea Grant Program. Their support
is appreciated.
Special thanks to Professor Paul Winn of the University of
Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies for his
continued guidance and support throughout the project.
VI1
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
There are approximately 80 seafood processing plants in
Maryland outside the city of Baltimore and 47 of these are in
areas where there are no municipal sewage treatment facilities,
thus requiring them to discharge to tidal waters. Of the latter
group, 39 are located on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay
and 8 are on the Western Shore. These 47 processing plants are
the ones of principal concern in this study.
These processing plants probably do not fit the pattern of
most of the seafood processing plants in other parts of the
country because of the low wastewater flow, product mix and
unique features of the Chesapeake Bay System. As far as can
be determined, very little work has been done to characterize
wastewater effluent from Maryland plants and it was assumed that
this was an essential first step before considering treatment
alternatives.
These problems were brought to the attention of the Mary-
land Environmental Service, an agency within the Department of
Natural Resources, created by the Maryland General Assembly to
assist local governments and industry in the elimination of
pollution resulting from disposal of liquid and solid wastes.
Consequently, this project was initiated through the EPA with
costs being shared by both the Federal and State governments.
Seafood harvesting and processing on the Chesapeake Bay
are a significant segment of the economy in Maryland. In 1973,
the total value of all seafood products processed in Maryland
exceeded $80 million (13). Of the total 1973 landings of fish
and shellfish in Maryland, about 90% consisted of shellfish,
including oysters, clams and blue crabs. The majority of sea-
food harvesting and processing is done by individuals, partner-
ships or very small companies. Many processing plants are
located in remote areas or very small communities where they
are the sole or principal employer, with the result that the
economy of these communities depends largely on the seafood
industry. The requirements for wastewater treatment called for
by E.P.A. and by the State of Maryland become a significant
economic factor in the processor's operating costs. This becomes
even more significant in light of other requirements placed on
-------
processors such as those involving the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program (7), which are presently being reviewed
and revised prior to re-issue.
If wastewater treatment costs should significantly increase
operating costs, a majority of the smaller plants no longer may
find it profitable to stay in business. Passing additional costs
on to the customers might result in major market losses. Of
the 47 seafood processing plants surveyed, none can make the
capital investments indicated by the National Commission on
Water Quality Report (see Table 1) and remain in business. The
wastewater treatment capital costs, in almost all cases, exceed
the present capital investment in the processing plant and
facilities. It therefore becomes important to find the most
economical methods of waste treatment and disposal consistent
with meeting water quality standards.
The objectives of the present study were to examine current
wastewater and solid waste practices and to determine the most
cost-effective methods of treatment and disposal of wastes from
seafood processing plants where municipal treatment facilities
are not available. It was first necessary to determine the
characteristics of the wastewateT by means of an extensive waste-
water sampling and laboratory testing program. The study also
included an examination of disinfection practices, solid waste
handling and disposal and wastewater monitoring requirements.
The Special Conditions of the Grant stated that:
"The results of the study will specifically include
the following:
1. An evaluation of the possibility of using one
centralized treatment facility to handle all seafood
processing wastes.
2. An evaluation of the possibility of using more than
one centralized treatment facility to handle the
same wastes.
3. An evaluation of the possibility of having all seafood
processors completely treat their own wastes.
Each of the preceding options will be compared with a
recommended scheme(s) for treatment and disposal. The option
of pre-treating and discharge to a municipal system will be con-
sidered in each case.
The possibilities of waste-product utilization will also
be evaluated".
Upon receipt of the Environmental Protection Agency grant,
the Maryland Environmental Service entered into an agreement
with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental and
Estuarine Studies to undertake the major portion of the work.
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARIZED ESTIMATED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
COSTS FOR MODEL CANNED AND PRESERVED SEAFOOD PLANTS
TYPE OF
PROCESSING
PLANT -^
CAPITAL AND TREATMENT COST UNDER
BPCTA
CAPITAL
COST $
Crab-
States, small 33,000
Finfish-
States, small 55,000
Shellfish-
Clam, small 22,500
Oyster, F§F, small 16,100
0 $ M
COST $
8,200
9,200
8,100
8,100
BATEA .
^ )
CAPITAL
COST $
58,200
37,600
58,200
37,630
0 § M
COST $
J )
4,700
4,400
4,600
4,200
BPCTA - Best Practical Control Technology Available
BATEA - Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
1) This table has been extracted from Table 51, National
Commission on Water Quality Report, Reference (9).
2) Incremental cost after BPCTA is achieved.
3) Does not include taxes, interest or depreciation.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
A survey of the seafood industry in Maryland engaged in
processing oysters, blue crabs, soft-shell clams and non-
Alaska bottom fish has been made. All of the plants in
the survey discharged processing wastewater into the
Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries. Wastewater character-
ization has been established on the basis of sampling a
representative number of plants processing one or more of
the above species.
All processing plants sampled are currently meeting the
oil and grease as well as pH limitations required by the
BPCTA and BATEA.
Using static screens, all soft-shell clam processors
sampled are currently meeting both the BPCTA and BATEA
Effluent Guidelines for TSS.
Six of the 10 oyster processors are currently meeting the
TSS limitations for BPCTA and BATEA. Since all the proces-
sors use static screening, it is concluded that minor mod-
ifications to the existing systems should be adequate to
bring the 4 unsatisfactory plants into compliance.
The requirement for disinfection of wastewater, imposed
by the State of Maryland to protect shellfish harvesting
waters, introduces a perplexing problem to the treatment
process. The wastewater characterization study revealed
that although high levels of residual chlorine were present
in the effluent, both total and fecal coliform counts were
still significantly higher than the maximum levels allowed
by the State of Maryland. This leads to the conclusion
that present methods of chlorination are ineffectual in
reducing bacterial counts to a level which adequately
protects shellfish harvesting waters. Concurrently, high
residual chlorine is probably adversely affecting the
receiving waters.
There are several alternatives to the problem of disin-
fection. One alternative would be to develop an improved
method of chlorination which would give a high degree of
bacteriological "kill" and would result in a low residual
-------
chlorine level before discharge overboard. Another would
be to evaluate ultraviolet radiation or other oxidants
as means of disinfection through a demonstration project.
6. The blue crab and non-Alaska bottom fish processors
cannot presently meet the future effluent limitations
utilizing present treatment methods for TSS (BPCTA) or
TSS and five-day BOD (BATEA). With regard to the fish
processors, the three plants now discharging wastewater
overboard are scheduled to have access to public sewerage
systems in the near future. Therefore, if present limita-
tions are maintained, only the blue crab processors will
require a higher degree of treatment. This situation
results from the extremely low limits of TSS and five-day
BOD imposed by the Effluent Guidelines on the crab
processors.
If the five-day BOD requirement is eliminated from the
effluent limitations for blue crab processing plants and
TSS limitations are raised somewhat, then static screens
will suffice. It is doubtful that, with very low waste-
water flows, the BOD is having any adverse effects on
receiving waters especially where the tidal amplitude
produces a dilution effect by flushing. This could be
demonstrated by measuring D.O. levels at various stations
away from the point of the discharge for a typical blue
crab processing plant after ascertaining the normal or
naturally occuring D.O. levels. If present five-day
BOD and TSS limitations are maintained, then a demonstra-
tion project for a packaged extended aeration plant would
show whether this method was cost effective. Such a
plant could be operated either as batch process or on a
continuous basis.
7. Central treatment was evaluated as unfeasible for the plants
in this study due to the distance between them. Present
solid waste disposal methods are considered adequate
since none of the practices appear to adversely affect
the environment.
8. A wastewater reduction.of approximately 20% could be
achieved without adversely affecting food product quality.
This reduction would simplify the waste water treatment
problems, especially in those plants where a higher level
of treatment may be required.
9. Present requirements for monitoring wastewater on a monthly
basis are not considered to be a problem since at least one
qualified commercial laboratory is available to the
processors at a reasonable cost.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Effluent limitations on TSS and five-day BOD levels for
the blue crab industry should be re-evaluated in view
of the additional data available from this report.
2. If the five-day BOD and TSS limits are maintained, then
a demonstration project utilizing a package extended
aeration plant is essential. The plant could be operated
either as a batch or a continuous process and would show
whether this method is cost effective.
3. Measure dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels at various stations
away from the point of discharge for a typical blue crab
processing plant after ascertaining naturally occurring
D.O. levels.
4. Initiate a demonstration project to develop an improved
method of chlorination which would maximize bacteriological
"kill" and concurrently minimize residual chlorine.
5. Evaluate ultraviolet radiation as a means of disinfection.
6. Determine the source of the Escherichia coliform.
7. Further investigation to determine if the high phosphorus
residual shown in this study is adversely effecting the
Chesapeake Bay system. If adverse effects are documented
then a demonstration project utilizing current technology
for phosphorus removal is necessary.
-------
SECTION 4
SEAFOOD PROCESSING AND WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS IN MARYLAND
A total of 47 seafood processing plants in Maryland were
considered in this investigation. As previously noted, all are
relatively small, employing between two and 40 persons per day,
with changes in the number of employees dependent on season,
weather, and availability of product. All 47 of the processing
plants are currently without access to publicly owned waste-
water treatment facilities. Nearby land suitable for disposal
of wastewater, such as spray irrigation or overland flow, is
either severely limited or non-existent in nearly all cases.
The fact that these plants are dispersed widely throughout the
State reduces the options for collection and treatment in
centralized facilities.
Seafood plants processing oysters, clams and fish use
potable water from on-site wells, usually artesian, for washing
the raw products. Plants processing blue crabs use low pressure
steam in crab cookers. During this process the steam condenses
and combines with the crab body fluids so that waste from the
crab cooker makes up a significant portion of the waste flow from
this type of plant. This flow is considered to be free of
bacteria. In all plants, a second source of wastewater is
generated during wash down and disinfection of food handling
equipment and facilities. The waste flow from these processors
range from 2,000 to 4,000 gallons per day. Wastewater from the
above sources is discharged to receiving waters categorized as
Class II - Shellfish Harvesting - as defined in Appendix A, or
tributaries thereof. It is significant that none of the plants
investigated permitted human wastes to enter the process waste-
water stream, although some plants did have hand-washing sinks
connected to the wastewater stream.
The present requirements for treatment which include screen-
ing, disinfection, and monitoring, are set forth in the National
Pollution Discharge System (NPDES) permit which is issued to each
processor, upon application and approval, as a joint Federal-
State permit by the Maryland Water Resources Administration,
Department of Natural Resources. All permits currently in effect
expire July 1, 1977, when new permits will be issued upon appli-
cation and approval. Maryland has been authorized by E.P.A. to
issue joint permits since September, 1974. Permit requirements
include the following:
-------
1. Solids removal by 20 mesh screen.
2. Prohibition of floating solids or foam in effluent
other than trace amounts.
3. Disinfection of effluent with resultant bacteriolog-
ical quality not exceeding coliform standards of 70
MPN per 100 ml.
4. pH of effluent in a range of 6.0 to 8.5.
Monitoring requirements provide for flow measurement on a
monthly basis and a grab sample analyzed monthly for coliform,
with the results being furnished to the Water Resources Admini-
stration. Disinfection by the use of chlorine, usually in the
form of calcium hypochlorite, is commonly used in the processing
plants investigated.
E.P.A. effluent limitations for the canned and preserved
seafood processing industry for Best Practicable Control Tech-
nology Currently Available (BPCTCA)-1977-and Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA)-1983-included in
References (1) and (2) are summarized in Appendix B. Production
limitation exceptions, which are also included in References
(1) and (2), are shown in Appendix C. The effluent limitations,
plus any additional requirements promulgated by the State, will
be the basis for State - NPDES permits issued for discharges in
the 1977-1983 period and for discharge permits issued from 1983
on, unless effluent limitations are further modified.
Maryland does not exempt small plants, as defined in
Appendix C. If such plants were exempt from discharge permit
requirements, some small processors would gain an economic
advantage over other processors who had only a slightly higher
production level. At present it is considered unlikely, however,
that this no-exemption policy will be changed for either the
BPCTA (1977) or the BATEA (1983) programs.
None of the processing plants studied deposited solid
wastes (shells, offal, etc.) overboard at the plant sites, and
only oyster shells, as noted below, are disposed of overboard at
other sites. Methods of disposal of solid wastes include the
following:
Oyster Shells - Shells are stockpiled at the processing
plant for future removal either for use in construction, such as
road-building, or for planting under the State cultch-planting
program for maintaining productivity of oyster beds.
Clam Shells - Clam shells which usually include the
snouts are hauled daily from plant sites to farms for use as
hog feed or periodically to landfill sites.
-------
Crab Shells - Crab shells from processing plants in
Dorchester County are hauled to a dehydrating plant in Honga,
near Hooper Island, where they are processed into ground meal
used generally as a poultry food supplement. Crab shells
from plants in Somerset County are similarly processed in Marion,
near Crisfield. Crab shells from all other crab processing
plants are removed and used as hog feed or are landfilled. There
is no known work underway in Maryland for the production of
chitin and chitosan from crab shells.
Fish Offal - Fish heads, backbones, skin and other offal
are collected in cans at the processing sinks and used primarily
for bait in lobster traps by fishermen working out of Ocean City,
Maryland.
While this investigation was aimed primarily at treatment
and disposal of liquid wastes, the handling and disposal of
solid wastes as described above was found to cause no problems
related to water and air quality.
A number of processing plants were observed to be discharg-
ing cooling water overboard from refrigeration and ice making
plants. No sampling was made of this flow. It was in each
case found to be well water with no chemicals or other additives.
Flows were relatively small and temperatures were only slightly
elevated over the normal well water temperature. These dis-
charges thus should have no adverse effects on receiving waters.
During this investigation other State and Federal agencies
were contacted for information, comments and advice on various
aspects of the work. Liaison was maintained with the seafood
processing industry, both through the Chesapeake Bay Seafood
Industries Association and with individual plant owners or
managers during plant visits. Without exception, cooperation
was given and it was possible to visit all plants at least once
and some on numerous occasions to collect wastewater for lab-
oratory analysis. Comments or questions raised most frequently
included:
Questions regarding the need for disinfection of
wastewater from seafood processing plants when similar material
in the form of ground clams, for example, was being put over-
board in very substantial quantities by sport fishing boats as
"chum" to attract fish, without any requirement for disinfecting
or screening.
Disinfection requirements resulting in a total
coliform count of 70 MPN per 100 ml in wastewater effluent when
the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the
Food and Drug Administration permit up to 230 fecal coliform per
100 grams of oyster meat leaving the processing plant for human
consumption.
-------
Concern that additional costs for treatment beyond
simple screening would force many smaller processors out of
business.
The concern regarding treatment costs was coupled with
that resulting from proposed modifications to the National
Shellfish Safety Program (7) which included regulations per-
taining to product safety, lot segregation and washing of shell
stock. However, in regard to the latter, it should be realized
that the "Draft-Notice of Proposed Rule Making" which first
appeared in the Federal Register, (Volume 40, No. 9, January
4, 1975) has been withdrawn as a result of Congressional action
and is under further study and review. The Coastal Zone
Management Act Amendments of 1976, passed by the House and
Senate and signed by the President July 26, 1976, require a
report by April 30, 1977, evaluating the impact on federal
water quality laws and proposed regulations on the shellfish
industry before any such regulatory may take effect. Thus the
environmental impact on water quality and the economic impact on
shellfish processors as a result of the modifications will not
be known until the new regulations are promulgated.
10
-------
SECTION 5
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
To determine the most economically feasible method of
waste treatment and disposal for each Maryland seafood proces-
sing plant that discharges wastewater into the Chesapeake
Bay System, base line data on waste generated and character of
the waste was necessary for each processing operation.
Because of basic similarities among the processing plants
it was decided to select several typical plants at random which
processed one or more of the four predominant species, oysters,
blue crabs, soft-shell clams or non-Alaska bottom fish.
Specifically, six crab processors, five oyster processors
(one of which discharged into a municipal waste treatment
facility), two fish processors and five combination oyster and
soft-shell clam processors were sampled weekly during their
harvest seasons. Spot samples were also collected from three
additional processors for comparative purposes. The data from
these operations served as a guide for grouping plants with
similar problems.
For each plant sampled the following specific tasks were
performed:
1. Characterize the wastewater generated in a physical,
chemical, and biological sense.
2. Determine the flow rate, volume of product processed,
processing time, and specific operation within the
plant, e.g. washing down, normal picking, when the
samples were taken.
3. Evaluate and recommend management practices which
might reduce wastewater.
The samples collected were analyzed for settleable solids,
non-filterable residue, five day BOD, oil and grease, residual
chlorine, pH, phosphorus, nitrogen as nitrite and nitrate,
nitrogen as ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen^ coliform and fecal
coliform. All tests were performed in accordance with procedures
11
-------
developed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Amer-
ican Public Health Association (10, 11, 12). The specific
procedures for all tests conducted are explained in Appendices
G and H.
Sampling Procedures
Field crews collected grab samples from each plant once a
week during its operating season. Since the sampling technique
was a vital step in estimating the parametric values, every
effort was made to obtain a representative sample. Although
flow-proportional samples are more accurate than grab samples,
the variation in plant configuration and the physical constraints
of the effluent discharge points prohibited flow-proportional
sampling.
Since the grab samples were used for calculating estimated
daily waste loading, the questionnaire in Appendix I was com-
pleted for each sample collected. The in-plant oper.ation (an
explanation of which appears later in this section), processing
interval, volume of raw product processed during the processing
interval and flow rate were recorded. Samples were preserved
on ice and immediately transported to the laboratory for analysis
Date Reduction:
Several computer programs were developed for data charac-
terization and reduction.
The first program was developed to convert each data point
measured from milligrams per liter to pounds per 1000 pounds of
product produced. The program was developed using equation (1):
where
mg/1 =
mgd
tons/day =
Ibs/ton = mg/1 x 8.55 x mgd
tons/day(1)
milligrams per liter; the original units used
in the laboratory analysis.
volume of water used per day expressed in
terms of millions of gallons (calculated
knowing the flow rate and processing interval)
calculated knowing the volume of product pro-
cessed during the processing interval. The
following weights were used when converting
from bushels to pounds:
1. crabs; 1 bushel
2. clams; 1 bushel
3. oysters; 1 bushel
40 Ibs. raw product
60 Ibs. raw product
6 Ibs. finished
product
12
-------
The next program was a least-squares analysis of
variance to detect significant differences between grab samples
collected within a plant for different plant operations. The
rationale was that samples for a given plant could be analyzed
collectively if no significant differences could be detected
for the different plant operations (i.e. washdown or normal
picking for crab processors^ or fish processors and washdown,
blowdown or normal shucking for oyster and soft shell clam
processors). This approach would also add validity to the
collecting of grab samples.
To accomplish this analysis, the qualitative variables
indicated above for each sample were coded as follows:
a. type of plant (l=crab; 2=oysters; 3=oyster or soft-
shell clam
b. plant number (1-6)
c. product processed (l=crab; 2=oyster; 3=clam)
d. in-plant operating (l=blowdown; 2=washdown; 3=normal
shucking; 4=normal picking)
It was necessary to differentiate between type of plant
and product processed, because five of the plants sampled (coded)
B) processed oysters or soft shell clams (but never both) on a
given day according to supply and demand.
These variables and the parameters previously noted for
each sample were analyzed and the results are shown in Table 2.
It compares the calculated F value with the tabular F value.
The conclusion indicates that there are no significant (P> 0.01)
added variance components among samples within a specific plant
for different operations.
Based on these results, the data points for a given plant
were grouped independent of operation and the means and stand-
ard deviations as shown in Appendix K were developed.
Specifically, for plants coded A, C, and E, the means and
standard deviations were calculated for each plant and for each
species. The results are shown in Tables 8 through 14, 27
through 32, and 36 through 38, Appendix K. For the plants
coded B the same procedure was followed but since these plants
alternated between oysters and soft shell clams the means and
It was found that all of the crab processors sampled
regularly had the retort drains from the crab cookers
separated from the normal effluent discharge point.
13
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY TABLE FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE COMPARING
DIFFERENT OPERATIONS WITHIN A PLANT
PARAMETER
Flow Rate
Settleable Solids
NFR (total)
5 Day BOD
Oil § Grease
Phosphorus (total)
Nitrogen (Nitrate-Nitrite)
Ammonia (NH )
O
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (total)
Residual Chlorine
PH
Coliform
Fecal Coliform
F. CALCULATED
0.84
3.23
1.70
1.42
4.08
2.34
1.70
2.83
2.21
2.40
1.31
2.19
1.17
F. TABULAR
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
4.. 08
3.88
3. 88
3. 90
3. 88
3.88
3. 94
3.88
3.88
Conclusion - There are no significant (P>0.01) added variance
components among samples within a specific plant
for different operations.
14
-------
standard deviations were calculated for each plant and species
according to the product processed. Tables 15 through 26
Appendix K show these results.
Results and Discussion:
A. Physical and Chemical Results
Table 3 summarizes the results of sampling for
total suspended solids (TSS) oil and grease (0 and G)
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODs) and pH from
the 18 plants. On the basis of this summary, the
following conclusion can be reached regarding the
various type of processes:
Blue Crabs (conventional process): based on 74
wastewater samples analyzed from six conventional blue
crab plants, both oil and grease and pH limits are
being met for both BPCTA and BATEA. However, based
on 62 samples analyzed, TSS limits for BPCTA as well
as BODs anci TSS limits for BATEA are not being met in
five or the six plants. With the one plant meeting TSS
and BODs limits, the drain from the crab retort did
not enter the regular wastewater stream, which gave
erroneous results.
Non-Alaska Bottom Fish (conventional process): based
on 10 wastewater samples analyzed from two conventional
fish processing plants, both oil and grease and pH
limits for both BPCTA and BATEA are being met.
However, TSS limits for BPCTA and BOD5 and TSS limits
for BATEA are not being met. Both plants are located
in areas for which sewage systems are presently in the
design stage, and are discussed in Section VI.
Atlantic Oysters (hand shucked): based on 76 waste-
water samples from six plants processing oysters, (B-l,
B-3, B-4, C-l, C-3, C-4) all of the EPA parameters
for both BPCTA and BATEA are now being met. However,
based on 40 wastewater samples from four other oyster
plants (B-2, B-5, C-2, C-5), the TSS limits for both
BPCTA and BATEA are not being met. This leads to the
conclusion that if static screening is successful in
reducing TSS in some plants, it should be possible to
achieve the same results in other plants by minor
improvements.
Soft Shell Clams (hand shucked): based on 41 waste-
water samples analyzed from five plants processing clams
(B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5) all of the EPA parameters
are being met for BPCTA and BATEA.
15
-------
w
OS
CJ
CO
OS
o
CO
CO
w
o
OS
CL,
Q
O
O
W
CO
Q
2
>H
oS
to
w
PQ
H
CO
w
2
w
Q
H
2
W
P-,
P.,
to
oo
w
PQ
G
03
H
CJ
O,
PQ
OH
W
H
w
w
s
O
H
H
PQ
to
oo
rH
v '
<£,
W
H
PQ
1 v
f-
f--
cn
i__i
<3^
H
0,
PQ
0
.
O
MH.
O -P
rt
03
O rH
2 OH
X
PL.
0
US'
O
CO
CO
£-H
LO
o
o
PQ
X
PL,
CJ
uCT
O
CO
CO
CD
rH
E
CO
CD
rH
PL,
£
03
CO
t/l t/5
CD CD
^ ^
(/) t/)
CD CD
>H >H
0 0
0 0
2 2
t/l t/)
CD CD
>-H >H
t/) t/)
CD CD
£>-. ^-H
0 0
"* O
f- rH
vQ CNI
CO (/) t/)
CD CD CD
to to to
CD 0 0
W
CD O 0
^ "^ <£
"'"*. ^^
22 2
V) t/) t/)
00 0
>H >H >-,
I/) t/) tO
00 0
>H >H >-,
to to
00 0
> 2 >H
^O O rH
vO ^* LO
to
to
0
L)
O
H
PH
rH
03
PI
V) O
-Q -H
03 P
{H p|
CJ 0
£>
0 Pi
3 0
rH O
cq > '
pH
to w
H tO
Pi 0
O
e o
0 r<
P PH
P
0 rH
PQ o3
PI
03 O
j^ ,_j
to p
03 Pi
rH 0
1 pj
PI 0
0 U
2 ' '
to
}H
0 ^ \
P "^
t/) 0
XrX
O 0
3
O X
H t/>
P
C 13
03 p|
P X
to
E
03 ^-v
CJ 0
0
CO
P
m
o
CO
o
3
10
C
H
DO
CD CD -H
U JH +J
O ^-i CD
^ 3 CD
PU O 6
OO CO -P
i-H CD O
P (=1
S OS
O O in
5n -H CD
CD
+->
CU
O
CD -H
ni >-i
in r r CD
OS O t-t
X
o3 -H
U 13
H Pi
n3 0
PI f^ i
rH p>,
<
0
4-> \O
m i
O LO
t-~-
to o>
0 rH
rH P!
03 -H
>
a o
0 PH
E E
PI t/i
o
c/>
""O P
o P!
to a3
03 rH
PQ PH
f-t ft
03 aj
T3
a p
rt O
P C
CD
p) <
0
'H tO
3 13
bO !-.
03
0 P!
0 o3
E P
t/i
O
p 0
X-H
P rH
H 0
H -H
-3 ^
CO do
16
-------
B. Wastewater Flow
Each plant visited had a somewhat different
arrangement for collecting, screening, and disinfect-
ing wastewater before discharging it to tidal waters.
In all but two plants, the flow was discharged overboard
by gravity. In one of these two plants vibrating screens
were used but, in all others, static screens were used
to meet NPDES requirements. Various arrangements of
collecting systems conveyed wastewater to an area
where 20 mesh screens were used to remove the larger
particles. These screens were shaped like basket
strainers, either cylindrical or rectangular boxes or
flat rectangular screens. All types could be readily
removed for cleaning or replacement.
One of the two plants which did not discharge waste-
water by gravity, had a static screen, a collection
tank and pump for overboard discharge. In the other
plant which is the one with a vibrating screen, waste
stream from oyster shucking was pumped to a vibrating
screen, through a chlorinator into a holding tank,
then overboard by gravity. In this same plant, waste-
water from clam processing was pumped to another
vibrating screen. The wastewater then flowed by
gravity to a settling tank before being pumped inter-
mittently to a spray irrigation field.
The sampling program revealed that mean wastewater
flow from all processing plants was slightly less than
3000 gallons per day. The mean flow varied from about
330 gallons/ton for the processing of hand shucked clams
to over 6,000 gallons/ton for hand shucked oysters. The
flow data are summarized in Table 4. The coefficient
of variation (ratio of the standard deviation to the
mean) for most plants was found to be quite high.
Furthermore, there were found to be substantial vari-
ations in wastewater flow among the plants sampled for
the same product and processing operation.
C. Bacteria and Disinfection
Table 5 gives the mean values of coliform, fecal
coliform and residual chlorine found in the wastewater
samples.
The State of Maryland requires that wastewater
from seafood processing plants be disinfected before
discharge to tidal waters, since receiving waters are
Class II - Shellfish Harvesting Waters, (Appendix A).
17
-------
o
,-H
UH
I
CO
CM
O
CO
CO
w
u
o
Oi
PH
Q
O
O
PH
<
PH
CO
HH
**
w
PQ
H
to
H
PH
i ,
CXI
S
PH
CJ
m
o
0
z
CD
bO
Pl
03
OH
vO cxi
to
^O ^^
L-O C^** t"*"»
r-- *d" Ci
\o <-C vo ^f
CXI \ rH i-H
1 ^ I I
o, \o i~n
rH t~H ^«O
\O OO t^
t-~ ex) o
NO rH
PI
n3
CD
S
CD
bo
Pi
03
c£
Pi
03
CD
S
m to
O 0
PH
6
O 03
Z CO
(ft 0
4-> rH
PI PH
03 £
rH 03
PH CO
f- LO O CXI
CX] tO t~~ \O
rH LO IO t-^
LO CXI t^ CXI
rH tO LO VQ
CXI tO CX)
. . .
[>. cxi to
rH
*
tO LO rH
t~~. O OO rH
C^- ^± O O}
3- o to to
t-~ rH VD LO
^ LO
vO CXI LO LO
^o
CXI
t^
t-^-
1
I~-
to
CTi
cxi
.
OO
CXI
ro
Oi
LO
1
^J-
to
t^_
'H^
rH
^1"
rt
LO
process
o3
PI
O
,P -H
03 4->
rH PI
U 0
rCJ ^^
tO tfl
H tfl
PH 0
U
6 O
O fH
+-> PH
O iH
PQ o3
Pi
03 O
03 Pl
rH 0
10
0 r-,
to 0
s
03 ^^
U 0
O U
H to
0
CO
O
3
to
X
Pi
0
PH
0 Pl I Pl
30 Pi O
rH U O O
pqv^ 2- ^
03
PI
ct3
4-> PI
4-1 03
O ^
LO
r--
Pl
H
CD
03
to
to
4-1
PI
03
bO
Pi
H
to
V)
0
O
O
PH
OO
Pl
O
0
03
PH
0
H
s
rH
PH
to
Pl
o
03
bO
Pl
H
0
o3
fH
O
rH
PH
cxi
l« PI
H O
(/) tO
_Q ^
03 0
U CO
X
0 O
rH rH
*£) O
T3 -H
0 0
tO 0
0 *>
U -H
O rH
rH
O to
O 0
PH
m -H 4->
o u
0 3
PI rH T3
O 03 O
4-> rH
tO pin
rH C
0 O "T3
Pn4-> 0
rH " t/)
O "-H
to rH O
03 rH
^ 0 tO
A 6
MH 10 rH
O 0
i j ^ i
to m
COP;
O to -H
rH
rH T3 0
03 Pi rH
CJ 03 03
to
CU
^
cn
O
to
PI
n3
to
0
to
bO
fi
H
tfl
10
U
o
rH
PH
Pl
0
0
CD
0
03
Pl
rH
0
03
to
Pl
o3
rH
PH
0
H
MH
0 tO
tn 6
0 o3
r^ rH
H U
Pl
o
CO
rH
0
to
X
O
0
to
0
u
o
PH
Pl
rt
rH
PH
0
H
m
0
to
0
LO
18
-------
, V
rH
<^
H
<^
Q
W
2
i \
erf
o
,-H
X
CJ
i_J
^
erf
o
PH
1 1
,_J]
O
CJ
i 1
^^
E-H
O
H
LO
W
,-H1
PQ
C-J (NI \O
r~-
^ O rH tO tO
t~- rH -^f VO LO
l/>
X) / \ /-*%
OS rxi to
fH i V (f>
CJ cxj fn fn
t_j r^j (/} 'rd 0 ' o 0 rrd
00 rd 0 E > Td T3 Td
d VO d (NJ d LO d LO d *-O
O O 03 03 03
CJ cj X X X
M
vO
1
LO
t^
en
rH
d
H
Td
0
rH
ft
6
03
10
H
MH
0
0
(-;
H
7 ^
(NJ
X
rH
d
O
(/)
fn
0
P
t/)
X
0
10
w
0
o
o
fn
ft
tfl
P
d
03
rH
ft
0
£>
H
m
0
0
rH
H
^ \
to
bO
H
bo
5n
OJ
&
O
10
H
id
trt
0
O
fn
rj
O
C/1
P
g
H
0
ft
^-t
O
(-w
1 1
bo
E
LO
.
O
0
p
0
d
H
fH
0
rH
,(H
O
rH
o3
3 Q
Td
tfl -H
0 id
5n d
0
(/) ft
p ft
E
H >
rH t/)
fH
X 0
O P
H 03
rH 5
0
ftrH
03
d -H
03 P
rH
X 0
fH P
03 d
/ ~\
Tj-
-------
The bacteriological standards for these waters limit
the coliform organisms to 70 MPN per 100 ml as a median
value and not more than 10 percent of the samples may
exceed an MPN of 230 per 100 ml for a five-tube decimal
dilution test. The State also has an upper limit of
0.5 mg/1 residual chlorine level for point source
discharging into tidal waters (Appendix D).
In the plants sampled, chlorine was used in the
form of dry calcium hypochlorite to satisfy require-
ments for wastewater disinfection and sterilization of
food handling equipment. Residual chlorine levels
found in the wastewater were consistently much higher
than the 0.5 mg/1 required by Maryland. Concurrently
very few of the plants sampled met the criterion of
70 MPN per 100 ml coliform. This trend was verified
statistically by calculating correlation coefficients
for residual chlorine verses log coliform (-.39), and
residual chlorine versus log fecal coliform (-.30).
In both cases the correlation coefficients indicate
that the bacteria kill was ineffectual despite the
high level of residual chlorine.
After several bacteriological tests to determine
total and fecal coliform levels it became apparent
that the samples showed high fecal coliform. These
data raised the question, "Could the E.G. tubes used
for fecal coliform determination be giving false posi-
tive readings?" In order to determine whether the
sample contained actual fecal organisms, or another
organism which was mimicking the fecal test indicator
organism, additional tests were conducted.
Using five wastewater samples in each of two separate
laboratories, the API 20E system of Enterobacteriaceae
identification, as explained in Appendix H, was used.
In all samples tested the presence of Eschericia coli
was verified. Concurrent tests indicated that the well
water from both plants was free of Eschericia coli or
other fecal coliforms.
D. Phosphorus Results
Table 6 compares the mean values for phosphorus in
mg/1 and lbs/1000 pounds of product with the Maryland
State Policy as shown in Appendix D. Although the con-
centrations are above State limits, the actual weight
of phosphorus per 1000 pounds of product is quite low.
20
-------
/->
iH
>H
u
1 1
o
ex,
Q
^
,_q
^H
OS
^
|SJ
o
O
w
p£
«3j
p.
s
0
U
,_q
<
pD
U
«a^
i
P*
w
H
3£
f ,
CO
<^
^
Z
rH
CO
3
o
IT)
ex,
CO
o
ex,
.
\o
w
_3
PQ
<£
H
ex,
i
CO
XSS
H 10
rH 3
0 H
PH O
pC? rH
CD Pn^1^
P 10 W
cd O S
co ex,
s-*,
CM
i
CO
^
to ^
0 to
3 3
rH rH
cd o
^ rC4 rH
p,-^
Pi O 3
3 *0
tO H « O
0 O W rH
3 pC X3 PL
rH pKrH
Cd r< T3
> O 0 0
43 O W
p; ex, o w
Cd rH 0
0 O
S W rH O
pD 0 r<
rH PX, PL
m
O V)
0
f-H rH
0 PL
i-Q E
E cd
3 co
^
o
X
H
CM CM CM CM CM t3 JH
LOOCMCsIvO LO(/)pLi
t~~ f-H
t-^IOOOrHCTV C7>0rd
rH rH rH rH P Pi
t/) Cd
P! X
HOW
JH
rrj JH 0
0 O P
rH <4H (/>
N PL, - X
E 43 0
cd to
tn -H bo
4H Pi
W -H
P T3 tO
P! Pi
cd cd 0
rH 10 O
rf LO ^- oo c pL,3to O*
OtOOCMCM r<43r
MH bo P ^ 0
O 0 43 0 O
r< 00 P O
W -H rH VH
43 ,--%,-> 0X0cdpL,
cd to «* 30^
r< , v (/) tO i I -H 0 (/) 10
C_) K)f-< f-l cdrH>PPP
T3 Tj COTJ 0T3 0T3 >O-HU Pi Pi
00430 ECD P0 P0 PL, rH3 cd cd
3rH tOrH CdrH tOrH tOi 1 C4 TdrHrH
rHpL,-HpL,rHPL XPL, XPL Cdld !^O PL, PL,
PQE UnS UE OE OE 0Pi 'HrH
cd cd cd cd cd S^ pL,00
rHt/)rHtorOtordt/)rrft/) i-nr > >
cd cd 0 0 0 pjXP^d-H'H
rt^ Pit/) rXto rXt/) pi«St/) OrH U0 "-H MH
OP OP UP OP OP cd 343
HP! -HP! 3Pi 3P! 3Pi 'OS'Tdw 0 0
pcdpcd43cd43cd4icd 0 O-H to in
PjrH PirHCOrHCOrHCOrH Wf-l MPi 0 0
0PL,0PL, PL, PL, PL, ed O ex, -H 43 43
> > T3 T3 Tj PQ <4H r "4H E-i H
C4\O PiCM CLO PiLO P!LO
o o cd cd cd / \ / \ / \ ' >
u u K a: as rHojto^
21
-------
SECTION 6
FLOW REDUCTION, WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND
DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES
Wastewater Flow
An analysis of Table 4 indicates a. good possibility of
reducing wastewater flow by reducing water usage in certain
operations. Some obvious steps to reduce water usage are:
1. Turn off hoses and faucets when not in use.
2. Use spring loaded hose nozzles.
3. Use high-pressure, low volume wash-down systems.
4. Encourage plant personnel to minimize water
consumption by eliminating other wasteful partices.
It is considered essential that, in implementing water conser-
vation the water used for washing the finished product (oysters,
clams, and fish) not be reduced below levels found necessary
from experience to produce a quality product meeting acceptable
health standards.
It is believed that a reduction in water flow by as much
as 201 can be achieved in the average processing plant without
jeopardizing sanitation or product quality. Such reductions
would save the processors pumping costs as well as wastewater
treatment costs, particularly in those plants where treatment
facilities other than screening would be required to meet
future permit conditions.
Effectiveness of Current Treatment Practices
Static screens are considered to be fairly successful in
meeting future treatment requirements. As Table 4 indicates,
the hand shucked clam processors are now meeting all of the 1977
and 1983 effluent guidelines. Since 6 of the 10 oyster process-
ing plants are now meeting the 1977 and 1983 guidelines, it is
believed that the other plants could meet the same guidelines,
simply by improved housekeeping and relatively minor modifica-
tions to present screens. Neither fish processor sampled can
now meet the 1977 TSS requirements or the 1983 five-day BOD and
TSS requirements. However, as Appendix F indicates, all of the
fish processors in Maryland will be served by municipal sewer-
age systems in the near future.
22
-------
This leaves only the blue crab processors with the problem
of TSS reductions to meet 1977 and 1983 effluent limitations as
well as five day BOD reductions to meet 1983 limitations. The
limits apparently cannot be met with static screening. In this
regard, it is interesting to note that the maximum 30 day
average for five day BOD is only 0.15 Ibs. per 1000 pounds live-
weight processed, while steamed/canned oyster processors are
allowed 17 Ibs. per 1000 pounds of finished product. Even
though there is a different basis for comparison, the allowable
limits for the oyster processors is substantially higher than
for the crab processors. A similar comparison can be made with
total suspended solids.
If the effluent limitations for blue crabs were modified to
permit TSS levels between 2 to 2.5 Ibs. per 1000 pounds live-
weight processed and the five day BOD levels between 2.5 and 3
Ibs. per 1000 poynds liveweight, then both the 1977 and the 1983
guidelines could be met. If these limitations are not raised or
if the small blue crab processors are not exempted from the
effluent limitations, then treatment alternatives as discussed
later in this section will have to be considered.
Wastewater Disinfection
The fact that high levels of total and fecal coliform were
present in the wastewater streams from nearly all processing
plants is considered one of the most significant findings of the
study (Table 4). The most probable reasons chlorine was inef-
fective in reducing coliform to required levels are insufficient
contract time and relatively large particle size of the suspend-
e_d_solids even after screening. More investigation is needed to
further identify the sources of fecal coliform so that action
can be taken to reduce their levels.
In addition to the high coliform levels, high residual
chlorine levels are also alarming because of potential detri-
mental effects on the receiving waters. A recent report (12)
indicated that very few studies have been made of the effects of
chlorine or residual chlorine in sewage effluents on estuarine
and marine fishes. There are no reports for chloramines. One
study (13) discusses limitations as low as 0.002 mg/1 residual
chlorine for the protection of most aquatic organisms. Another
study (14) reports test results indicating a median tolerance
limit (50% survival) for oyster larvae of 0.005 mg/1 residual
chlorine in 48 hours under certain test conditions. The high
residual chlorine levels found present in wastewater effluent
(albeit daily flows are relatively low), with the consequent
potential hazard to marine organisms having low tolerance, is
another important find of this study. Further investigation is
needed to find a means of disinfection which will not over-
chlorinate receiving waters.
23
-------
Processing Plants Located Where Municipal Sewage Systems are
Planned
There are a total of 19 seafood processors located where
municipal sewage collection and treatment systems are being
planned. A review of the FY 1977 Construction Grants Project
list for the State of Maryland was made, and those projects
which will include the processing plants presently discharging
to tidal waters are listed in Appendix F. These projects will
be funded primarily by EPA grants, the remainder of the cost
coming from State and local sources. The processors so affected
represent about 40% of all of those presently discharging to
tidal waters.
Completion of the projects will solve the problem for these
processors and static screening is considered adequate in the
interim.
Included in the list of projects are those which will serve
all fish processors in Maryland that presently discharge to the
Chesapeake Bay system. However, only one of the blue crab pro-
cessors will benefit from the added availability of municipal
sewerage service, leaving 19 others faced with the present TSS
and five-day BOD limitation.
Centralized Waste Treatment
The Grant requires that the possibility of using centralized
treatment facilities be evaluated. It has been shown above that
the principal problem regarding wastewater treatment lies with
blue crab processing plants since static screening will not
achieve the specified BPCTA or BATEA effluent limitations.
There are a total of 20 plants processing blue crabs, one
on the Western shore and the remainder on the Eastern shore. Only
one plant, located in Queen Anne County, is in an area sched-
uled to be served by a municipal system; 13 are concentrated to
some extent in lower Dorchester County, being located in Fishing
Creek, Hoopersville, Toddville, Wingate, Crapo, and Crocheron.
The other 5 are in Talbot and Somerset Counties.
In consideration of centralized treatment facilities, three
alternatives were evaluated. The first alternative assumed that
the existing sewage treatment plant at Cambridge, Maryland,
would accept all the wastewater from the 20 crab processors in
the State. Wastewater would be transported, by tank truck, to
the plant wnere it would be mixed and treated before being
discharged overboard. Even though the site is as "central" as
possible, hauling over distances up to 124 miles would be in-
volved. Assuming a mean wastewater volume of 3000 gallons per
day and a blue crab season extending from mid April through mid
24
-------
September, it was found that the annual cost to the processors
would range from $31,240 to $6,240 for hauling and treatment.
Treatment costs were estimated at 80
-------
TABLE 7. EVALUATION OF USING ONE OR MORE
CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE I, CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND -^
Cost:
A. Hauling - Based on approximately 3000 gallons per day
per processor and 20(f:/ton mile
= (12.5 tons) (20
-------
TABLE 7. (continued)
Hauling Cost
Total
Location Miles to S.T.P. Cost/1000 ga!2j Cost/Days^-,
Wingate (3) 28 $ 24.13 $ 72.40
Toddville (2) 28 24.13 72.40
Bellevue 25 21.63 64.90
Crapo 24 20.90 62.40
Fishing Creek (4) 24 20.80 62.40
2) Includes an 80^/1000 gallon sewerage charge.
3) Multiply these numbers by 100 to obtain seasonal cost
27
-------
TABLE 7. (continued)
EACH PROCESSOR DISCHARGES INTO NEAREST S.T.P.
ALTERNATIVE II
Hauling Cost
Location
Mechanicsville
Grasonville
Sherwood
Wittman
Bellevue
Crocheron
Hoopersville
Wingate
Toddville
_
Deal Island
Crapo
Fishing Creek (4)
Deal Island
Nearest
Existing
S.T.P.
Leonardtown
Queenstown
Easton
Easton
Easton
Cambridge
Cambridge
Cambridge
Cambridge
Salisbury
Cambridge
Cambridge
Salisbury
Miles
to
S.T.P.
13
3
21
19
11
31
31
28
28
26
24
24
23
Cost
1000 gal.-n
$ 11.63
3.30
18.30
16.63
9.97
26.63
26.63
24.13
24.13
21.30
20.80
20.70
21.36
Cost/Day.
t
$ 34.90
9.90
54.90
49.90
29.90
79.90
79.90
72.40
72.40
63.90
62.40
62.40
59.90
1) Includes an 80<|:/1000 gallon sewerage charge.
2) Multiply these numbers by 100 to obtain seasonal cost.
3) Indicates number of plants.
28
-------
located in remote areas. Nevertheless, land availability and
use restrictions, as well as economic considerations, severely
limit use of aerated lagoons.
There are several alternatives to aerated lagoons. Those
suited to the relatively low daily flow rates of the small sea-
food processors are deserving of consideration.
In 1973, the Water Resources Administration of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources sponsored a program to evaluate
a wastewater treatment system to serve small processing plants.
For a typical small seafood processing plant, wastewater from
the crab cooker, oyster blow down tank, crab picking and oyster
shucking sources were collected in 4 separate sump tanks where
they were screened and then pumped to a 900 gallon roughing
tank. In this tank, the wastewater was aerated for several
hours before flowing by gravity to a second tank of 1250 gallons
capacity, where aeration was continued and settling took place.
From the second tank, the effluent flowed by gravity to a
chlorine contact tank, then overboard to a tidal creek. This
system was operated during a period while hand shucked oysters
were being processed and for a short period when blue crabs
were being processed. Four considerations in the design were:
1. Cost: Total expenditure of about $7,000 covered
equipment and installation.
2. Size: The entire treatment unit was housed in a
32 foot trailer.
3. Ease of operation: Daily maintenance consisted
primarily of cleaning the basket strainers and
checking chlorine tablets.
4. Compatibility: Existing floor drains in the
processing plant were not disturbed.
Overall, the system achieved 80 to 90% reduction in five-
day BOD.
Another treatment process which should be effective and
suitable for small plants is a batch biological treatment. In
such a system, wastewater would be screened and collected in a
tank sized for the particular plant. The tank would be provided
with baffles to separate the aeration section from the settling
chambers. Aeration would be provided in the tank as it is
filled with wastewater during the working shift. Aeration could
continue during the day, evening, and until early the following
morning, when blowers would be shut off automatically by a timer
switch. After allowing three hours for settling, a pump would be
started by a timing switch and decanting would take place. The
suction for this pump would be far enough above the tank bottom
to allow for settled matter and sludge. These would be removed
periodically by a different pump. After decanting the tank
29
-------
would again be ready to receive wastewater at the start of the
work shift and aeration would commence as wastewater started to
fill the tank.
This operation would continue on a batch basis each working
day, aerating while filling, continuing the aeration after fill-
ing and decanting after stopping aeration for the settling
period. It is believed that such a system would give 85 to 90%
five-day BOD reduction and could be built at relatively low cost
from available components.
The last treatment system which deserves attention was
installed by a blue crab processor during the course of this
study. The plant was modified so all wastewater (including
retort) is strained through a 20 mesh screen and collected in a
600 gallon sump tank. A float operated sump pump discharged the
screened wastewater to a 90 gallon chlorine contact chamber and
then overboard. The total cost of the system is estimated to be
from $3000 to $3500.
The system was monitored before and after the modifications.
Based on a limited number of samples a substantial reduction in
both five-day BOD (2.77 vs 0.51 lbs/1000 pounds) and TSS (3.35
vs 0.18 lbs/1000 pounds) was observed. Concurrently there was
no reduction in coliform or fecal coliform.
If the five-day BOD loading of wastewater from a seafood
processing plant were the same as domestic sewage, there would
be reason to believe that a batch system would reduce BOD to
acceptable levels. However, due to the higher BOD loadings and
their variability in the case of processing plant effluent,
demonstration project would be required to determine whether the
necessary reductions could be achieved.
DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES
Ultraviolet Radiation
It has been known for some time that ultraviolet radiation
can destroy all types of bacteria. Water sterilizers or puri-
fiers-utilizing mercury vapor lamps which emit a narrow band of
radiant energy at 2537 Angstrom units are commercially available,
Applications where these have been used include purification of
potable water, food processing water, swimming pools and waste-
water. The degree of microbial destruction is a function of
both exposure time and intensity of radiation. The dosages
required for most bacteria are in the order of 20,000 microvolt-
seconds per square centimeter. Since transmission may not
achieve 100% the design of a system should provide exposure in
excess of 30,000 microwatt-seconds per square centimeter.
30
-------
Turbidity and suspended solids require provision for a filtering
unit as part of the system. Filters commercially available for
this application include those employing diatomaceous earth.
However, in the case of wastewater encountered in seafood
processing plants it is believed that filtering the gross sus-
pended solids first and then polishing the effluent with a
second filter would be preferable to single-stage filtering in
order to reduce the frequency of back-washing the final filter.
During the summer of 1974, limited evaluation of an ultra-
violet system for disinfection of wastewater from a seafood
processing plant in Maryland was undertaken (16). A filter
utilizing fiberglass and charcoal was improvised and used in
conjunction with fresh water dilution at a rate of 3 parts fresh
water to 1 part effluent. The filter and dilution together
reduced turbidity from about 300 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU)
to about 10 JTU. The wastewater then passed through the ultra-
violet unit which resulted in reduction of coliform from
43 x 104 MPN/100 ml to less than 3 MPN/100 ml. As would be
expected with such a filter, substantial reductions were also
found in total suspended solids and five-day BOD. At the time
this work was done it was estimated that a permanent commercial
installation which would perform as well as the temporary
installation and would treat peak flow rates of 3000 gallons per
hour would cost approximately $3000. This flow rate exceeds
that of any of the plants sampled, so an investigation of avail-
ability of smaller units was made. Ultraviolet sterilizers,
suitable for salt water, and having a capacity of 480 gallons
per hour are available for approximately $600, and with others
a capacity of 960 gallons per hour cost approximately $900.
However, filters commercially available which would insure a
sufficiently clear effluent to obtain adequate microbial "kill"
are considerably more expensive than the UV units. The total
cost of the UV unit, filter and installation costs would exceed
$4000. It is believed, however, that a suitable mixed media or
sand filter could be developed from relatively inexpensive,
readily, available components and tailored to meet the needs of
small seafood processing plants for approximately $500. On
this basis, a UV system including filter and installation could
possibly be installed for about $1600. A pilot project could
easily be designed to demonstrate the feasibility and effective-
ness of such a system.
Ozone
Ozone could also be used for disinfection of wastewater.
A review of cost data for small capacity ozone generators suit-
able for this particular application indicates that they would
not be cost effective. Furthermore, the problems of operation
and maintenance could prove unacceptable.
31
-------
SECTION 7
Wastewater Monitoring
When the Maryland Environmental Service was first requested
to assist seafood processors in finding solutions to their many
problems, one concern was the requirements for monitoring waste-
water. The NPDES permits for seafood processing plants require
monthly samples and reports on coliform and average daily flow.
At that time there were too few laboratories to do the bacterio-
logical analysis. Since then, however, at least one commercial
laboratory has been performing the required sampling and labor-
atory work for 16 processing plants located in Queen Anne and
Talbot Counties. This represents 34% of the processors included
in this study. The laboratory is willing to serve processors in
other areas as well.
For a fee of eighteen dollars ($18.00) the laboratory will
take wastewater samples and perform laboratory analysis for
total coliform, fecal coliform and residual chlorine. This is
done monthly and the results are submitted in such a way that
the processor can furnish the data to the Water Resources Admin-
istration. The laboratory also prepares required quarterly
reports for the seafood processors.
In regard to bacteriological analysis, monitoring is no
longer considered a problem as long as this commercial service
is available. For meeting the flow measurement requirement, it
is believed that each processor can measure (or estimate) waste-
water flow from his plant in the same manner done for this study,
The flow data could then be included in the required reports.
In view of these developments, it is the conclusion of this
study that the current monitoring requirements do not place an
unreasonable burden on the processor. It is considered that no
additional monitoring requirements are needed to adequately
maintain surveillance over receiving waters in order to protect
water quality.
32
-------
REFERENCES
Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source
Category Effluent Guidelines and Standards (Catfish,
Crab, Shrimp and Tuna Processing Subcategory), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register
39-23134, June 26, 1974, as amended by Federal Register
40-55780, December 1, 1975.
Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source
Catagory, Effluent Guidelines and Standards (Fish Meal,
Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam, Oyster, Sardine, Scallop
Herring and Abalone Processing Subcategory), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register
40-55770, December 1, 1975.
ivironmentai protection Ag
)-55770, December 1, 1975.
3. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Catfish, Crab, Shrimp and Tuna Segment of the Canned
and Preserved Sea Food Processing Plant Source Category,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/1-74-020a,
Washington, D. C., July, 1974.
4. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for the Fish Meal, Salmon, Bottomfish, Sardine, Herring,
Clam, Oyster, Scallop, and Abalone Segment of the Canned
and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source Category,
Phase II, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/
1-74-041, Washington, D. C., January, 1975.
5. Economic Analysis of Effluent Guidelines for Selected
Segments of the Seafood Processing Industry (Catfish, Crab,
Shrimp, and Tuna), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA 230/2-74-025, Washington, D. C., July, 1974.
6. Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Guidelines
Seafoods Processing Industry (Fish Meal, Salmon, Bottomfish,
Clams, Oysters, Sardines, Scallops, Herring, Abalone),
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 230/2-74-047,
Washington, D. C., October, 1975.
7. National Shellfish Sanitation Program, Manual of Operations,
Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas; Part II,
-------
7. Sanitation of the Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish,
1965 Revisions, U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Public Health Service.
8. Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene -
10.03.19 - Regulations Governing the Processing, Handling
and Packing of Shellfish, December 1, 1970.
9. Final Report on Cost of Implementation and Capabilities
of Available Technology to Comply with P.L. 92-500,
Industry Category 11: Canned and Preserved Seafood; for
National Commission on Water Quality, Battelle's Columbus
Laboratories, July 3, 1975.
10. Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and
Wastewater Laboratories, Environmental Protection Agency,
June, 1972.
11. Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 625/6-74-003, 1974.
12. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water, 13th Edition, American Public Health Association,
1971.
13. Tsai, Chu-fa. Effects of Sewage Treatment Plant
Effluent on Fish: A Review of Literature; Chesapeake
Research Consortium Inc., Publication No. 36, March, 1975.
14. Brungs, William A. Effects of Residual Chlorine on
Aquatic Life; Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 45, No. 10, October, 1973.
15. Roberts, Morris H. Jr., R. J. Diaz, M. E. Bender, and R. J.
Huggett. Acute Toxicity of Chlorine to Selected Estuarine
Species; Journal of The Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
Vol. 32, No. 12, 1975, pp. 2525-2528.
16. Creter, Robert V., and Joseph P. Lewandowski, "Simple
Waste Treatment for Seafood Packers", Maryland Water
Resources Administration; Pollution Engineering, Feburary,
1975.
34
-------
APPENDIX A
Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration
Regulation 08.05.04.03
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
A. GENERAL
The following receiving water quality standards are
established to protect the uses indicated. Where the
waters of the State are, or may be, affected by dis-
charges from point sources, these standards shall apply
outside of a mixing zone designated by the Administration.
B. STANDARDS FOR CLASS I WATERS
Water Contact Recreation and Aquatic Life
(1) Bacteriological Standards
There shall be no sources of pollution which
constitute a public health hazard. If the fecal
coliform density exceeds a log mean of 200/100 ml,
the bacterial water quality shall be considered
acceptable only if a detailed sanitary survey and
evaluation discloses no significant public health
risk in the use of the waters.
(2) Dissolved Oxygen Standard
The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be
less than 4.0 mg/liter at any time, with a minimum
daily average of not less than 5.0 mg/liter,
except where, and to the extent that, lower values
occur naturally.
(3) Temperature Standard
a. Thermal effects shall be limited and controlled
so as to prevent:
1. Temperature changes that adversely affect
aquatic life;
-------
2. Temperature changes that adversely affect
spawning success and recruitment; and
3. Thermal Barriers to the passage of fish.
b. Temperature elevations above natural shall
be limited to 5°F, and the temperature may
not exceed 90°F, outside of designated mixing
zones.
c. This limitation of temperature changes in
Class I Waters does not preclude the dis-
charge of warmed water. Warming of a portion
of a body of water is permissible if it will
not produce substantial detriment and if the
volume of the new temperature is of such size
and duration that the exposure of organisms
or life stages thereof, is less than the time
associated with deleterious biological effects
at that particular temperature.
(4) pH Standard
Normal pH values must not be less than 6.5 nor
greater than 8.5, except where--and to the
extent that pH values outside this range occur
naturally.
(5) Turbidity Standard
a. Turbidity may not exceed levels detrimental
to aquatic life.
b. Within limits of Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available, turbidity
may not exceed for extended periods of time
those levels normally prevailing during
periods of base flow in the surface waters.
c. Turbidity in the receiving water resulting
from any discharge may not exceed 50 JTU
(Jackson Turbidity Units) as a monthly
average, nor exceed 150 JTU at any time.
C. STANDARDS FOR CLASS II WATERS
Shellfish Harvesting
(1) Bacteriological Standards
a. The Most Probable Number (MPN) of coliform
organisms may not exceed 70/100 ml, as a
36
-------
median value and not more than 10 per cent
of the samples may exceed an MPN of 230/100
ml for a five-tube decimal dilution test
(or 330/100 ml, while the three-tube decimal
dilution test is used).
b. Compliance also shall be achieved with the
sanitary and bacteriological requirements as
set forth in the latest edition of "National
Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Oper-
ations".
(2) Dissolved Oxygen Standard
Same as for Class I Waters
(3) Temperature Standard
Temperature elevations above natural shall be
limited to 4°F, in September through May, and
to 1.5°F, in June through August, outside of
designated mixing zones.
(4) pH Standard
Same as for Class I Waters
(5) Turbidity Standard
Same as for Class I Waters
D. STANDARDS FOR CLASS III WATERS
Natural Trout Waters
(1) Bacteriological Standards
Same as for Class I Waters
(2) Dissolved Oxygen Standard
The dissolved oxygen concentration may be not
less than 5.0 mg/liter at any time, with a min-
imum daily average of not less than 6.0 mg/liter,
except where, and to the extent that, lower dis-
solved oxygen values occur naturally.
(3) Temperature Standard
a. No significant thermal changes; and
37
-------
b. Temperature may not exceed 68°F beyond the
distance from any point of discharge specified
by the Administration, except where, and to
the extent that, higher temperature values
occur naturally.
(4) pH and Turbidity Standard
Same as for Class I Waters
E. STANDARDS FOR CLASS IV WATERS
Recreational Trout Waters
(1) Bacteriological and Dissolved Oxygen Standard
Same as for Class I Waters
(2) Temperature Standard
a. Thermal effects shall be limited and controlled
so as to prevent:
1. Temperature changes that adversely affect
aquatic life;
2. Temperature changes that adversely affect
spawning success; and
3. Thermal barriers to the passage of fish.
b. Temperature may not exceed 75°F, beyond the
distance from any point of discharge specified
by the Administration, except where, and to the
extent that, higher temperature values occur
naturally.
(3) pH and Turbidity Standard
Same as for Class I Waters
38
-------
0
tI
03
rH
H
03
X
pq
X
hH
Q
r^
w
CU
OH
<
to
O
H
P
03
P
H
s
H
J
P
Pi
0
rH
+-I
MH
H
P
Pi
fH
U
X
60
0
rH
0
PI
0
0
rn
rH
O
P
Pi
0
U
0
r~H
X
o3
O
rH
P
o
03
fH
P
0
CD
X
nd
0
to
to
0
O
o
!H
ft
X
60
H
0
0
O
O
O
to
60
X
ft
«
uff
0
CO
CO
E-H
LO
Q
0
60
p|
03
erf
oj
X T3
03 £>
S 0 03
X
rH X
H 03
« S
o
03 >
So 03
X
rH X
H O3
03 S
Q
03
S 0 03
X
rH X
H 03
03 S
Q
X
60
O
O -H
Pi to
X! oS
(J PQ
0
X
!H
O
60
0
P
o3
O
o
3
CO
0 00
O*t O"> CD
1 1 1
o o o
vO vO vO
O O K^
CN1 Tj- CN1
O LO O
VO LO VO
c vo
rH OO
rH
CXI rH
. .
CXI CXI CD
LO
1 1 1
1 1 1
E_
C3 CO CO
* * K
CO XX
rH rH T3
03 03 XI 0
OX rX O -H O
H 03 IO 'H p., 3
P M oj P X
PI U rH Pi S CO
0 < 0 O CO
> 0 l > +J T3 g
p| 3 C Pi P Pi o3
O rH O O O Oj rH
U pq 2 O pq X U
o
.
o~>
i
0
vO
O
r"-
r--.
t-~.
LO
rH
CT>
rH
1
1
CO
»*
X
0
WO*
U oi 3
H O Xl W
P U CO fH
Pi 0
03 MH 13 P
' i rH P) t/)
P 3 oj x
< o x o
ft
03
60 (f)
C rt
H CD
ft r<
0) 60
0
PI -X 0
0 0 rH
0 W PL,
!H 3 e
O O -H
CO |3C CO
CO X H
U
o
ft
-d
0
xl
P!
H
m
o
to
0
P
P
03
P
H
g
H
P
Pi
0
MH
w
K
a
o
J-l
0
P
U
nj
JH
P
X
0
0
0
X
tO is
03 cxj
oj pi
H OS
fH
0 /x
P rH
03 ^'
6
0 0
> o
o ci
x 0
03 !H
0
0 MH
XI 0
H Crf
W
H
O
39
-------
to
0
o
rH
3
O
CO
£
0
2
rH
O
<4H
rH
o3
o3
P
CO
Pi
oj
0
X)
03
03
to
0
pq
nd
0
to
to
0
O
o
rH
PH
P
W)
H
0
0
nd
0
P
Pi
H
Pi
O
O
V '
pq
X
rH
Q
2
W
OH
OH
0
H
r\
U
<£
X
rH
rH
03
(J
H
S
O
PI
0
u
w
X
bfl
0
o
a
U
0
H
rH
.
to to
oo xi
01 rH
rH
> O
rH O
O
X rH
rH \
3 to
H~D O
rH
rH
O
U
fc^
\
CxO
«
ac
e>
o
CO
CO
H
LO
O
O
pq
0
PI
«3
OS
03
X Td
cti £>
S 0 03
to
X
rH X
H Oj
oJ S
Q
o3
X "d
03 >
S 0 o3
to
X
rH X
rH Oj
03 S
Q
OS
X Td
o3 >
S O 03
to
X
rH X
rl OS
cd )>]
Q
X
W)
o to
1 ^
r^ r~l
o to
C 03
xl pq
u
0
X
o
0
p
o3
X)
CO
o o o o
C7i (3) O} Ol
lit i
O O O O
LO
VO tO rH O
O O CM t-~
.
to *3* o t^
rH O LO f~
. . .
LO IO
*3" t-~
. .
t~~. LO
^H t J
O
CTl LO
. .
rH LO O>
LO rH
LO OO
rH LO 1 1
. .
o to
to r-- i i
.
rJ J
rv A
E-H CO CO CO
u > > >,
" OH OH OH
CO 1 ( 1 l h- 1
rH rH nd T3
03 03 XI 0 0
PltO OSPltO ^i u£TPr^
OX) rXO-H CJ tOO*
HOJ tO-HUn ^! U033
Prn 03P Xl -HOXlt/)
PlU rHCS CO PUCOrH
0 <£, 0 o to pi 0
>0 l>4_) ndg OSMHHdP
Pi 3 PlPlP PlOS rHrHPllO
OrH OOO OSrH P-303X
upq 2:upq xu <
PI
H
PI
0
H
-P
03
-P
H
s
H
rH
P
Pi
0
m
w
a
o
rH
m
Td
0
p
o
03
rH
P
X
0
PI
0
0
.
to r-^
03 CM
f-t ^ J
rH Td
03 Pi
H Oj
rH
0 / >
P rH
03 v-^
S
to
0 0
> u
0 PI
o dj
03 rH
0
0 MH
xl 0
H OS
W
H
O
*
40
-------
APPENDIX C
Production Limitation Exceptions
SECTION 408.20 - CONVENTIONAL BLUE CRAB
"The effluent limitations contained in subpart B are
applicable to existing facilities processing more than 1362 KG.
(3000 Ibs) of raw material per day on any day during a calendar
year and all new sources".
SECTION 408.210 - NON-ALASKAN CONVENTIONAL BOTTOM FISH
Mr
'These provisions apply to existing facilities processing
more than 1816 KG. (4000 Ibs) of raw material per day on any
day during a calendar year and all new sources".
SECTION 408.230 - HAND SHUCKED CLAMS
"
'The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges
resulting from existing hand-shucked clams processing facilities
which process more than 1815 KG. (4000 Ibs) of raw material per
day on any day during a calendar year and all new sources".
SECTION 408.260 - ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST HAND-SHUCKED OYSTERS
"The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges
resulting from existing hand-shucked oyster processing facilities
on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts which process more than 454 KG.
(1000 Ibs) of product per day on any day during a calendar year
and all new sources".
NOTE: The above material has been extracted from References (1)
and (2).
41
-------
APPENDIX D
State of Maryland
Water Resources Administration
Tawes State Office Building, Annapolis, Md.
21401
POLICY ON
PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS,
NITROGEN REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS,
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL LIMITS, AND
ALLOCABLE CAPACITY RESERVATION FOR
SPECIFIED WATERS OF THE STATE
Purpose of Policy:
Federal and State laws, and the Memorandum of Agreement
executed on September 5, 1974, between the State of Maryland
and EPA, require that State and NPDES Discharge Permits be
issued by July 1, 1975, for all point sources discharging into
the Waters of the State. Issued permits are valid for a period
not exceeding five years.
The purpose of this policy statement is to establish guide-
lines for effluent limitations for phosphorus, nitrogen, total
chlorine residual, and allocable capacity, prior to the July,
1975, deadline and in the absence of individual water quality
management basin plans. As these plans are adopted, discharge
permits issued thereafter will reflect requirements established
by that plan. Any of the four parameters which is not specifi-
cally addressed in an adopted Water Quality Management Basin
Plan, will be limited in accordance with this policy, or as it
may be revised.
42
-------
1. Phosphorus Reduction Requirements: For point sources
discharging directly to the Maryland portion of the
Chesapeake Bay the total phosphorus limit (as P) shall
normally be 2 mg/1 based upon a monthly average and a
required removal efficiency of 80% throughout the year.
For point sources discharging into embayments tributary to
Chesapeake Bay, the total phosphorus limit may have an addi-
tional seasonal control requirement (March 15 through
November 15) to reduce the discharge level to an average of
0.3 mg/1 as P.
RATIONALE:
a. The Hydroscience study confirms that the Maryland
portion of the Chesapeake Bay is phosphorus limited.
b. The State of Pennsylvania requires 801 removal or
2 mg/1 of total phosphorus as P for point sources
discharging to the Lower Susquehanna River Basin.
c. A reduction of 80% for point sources discharging into
the Bay, Baltimore Harbor and the Susquehanna River
Basin, should serve to maintain the population of
algae at essentially current background levels.
d. More stringent requirements for seasonal control of
point source discharges of phosphorus to embayments
are based upon available studies documenting the
need for additional phosphorus control, e.g. Sod
Run - Romney Creek; Elkton - Elk River; Aberdeen-
Swan Creek, etc. Specifically, the level of phos-
phorus is related to algae production and its
capability to deplete oxygen levels in the embayments.
e. The early date of March 15 was selected so that the
normally sluggish embayments will be flushed before
the critical algae production period in the summer.
f. The 0.3 mg/1 total P limit is readily attainable from
a technical standpoint with the installation of a
terminal filter, either sand or multi-media, following
the clarifier to capture suspended granular phosphate
particles. In fact, with existing technology utiliz-
ing chemical control, an average of 1.0 mg/1 in the
effluent can be achieved without a filter, and an
average of 0.1 mg/1 with a filter.
2. Nitrogen Reduction Requirements: No nitrogen limits shall be
set at this time for point sources discharging into the
estuarine waters of the State of Maryland except for the
Patuxent River, the Potomac River-Metro Area, and Assawoman
Bay.
43
-------
RATIONALE:
a. For Chesapeake Bay, the Hydroscience study currently
being completed for WRA has determined that the
Maryland portion of the Bay proper is not nitrogen
limited. This will preclude any general nitrogen
control requirements for the foreseeable future.
b. In the future, where nitrogen reductions are required,
these will be established and implemented on a schedule
which takes into account available technology, energy
requirements, and financial resources.
c. We recognize the competition for scarce dollars to
control much more important water pollution problems
in the State.
Total Chlorine Residual Limits: The current requirements
for continuoustotal chlorine residual control (i.e. 0.02
mg/1 maximum into trout waters, a maximum 0.50 mg/1 into
other fresh waters, and 0.50 mg/1 into tidal waters) shall
be maintained.
RATIONALE:
a. The recent chlorine residual workshop held on
November 14, 1974, in Baltimore confirmed the need for
effective biocide limits and that Maryland's limits
were conservative and within the realm of technical
control.
b. Effective bacterial control systems are available
including chlorine, bromine-chloride, ozone, ultra-
violet and long term residence time. Pre-mixing and
plug flow contact are essential design operating
considerations for all biocides.
c. For small plants (e.g. 0.5 MGD or less) an equlization
tank ahead of an activated sludge or trickling filter
type plant will simplify control requirements, partic-
ularly so, if dechlorination is required.
d. Large plants with a design flow of 1 MGD or greater
must have paced control systems to reflect changes in
flow and residual demand.
e. The colorometric monitoring instruments, particularly
those using the acid OTO test, are not acceptable
tools for use in a waste water treatment plant. Care-
ful amperometric residual measurement is required at
the minimum.
44
-------
f. An ad hoc advisory group is being formed to review
the requirements and to recommend possible improve-
ments .
4. Allocable Capacity Reserve Clause: The existing WRA
Regulation 08.05.04.11 C.TT)is to be revised, following
public notice and public hearing, as follows:
"This allocation is to be established
with due consideration for seasonal
variations and a margin of safety,
whereby such allocations to all point
sources will include (a) a reservation
up to 50% of the total allocable load
at design stream flow for the specific
river segment or water region, or
(b) the load established by an approved
Basin Water Quality Management Plan."
RATIONALE:
a. The existing clause states:
"This allocation is to be established
with due consideration to seasonal
variations, a margin of safety, and
by allocating to all point sources a
maximum load not exceeding (a) 50% of
the total available load for the
specific river segment or water region,
or (b) that load established by an
approved Basin Water Quality Management
Plan."
b. The existing clause severely restricts load allocations
to a maximum figure and as a result does not allow for
needed judgement in complex areas or to recognize
difficult operating limitations laid on very small
facilities.
45
-------
APPENDIX E
Policy Statement on
Disinfection and Chlorine Residuals-'-
The following are the outlines of the policy to be adopted
by the State of Maryland:
1. Both bacterial control and residual chlorine control
will be facilitated by upgrading and making improve-
ments in the waste treatment processes and facilities.
To this end, the State will make the effort to achieve
the necessary upgrading and improvement in systems and
in effluent conditions at the earliest possible time.
2. For the protection of public health, the State's
ultimate goal of disinfection is to attain adequate
destruction of pathogenic bacteria and viruses in
treated sewage effluents.
3. For the protection of aquatic life, the State shall
work to minimize the discharge of toxic chlorine, if
chlorination is used for disinfection.
4. EHA shall review and evaluate the chlorination system
of each existing municipal and domestic waste treatment
plant and make recommendations to the plant owners on
the necessary improvements for meeting the effluent
limitations of issued discharge permits. Interim
modifications to the existing systems should be spec-
ified as well as requirements for long term control.
Such consideration should include improvement of the
basic treatment system as well as necessary improvement
in the disinfection system. The construction grant
funds shall also be oriented toward the improvement of
the disinfection efficiency by both upgrading the
effluent quality and the disinfection systems.
5. EHA shall evaluate each individual municipal and
domestic waste treatment plant as to its capability in
Distributed at the Chlorine Residual Advisory Committee,
September 8, 1975.
46
-------
achieving the desired level of disinfection. EHA shall
make a determination of coliform limits for each treat-
ment plant and the chlorine residual necessary to
achieve those limits during the period of interim modi-
fications and forward this information to the WRA.
EHA and WRA shall meet together from time to time, at
least once per year, to review the program and make
necessary adjustments of the control program and, if
necessary, recommend adjustments in the effluent
limits and water quality standards.
47
-------
Pi
X
rH
Q
^
W
PH
PH
0
^,
PH
rH
rH
nH
^
TJ
0
p
0
i 1
PH
6
O
u
p;
0
43
^g
rv
43
U
H
43
t/>
P
U
0
o
rH
PH
t/)
J_,
0
to
to
0
o
o
rH
PH
O
O
m
oS
0
CO
pi
H
OS
P
JH
0
U
O
H
/
1
/"*\
P
oi
f_.
^ Q
C^~ Vl J
CT>
rH H
CO
>- rH
PH J
Q H
z u
< W
>H O
Pi Pi
< PH
^
CO
S H
O 2
pi <5
PH K
CD
Q
W 2
H O
U I-H
< H
Pi U
H S
X Od
PJ H
CO
^y
o
u
o
o to
MH rH
as o
0 fi
CO to
0
u
PH
K
P
0
P
CO
0
T3 X
H P
3£ -H
0 rH
P O
03 -H
CO PH
0
rH
O
U
CNl
O
U
OS tO
P,-H
o
CJ43
o
43 a
t/) X
H J
Pi
(/)
Pi
H
P -H
rH >
aj rt
S Q
-d
0
43
O 13
P 0
£>
OS rH
0 0
rH CO
<
PI
as
rH
M
t/)
P!
O
s
o
rH
O
CO
X
p
PI
0
P
rH
>
t~H
as
X
4_)
H
^
p;
aj
0
O
O
p
in
0
*
0
p
tn
u
o
(XI
oo
to
u
p;
T)
13 O
O O
O <4H
X
PI to
c3 C^
PH O
OS 0 T3 O
U
a
o
u
43
O -H
0 CO O
H to m
v> 6 as
PH 0 Pi
CO tO K rH
PQ Pi S: *-l
JH -H
OS >
0 O
P > t/5
P! 0 aj
0 -P rH
0
C
Pi
P!
0
0
CX
PI
aj
rH
to
0
O
O
rH
P
fH
aj
X
aS
T3
O
O
MH
ai
0
CO
w
bfl
aj
0
as
aj
i-H 0
043
H OH
tO rH
H 0
rH PH
+->
0
to
e
o
CO
en
p
X
0
>
o
JH
P,
PH
as
(3
OS
0
N
'rH
OS
(3
H
m
H
P
to
H
, ]
-P
O
0
i »
O
rH
PH
0
43
P
(3
0
43
0
P
0}
13
PH
0
^
rH rH
H 0
12 (3
in 0
H >
43 0
H C3
rH
0
,_J
p
p
t/)
S3
O
u
1
to
01
CO
6
0
-p
to
X
CO
m
o
fi/-^
bfli3
H 0
to 3
0 (3
Q -H
P
' (3
O
cxi U
> '
P,
0
P
CO
ri
Pi
OS
PH
I/)
0
H
P
H
H
U
OS
i
i l
PH
0
P
CO
*
48
-------
/ N
*~o
0>
2
Pi
H
P
O
U
* '
PH
X
rH
O
2
P4
PH
PH
O
^H
PH
rH
rH
H
|S
13
0
P
0
rH
ft
£
o
u
Pi
0
r\
S
>
-Ci
O
H
^
tn
p
o
0
0
PH
in
^
O
in
to
0
o
0
£_l
PH
13
O
0
03
0
CO
Pi
H
o3
P
5H
0
U
O
f i
/
r
P
03
t-- 5-i
t^^ f""l
CTi ~~^
rH
f-H
>H CO
P-< rH
J
Q
2 H
03 5-i
0 0
5-1 CO
O
p5
0
in
H
5-i
5-i
03
X
13
Pi
03
rH
in
rH
Pi
03
6
bO
rH
H
H
P
0
o
rH
03
H
Company
5H
0
p
in
X
O
PI
o
in
H
5-i
5n
03
X
13
Pi
OS
rH
in
1 1
Pi
03
£
fi
bO
rH
H
H
P
O
pQ
rH
03
E-H
0
p
in
O
03-
^
10
H
PH
i3
rH
0
H
"-H
rrj
O
O
^
0
rH
rH
H
in
0
rH
03
C3
to
0
13
3
rH
O
PI
1 I
0
Pi
3
f_!
<£
0
Pi
pj]
13
O
O
<-H
03
0
CO
,£3
p
H
OS
PH
to
o
tn
in
0
u
o
5H
PH
T3
O
O
MH
03
0
CO
o^
rH
H
O
H
K
ft
0
P
CO
o
2
0
13 X
H P
0 5-i
P O
o3 -H
P 5-i
CO PH
CSI
LO
OO
CT)
(XI
to
to
0
P
X
13
0
O
^
ft
ft
03
i3
Pi
03
13
0
N
H
r~H
03
Pi
H
MH
in
H
P
tn
rH
p
u
0
r->
0
5H
PH
0
^5
P
Pi
0
5
0
03
13
ft
3
0
o
0
P
to 5-i
03 O
-Pi PI
in 0
H >
-Pi 0
HU
rH
P!
O
,_j
rt
p
u
3
P
m
R
o
<->
1
to
ft
0
P
CO
r.
e
0
P
to
X
CO
m
0
G
H
in
0
Q
i
Csl
ft
0
P
CO
Pi
03
r~H
PH
in
0
H
P
rH
H
U
OS
PH
1
rH
ft
0
P
CO
K
49
-------
APPENDIX G
All tests except for chlorine were performed in accordance
with the Manual of Methods for Analysis of Water and Wastes,
1974, by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
1971, by the American Public Health Association, the American
Water Works Association and the Water Pollution Control
Federation.
50
-------
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND - BOD
Definition:
The EPA Manual of Methods defines the BOD test as "an
empirical bioassay-type procedure which measures the dissolved
oxygen consumed by microbial life while assimilating and
oxidizing the organic matter present".
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples for BOD were collected in one liter plastic bottles,
Samples were transported on ice, then held in a cold room at
about 2°C until analysis the next day.
Procedure:
The Wrinkler method described below is used to measure
dissolved oxygen (DO) in the sample and in the water used to
dilute the sample. Another portion of the sample is appro-
priately diluted, sealed from the air in special bottles, and
incubated at 20°C in the dark. After 5 days, DO is measured in
the incubated samples, again by the Winkler method. The DO
that was in the bottle before incubation is calculated from the
volumes of sample and dilution water that went into the bottle
and from their respective DO's, previously determined. DO
before incubation minus DO after dilution factor incubation
equals BOD.
The saturated point of DO in water is about 9 milligrams
per liter at 20°C. The sample can not hold more oxygen than
this. Therefore, determination of a BOD value above 9 is not
possible unless the sample is diluted. For this reason, most of
the bottles for incubation contained diluted samples.
Some samples had been chlorinated. Chlorine inhibits
microbial activity, so chlorine was destroyed before samples
were incubated. An appropriate quantity of sodium sulfite was
added to the chlorinated samples to transform chlorine to
innocuous common salt. To insure that micro-organisms were
present in the incubated samples, the dilution water was inoc-
ulated with a few ml of a culture maintained by periodic
addition of seafood processing wastewater.
51
-------
For determination of DO by the Winkler method, several
chemicals are added to the sample to be analyzed. Reactions
occur to tie up the DO and release an equivalent quantity of
iodine. A dark blue color formed by iodine and starch suddenly
disappears when the iodine is consumed by the addition of an
exactly equivalent quantity of a standard solution of sodium
thiosulfate. The dissolved oxygen is then calculated based on
the volume of sodium thiosulfate solution required to react with
the iodine.
Accuracy:
Data is reported in units of milligrams of oxygen consumed
per liter of sample. According to the EPA Manual of Methods,
there is no acceptable procedure for determining the accuracy
of the BOD test. Furthermore, precision is poor. Again,
according to the EPA Manual of Methods, 86 analysts measured
BOD on a sample containing added organic compoinds. The stand-
ard deviation was +_ 26 on the sample with an average BOD of 175.
The poor precision should be taken into consideration when
interpreting BOD data.
Efforts were made to keep accuracy and precision as high as
possible. Double distilled dilution water was used. Oxygen
depletions of less than 2 ml were rejected they were not used to
calculate BOD. Incubated samples with a residual DO of less
than 2 mg/1 were also rejected. The procedure was routinely
checked by determining the BOD of a glucose-glutamic acid stand-
ard in accordance with Standard Methods. Results of this check
were satisfactory.
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
Definition:
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is defined as the sum of free
ammonia and organic nitrogen compounds. In these samples, most
organic nitrogen is protein. Kjeldahl nitrogen does not include
nitrate and nitrite.
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples for total Kjeldahl nitrogen were collected in one
liter plastic bottles and preserved with the addition of 2 ml
of concentrated sulfuric acid. Samples were transported on ice,
then frozen at about -23°C until analysis.
52
-------
Procedure:
A measured volume of sample is boilded with sulfuric acid.
This treatment breaks down organic compounds in the sample.
Nitrogen in the organic compounds is converted to ammonia. In
an acidic solution, ammonia forms a soluable salt, in this case
ammonium sulfate. This solution is cooled, then sodium hydrox-
ide is added. The sodium hydroxide neutralizes the sulfuric
acid and makes the solution stroigly alkaline. The ammonium
sulfate converts back to ammonia, which is insoluable in alkaline
solution.
The alkaline solution is boiled to distill steam and ammonia
gas into a flask containing boric acid. Upon contact with the
boric acid, the ammonia again forms a soluable salt, ammonium
borate. All of the Kjeldahl nitrogen from the original sample
now exists as ammonium borate in the boric acid flask. The
ammonia partially neutralizes the boric acid. The final step is
the additon of a standard acid of known concentration to the
boric acid solution. A measured volume of the standard acid is
added to the boric acid solution to restore exactly its pH to
what it was before the distillation. The volume of standard
acid required is proportional to the ammonia which had been
distilled. Since the distilled ammonia represents the Kjeldahl
nitrogen, the Kjeldahl nitrogen may be caluculated from the
volume of standard acid.
Accuracy:
Data is reported to the nearest tenth of a milligram in
units of milligrams of nitrogen per liter of sample. The result
of an intra-laboratory study of the accuracy of this procedure
is given in the EPA Manual of Methods.
NITROGEN, NITRATE-NITRITE
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples for nitrate-nitrite were collected in one liter
plastic bottles and preserved with the addition of 2 ml of
concentrated sulfuric acid. Samples were transported on ice,
then frozen at about -23°C until analysis, usually with two
weeks.
Procedure:
The sample is filtered, and the pH adjusted. Next, a
buffer solution is added to maintain the pH and the sample is
passed through a column of cadmium plated with copper. The
53
-------
column converts any nitrate of the sample to nitrite. A color
reagent is then added which reacts with the nitrite forming a
red dye. The intensity of this color is proportional to the
concentration of nitrate plus nitrite which was originally in
the sample. The intensity of the red color was measured on a
Beckman DB spectrophotometer. Standard solutions containing
known amounts of nitrite and nitrate were given the same treat-
ment to calibrate the spectrophotometer readings.
Accuracy:
Data is reported to the nearest hundredth of a milligram in
units of milligrams of nitrogen per liter of sample. This
nitrogen was in the form of nitrite and/or nitrate in the orig-
inal sample. The results of a study by one laboratory on the
accuracy of this procedure are given in the EPA Manual of Methods
OIL AND GREASE
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples for oil and grease were collected in one liter glass
bottles and preserved with the addition of 2 ml of concentrated
sulfuric acid. Samples were transported on ice, then held in a
cold room at about 2°C until analysis, often the next day, and
usually within a week.
Procedure:
Oil and grease is defined by the analytical procedure used.
The one liter sample is poured into a two liter separatory
funnel. Thirty ml of Freon 113 is added to the sample collection
bottle to rinse it, then the Freon is added to the separatory
funnel. The Freon is shaken with the sample, causing any oil
and grease of the sample to dissolve in the Freon.
Freon is insoluable in water and more dense than water, so
it sinks to the bottom of the separatory funnel. The valve at
the bottom of the separatory funnel is opened to allow the Freon
with its dissolved oil and grease to drain into a previously
weighed flask. When the Freon is drained, the valve is closed,
retaining the sample in the separatory funnel. This is repeated
with two additional 30 ml portions of fresh Freon. The sample
is discarded, then the separatory funnel is rinsed with 10 ml of
Freon. These four portions of Freon are combined in the weighed
flask. The flask is heated, evaporating the Freon. The flask
is again weighed and the increase is attributed to oil and grease
from the sample.
54
-------
Data is reported to the nearest milligram in units of
milligrams of oil and grease per liter of sample. The accuracy
of the oil and grease procedure cannot be evaluated since the
definition of oil and grease is based on the procedure used.
RESIDUE, TOTAL NON-FILTERABLE
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples for residue, total non-filterable were collected in
100 ml glass bottles. Samples were transported on ice, then
held in a cold room at about 2°C until analysis, either the same
day or the day after sample collection.
Procedure:
Residue, total non-filterable is defined by the procedure
used. The sample is shaken and an appropriate measured volume
is filtered through a dry, weighed, standard glass fiber filter.
The filter, with the residue, is then dried to a constant weight
in a forced air oven at 103-105°C. This constant weight minus
the weight of the filter equals the weight of the residue.
Accuracy:
Data is reported in units of milligrams of residue per liter
of sample. According to Standard Methods, there is no satisfac-
tory procedure for obtaining the accuracy of the method on
wastewater samples, since the true concentration of suspended
matter is unknown.
SETTLEABLE MATTER
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples for settleable matter were collected in one liter
glass bottles. Samples were transported on ice, then held in a
cold room at about 2°C until analysis, either the same day or
the day after sample collection.
Procedure:
Settleable matter is defined by the procedure used. The
sample is shaken and poured into an Imhoff cone. This is a
glass cone with volumetric graduations near the bottom. The
55
-------
sample is allowed to settle for 45 minutes, then the cone is
spun to dislodge settleable matter stuck to the sides of the
cone, and allowed to settle for an additional 15 minutes. The
volume of settleable matter is then read from the graduations
near the bottom of the cone.
Accuracy:
Data is reported to the nearest tenth of a milliliter in
units of milliliters of settleable matter per liter of sample.
EPA has not established standards for accuracy.
PH
Definition:
The pH scale tells whether water is acidic, neutral, or
alkaline. The pH of neutral water is 7. The pH of acidic water
is below 7, with smaller numbers indicating more acidity. The
pH of alkaline water is above 7, with larger numbers indicating
more alkalinity.
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples were collected in glass bottles. Samples were
transported on ice, then held in a cold room at about 2°C until
analysis, either the same day or the day after sample collection.
Procedure:
The pH was measured with glass electrodes on a Corning Model
12 Research pH meter. The meter was calibrated with two standard
solutions of known pH before measuring the pH of the sample.
Accuracy:
Data is reported in pH units to one decimal place. Accord-
ing to Standard Methods, +0.1 pH units represents the limit of
accuracy under normal conditions.
56
-------
TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS
Definition:
This test measures the total of all forms of phosphorous
in the sample.
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples for phosphorous were collected in one liter plastic
bottles and preserved with the addition of 2 ml of concentrated
sulfuric acid. Samples were transported on ice, then frozen at
about -23°C until analysis, usually within two weeks.
Procedure:
A small volume of sample, usually one ml, was heated for
20 minutes at 121°C in an autoclave with sulfuric acid and
ammonium persulfate. The step converted all forms of phos-
phorous in the sample to the orthophosphate form. The pH of
the samples was adjusted, then ammonium molydate and antimony
potassium tartrate were added to form an antimony-phospho-
molyb-date complex with the phosphate of the sample. Ascorbic
acid was added to reduce this mixture to a blue colored complex.
The intensity of the blue color is proportional to the amount
of phosphorous in the sample. The intensity was measured on a
Beckman DB spectrophotometer. Standard solutions containing
known amounts of phosphorous were given the same treatment to
calibrate the spectrophotometer readings.
Accuracy:
Data is reported to the nearest tenth of a milligram in
units of milligrams of phosphorous per liter of sample. The
results of an intra-laboratory study of the accuracy of this
procedure is given in the EPA Manual of Methods.
57
-------
AMMONIA
Sample Collection and Storage:
Samples for ammonia determination were collected in one
liter plastic bottles. All samples were preserved with the
addition of 2 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid. Samples were
transported to the laboratory on ice. Analysis for ammonia
began on March 23, 1976. Samples collected before then were
stored at about -23°C. Samples collected on and after March 23,
were held in a cold room at about 2°C until the analysis was
performed - within 24 hours.
Procedure:
Ammonia is measured with an Orion ammonia electrode. With
the electrode immersed in the sample solution, an excess of
sodium hydroxide is added to make the solution strongly alkaline,
In an alkaline solution ammonia is in the form of a dissolved
gas. The ammonia gas diffuses through the membrane of the elec-
trode, causing an electric potential to develop across the
terminals of the electrode. The potential is proportional to
the concentration of ammonia in the sample. The potential is
measured on a voltmeter, which is calibrated with standard
ammonia solutions.
Accuracy:
Data is reported to the nearest tenth of a milligram in
units of milligrams of nitrogen per liter of sample.
CHLORINE
Procedure:
Chlorine is not stable in solution. Samples cannot be
stored. Chlorine analysis was done as samples were collected,
at the site. Hach Co. portable chlorine test kits were used.
Model CN-46-A was used for concentrations of chlorine below
3 mg/1 and Model CN-21-P was used for Concentrations of chlorine
above 3 mg/1.
58
-------
The Low range test kit, Model CN-46-A, works by the
development of a yellow color from the reaction between the
chlorine and orthotolidine, which is added to the sample.
Chlorine concentration is then determined by comparison of the
intensity of the yellow color in the sample to standard yellow
colors in plastic supplied by Hach. The high range test kit,
Model CN-21-P, works by adding chemicals which release a quantity
of iodine in the sample equivalent to the quantity of chlorine in
the sample. The iodine is then measured by a procedure very
similar to the one for iodine measurement described with the
Winkler method in the BOD section.
Accuracy:
Data is reported in units of milligrams of chlorine per
liter of sample. Hach provides no information on accuracy of
these kits. The data should probably be interpreted as rough
estimates of chlorine concentrations.
59
-------
APPENDIX H
Determination of Coliforra and Fecal Coliform Concentration
The waste water samples for bacteriological examination
were collected in sterile 250 ml, screw-capped bottles. Clean
dry bottles, with caps loosened, were covered with a double
layer of aluminum foil and autoclaved for 15 minutes at 121°C.
Two tenths (0.2) ml of a sterile 10% sodium thiosulfate solution
was added to each bottle as a dechlorinating agent. This amount
of sodium thiosulfate will neutralize up to 30 mg residual
chlorine per liter of water and prevent a continuation of bac-
tericidal action of the chlorine until the water is analyzed.
At the time of sampling,, the screw caps and aluminum covers were
removed together. The bottle was filled without rinsing directly
from the waste water discharge stream and the cap with aluminum
cover replaced. Throughout the sample collection, care was
taken to avoid touching or otherwise externally contaminating the
mouth or neck of the bottle. The cap was tightened and the
filled bottle was placed in an ice chest for transit to the
laboratory. The samples were analyzed immediately upon receipt
in the laboratory, or, if time did not permit analysis the same
day, were stored overnight in the cold room for processing early
the next morning. All samples were analyzed within 24 hours of
the time of collection.
The procedures of analysis followed those outlined in
"Standard Methods of Examination of Water and Waste Water", 1971.
The water was examined by the multiple-tube fermentation tech-
nique for members of the coliform group including fecal coliforms.
The coliform group comprises all aerobic and faculative anaerobic
gram-negative, non-sporeforming bacteria which ferment lactose
with production of gas within 48 hours at 35°C. Fecal coliforms
(of fecal origin, principally Eschericia coli) are defined as
those coliforms which will ferment lactose with production of
gas at 44.5°C within 24 hours.
The bacteriological analysis is performed in two steps, a
presumptive test and a confirmation test. Lauryl sulfate
Tryptose broth (LST), used for the presumptive test, serves as
an enrichment medium for the selection of coliform bacteria,
including fecal coliforms. In the confirmation test, Brilliant
Green Bile broth (BGB) at 35°C confirms the coliforms and EC broth
at 44.5°C confirms fecal coliforms.
60
-------
The water sample was vigorously shaken to evenly distribute
the bacteria and disperse clumps and 10 ml was added to each of
3 tubes containing 10 ml double strength LSI. One ml sample was
added to each of 3 tubes containing single strength LST. The
sample water was diluted 1:10, 1:100 and 1:1000 in phosphate
buffered dilution water at pH 7.2, and for each dilution, one ml
was added to each of 3 tubes LST. The inoculated LST tubes were
incubated at 35°+^0.5°C. The tubes were examined at 24 hours and
48 hours for growth (cloudiness) and gas production as evidenced
by a bubble in the inverted fermentation tube or by a persist-
ence of bubbles rising through the liquid upon gentle shaking.
The tubes showing growth and gas are recorded as presumptive
positive and are used to inoculate tubes of BGB and EC.
Transfer of culture from LST to BGB and EC was accomplished by
transferring a 3mm loopful of fluid from positive LST tubes to
tubes of BGB and EC. BGB was incubated at 35°C and examined at
24 hours and 48 hours for growth and gas to confirm coliforms.
EC was incubated at 44.5°C+0.2°C in a covered circulating water
bath. Those tubes showing growth with gas formation after 24
hours were considered confirmed positive for fecal coliforms.
The results of the multiple-tube fermentation technique
are expressed as the Most Probable Number (MPN) usually per
100 ml of sample. The MPN is an estimation and not a precise
enumeration of the actual numbers of bacteria of any given type
per volume of sample. For the 3 tube multiple-fermentation
tests used in this study, the approximate lower and upper 95%
confidence limits may be estimated as 21% of the reported MPN
for the lower and 395% for the upper.
The results for both coliforms and fecal coliforms were
reported as the MPN/100 ml. The MPN was determined by selecting
the highest sample dilution where all 3 tubes were positive and
the numbers of positives in the next two successive dilutions
to give a series of three numbers. Using this series of three
numbers, the MPN/100 ml was found from MPN tables in "Standard
Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water", 1971.
61
-------
APPENDIX H (continued)
Identification of Bacteria with API 20E System
The routine coliform bacteriological examination was now
taken one step further. The API 20E system of Enterobacter-
iaceae identification was used. This is a miniaturized version
of conventional laboratory procedures (as per Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Waste Water) for the identifi-
cation of Enterobacteriaceae and certain allied bacteria. The
intent of this "completed diagnostic test for coliforms" is to
enable laboratory personnel to identify members of the family
Enterobacteriaceae accurately and easily.
The test kit consits of microtubes containing dehydrated
media. These media are reconstituted by adding bacterial sus-
pension, incubated at 35-37°C and reactions read after 18-24
hours. The organism reacts with the media and either changes
color of an indicator or shows distinct characteristics upon the
addition of indicator substances. Results were matched with a
chart of organism reactions and identification was then made.
This test was conducted after the multiple-tube fermentation
technique for estimation of fecal coliform levels. The last
positive E.G. tube (i.e., the highest dilution that was positive)
became the source of bacteria used in the API test procedure.
This culture tube was streaked onto Eosion Methylene Blue (EMB)
agar plates. After 24 hours incubation at 35-37°C the plates
were examined for growth. Four distinct colonies, showing a
metalic green sheen were selected from this plant, each being
transferred to a separate MEB plate and streaked to "purify"
the culture and confirm the colony type. The procedure was
carefully done so as to transfer only one separate colony onto
each plate. These plates were incubated for 24-48 hours at
35-37°C. At the end of this period a colony of the organism was
transferred to 5 ml of sterile water and mixed. With a Pasteur
pipette the bacterial suspension was introduced into the test
capsule and the media reconstituted. The test capsules are then
incubated for 18-24 hours at 35-37°C. At the end of this period
the results are recorded and compared to the API organism
reaction chart for identification.
62
-------
APPENDIX I
SAMPLER NAME DATE
PLANT SAMPLED TIME
Questions to be Answered at the Plant
1. Product (s) being processed
2. Volume of product processed (in bushels)
3. Number of employees working
4. List of treatments prior to discharge
a. Clorination yes no If yes, what
b. Screening yes no concentration?
5. Approximate flow rate at discharge point
6. Number of hours plant operates at the above flow-rate
7. Number of hours plant will operate that day
8. What operation is taking place at sampling time?
63
-------
APPENDIX J
MARYLAND SEAFOOD PROCESSORS
LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY COUNTY
(current as of June 1976)
Mailing
Address
Product(s)
Processed
ANNE ARUNDEL
Woodfield Fish
CALVERT
Oyster Co. Galesville
Denton, Warren § Co., Inc.
Lore, J.C. § Sons, Inc.
DORCHESTER
Cannon, I.F. § Son
Dorchester Crab Co.
Goose Creek Seafood
Hall, Russell
Madison Seafood
Meredith § Meredith
Parks, Charles H.
Phillips, A.E. § Son, Inc.
Powley, Inc.
Rippons Brothers
Ruark § Ashton
Ruark, W.T.
Todd, Bradye P. § Son, Inc.
Toddville Seafood, Inc.
QUEEN ANNE
B. § S. Fisheries
Calvert Shellfish Co.
Crouch's Seafood
Eastern Bay Seafood
Fisherman's Seafood Market
Harris, Wm. H., Seafood
Islander Seafood, Inc.
Kent Oyster Co.
Thomas, W. A. § Son
Broomes Island
Solomons
Crapo
Wingate
Toddville
Fishing Creek
Madison
Toddville
Fishing Creek
Fishing Creek
Wingate
Hoopersville
Hoopersville
Fishing Creek
Crocheron
Wingate
Grasonville
Dominion
Dominion
Dominion
Grasonville
Grasonville
Grasonville
Grasonville
Grasonville
Oysters, Fish
Oysters
Oysters
Crabs
Oysters, Crabs
Crabs
Crabs
Oyster
Oysters, Crabs
Crabs
Crabs
Oysters, Crabs
Crabs
Crabs
Crabs
Crabs
Crabs
Oysters,
Clams
Oysters
Oysters,
Oysters,
Oysters
Oysters,
Oysters,
Oysters,
Clams
Clams
Crabs
Clams
Clams
Clams
64
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Thompson, H.S., Inc.
United Shellfish Co.
SOMERSET
Bivalve Seafood Packers
Diggs Seafood Co.
Faith Seafood, Inc.
Island Seafood
Mt. Vernon Packing Co.
ST. MARYS
Copsey, Leonard W.
Lumpkin Seafood
Milburn Creek Seafood
Sheehan, J. C.
Trossbach Bros.
TALBOT
Bellevue Seafood Co.
Chesapeake Shellfish Co.
Harrison Oyster Co.
Jones, Ray J. Seafood Co.
Tidewater Clam Co.
Turner, W. A. $ Son, Inc.
WICOMICO
Mailing
Address
Grasonville
Grasonville
Mt. Vernon
Crisfield
Wenona
Deal Island
Mt. Vernon
Mechanicsville
Piney Point
St. Marys City
Drayden
Ridge
Bellevue
Sherwood
Tilghman
Wittman
McDaniel
Bellevue
Kennerly, H. B. § Son, Inc. Nanticoke
WORCESTER
Davis § Lynch Fish Co.
Martin Fish Co.
West Ocean City
West Ocean City
Product(s)
Processed
Oysters
Oysters, Clams
Oysters
Oysters
Crabs
Crabs
Oysters
Oysters, Crabs
Oysters
Oysters
Oysters
Oysters
Oysters, Clams
Oysters, Crabs
Clams
Oysters
Oysters, Crabs
Clams
Oysters, Clams
Crabs
Oysters, Clams
Fish
Fish
65
-------
APPENDIX K
TABLE 8, BLUE CRABS
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PflOSPHORUS CTOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA- NH
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNITS
(TONS /DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
2.71
6.94
4.96
761.70
4.53
3.01
0.47
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
1.91
7.8
3.00
3.00
PLANT Al
9 SAMPLES
STD DEV
0.49
0.95
2.73
315.00
3.59
2.30
0.59
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
2.36
0.74
66
-------
TABLE 9. BLUE CRABS
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL £ GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE
AMMONIA-NH
«J
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
UNIT
(TONS/ DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
1.13
8.21
3.16
1380.21
0.64
1.03
1.74
0.05
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.19
0.04
7.80
5.31 x 103
114.00
STD DEV
0.33
0.80
2.77
404.71
0.72
1.45
2.20
0.07
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.28
0.08
0.38
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
PLANT A2
14 SAMPLES
67
-------
TABLE 10, BLUE CRABS
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATION
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL $ GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
UNIT
(TONS/ DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LSB/1000 LB)
(LSB/1000 LB)
(LSB/1000 LB)
(LSB/1000 LB)
(LSB/1000 LB)
(LSB/1000 LB)
MEAN
2.45
7.33
11.41
2048.87
0.11
0.17
0.10
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.00
7.25
STD DEV
0.26
0.48
8.78
961.48
0.03
0.16
0.18
0.01
0.09
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.32
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
72.85 x 10'
1812.00
PLANT A3
12 SAMPLES
68
-------
TABLE 11. BLUE CRABS
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL $ GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
2.67
6.91
17.24
2675.27
2.38
2.72
3.68
0.07
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.45
0.09
7.8
STD DEV
0.41
0.30
15.64
691.30
2.90
4.24
5.79
0.13
0.13
0.01
0.03
0.93
0.19
0.68
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
18.88 x 10'
565.00
PLANT A4
12 SAMPLES
69
-------
TABLE 12. BLUE CRABS
(CONVENTIONAL)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
UNIT
(TONS /DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
2.79
6.43
5.68
785.30
4.74
3.35
2.78
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.11
0.57
0.01
7.39
STD DEV
0.42
0.90
6.02
766.78
5.69
8.41
3.62
0.03
0.07
0.00
0.03
1.09
0.01
0.05
COLI FORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
3.67 x 10'
472.00
PLANT A5
14 SAMPLES
70
-------
TABLE 13. BLUE CRABS
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH-
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
1.21
7.19
4.28
1530.91
4.65
1.63
1.11
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.15
0.18
7.78
STD DEV
0.70
1.03
2.04
180.04
9.08
1.33
1.33
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.18
0.36
0.35
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
83.00 x 10'
PLANT A6
13 SAMPLES
71
-------
TABLE 14. BLUE CRABS
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
COLIFORM
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL /TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
2.20
7.24
7.67
1512.86
2.79
1.92
2.67
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.27
0.29
7.63
1.8 x 103
STD DEV
0.78
0.89
9.10
624.43
5.13
4.26
7.81
0.07
0.08
0.01
0.13
0.66
1.00
0.54
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
200.00
PLANTS Al thru A6
74 SAMPLES
72
-------
TABLE 15. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
0.57
7.94
6.12
5111.99
1.90
3.37
19.30
0.07
0.24
0.00
0.04
1.97
0.00
7.10
STD DEV
0.13
2.16
3.90
3791.50
3.02
3.46
19.68
0.05
0.24
0.00
0.03
1.81
0.00
0.34
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
26.90 x 10-
272.00
PLANT Bl
15 SAMPLES
73
-------
TABLE 16. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.31
6.8;>
12.34
16476.66
1.90
16.01
26.42
0.24
0.33
0.02
0.11
3.26
0.12
7.46
6.32 x 103
81.00
PLANT B2
9 SAMPLES
STD DEV
0.13
1.54
6.47
4750.68
2.24
18.50
25.71
0.34
0.41
0.02
0.12
4.79
0.34
0.86
74
-------
TABLE 17. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.65
6.92
5.11
3281.58
1.12
2.07
8.13
0.04
0.16
0.00
0.01
0.76
1.21
6.92
0.04 x 103
STD DEV
0.21
1.29
2.71
1005.61
2.48
2.56
16.76
0.05
0.14
0.00
0.01
0.55
1.41
0.28
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
7.00
PLANT B3
20 SAMPLES
75
-------
TABLE 18. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL $ GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
0.39
5.35
6.04
4971.39
3.18
14.97
27.88
0.10
0.37
0.00
0.06
4.43
0.00
7.03
STD DEV
0.13
1.77
1.02
827.65
3.20
20.51
18.26
0.07
0.30
0.01
0.03
3.53
0.01
0.32
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
6.58 x 10'
50.00
PLANT B4
10 SAMPLES
76
-------
TABLE 19. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL $ GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.29
7.57
6.67
10563.52
1.33
21.21
91.31
0.07
0.50
0.01
0.29
11. 29
0.00
7. 25
14.80 x 103
159. 00
PLANT B5
9 SAMPLES
STD DEV
0.17
0.79
3.36
961.57
2.11
25.63
72.26
0.06
0.27
0.01
0.28
9.02
0.00
0.45
77
-------
TABLE 20. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH,
J
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/LI
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
0.50
7.02
6.75
5737.02
1.66
8.73
25.24
0.11
0.28
0.01
0.08
3.12
0.38
7.15
STD DEV
0.21
1.82
4.30
2218.37
2.72
15.17
35.99
0.19
0.28
0.01
0.13
4.66
0.94
0.53
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
2.60 x 10-
60.48
PLANTS Bl thru B5
63 SAMPLES
78
-------
TABLE 21. SOFT-SHELL CLAMS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
3.92
6.75
4.46
461.06
3.07
0.58
3.22
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
7.23
88.80 x 103
1784.00
PLANT Bl
8 SAMPLES
STD DEV
0.61
1.67
4.02
662.71
5.72
0.70
2.91
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.46
79
-------
TABLE 22. SOFT-SHELL CLAMS
fHAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
2.18
5.14
5.24
742.42
0.58
0.63
1.19
-
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.09
STD DEV
1.44
0.95
4.47
176.96
0.58
0.35
0.91
-
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.05
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLI FORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
0.06
2.70 x 10-
108.00
0.10
PLANT B2
8 SAMPLES
80
-------
TABLE 23. SOFT-SHELL CLAMS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
COL I FORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COL I FORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
4.29
6.22
3.38
293.68
0.93
0.31
1.32
0.01
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.59
6.64
0.14 x 103
30.00
PLANT B3
6 SAMPLES
STD DEV
1.96
2.06
1.35
85.49
0.90
0.29
1.22
0.01
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.13
1.16
0.26
81
-------
TABLE 24. SOFT-SHELL CLAMS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA- NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
f GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
1.76
5.00
4.54
772.62
1.09
1.14
2.93
0.01
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.45
0.00
7.13
97.11 x 105
362.00
PLANT B4
7 SAMPLES
STD DEV
0.49
1.83
2.33
523.50
1.02
1.20
2.55
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.46
0.00
0.43
82
-------
TABLE 25. SOFT-SHELL CLAMS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA -NH
J
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
2.02
3.90
5.90
682.79
1.63
0.99
3.68
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.29
0.29
0.54
7.26
3.69 x 103
STD DEV
1.01
2.03
3.36
406.29
2.49
0.60
6.11
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.37
0.37
1.20
0.34
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
19.00
PLANT B5
12 SAMPLES
83
-------
TABLE 26. SOFT-SHELL CLAMS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
2.81
5.34
4.73
328.92
1.40
0.74
2.49
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.20
0.27
7.11
STD DEV
1.57
1.93
3.26
240.91
2.69
0.73
3.70
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.81
0.41
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
2.40 x 10'
106.00
PLANTS Bl thru B5
41 SAMPLES
84
-------
TABLE 27. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
COL I FORM
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL /TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.53
7.39
1.87
1565.06
9.33
3.88
4.00
0.11
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.63
0.99
7.34
2.00 x 103
STD DEV
0.11
1.04
1.04
579.42
12.83
4.10
4.41
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.01
0.70
1.67
0.52
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
141.00
PLANT Cl
13 SAMPLES
85
-------
TABLE 28. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COL I FORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COL I FORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.66
8.00
1.95
1411.77
5.70
17.91
4.61
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.60
0.00
7.44
228.62 x 103
670.00
PLANT C2
4 SAMPLES
STD DEV
0.09
0.00
1.12
0.00
3.18
16.04
3.30
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.50
0.00
0. 50
86
-------
TABLE 29. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COL I FORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COL I FORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000
(LBS/1000
(LBS/1000
(LBS/1000
(LBS/1000
(LBS/1000
(LBS/1000
(LBS/1000
(MPN/100
(MPN/100
LB)
LB)
LB)
LB)
LB)
LB)
LB)
LB)
ML)
ML)
MEAN
0.
7.
2.
2557.
4.
5.
25.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
7.
0.62 x
69.
42
80
31
96
28
99
05
-
20
00
04
71
01
02
103
00
STD DEV
0.11
0.45
1.30
315.99
5.62
7.16
24.16
-
0.18
0.00
0.02
2.42
0.02
0.58
PLANT C3
4 SAMPLES
87
-------
TABLE 30. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL $ GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
0.62
5.57
2.01
1076.52
1.14
1.24
5.40
-
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.76
0.04
7.32
STD DEV
0.11
1.44
1.44
1185.73
0.62
1.06
4.32
-
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.52
0.01
0.24
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
7.09 x 10'
236.00
PLANT C4
14 SAMPLES
88
-------
TABLE 31. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL g GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH-
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.69
7.44
23.19
14970.19
6.52
99.77
45.36
-
0.67
0.01
0.41
5.95
0.15
7.32
2.63 x 10
STD DEM
0.34
1.10
8.74
1701.39
8.00
121.67
55.10
-
0.69
0.01
0.28
9.34
0.27
0.57
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
96.00
PLANT C 5
18 SAMPLES
89
-------
TABLE 32. ATLANTIC OYSTERS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL $ GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
PH
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/MIN)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
0.61
7.02
9.06
6276.23
5.46
36.39
19.40
0.02
0.27
0.00
0.17
2.64
0.29
7.29
STD DEV
0.23
1.39
11.28
4165.24
8.24
82.66
36.43
0.03
0.49
0.01
0.27
5.99
0.90
0.47
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEMOETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
6.70 x 10'
232.00
PLANTS Cl thru C5
53 SAMPLES
90
-------
TABLE 33. SOFT-SHELL CLAMS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE
AMMONIA- NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
UNIT
(TONS /DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/ TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
MEAN
1.46
5.00
7.00
1435.41
0.70
2.38
5.53
0.10
0.00
0.08
0.87
STD DEV
0.23
1.41
0.00
-
0.14
1.88
5.14
0.10
0.00
0.01
1.07
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
0.00
0.00
PLANT Dl
2 SAMPLES
91
-------
TABLE 34. SOFT-SHELL CLAMS
(HAND-SHUCKED)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
UNIT
(TONS/ DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
8.13
8.00
2.40
14.18
0.10
0.26
1.65
0.01
3.00
0.00
0.09
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
COLIFORM
GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
0.00
24,0 x 103
215.00
PLANT D2
1 SAMPLE
92
-------
TABLE 35. BLUE CRABS
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
COLIFORM
UNIT
(TONS/DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
0.80
6.00
0.50
225.00
1.20
0.18
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.23
3.00
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
3.00
PLANT D3
1 SAMPLE
93
-------
TABLE 36. NON-ALASKA BOTTOM FISH
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/ DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.74
7.10
4.80
2076.70
2.16
11.63
244.89
0.00
2.26
0.01
1.89
15.17
0.03
6.95
162.48 x 103
220.00
PLANT El
5 SAMPLES
STD DEV
1.08
1.03
4.28
243.33
3.43
8.90
348.27
0.00
3.95
0.01
3.63
18.35
0.05
1.03
94
-------
TABLE 37. NON-ALASKA BOTTOM FISH
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
UNIT
(TONS/ DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/1)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.24
6.20
3.23
4947.75
2.42
7.11
29.49
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.26
3.96
0.00
6.82
38.95 x 103
138.00
PLANT E2
5 SAMPLES
STD DEV
0.24
2.49
2.37
1493.37
1.88
9.69
31.76
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.22
4.03
0.00
0.16
95
-------
TABLE 38. NON-ALASKA BOTTOM FISH
(CONVENTIONAL PROCESS)
PARAMETER
PRODUCTION
PROCESS TIME
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATIO
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TSS
5 DAY BOD
OIL § GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (TOTAL)
NITROGEN (NITRITE-
NITRATE)
AMMONIA-NH3
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
(TOTAL)
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
pH
COLIFORM
UNIT
(TONS /DAY)
(HRS/DAY)
(GAL/MIN)
(GAL/TON)
(ML/L)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(LBS/1000 LB)
(MPN/100 ML)
MEAN
0.49
6.65
4.02
3253.51
2.29
9.36
137.19
0.00
1.35
0.00
1.27
10.95
0.02
6.89
79.50 x 10
STD DEV
0.78
1.86
3.37
478.23
2.61
9.05
259.32
0.00
2.81
0.01
2.88
15.31
0.03
0.69
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
FECAL COLIFORM
(GEOMETRIC MEAN)
(MPN/100 ML)
175.00
PLANTS El and E2
10 SAMPLES
96
-------
SECTION IX
GLOSSARY
BATEA - Best Available Technology Economically Achievable.
BPCTA - Best Practicable Control Technology Available.
FILTERABLE SOLIDS - Filterable solids are defined as those
solids capable of passing through a standard glass fiber
filter and dried to constant weight at 180°C. Filterable
solids are also referred to as filterable residue.
NON-FILTERABLE SOLIDS - Non-filterable solids are defined as
those solids which are retained by a standard glass fiber
filter and dried to a constant weight at 103-105°C. Non-
filterable solids are also referred to as non-filterable
residue (NFR) or (TSS).
SETTLEABLE MATTER (SOLIDS) - Settleable matter is defined as
bits of debris and fine matter heavy enough to settle
out of water within a standardized time interval, usually
one hour. Settleable matter is measured volumetrically
with an Imhoff cone.
TOTAL RESIDUE (SOLIDS) - Total residue is defined as the sum of
the homogeneous suspended and dissolved materials.
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) - Suspended solids plus Settleable
solids, measured by standardized filter.
97
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-157
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI ON" NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FROM SEAFOOD
PROCESSING PLANTS
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. B. Brinsfield and D. G. Phillips
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
University of Maryland
Cambridge, Maryland 21613
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S803522-01-0
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada, OK
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada. Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Draft 2/75 to 8/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
s. ABSTRACT Examinations of current wastewater and solid waste disposal
practices and characterization of the wastewater effluent for seafood
processing were carried out in a project within the state of Maryland
in order to recommend economical waste treatment and disposal systems
for the industries. Chemical and bacteriological examination of the
present plants in light of promulgated EPA Guidelines for the industry
for 1977 and 1983 revealed all plants meeting oil and grease as well
as pH effluent limitations. Other chemical parameters were only part-
ially or were entirely beyond limitations while bacteriological data
showed large numbers of organisms surviving even in heavily chlorinated
effluents. Several of the types of treatment evaluated were satisfac-
tory. Plants located close to municipal treatment can use those
facilities. An extended aeration package plant would cost $12,000
to treat the average 500 mg/1 five-day BOD of the wastes. Centralized
treatment proved too costly.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Shellfish
Crustacea
Mollusca
Fishing
Canneries
Waste Water
Waste Treatment
Industrial Plants
Seafood wastes
Seafood Industries
Seafood processing
wastes
Aerated lagoons
Static screens
Commercial Shellfish
08 A
13 B
06 H
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
unclassified
1. NO. OF PAGES
106
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
98
U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-757-056/6510 Region No. 5-II
------- |